Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, if I say this at the beginning of the afternoon, I hope I will not have to repeat it, but I declare an interest as having been a member of the police service for 30 years. In moving Amendment 124, I will also speak to the other amendment in this group, Amendment 127.

Clause 12 allows a police and crime commissioner—or the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime in relation to the Metropolitan Police district, or the Common Council in relation to the City of London police area—to choose to take on direct responsibility for receiving and recording complaints against the police and keeping the complainant informed of progress.

The problem here is that this may further confuse the public about who they should complain to. People are already unsure whether they should complain to a local police station, to the IPCC or to a third party. This change will inevitably mean that in some parts of the country, the complaint needs to be made to the police and crime commissioner—the local policing authority, to use a generic term—who will then deal with the complaint and keep the complainant informed. In other cases, it will be the police service itself, depending on whether the local policing authority takes up the offer provided by the legislation to take on the handling of complaints.

The idea of giving local policing authorities responsibility for complaints against the police, as opposed to the chief officer, is a good one. It will introduce a further element of independence into the police complaints system, but allowing local policing authorities simply the option—and indeed allowing local policing authorities to be persuaded by their chief constable not to take responsibility away from her or him—appears to me to be a fudge. Indeed, the more a chief constable tries to persuade his or her PCC not to take away the responsibility, the more the PCC should resist such pressure, in my opinion. This amendment would require the local policing authority to take over these statutory responsibilities, to ensure independence and clarity for the public.

I turn to Amendment 127. Clause 22 inserts into Section 23 of the Police Reform Act 2002, titled “Regulations”, a new paragraph which gives local policing authorities the power,

“to delegate the exercise or performance of powers and duties conferred or imposed on them”,

in relation to the handling of complaints against police. In a subsequent subsection, which inserts new paragraphs into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, the expression used is to “arrange” for another person,

“to exercise a function that the police and crime commissioner has”.

Although the Explanatory Notes give reassurance that liability remains at the top, Amendment 127 is intended to probe why there is a difference in the wording between the two different subsections and to ensure that the delegation of powers and duties does not include delegation of responsibility. I beg to move Amendment 124.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a police and crime commissioner, for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I will say a few words about this very interesting amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, neither to praise it nor to condemn it, but just to tell the Committee something that it is probably aware of anyway. I suspect I speak for other police and crime commissioners as well when I say that as we speak here, we are considering which way to go, given the possibilities that the Bill opens up for us in terms of complaints. It is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests that we should not have that option but should be compelled, as it were, to take all complaints at a low level and consider them. I am not so sure he is right—I do not know. I think there may in the end be a tendency among a number of police and crime commissioners, once the Bill is an Act and this legislation is law, to not take full responsibility for all complaints. I am not quite sure what the Government would like in this case: it may be that they really do not have a preference, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether they do or not.

I have to tell the noble Lord that the chief constable in my patch has done absolutely nothing up until now to try and persuade me not to take the full gamut, but it may be different elsewhere. It is an interesting debate and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say. I suspect, if the Bill remains as it does up until it becomes an Act, then police and crime commissioners around the country will be doing different things.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and Parliament’s only living breathing PCC, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for an insight into their views and the opportunity for your Lordships’ Committee to debate the provisions in the Bill that seek to give more responsibilities for handling complaints to local policing bodies.

The Government are committed to reforming the police complaints system so that complaints made against the police are responded to in a way that restores trust, builds public confidence and allows lessons to be learned. The reforms also increase the independence and accountability of the complaints system by enhancing the role of police and crime commissioners and their equivalents in London. The Bill seeks to strengthen local accountability by giving PCCs explicit responsibility for the performance of the complaints system locally and the responsibility for those appeals currently heard internally by forces.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has tried to tease out of the Government, Clause 12 gives PCCs the ability to choose to take on the additional complaints functions of handling low-level customer services issues, the initial recording of complaints and communicating with the complainant throughout the process. Amendment 124 to Clause 12 would remove this ability to choose, instead giving PCCs the mandatory responsibility for all these complaints functions. However, the Government’s intention is to ensure that PCCs can choose the model that would work best for them in their local area. As the noble Lord says, this will look different across the country in future as that local choice is made.

PCCs are very well placed to listen to the concerns of their constituents. The reforms will provide PCCs and forces with the flexibility to deliver a complaints service that responds to the needs of their local area rather than trying to operate within some sort of rigid system that does not reflect operational or community differences. For example, a PCC might wish to give his or her force the ability to deliver a more customer- focused complaints handling system before making a judgment on taking on additional responsibilities. However, the Government have acknowledged the concerns raised with regard to different models operating across the country. This is why the Bill enables PCCs to choose to take on only specific duties within a reformed and streamlined framework. Responsibility for the formal handling of complaints will remain with forces or, in the more serious and sensitive cases, with the IPCC.

[Lord Bach]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I should have mentioned this and asked her the question in my earlier remarks. A lot of police and crime commissioners want to know, if they decide to extend their powers—I know they will be extended to some extent anyway, but if they are fully extended—whether resources will follow. That is quite an important issue for them, and I wonder whether the Minister can help us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will correct this if I am wrong. While I am not guessing, I am assuming that, particularly where you have the model with a mayoral PCC as well, the mayoral precept will enable some of those mayoral functions. On the additional resources, I would like to write to the noble Lord before Report as I would not want to say something to the Committee now that simply was not true.

Amendment 127 to Clause 22 relates to the ability of PCCs to delegate their complaints-related function. The amendment seeks to clarify the difference in language in the subsections of the clause, and I am happy to do that.

The reason for the difference in language between the subsections is that it aims to replicate the language already used in the corresponding Acts. Although subsection (1) uses different language to that in subsections (2) to (4), the policy intention and result is the same. Local policing authorities should and will be able to delegate their complaints-related functions. Regardless of whether any complaints-related functions have been delegated, the local policing body will retain ultimate responsibility for the complaints performance in its area. This follows the same model as chief constables delegating their complaints responsibilities to more junior ranks, where the chief constable is still ultimately responsible for the outcome.

I hope that those comments have reassured noble Lords and that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I can explain a bit further. While new paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill, does cover the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, this is because, in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012, the deputy commissioner is treated in the same way as the commissioner. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the investigator of any conduct matter relating to both the commissioner and deputy commissioner. There is no mechanism to allow investigations into the deputy commissioner to be conducted internally. I hope that I have not confused the noble Lord further; I am just seeking to clarify the position.

[Lord Bach]

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for asking the noble Baroness about something that she said in her summing up a little while ago about the position of chief constables. She said that any complaint against them would automatically go to the IPCC. There is a view that says that this is slightly harsh and is not necessary and will mean more work for the IPCC in some cases than is necessary. What is the view of the IPCC on that proposal? It seems to some of us that the IPCC is overburdened and overworked. Does it really want the most trivial complaint against a chief constable—they do exist, it has to be said—to have to go to the IPCC without investigation? Is that not too extreme a measure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate and to the Minister. As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, my reading of this is that it concerns complaints against the commissioner himself rather than vicarious liability responsibility—which, of course, the commissioner carries for all his officers. The clue lies in the fact that the legislation goes on to talk about “death or serious injury” matters—not that the commissioner is known for using physical violence against people.

