Prüm: UK Opt-in

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I think this will be the shortest speech I have ever made. It is absolutely clear that the majority of the law enforcement community in the United Kingdom has been outraged by the decision of the Government not to be in Prüm. If we are to come back into Prüm, that is fine. It will save lives. End of.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this has been a short but illuminating debate, and I had not intended to participate. I rise first to thank the Minister for his generous apology about the misunderstandings that have arisen. They are not the first ones with his department but we hope that we will now have a better basis for understanding. Particularly on a matter on which we are entirely at one with the Government, it is helpful to have that confirmation in good order. The by-product of this rather accelerated procedure was that I had to take, on behalf of the Select Committee, executive action to approve it in order to facilitate this debate and get the Government’s timetable met as it needed to be. I regretted having to do that because we might have had more time for consideration of the issue. Of course, the merits speak for themselves in my view, perhaps subject to the safeguards that have rightly been called for.

Before making two other comments, I shall say, first, in generosity to my sub-committee chairman, that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has devoted a great deal of attention to this matter. It is highly technical and the House should be grateful to her and her colleagues for their input, and for that of the staff to this. It is not a simple matter that comes off the page. I have two other simple points. First, as a lay person, I understand that this will really allow for information to be available automatically and in real time to police officers who may be going about their business catching criminals. Frankly, if they have to wait months for that information they might as well not bother, so it will make a critical difference to their operational effectiveness in being able to see where there is a potential problem, and build that in just as they have access to the police national computer for UK-registered vehicles. It is particularly sensitive in relation to the Irish land border, where I know this has been highlighted.

My second point, which I make advisedly, is that this may be very useful to the UK—which is a proper motivation—but it is also, subject to safeguards, very useful for our colleagues in other member states of the European Union in terms of meeting information requests for their own criminal activities and their own law enforcement. My own rather simple view after recent events is that the more we can do together to ensure the safety and security of our continent as a whole, the more it will be to our mutual benefit.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, it was just under two weeks ago that the Government announced their intention to ask both Houses of Parliament to agree that we should rejoin the Prüm decisions, which are two European Council decisions under which the police forces of the EU member states are able automatically to share DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data. Since this is necessary for participation in the Prüm decisions, the Government also seek agreement that the United Kingdom rejoin the framework decision on the accreditation of forensic service laboratories, which recognises the validity of DNA and fingerprint analysis from other member states.

As has been said, yesterday the House of Commons debated and agreed to the Government’s proposal to rejoin the Prüm decisions. Would the Minister say whether there is a reason for the wording of the Government’s Motion before this House appearing significantly different from the terms of the Government’s Motion in the Commons?

The Home Office seems to have a poor record in the eyes of both your Lordships’ European Union Committee and the committee looking at statutory instruments over the way that it prepares and progresses important legislative matters that require consideration by those committees. Today’s matter is no exception. I was going to quote in full paragraph 2 of the introduction to the European Union Committee’s report that we are also considering in the debate, which was published just two days ago, but in view of what the Minister said in his opening comments I will not do so. I will, however, quote paragraph 3 of the report, which was much shorter and stated:

“It is deeply regrettable that the Home Office, following its mishandling of parliamentary scrutiny of its decision to opt into 35 justice and home affairs measures in late 2014, is now again treating parliamentary scrutiny in such a disdainful manner”.

Whenever we draw attention to the strong concerns about the failings or attitude of the Home Office expressed in EU Committee reports or reports from the committee considering statutory instruments, we are usually told by the Government that they will take, or have taken, steps to rectify the situation. Clearly, whatever those previous steps have been, they have not made much difference. I will wait to see what the response is this time from the Government on what action they actually intend to take that they have not taken already to avoid such situations in the future. The Minister did not address this point in his opening comments.

We should, of course, be grateful to the European Union Committee for the work that it has done on the Prüm decisions and for the information it has provided to the House. The European Union Committee has scrutinised the UK’s position on these decisions for the best part of a decade. In a report in the 2013-14 Session, the committee expressed concern that not rejoining the Prüm decisions would mean that UK law enforcement agencies would no longer have automatic access to relevant databases in other member states, hindering investigations and prosecutions—a concern supported, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said, by law enforcement advice.