[Lord Bach]

I am so sorry to interrupt again. I wonder whether there is a proper distinction between a complaint per se and a complaint that may be laid vicariously at the commissioner’s or chief constable’s door. Who will make that distinction when the complaint comes in? It will add to the existing bureaucracy and is another reason for listening very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Blair, suggested a minute or two ago.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and I will leave it to the Government to respond. The deputy commissioner of the Met was, at least at one stage, considered to be a first among equals among assistant commissioners. I will have to read the second part of the Minister’s explanation on that issue. As regards the other matter, again, I will want to read carefully what the Minister said—but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, surely this is just a matter of common sense. Can we not cut through everything that has been said? I absolutely support what my noble friend Lord Rosser, and the noble Lords, Lord Condon, and Lord Paddick, have said—it is just a matter of common sense. Anyone who has been in government knows that sometimes Governments hold up the most obvious and common-sense approach for no apparent reason at all—we did it, and I fear this may be an example of the Minister’s Government doing it. It is quite clear that the word “independent” should be included. It would make it much clearer to the general public. Surely this is something that the noble Baroness can take away and consider, and perhaps come back and agree that it is just pure common sense.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lords who have spoken so clearly on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I will outline why the Government want to change the name. The aim is to ensure that the organisation has a corporate structure and governance arrangements that enable it to carry out efficiently and effectively its expanded role in the police complaints and discipline systems.

My noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out that not every independent body has the word “independent” in its title—he mentioned Ofgem and Ofcom, and Ofsted is another example.

I understand that the body’s constitution alone does not guarantee public trust in its independence, but neither necessarily does incorporating the word “independent” in its title. That said, I understand the contrary argument, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Condon, that adding the word “independent” to the name might change some people’s perceptions and encourage them to come forward if they have concerns about police conduct. Therefore, although I remain to be persuaded of the case for the amendments, I will reflect between now and Report on the points that noble Lords made so well in this short debate. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

First of all, I make the House aware of my job as a leader of Wiltshire Council, which is on the register of interests. I have looked at these clauses on collaboration of emergency services and I would have preferred the Government to have been stronger. On considering the opportunities to collaborate, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that there is a lot of good collaboration already going on, not just between fire and police but with local authorities as well. In Wiltshire, there are police stations in all the main hubs; they are not just front offices. We have guns and CS gas and response cars outside. That has meant that some of our major police stations have been able to close, saving huge amounts of public money. In Wiltshire, we also do all the police’s IT and we manage their project management. It is quite usual to see the chief constable and the PCC in my offices, working together with my officers. That is good collaboration. This should continue and the Government need to encourage more authorities to do that more readily.

There are, however, barriers to further collaboration. In Wiltshire, we would have loved to have joined both fire and police under our PCC. That would be the best use of public resources, not just financial, but people and assets as well. But we cannot do that now, because Wiltshire fire and rescue, earlier this year, joined with Dorset fire and rescue. Dorset police work with Cornwall and Devon. Wiltshire police work in collaboration on major crimes with Avon and Somerset and Gloucester. There are two PCCs—the whole thing is a muddle. The barrier is that there is no co-terminosity between different public service authorities and this is, I think, probably getting worse. If Wiltshire or any other authority were to ask to change the joining up of fire authorities or police authorities to make them co-terminus with the local authority, would the Minister listen to that request so that we could perhaps have properly joined-up public services? Health is a thing on the end; I think that is a more difficult discussion. In Wiltshire, we could get fire, police and a local authority working very closely together, saving huge amounts of money. Can we look at the areas that are barriers to doing that?

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. This group of amendments is very interesting, as is the first part of the Bill with these early clauses on statutory collaboration. It would be hard to find anyone, anywhere who does not believe that collaboration between the emergency services is a good thing. At any time, not just at a time—as at present —of economic uncertainty, it must be advantageous for services to work closely together, not just because of the savings that may be made but because it is better for the members of the public who need the help or assistance that the emergency services can give.

On whether a statutory requirement is necessary, I remain a little sceptical. It may help, it may not. What really matters, it seems to me, is whether the collaboration is—to use the phrase—bottom-up; in other words, comes naturally and is not forced. My feeling is that that is happening more and more around the country. In the Leicestershire area—Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland—collaborative programmes have been started and others are planned for the future. We have to take a chance with them. They may not always succeed, and we have to be aware of that.

I was grateful to the Minister and her officials for meeting me this morning to discuss such a scheme in Leicester called Braunstone Blues, which is still in its comparatively early days. Its origin lies in the excessive number of 999 calls made to the emergency services by some individuals and families living in that general area of the city, some of which could not be classed as emergencies by any standards, but were made none the less. They, of course, involved cost resources, both financial and human. As a consequence of that, the police, fire and rescue services, ambulance service, city council and health authorities got together to run a programme that involves visiting and, if necessary, helping people in that area. They are given advice about the unnecessary calls, of course, but help is also offered beyond that with other issues and concerns. This joint work has begun to show results but there is a long way to go.

The point I am attempting to make is that this is exactly the sort of bottom-up collaboration which should be encouraged. If the Bill has the effect of encouraging collaboration, with or without these amendments and with or without a statutory basis, that is very much to be welcomed. I, too, look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to the questions that have been asked.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 2 concerns collaboration, and I see that in terms of further collaboration between services. I declare my interest as leader of North Lincolnshire Council, as noted in the register of interests. In Committee, we must highlight the importance of this issue in strengthening and building the capacity and accountability of the police service.

As we know, the profile of demand for all emergency services is changing. I am pleased to say that even the fire and rescue services have seen a steep decline in the number of calls made to them. Many people now have fire detectors, which has led to a reduction in the number of call-outs. Conversely, there has been an increase in demand for the ambulance service, while a large proportion of police activity has been directed towards public protection.

Collaboration presents a real opportunity for emergency services to increase their efficiency and effectiveness, maximise resources and improve the service delivered to the public while giving value for money. Seeking greater integration with other elements of the criminal justice system also offers great benefits. Sharing good governance structures with other services such as fire and rescue services could open up a desire for collective working, resulting in real efficiency gains. With a joint delivery of training, fleet, logistics and the collocation of premises, a fully integrated prevention and community protection team, formed from a police and fire joint operation team, could plan all operational activity across these emergency services. Therefore, today’s debate must be about endorsing collaboration to make significant savings through the multiagency implementation of a hub to transfer incident data. We know that quicker, smarter and more advanced technologies are operated by emergency partners when more than one service is required at an incident, again saving operator hours per year.

The more we can do to improve taxpayers’ value for money and improve our service to our communities, the better it will be, and the Bill will give that opportunity. This is not about the takeover of one emergency service by another. There is a distinction between operational police and firefighting which should always be recognised. Like my noble friend Lady Scott, I do not have experience of the police and fire services being co-terminous. Lincolnshire is progressing through devolution and, at the moment, part of the county is served by Lincolnshire PCC while the northern part comes under Humberside. We hope that that anomaly can be looked at so that we can move forward on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In that case, I will stick to the answer that I gave the noble Lord and perhaps disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. We are so used to agreeing that that is almost my default position.

Perhaps we could move on to Amendments 1 and 2. I start by talking about some of the very good examples of emergency services collaboration that have gone on up and down the country. As noble Lords have said, there is clear evidence that emergency services can deliver real benefits for the public and help each service better meet the demands and challenges that they face. On Friday, I visited the emergency services collaboration in Greater Manchester. I was deeply impressed with the activity I saw, both in improving the service provided to the public—in all sorts of ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in his speech—and in saving the taxpayer money.

On my visit to the Earlham tri-service station, I saw the benefits of collocation between the police, the fire and rescue service and the ambulance service in practice. Not only is this breaking down professional barriers but it is leading to far more innovative ways of delivering local services. If the noble Lord, Lord Bach, visits Earlham, he will see that the critical-risk intervention teams, which are led by the fire and rescue service in collaboration with Greater Manchester Police, respond to low-priority calls from the ambulance service regarding falls and mental health incidents. This innovative working is not only saving money, with an estimated £13 million in value being added across the region, but it is better protecting the public from harm.

There is a wide range of other examples from across the country of where emergency services collaboration is improving outcomes for local communities. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, in Leicestershire, the Braunstone Blues project has built on the success of a home fire-safety visit programme to involve all three emergency services in health, safety and well visits to local communities and schools. As he said, the programme is in its early stages, but I am sure it will be very successful.

[Lord Bach]

Now that the Minister has made those kind remarks, I hope that if she has time she will visit to see that project for herself.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord gave me that invitation this morning. I was happy to take it up then and I am happy to take it up now. It is good to see how things are working well on the ground. It gives one a much better picture than hearing about the theoretical application. I would be happy to visit.

I was talking about Northamptonshire, where there is an interoperability programme working towards bringing the police and fire and, in the longer term, the ambulance service even closer together. Their achievements include joint delivery of training, shared fleet and logistics, co-location of premises across a number of sites and a fully integrated prevention and community protection team. That has delivered savings of more than £460,000 to date.

In Hampshire, the H3 project has successfully integrated police, fire and county council back-office functions to deliver savings across the three services of approximately £4 million per year. I hope that this goes to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He asked why, if it is working so well, we are doing what we are doing. There are so many more collaborative projects that I could list, but collaboration is still patchy. More needs to be done to ensure that it becomes common practice at a local level. That is why the Bill introduces a raft of measures to ensure that collaboration can go further.

Amendments 1 and 2 probe why the test for making a collaboration agreement is whether the proposed collaboration would be in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness, whereas the first limb of the test for making an order establishing a PCC-style fire and rescue authority is based on whether the PCC’s proposal would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Of course it is important that the potential economic impacts of collaborations are taken into account by the emergency services. However, these considerations are already provided for in the Bill. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Bill states that services must consider whether potential collaborations are in the interests of the efficiency or effectiveness of the services involved. Considerations of the financial implications for the service in question would form part of that process.

That aside, the reason for the drafting approach taken in Clause 2 is essentially one of consistency. The test for the duty to collaborate in this clause mirrors that in respect of collaboration agreements between police forces under Section 23A of the Police Act 1996. Similarly, the adoption of the three “Es” in the test for making an order establishing a PCC-style fire and rescue authority mirrors the existing tests, in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, in relation to the merger of fire and rescue authorities. As we are operating in this Bill on existing legislation, it is important to maintain consistency where possible.

The noble Baroness also talked about “its”. The “its” in Clause 2(4)(a) relates to the first proposed party. The “its” in Clause 2(4)(b) relates to the second or further proposed parties. No one will be frogmarched into a collaboration agreement; it must be agreed between the parties.

Amendment 3 would introduce additional and in our view unnecessary barriers to collaboration and duplicates existing duties on the emergency services to engage with local people when exercising their functions. For instance, PCCs have existing duties under Section 96 of the Police Act 1996 to engage with local people when exercising their functions. “Local people” is broad in its scope. It is up to individual areas and localities to agree what that means. Further, ambulance services are also required to make arrangements for the involvement of users when there are proposals to change the way in which the services are provided under Section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006.

Similarly, fire and rescue services must have regard to the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, which provides that they must be transparent and accountable to their communities for their decisions and actions, and must provide the opportunity for communities to help to plan their local services through effective consultation and involvement. Given these existing requirements, I am not persuaded that the additional, bespoke duty to consult before entering into a collaboration agreement is either necessary or proportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support, to some extent, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Police and crime commissioners have an extremely complex and wide-ranging job to do as it is. It is not simply overseeing the police service and arranging for its funding, it is also working with other agencies to ensure that crime is reduced in their local area. It is an extremely large and complex operation. To add to that at this early stage in the evolution of the role of the police and crime commissioner could throw the progress that has been made to date off course.

There are of course situations where the police, fire service and ambulance service work together, such as floods or road traffic accidents, but there are distinct areas where the police operate alone, such as law enforcement. There is a very serious and important role that the police and the police and crime commissioner perform in crime reduction, crime detection and prosecution of offenders that does not involve the fire or ambulance service in any way. Indeed, we have seen that when there has been spontaneous public disorder on the streets of the UK, there is a very different approach towards the police and, say, the fire brigade and ambulance service—there is a lot more hostility towards the police. Any merging, or unnecessary merging, of those organisations —creating confusion in the public’s minds—could create more problems than perhaps the Government have hitherto considered.

One has only to read the Bill to see the enormously complex changes in legislation that will be required if police and crime commissioners take over fire and rescue services, particularly if the employees of the fire and rescue service become employees of the police and crime commissioner, or even of the chief constable.

I can see enormous benefit from greater co-operation between emergency services, but an enormous administrative nightmare from going that one further step of allowing police and crime commissioners to take over the running of fire and rescue services. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the Government, as far as I can see, have not made out a compelling case to show that the advantages will overcome the enormous bureaucratic, administrative and legislative problems created by police and crime commissioners taking over fire and rescue services.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Rosser said on Clause 6. However, I also agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of a police and crime commissioner. That job involves a large amount of full-time work right from the start, but I would say that, wouldn’t I? The noble Lord mentioned a police and crime commissioner being the bridge between the police and the public in the area in which he or she is elected. Every new police and crime commissioner and, I suspect, those who were re-elected, has to produce a police and crime plan by 31 March next year. That is a formidable undertaking, certainly for the likes of me. Already, a large part of my life is spent trying to work out what I will put in the plan and, perhaps more importantly, what I will not.

In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, hinted, partnerships have to be formed—these are very important in a police and crime commissioner’s work—and commissioning has to be carried out to make sure that the limited but important amount of resource that a police and crime commissioner is given under the 2011 Act is used for the general activity of preventing crime and making communities safe. All the while, of course, there is an obligation to look, as a critical friend, at the police force with which they are connected. As far as I am concerned, that is a pretty full-time job. Perhaps I have been lucky in my life, in that that seems an extremely hard-working role.

I do not think there is anything wrong with amalgamating services, if a community wants that. I know the Minister will argue in due course that this is a voluntary step. I will come back to that in a moment. Following our earlier discussion on collaboration, this measure does not fit terribly well with the best collaborative work, which is voluntary, bottom-up, happens, works or does not work and is experimented with. The scheme will look to many people as one that is effectively being imposed.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for opening this Second Reading in such a clear way and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, on her transfer to the Home Office. I wish her luck with that. She will certainly be very busy in this House.

The Bill itself is long, in certain areas very complex, and without doubt very important in the areas it covers. Everyone, both inside this House and outside, has an opinion on policing and crime because they affect everybody’s life.

The last time I spoke in this House was from the Opposition Front Bench as a shadow Justice Minister. Today, as the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, has been kind enough to mention, I speak as the elected police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, and as the first and so far only police and crime commissioner to be a current Member of either House of Parliament. I am still very new, as I think my remarks will show; some would say that I am still a little wet behind the ears.

It is hardly surprising that no Members of Parliament are police and crime commissioners, because it is forbidden under the 2011 Act, but whether it was deliberate or just an accident, the same rule does not apply to Members of this House. Of course, a number of former and distinguished Members of Parliament and ex-Ministers are current police and crime commissioners, but, as far as this House is concerned, the closest link is probably Councillor Philip Seccombe, who is the newly elected police and crime commissioner for my neighbouring police force, Warwickshire. He is the son of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, who some of us think has really been running the Government in this place for many years.

I should also make reference to the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, who is in his place opposite me. As I think the whole House knows, he is really the author of the idea of police and crime commissioners—so I was slightly apprehensive when he started talking about a recall provision towards the end of his speech.

My first few months as a PCC have been a learning experience like no other I have known. I am still learning every day, but two things I have become rather more sure about. The first is that the present responsibilities and duties of a police and crime commissioner are full-time responsibilities and duties. If the job is to be done anywhere near properly, it requires a great deal of daily hard work. This is perhaps a point worth considering when the House comes to forming a view on Part 1 of this Bill.

Secondly, I am extremely fortunate that, as I think is widely recognised, the Leicestershire police force has an excellent reputation and track record both in terms of its performance and its financial control. I am also lucky in having a superb chief constable in Simon Cole, who I think will be known to a number of noble Lords. We agree about a lot, but when we do not, we can disagree—I hope—with mutual respect. Of course, the relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable is the crucial one. There should and always will be some tension in it, but it should be possible to base it on respect and common aims.