The reason that the Government gave for not opting back into the Prüm decisions, along with 35 other Justice and Home Office measures, was because they had neither the time nor the money to do so. Would the Minister confirm that the sum of money we are talking about is just £13 million, which, frankly, seems a very low price for improving the security of our citizens—an improvement that the Government declined when they decided originally to opt out of the Prüm decisions?

We welcome and support the Government’s change of heart. The last Labour Government supported the Prüm provisions and we opposed the initial opt-out from these measures during the previous Parliament. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I, too, wonder how many additional criminals could have been caught, or potential terrorists found, if we had not opted out of these decisions. Certainly the pilot exercise undertaken by the Government involving DNA samples from more than 2,500 unsolved British murders, rapes and burglaries being automatically checked against European police databases in four other countries made an overwhelming case to opt back in. They were automatically checked in a matter of seconds, minutes or hours, compared with months at present through Interpol, which currently hardly strengthens the hand of the law enforcement agencies in promptly identifying and apprehending those responsible for national and international crimes.

Even though the Government have decided to drop their “time and money” argument on the Prüm decisions—or is it nearer the mark to say that the Government have now decided to put enhancing national security ahead of deferring to their own Eurosceptics?— the Prüm application process and development requirements mean, as I understand it, that the UK will not be able to join before 2017 at the earliest. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a bit more about the timescale for giving effect to the decision that the Government seek tonight, including how long it is expected to take for the new arrangements under the Prüm decisions to become fully operational.

It is crucial that there is better and greater European-wide co-operation over the sharing of data and information, since criminals and terrorists do not recognise national borders when carrying out their serious and often lethal acts. There is a need, too, for safeguards to be established alongside these new arrangements as the Government propose, including against the potential for UK citizens to be identified as suspects of crime in another member state on the basis of a false match. It is also right that we send information abroad only about people actually convicted in the UK, although would the Minister say who will make the decision to share personal information if a match is made? We also support the appointment of an oversight board.

The safeguards are, of course, referred to in the lengthy business and implementation case. The Government’s intention is apparently to incorporate several of these safeguards, where needed, into domestic legislation, although there appears to be nothing in the Prüm decisions that needs to be transposed into domestic law.

Will the Minister confirm that what I have said is the case? Will he also indicate when the expected domestic legislation covering the safeguards is expected to come before the House? Will he give an assurance that this House will be able to debate the adequacy or otherwise of these legislative proposals that are to be incorporated into domestic national legislation, and that these legislative proposals will be consistent with the Prüm decisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, also asked?

The proportionality test is mentioned in the implementation case but does not appear to be in proposed draft legislation. Is that the case—and, if so, why? Will the Minister also give some examples of the kind of situations in which the proportionality test would prevent personal information from being sent abroad due to the offence under investigation being insufficiently serious?

The manner in which the Government have handled this issue is unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. Explanations are needed from the Minister in response to the comments of the European Union Committee and its blunt view, for which there is a lot of supporting evidence, that this episode shows that the Home Office,

“is now again treating parliamentary scrutiny in such a disdainful manner”.

I appreciate the apology that the Minister has given, which makes the position a lot easier. However, I ask again that the Government now tell us what steps they are taking which they have not already taken to prevent a similar situation arising again, because this is not the first time we have been in this position. Frankly, I think that we have got past the stage at which words from the Dispatch Box are sufficient. I think that we need to know from the Government precisely what they intend to do to prevent these difficulties that have occurred on more than one occasion in respect of Home Office matters and in respect of more than one committee of your Lordships’ House.

However, I repeat that we support the Government’s proposal that the United Kingdom should rejoin the Prüm decisions and the related framework decision on the accreditation of forensic service laboratories.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for moving her Motion alongside the one which I moved commending the decision, and for presenting the report of the sub-committee on home affairs. I also pay tribute to the work done by that committee in an incredibly short time, but with great thoroughness. That work is extremely helpful as we move forward.