There is hardly a part of the Bill that will not be of relevance to PCCs, but it is Part 1, entitled “Emergency Services Collaboration”, that I will speak about today. The duty for the emergency services to collaborate is hard to disagree with. Collaboration between police forces and the fire and rescue service and with the ambulance service is often just plain common sense; much of it happens today and there is a need for more. The true tests of efficiency and effectiveness are the right tests. So far so good, but it is when the Bill moves on to the concept of police and crime commissioners taking on responsibility for the fire and rescue service that it becomes more controversial.

Of course, this is not a compulsory step. Rather, the Bill puts the onus on the PCC to make the case for the options that are open, ranging from a full merger to an automatic seat on the fire authority. The Home Secretary can make the order if satisfied. I agree with the Local Government Association that any transfer of governance must be supported by a comprehensive, evidence-based and well-tested business case that demonstrates how the change in governance improves the fire and rescue service and increases public safety. In addition, it should be subject to independent assessment.

My concerns are threefold. First, following a merger, the poor relation of this event will nearly always be the fire and rescue service. Following Brexit, it is certainly possible that there will be further cuts in public spending, some of which, if the past is anything to go by, will affect the budgets of the office of police and crime commissioners. Both services—the police and the fire and rescue service—have, in my view, been unfairly treated by excessive cuts already, which showed themselves in the case of the police by too large a decline in police numbers. In the case of Leicestershire it is 20%. What is a police and crime commissioner to do in the future when faced with further cuts? Will he or she choose the police who will, with good cause, complain that they have taken enough pain, or will the commissioner pick on the fire and rescue service—a hugely popular service, but tiny in comparison with the police, whose own coffers have already begun to be emptied? In my view, it will often, if not always, be the fire and rescue service which will be the loser.

Secondly, will there be a promise of extra administrative resources for any police and crime commissioner who goes down the merger route? Thirdly, do the Government intend to apply financial and/or other pressures to a PCC who does not want to go down this route? Will it be optional only in name and mandatory in effect? Will the Minister give an assurance that this will not be the case? It really ought to be a matter for the police and crime commissioner in his or her particular area—who, I remind the House, has recently been elected.

Noble Lords will glean from what I have said that I am deeply sceptical about such an arrangement in Leicestershire and Rutland. I have quite enough to be getting on with, thank you: holding the police force and the chief constable to account; trying to make the post of police and crime commissioner—this is a hard job—better and more widely understood and known, by getting out and explaining the role; ensuring police visibility on the streets, as I believe that visibility is a vital part of the connection between the police and the public and is at the heart of British policing; attacking hidden crime, such as domestic violence, which is so unreported, or hate crime which is even more unreported. In the latter case, the number of hate crimes has risen, which is hardly a coincidence in the weeks following the Brexit vote—a decision which in my view will affect policing in this country badly. So my plea to the Ministers, and, of course, to the new Home Secretary, is to give police and crime commissioners the space to do their job on behalf of their communities.

There are two other parts of the Bill that I shall mention briefly. The complaints system is, of course, important for public confidence in the police. The IPCC must be independent in name as well as deed, and any revised system must attempt to shorten the period that some officers have to wait to hear the decision in their case. There are examples of severe illness and worse when these processes take too long.

The House will need to look closely at the pre-charge bail clauses to ensure that the balance is right between the individual and the police. There is genuine concern that there may be an excessive staff requirement for the police. I look forward very much to Committee, when we can take a detailed look at these and other matters.

Finally, I thank my fellow police and crime commissioners of all parties and names for their kindness and support. My local police force, too, has been extraordinarily helpful. Thankfully, there is in this House huge expertise in police matters, which I know I and others can always call on. This is an important Bill that will affect every citizen’s life. We have a duty to give it careful and detailed consideration.

EU: Asylum Seekers

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on his debate—we always say that such debates are timely; this time, we really mean it—and I thank all others who have spoken in this too short discussion. It is an extremely difficult issue for the world and in particular for EU countries. It is then made more difficult, as any answer to it is bound up with developments in the Middle East and Africa that we have at present little or no control over.

The Opposition want to support Her Majesty’s Government, working with the EU, to find solutions that both are practical and do not result in more deaths but which are also in line with the British traditions that have been talked about in this debate of generosity and humanity. However, it has to be said, and I am afraid said clearly, that along with the other EU countries the then British coalition Government share the blame for what we, among many others, said in the autumn of last year was the appalling decision to replace the Italian Mare Nostrum search and rescue operation with the EU Triton operation, with vessels no longer searching the wider Mediterranean but confined to 30 miles off the Italian shore. Has there ever been a more catastrophic odyssey, based on the totally mistaken proposition that making rescue much less likely and drowning much more likely would lessen the pull factor as far as desperate people are concerned? Only the terrible losses and deaths in an incident in April made Europe and the United Kingdom Government think again. Now, of course, with HMS “Bulwark” and other vessels and helicopters doing brilliant work as always, and the Triton operation abandoned, thank goodness, more lives are being saved.

Triton spent one-third of the amount that the Italians, who I agree deserve praise, spent on Mare Nostrum. The International Organization for Migration estimates that deaths at sea have risen ninefold since the end of Mare Nostrum. It was a tragic error by us and the EU, and as a Government we should not have supported it. It is deeply ironic to read the language of the Minister in another place, repeated in this House by the Minister on 30 October last, in respect of Mare Nostrum:

“It is of course vital that this phasing out is well managed and well publicised to mitigate the risk of further deaths”.

Those further deaths were well foreseen by noble Lords in this House. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said:

“Leaving them to drown instead is shocking and inhumane. It is not the British way of doing things. Does the Minister really believe that this needless loss of life will ever act as a deterrent to criminals and desperate people? How many will drown before the Government reconsider this policy?”.—[Official Report, 30/10/14; cols. 1310-11.]

To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, asked why the Government’s policy seemed to support measures that could have only one result, which would be that more refugees would drown in the Mediterranean, rather than a policy whose aim was to lock up more people traffickers. Can we have an assurance from the Minister today that we will not make that mistake again?

The situation today is very grave. We believe that the Government are to some extent selling our country’s humanitarian tradition and spirit of generosity short by not taking in more Syrian refugees. The figure of 187 is disgracefully small on its own, let alone when compared to our European partners. What are Her Majesty’s Government’s intentions? We appreciate just how sensitive and difficult this issue is and as the Opposition we will support the Government in their new stance whenever we can, but not—I repeat, not—if they sign up to the naive and unthinking proposals that they did last year.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, in this incredibly wide-ranging debate, the Minister referred to legal aid. I will speak about one aspect of our justice system. This may seem a narrow ambition, but—thanks to a number of highly committed and hard-working people—it is of immense importance both to the individual lives of our fellow-citizens and to the reputation of our legal system. When I use the word “justice”, noble Lords can be forgiven for thinking that I am referring to criminal justice, which of course is discussed and debated all the time, but I am not. I refer to civil justice, and in particular to what I consider one of the most pernicious and damaging policies that the Government have put into practice; namely, the removal of legal aid from vast areas of social welfare law. Whether it be benefit law, debt law, housing law, employment law or immigration law, there are areas where millions of our fellow citizens, at some time in their lives, require some legal help, nearly always in the form of early, quality legal advice. Many who require legal help are, of course, disadvantaged, poor and disabled.

When the Government came to power, this country enjoyed a system built up by Governments of both parties that meant that everyone who needed legal help could get it. It provided quality providers, whether not-for-profits such as law centres or CABs, or solicitors’ firms. However, it was not expensive—at around £150 a piece of advice—and used up only one-10th of the legal aid budget. That represented great value. Thanks to that early intervention many of those problems were sorted out and lives were changed for the better. Crucially, although it was far from perfect and far from generous, that system worked. It was a gem in our legal system. It allowed some access to justice to everyone, and seemed to have the support of all political parties.

Why, then, did the coalition—and here I mean both political parties working together—change the system from the moment it came into office? Immediately, well before the legislation was passed, the number of cases that were helped in that way per year declined, from 485,000 at exactly the moment the previous Government left office to 293,000 three years later. Then, on 1 April 2013, Part 1 of LASPO came into force, and in the 14 months since, numbers have, of course—there being no legal aid—declined further. The number of our fellow citizens who once received legal help but are now no longer able to do so is almost certainly over half a million.

Yet this practical removal of citizens’ rights at a time of continuing austerity and radical welfare reform—both of which mean that more people need help—has received scant media attention and is largely not known about by the general public. Where there has been comment, it has been hopelessly misinformed and inaccurate. Of course, that lack of publicity and interest is exactly what both parts of the Government want. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats vie with each other to claim credit for achievements they are proud of. My guess is that they will not be competing with each other to take credit for effectively destroying a vital part of our civil justice system, for ensuring that hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens, who are often at the bottom of the pile, cannot receive access to justice, and for seriously demeaning the reputation of our much-admired legal system. That policy is this Government’s dirty little secret.

International Women’s Day

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her excellent opening to this debate and I look forward to her remarks when she comes to winding it up. She and I have something in common which is very dear to us, and that is our home city, God’s own city, the city of Leicester, where she is held in extremely high regard. I am proud to be able to say that Emmeline Pankhurst, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening speech, was my great aunt. My grandmother, who was her younger sister, spent three weeks in Holloway jail for suffragette activity. I am equally proud of that fact, too. As all noble Lords will know, Emmeline Pankhurst had two powerful daughters, Christabel and Sylvia, both of whom, along with all the other suffragettes, did a massive amount to persuade—and I mean in almost every sense of that word—the powers-that-be, the Establishment of the day, that women should have the right to vote. Whether it was the First World War and the magnificent work done by women in the munitions factories that won the vote for women in the 1918 election, I leave to historians to decide, but the Pankhurst influence was clearly formidable.

Sometimes when listening to speeches in this House, I have to admit that my mind wanders just for a moment. I wonder how good it would have been if Mrs Pankhurst and her two daughters had somehow found themselves as Members of this House all those years ago. I daresay they would not have all sat on the same Benches, but that would have been no bad thing. Mrs Pankhurst’s husband, Dr Richard Pankhurst, was a brilliant radical Manchester lawyer who had strong views on absolutely everything, not least on the House of Lords. He believed that it should be abolished, and he described it as,

“the most preposterous institution in Europe”.

I do not know how preposterous it was then, and I hope he would not hold that view today; I do not accept it.

That leads me neatly on to say that although the House of Lords is not a preposterous institution, some of the legislative proposals that will severely affect women are preposterous in themselves and should be opposed for that reason. The legal aid Bill, which I am closely involved with, will decimate legal aid in the area of social welfare law in this country, and I argue that that will affect women in particular. To take benefits out of the scope of legal aid altogether, which is what is intended in the Bill, will affect women badly. Let us take the particular case of a single mother suffering from bipolar disorder, receiving employment and support allowance and other benefits. She has debts totalling £2,500, including overpayments of benefits and arrears owed to utility companies. The local advice and law service assisted her in making successful claims for disability living allowance and associated benefits, thus increasing her income by more than £100 a week. Her housing benefit had been suspended. The service challenged the decision and the benefit was reinstated and backdated, thus avoiding an escalation of rent arrears that ultimately would have led to the loss of her home.

That is one example, but thousands of others could be given of where, at the present time, a small amount of legal aid advice can help people, particularly women, to get out of the difficulties they are in. That advice will not be available in the same way or at all because there will not be any law centres or as many CABs if the Bill goes through. Many women will be badly affected by this legislation, and although of course we are today celebrating women and all that they do in our society, are we really going to pass a piece of legislation that will put women back rather than move them forward, as we all believe they should be?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Amendment 244A would amend Section 329 to remedy a classic example of unintended consequences and to restore the position that a trespass against the person occurring in the course of an arrest by a police officer must be objectively justified, and that no more force must be used than reasonably necessary. Otherwise, as has happened for centuries, the arrested person should be able to bring a claim for damages. The amendment would add a new paragraph (c) to Section 329(1) that would effectively exclude a constable acting in the course of his duty from relying on the test intended for the householder. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I can be very brief and start by saying how grateful the House should be to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for explaining this amendment so clearly. We support the amendment. It seems sensible; and it seems equally sensible for the Government, when a sensible amendment is put before them, to react favourably. It would cost them nothing to accept the amendment and would put right something that has been slightly wrong in this section of the 2003 Act. As the noble Lord said, this is a classic example of unintended consequences. His analysis of the law seems to us to be correct and it would be sensible for the Government to accept the amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for having sent a letter to all interested parties on 24 June, included in which is a part that addresses this particular issue. She argued that no formal consultation had taken place between the police and the Government although there had been some informal consultation. She suggested that the Government would not give way on this amendment but we will wait for the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to answer for the Government. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, were minded to push this extremely sensible amendment to a vote, we would support it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this amendment is near identical to one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, during Committee stage of this Bill, and to which we gave a fairly full response at the time, so I will be brief. We promised the noble Lord in my response at the time that we would give the matter further consideration. Having done so, I am afraid that the advice we have received is that we remain unconvinced that we want to make an amendment that would make it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages until we hear good answers to the questions and issues that I mentioned in Committee and which I will not repeat here.

We have looked at this again and take the view that the previous Government also took when the issue was raised in 2009. The House should be very clear that Section 329 does not give the police carte blanche to use disproportionate force. They are still subject to the criminal law which permits only reasonable force. All that Section 329 does is raise the bar by making it more difficult for criminals to get financial benefit from situations where they were the ones committing an imprisonable offence. It is reasonable and fair to treat a person who holds the office of constable in the same way for these purposes as any other member of the public. We should not rush to the assumption that it is an unintended consequence for the police to enjoy the protection of Section 329. As I have suggested, the police will inevitably be the people most likely to be able to invoke Section 329, given that their job involves confronting people who are in the course of committing imprisonable offences. The text of Section 329 supports this since subsection (5) specifically extends the protection to people who believe their act was necessary to

“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”.

I therefore remain unconvinced that an amendment to Section 329 of the 2003 Act in the way proposed by the noble Lord is the right way forward. I hope that after the reassurance that we have again considered this issue the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 233A on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. Reference has just been made to experts. I am not as expert as my noble friend, and I may get into trouble because I am not going to use all the briefing that he has given me.

Amendment 233A would exclude from Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 a constable in the course of his duty. That section is what noble Lords might know as the Tony Martin defence. It was enacted in response to the case of Tony Martin, who shot two intruders in his home thinking they were attempting a burglary. It provides that the court must give permission for an offender to bring a civil suit for an assault committed at the time and in the circumstances that the offender committed the act for which he was convicted. It provides the defendant with a defence to such proceedings provided that his action was not grossly disproportionate. The defendant must believe the offender was about to commit an offence, was in the course of committing one or had committed one and that his actions were necessary to defend himself or someone else, to protect or recover property, to prevent or stop the offence or to catch and secure the conviction of the offender.

At the time that the section was being debated, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said that the section,

“would strengthen the civil law to improve protection for victims of crime against civil claims for damages by offenders”.

She also said:

“It benefits third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence, but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal”.—[Official Report, 11/11/03; cols. 1307-08.]

That was the only indication of the intended use of the section by those who are not direct victims of the crime.

In 2009, there was a case in the Court of Appeal: Anthony Adorian v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In his judgment, Lord Justice Sedley said:

“There is nothing on the face of the section or in its shoulder-note which manifests an intention to afford the police a novel protection from claims by offenders for objectively unreasonable or unnecessarily violent arrests”.

Only police defendants have invoked this section. Lord Justice Sedley went on to say:

“The consequences should not go unnoticed. In place of the principle painstakingly established in the course of two centuries and more, and fundamental to the civil rights enjoyed by the people of this country—that an arrest must be objectively justified and that no more force may be used in effecting it than is reasonably necessary—the section gives immunity from civil suits, not confined to those involving personal injury, to constables who make arrests on entirely unreasonable grounds, so long as they are not acting in bad faith, and accords them impunity for using all but grossly disproportionate force in so doing”.

In summary, Section 329 has only ever been used by the police, and my noble friend tells me that it has led to a mismatch between civil and criminal proceedings with no equality of arms between police and private individuals. The current position does not recognise that the police are public officers of the state endowed with special powers and that as a corollary they have special obligations that Section 329 allows them to circumvent. My noble friend says that ordinary people may be given some leeway for honest and instinct overreactions when protecting or defending themselves or another from a crime but, on the other hand, a police officer trained in the use of force must be required to justify his or her actions objectively and to use no more force than is reasonably necessary.

I had not appreciated until listening to the previous debate how neatly this followed on in some ways. My noble friend Lord Lester has tabled this amendment and as he is not able to be here this afternoon he asked me to move it.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on having picked up this point so well from her noble friend Lord Lester. I congratulate him too on putting down this amendment. I hope he will forgive me in his absence for describing him in this instance as a dog with a bone. He has come back to this issue today after first raising it following the judgment in the case that the noble Baroness referred to when the previous Government were in power. He did that in the course of a couple of Bills. At that stage Ministers, including me, I have to admit, had to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that consultations would take place with the police.

There is undoubtedly a point here—the noble Baroness has described it very well. This particular section of the 2003 Act was clearly intended as some sort of response to the Martin case and the Act’s purpose was really intended, or so it said, for other citizens as opposed to the police. There is some sort of at least theoretical clash, as Lord Justice Sedley pointed out in the instant case, between the position of police officers and others on arrests, so it does require an answer from Government.

We said on 25 February 2010—it was me, I am afraid to say—that the consultation that we had said would take place had not taken place by that date. But of course the noble Baroness will know that her Government have now been in power for a good 13 months now—it is 15 or 16 months since I uttered those words—and I am quite sure this consultation will have taken place regardless of government. I therefore look forward to hearing her response to this small but quite important point about the 2003 Act. I presume the consultation has taken place and the Government will be able to tell us what they intend to do about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it falls to me to answer this debate. I have to say that I am not fully briefed on whether or not the consultation has taken place. I suspect there was a little bit of irony there from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and his confidence that this will automatically take place regardless of changes in government, but I will write to him to inform him about how far it has got.

We are talking of course about Section 329 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The intention was to benefit victims of crime, together with third parties who are not the direct victim of the offence but who may have intervened to protect the victim or deter the criminal. We are aware that it has so far been invoked only in respect of damages claims by police rather than by others who have sought to rely on the provisions as a defence in a number of cases. As noble Lords have mentioned, Lord Justice Sedley, in the case of Adorian v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, made a number of criticisms.

Section 329 of the 2003 Act is not a licence for the police to use disproportionate force as under the criminal law. The police can use only reasonable force. Neither does the section affect the criminal liability of householders, victims and others. Let us also keep in mind that the section applies only when the offender has been convicted of an imprisonable offence committed on the same occasion as the incident he is now suing for.

With these points in mind, this amendment raises a number of issues. First, is it fair and reasonable under general law to treat a person who holds the office of constable less advantageously than any other member of the public? Secondly, we should be very clear on what the practical consequences will be before making an amendment which would result in making it easier for a convicted offender to sue the police for damages. Thirdly, we need to be a little clearer on how this amendment might work, given that the powers of constables apply 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An off-duty constable who exercises this power to arrest a suspect found breaking into his own private dwelling or a neighbour’s dwelling would still be acting in the course of his or her duty. We also need to consider how the amendment would apply to special constables or others who are lawfully employed to prevent crime.

We note the thrust of the comments in the Adorian case and that the application of Section 329 to the police was not expressly discussed in Hansard at the time that that legislation was passing through Parliament. However, we are currently unconvinced that for the police to invoke Section 329 is really an unintended consequence of that section. Arguably, the police are the people most likely to rely on a provision which restricts liability towards a person who is committing a criminal offence at the time. The reference in Section 329(5)(b) to the defendant believing that his act was necessary to,

“apprehend, or secure the conviction, of the claimant after he had committed an offence”,

might suggest that it was not so very far from Parliament’s contemplation that the police could seek to invoke this provision. But what matters is whether it is right, fair and proportionate for this protection to apply to constables.

I am afraid that as yet we remain unconvinced that the provisions in Section 329 are not right, fair and proportionate in their application to the police. Therefore, we remain unconvinced that they require amendment as the noble Lord suggests. In particular, we cannot see any reason why the civil liability of a victim and a constable who act jointly on the same occasion, or act as individuals on separate occasions, to resist and detain the convicted offender should not be subject to the same threshold.

Nevertheless, as this amendment raises important issues relating to the role and powers of the police, and given that the noble Lord has been patiently pursuing this matter for some time, I can give the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on his behalf the assurance that this Government, while bearing in mind other government priorities, will take one final look at this matter before the next stage. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend may be a dog with a bone, but he is quite a pedigree sort of dog. Clearly, the noble Lord as an outgoing Minister did not leave a letter on his desk for his successor, so we have no amendments.

[Lord Bach]

I very nearly did leave a note to my successor but I am very glad that I did not.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My noble friend has made a number of detailed points on the amendment, which I understand. I am prepared now to undergo a seminar by my noble friend when he has read Hansard but the important point is that the Government have acknowledged that this amendment is deserving of some thought. I am grateful for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The question of the cards and whether they would be valid after the election, and everything associated with it, was a continuous process. Certainly, a large number of people bought their cards fully aware of the fact that there was controversy about them. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated at Second Reading, the House has always taken account of the content of manifestos, which is true today of the Opposition Benches.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the impact assessment.

[Lord Bach]

The noble Baroness quotes me correctly. Obviously, the House does take notice of manifestos, but there is nothing in the manifesto that says that those who had bought cards when they are abolished will not be paid anything. If the manifesto had said that, this might be a different argument. When I said that the House, of course, took note of what is in the manifesto, that is only stating the obvious. But it does not do anything to answer the point so well made by noble Lords in this Committee.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the impact assessment, which simply set out the possibilities in a straight catalogue of options, which ranged from doing nothing through to the option chosen. Today, we are debating the option chosen by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

5: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“ID card trial for airside workers
(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
(a) the outcome of the trial use of ID cards for airside workers; and(b) the measures the Secretary of State proposes to implement arising from it.(2) Any ID card issued to an airside worker under the critical workers scheme, which is valid immediately before the day on which this Act is passed, shall continue to be valid until the report referred to in subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament.”

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, we turn to a new aspect of the Bill, perhaps an appropriate one at a time when security, particularly aviation security, is at the forefront of our minds. I declare a past interest: for a few months in 2007 I was chairman of the AOA, the Airport Operators Association, before returning to government. I am delighted to be able to move this probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the points that are made during the debate.

Airside workers fall into the category of those employed in sensitive roles and locations where identity is important to public protection. Effective identity assurance acts as the cornerstone of a good personnel security regime at airports and elsewhere. As part of the introduction of identity cards, as the Committee will know, an 18-month trial was developed at Manchester Airport and London City Airport whereby ID cards would be used in place of existing identity verification processes and documentation. We recognised that the ID card had a capacity, first, to provide a single means of identity assurance across airports and, secondly, to facilitate quicker and more efficient pre-employment checking, with obvious benefits to both employers and employees.

The ID card would have cut the frequency of the need to renew airside passes from every three years to every 10—thus, we argue, cutting bureaucracy and cost. The added identity certainty provided by the ID card offered benefits, we argue, including improving the portability of reference checks between employers and airports, creating greater flexibility for employers and staff; speeding up pre-employment clearances for cardholders moving from one airside job to another or between airports; kick-starting joint work to explore opportunities for streamlining airside pass regimes; and helping to ensure that everyone using airports was confident about their safety while there.

As we learn from reading the Public Bill Committee proceedings held in another place on 29 June, the process of getting an airport ID card used to take eight to 12 weeks from beginning to end. The introduction of the ID card scheme at Manchester Airport reduced this time to just one day for workers renewing their airport passes. The response from workers at Manchester Airport to the scheme was, not surprisingly, pretty positive. I draw the Committee’s attention to Question 66, asked by the honourable Mrs Hillier MP to Mr Mike Fazackerley, the customer services director at Manchester Airport. Mrs Hillier asked:

“You have gone through some of the evaluation. The Bill proposes repealing the scheme, but whether or not the card continues to exist in its current form, can you see the longer term benefits that there would have been, including security improvements, time and cost-saving, and greater convenience, had the pilot scheme been rolled out more widely and made available to others?”.

Mr Fazackerley, an expert witness, replied:

“I think that the principal benefits to airport workers are exactly as we have outlined: there is the ability to streamline and speed up, and to make the process of getting an airport pass easier. There were some marginal benefits; for example, we dramatically reduced the amount of data that we were holding on individuals, because we felt that we did not need data that the Government had, but I guess that that is fairly marginal”.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 28.]

My honourable friend Mrs Hillier contradicted Mr Fazackerley to say that she did not think that was a marginal point—I agree with her—as regards reducing the amount of data held on individuals.

In addition to benefits in time saved and convenience, the Public Bill Committee heard from Mr Fazackerley of the ability to reduce the volume of data held on individuals on account of the introduction of the ID card scheme. The biometric material contained in the card could be relied upon, and much of the other information collected previously on those who applied for security passes could simply be disposed of.

The background to the pilot scheme was carefully worked out by the Department for Transport and developed with airports, the air industry and other interested bodies. They are all rightly eager to discover the benefits and lessons to be learnt from the trial in areas of good practice, cost and time saving, and improved security. In the six months that the scheme was allowed to run, we did see benefits, so why stop the scheme in its tracks now? Even if the Government are determined to scrap the card itself—that is obviously the case—the Minister and her colleagues could apply the lessons that would continue to be learnt from this trial to another identity document—possibly the passport—or simply use them to streamline the onerous and time-consuming security checking processes at airports. They could share the information with other airports and perhaps other industries, such as the nuclear industry where such protection is vital and speed of checking is important.

At Question 74, Mrs Hillier said to Mr Fazackerley that,

“you mentioned that you would like to see some of the benefits of the evaluation continue, although the evaluation only got to a certain point. Would you like to keep that going and see the full benefits, perhaps in an attempt to reignite such uses, even with another document?”.

He replied:

“Very much so. If we could leave with the same benefits, perhaps through use of the passport, that would be a very positive move”.—[Official Report, Commons, Identity Documents Bill Committee, 29/06/2010; col. 30.]

If the Minister decides not to accept what we think is a sound amendment, will she help us with the plans that the Government have to reform security processes with regard to airside personnel at UK airports? As recent events have shown, the issue of airport security is far from going away. In many ways, it has been a central issue of the past few days. As the noble Baroness has just said in the Chamber, the Government will be addressing it with great concern.

The trial was a good idea. From this side of the Committee, we argue that it should be allowed to continue in order to allow all the lessons that can be learnt enough time to reveal themselves for the benefit and safety of all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Countess of Mar]

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, kept saying that the airside ID cards would help to prevent what has happened in the past few days. Is he really suggesting that? It was not people who were involved; it was parcels. Does every parcel have to have an ID card? I cannot see how having an ID card would have prevented what has been happening in the past few days with parcels.

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to the noble Countess for asking that question. I have tried to be extremely careful. Of course, I am absolutely not saying that. But security at airports—airside and the other side— is obviously a crucial issue. In this limited scheme of six months, it seemed as though the airside part of it was convenient for employers and employees from various companies who worked that side. I would also argue that there were some security conveniences as well. But, of course, recent events—as far as we know today, which I accept—are nothing at all to do with ID cards.

[Baroness Hamwee]

It is important to mention that the noble Lord has just used the word “convenient”. I am sure that he would like to confirm to the Grand Committee that he is not suggesting that there would be any detriment to security by losing this scheme.

[Lord Bach]

I think that there might be some advantages for security in this scheme, and I would like to know the Government’s view on that. From the exchanges I have been reading from, it seems that there may well have been some advantages so far as security is concerned. Indeed, I am reminded that Mr Fazackerley was asked a question by the honourable David Simpson:

“On a point of clarification, Mr Green asked Mike—

I presume that is Mr Fazackerley. I do not think that we would call an expert witness by their Christian name in this House, but perhaps I am being old-fashioned—

“a question about the fact that it takes eight to 12 weeks to carry out the security side of the process, but if a card is lost or misplaced, it can be replaced within 24 hours. Did you say that no further security checks were carried out?”.

Mr Fazackerley answered by saying:

“At that point. The benefit that we got from the system was that you were absolutely sure that the person who was standing in the pass office was the right person”. —[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 29/6/10; col. 28.]

Whether what he said about the issue goes to the question of security or not is a matter for the Committee to decide.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, when I was involved in this, it seemed potentially to be a win-win situation. We have heard from my noble friend about the impact on airports and their ability to clear people airside for security purposes in a much shorter period. We know also that there was initial resistance from the staff, not to the detail but to the fact that the system was being made compulsory. It was only when the potential of what the system was about that the hesitation, to put it mildly, expressed by the staff turned into at least into an enthusiasm to investigate without necessarily committing to the results.

The third area is that of the airlines. The experiment was being carried out at Manchester and at London City airports, although any two airports could have been chosen. Carriers flying in and out of those airports do not have resident senior technical staff. They may have a contractor with airside passes who provides the general maintenance of an aircraft, perhaps unblocking a sensor or putting right a temperature gauge. If a more serious technical problem arises, engineers have to be brought in either from a repair facility or the headquarters of the airline involved. Those people will arrive at the airport with no airside security clearance whatever, but they cannot be allowed just to wander in and repair the aircraft. Therefore, another period of delay is built into the clearance of those individuals. However, with the provision of an identity card and the security it offered, this was another area in which a considerable advantage would have been gained for the airline industry, for passengers who could be delayed, and by making a saving in costs to airports themselves. Aircraft sitting like parked vehicles is not an advantage. At the start of the experiment, these were things that were seen to be potential advantages, so in a sense it is sad that we will not see the outcome unless the costs are exorbitant.

Let us look at the costs of aviation. A 747-400 airliner costs well in advance of £100 million, and even more modest aircraft cost tremendous sums. The daily cost of keeping an aircraft inactive is also very high. At the moment, the airline industry feels slightly battered by the costs that have been imposed by government, and this is an area where we could have formed a degree of coalition, if I may use the word, between the interests of airports, staff, passengers—we are the victims when aircraft are delayed—and the airlines themselves. I am sorry if the experiment will not be completed because there are powerful arguments for why it should be done. If not, how are we going to provide an equivalent over the coming period because, as sadly we have heard today, the problems associated with airport security are not going to go away?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: my noble friend Lord Brett, with his expert knowledge of systems at airports; the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for the points that he made; and, of course, the Minister, for her response. This proposal does not depend on whether it, in the end, improves airport security or not. We certainly think that it cannot do any harm, to put it at its mildest, and probably has some positive effects. Obviously, on its own, an ID card system of this kind is nowhere near enough; of course there has to be continued checking, as the noble Baroness said in her response. We accept all that. I am not sure that her point about a philosophical difference between the two sides carries very much water. We are arguing that you can put security on one side, if you want, for the moment; we are talking about an attempt to save hard-pressed businesses costs and a degree of effort that they do not otherwise have to use. This is a very important industry for this country, and if anything can help to save legitimate costs, expenditure and time, I would argue that it is the duty of government to look carefully at it.

What is Amendment 5 intended to do? It states that the trial should continue for a longer period and that, at the end of it, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on,

“the outcome of the trial use of ID cards for airside workers”,

and,

“the measures the Secretary of State proposes to implement arising from it”.

It obviously does not find favour with the Government, but I would be interested to know what they intend to do with the information that has been gleaned from the six months of the trial. As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, no doubt there were some benefits to be gained and it would be useful for the future to know what they might be.

I find it difficult to understand how that could possibly cost £100,000, bearing in mind that the cards have already been given out free. What would be the costs of carrying on the trial? I find that hard to understand.

[Baroness Hamwee]

As the noble Lord said, there may be lessons to be learnt, and I, too, should be interested to know them. He described what the new clause does. I think that I am right to say that, implicitly, it requires the continuance of the register until the end of the process described here. It seems to me that that must follow. The noble Lord has not referred to it, but the two go so closely hand in hand that I assume that that is the case. Perhaps he could confirm that or correct me.

[Lord Bach]

I am not sure whether the register would have to continue or not. The data would continue to be collected and we would see at the end of the period whether the trial had made life easier and more secure for those who have to run our airports. I take the noble Baroness's point; I know that it is an essential part of the Government's case that the register should be closed at the earliest possible moment. I suggest that the effect of having an identity card as passport might be to make it possible to get the information that would be of assistance.

I see that the Government are not attracted by the wording of the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s Bill so clearly and concisely for us this afternoon. We are very grateful to her. It is perhaps slightly ironic that we should be debating the Bill at the start of National Identity Fraud Prevention Week. ID fraud is, as the noble Baroness will know, one of the UK’s fastest-growing crimes, with nearly 2 million people a year falling victim to it, costing the country some £2.7 billion.

While in government, my party, as the House knows, introduced a system of voluntary identity cards. The identity card scheme was envisaged as a convenient, secure and affordable way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was a tool of empowerment—a way to give citizens some ownership of and control over their data. The card was affordable to nearly everyone, far more affordable than a passport. It was about protecting your identity and accessing your services. Indeed, in introducing consultation on ID cards in 2002, the then Home Secretary, the right honourable David Blunkett, described these documents as “entitlement cards” which would ensure that those who have a right to use our public services are the only ones to do so. The ID card functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, a way to demonstrate eligibility to work, and a proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. It also added some protection against identity fraud—a crime which, as I say, costs a great deal of money each year.

Yes, we believe that the ID cards enhanced security. Their existence made illegal immigration and trafficking that bit harder. The Police Federation of England and Wales has long supported the scheme. It said:

“The Police Federation has backed an identity card scheme for over a decade, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any one specific or emotive event, but following objective appraisal. Unfortunately, all too often the case for identity cards is not pushed hard enough for fear that their introduction would be seen as infringement of peoples’ civil liberties. However carrying identity cards brings benefits to us all. If an individual is stopped by the police, they would be able to confirm their identity instantly; the result of which is that they would not have to report to a police station—a lengthy process that would amount”,

so the Police Federation argued,

“to a far greater infringement of their liberty”.

In an age when security is paramount, ID cards can help to protect us all. The existence of the national identity register provided the security services with a verifiable and authenticable database to contribute to their role in safeguarding the public. It was in making the obtaining of multiple identities harder that we believe the ID card scheme offered an obstacle in the way of would-be terrorists. I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, who said in 2001:

“Britain is the easiest country in Western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem, there is one obvious remedy—identity cards”.

That is no doubt why, under his leadership, the party opposite—which now makes up the Government—voted in favour of the Labour Government’s first Bill on this matter in 2004, and why it supported it in the 2005 general election campaign.

Having said all that, I wish to make a concession, which has also been made in the other place. However much these Benches may have supported the introduction of ID cards, we cannot deny this Government’s mandate to abandon the measure now. It was one of the precious few proposals that appeared in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. Therefore, we absolutely recognise the right of the Government to pass this Bill. However, that is not to say that we do not think there are considerable problems with the Bill before the House today. I shall raise some concerns and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will raise others.

We believe that the 15,000-odd ID cards already in use should continue as a legitimate form of identity until their expiry date. We argue that it is unfair, because of a change in government policy, to penalise people who have spent money on these cards. In the other place, as justification for their refusal to compensate card holders, the Government repeatedly deployed the argument—which was used again by the noble Baroness this afternoon, slightly unconvincingly, if I may say so with great respect—that:

“People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 346.]

Am I alone in thinking that that argument is shocking in its arrogance and deep unfairness? The Government demonstrate a mean-spiritedness on this issue in not attaching a money resolution to the Bill. As a result we will not be able to move an amendment to call for refunds for card holders. Such a refund would cost less than £400,000 to deliver. In the context of the wider costs of scrapping the scheme—the Government have claimed that it will cost £5 million this year to implement the Bill—that is a comparatively small amount.

Furthermore, in refusing to offer compensation the Government really are riding roughshod over consumer protection law. We on these Benches agree with comments made in the other place that the Government's attitude to the cancellation of the ID card scheme is symbolic of their lack of regard for ordinary taxpayers—many of those affected are elderly and some are not the richest in society—who in good faith have spent money on purchasing the card. Not to compensate them seems to us a pretty cold-hearted approach. We shall certainly bring this matter back in Committee.

If the Government will not offer card holders a refund, we suggest that a credit of £30 should be attached to card holders’ next purchase of a passport. It seems plain to us that existing cards should remain valid until they expire. We would be grateful to hear the noble Baroness’s view on this. If the Government are not open to this argument, we would like to know what they have to say to the often older and poorer members of the public who took up the opportunity to purchase an ID card under an Act of Parliament. They will be inconvenienced and out of pocket if the Bill is passed as it stands.

We have doubts about the need to destroy the data held on the national identity register. We are committed to the security of the British passport and consider that data held on the NIR, especially the biometric information, is valuable in achieving this end. As the noble Baroness said just now, the Government have announced that they are halting the second generation of biometric passports. However, in scrapping the data already held and the infrastructure which has built up around the national identity register, it seems that the Government’s real intention is to scrap proposed second generation passports altogether. We disagree with that approach, which risks leaving Britain out of step not only with the rest of Europe but with other countries as well.

The Prime Minister himself has previously argued that there is clearly a need for biometrics on passports. I remind the House that following the British-Israel row over the use of fake British passports in the killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the right honourable William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged the value of biometrics. Biometric passports and the register represent important contributions to the integrity of the UK's system of identity. The Bill will undermine this. With the permission of the individuals involved, data on the NIR should be transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.

There are other arguments. We are concerned that the scrapping of the scheme will not allow us to learn from the experience of issuing cards to airside workers at UK airports. There are potential lessons in enhanced security which could have been applied to other areas, but now we will never know.

There are equality concerns. The ID card was the only form of identity proof that could be issued to transgendered people in both their birth gender and acquired gender, thereby making it much easier for them to prove their identity without fear or embarrassment. Transgendered people were not included in the Bill’s equality impact assessment, and there has been no consultation whatever.

As Liberty said in a press statement on 27 May 2010 and in its contribution to this debate, it is inequitable to maintain ID cards for foreign nationals while scrapping those for everyone else, as the Bill will do. We also have arguments with the Government about the costs involved. My noble friend will address that issue.

Before I conclude I remind the noble Baroness that, in a former life, not long before she came to prominence on the opposition Benches, and now on the government Benches, she said something which I suspect she thought she might be reminded of during the course of this debate:

“If you’re not going to have ID cards you have to find other ways of protecting identity and I don’t know how you do”.

Why has the noble Baroness changed her mind?