I shall deal with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, under the broad heading of how we can improve the way in which the Home Office works with your Lordships’ House and interacts with it in these matters. We have dealt with this issue before. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has been very patient with us and we have had a number of meetings with the clerks. We are conscious of existing commitments and the scrutiny of European decisions—matters contained in the Companion. We want to respect those, so those issues are improving at an official level. However, often this is a fast-moving situation, or it can be. For example, decisions on the speed of adopting the measure and on moving ahead at a quicker rate resulted from meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council which took place in November. Therefore, these are fast-moving areas but we want to improve our performance. One of the ways in which I believe we can do that is to have more meetings with the noble Baroness and the committee she chairs to discuss projects in the pipeline that are coming upstream. However, we are conscious that we need to improve our performance.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That is a very helpful suggestion. I know from experience that where we have had informal discussions with the Minister’s department that has been useful and has not led to any form of “producer capture” or any other potential moral hazard. It is important to realise that it is not simply a matter of fast-taken decisions at the end of the process; this is often preceded by a period of stasis where nothing has happened. As the Minister acknowledged, it would be very much better if we could have a reasonably easy flow of work and some advance heads-up as to things that are coming through, perhaps on an informal basis, so that we could plan our response and get the whole thing considered in a better timetable instead of this stop and start which has given rise to these difficulties in the past.

[Lord Bates]

I agree. I undertake that we will work hard on that. I realise that we will be held to account for our performance in these areas and it is right that that should be the case. As regards the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Blair, on why we did not do this a long time ago, we should also remember that what we are implementing now is perhaps a better approach, as set out in the Command Paper, because we have had the benefit of that year and of the business case implementation trial. As a result, we were able to come forward with a number of stronger safeguards. The noble Baroness referred to the one on DNA requiring 10 loci matches rather than six or eight, and that was accepted. There is also the provision of an oversight board and the particular way in which we are working.

There is a great piece set out in the Command Paper, which I urge noble Lords to consider, all about how the technical side of this actually works. One reason why the cost has fallen for an IT project is that the Government have not been idle since indicating that they wanted to join. They have been building the biometrics gateway, which means that now all we have to do is add on the additional element to connect with the different countries. That trial process of connecting with France, Spain and Germany enhanced that process significantly as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked who would actually look at the transfer of personal data. The answer is the National Crime Agency. In terms of the timing, we expect it to be operational by late 2017. In terms of legislation, affirmative resolutions will come before your Lordships’ House. We have set out in the Command Paper what that draft resolution will be. But again, that is something that will be under review and will be brought forward, normally about six months before the point of implementation.

Another safeguard is the fact that we have the Biometrics Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, so people in this country will have the opportunity to appeal. If they feel that information is being released wrongly, they will have the opportunity to respond to that and seek redress. We have received funding from the European Commission of some €10 million towards the cost of implementing this.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, asked why we were joining now. The answer is that we are opting in at this stage. If we had opted in last year with the rest of the justice and home affairs package, our systems would not have been ready and there was a real risk that we would have been subject to infraction proceedings for being unable to meet the performance criteria that are set out, which would have cost a great deal of money as well. That was another reason why that happened.

EU: Justice Opt-outs

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is right that it is critical to have the European arrest warrant in place to avoid any operational gap—which we did as a result of the documents being deposited and agreed on 1 December. It is important that that continues, as is the case with all 35 measures. It is also good that we have retained and repatriated powers from the 100 that we did not opt into.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the matter of the opt-outs, while it is gratifying to know that the Government have been keeping in touch with the Irish authorities, sadly they have not always succeeded in fulfilling their duties to this House. After repeated failures on deadlines, in a letter that reached me within the hour the Government have now admitted that in relation to the decision of 1 December, which is welcome in substance, they broke the scrutiny resolution. When the European Union Committee had already written to assert its right to demand an Oral Statement consequent on this failure of the process, why are the Government now apparently resisting or refusing to make one? Is it not high time that the Government realised that it is as useless as it is impertinent for them to seek to avoid continuing embarrassment by putting their head in the sand?

[Lord Bates]

Obviously, we take the noble Lord’s criticisms extremely seriously, given his position. I know that he does not raise these issues lightly. We also take seriously our obligations, set out in the appendix to the Companion, on scrutiny reserve powers. I urge him to accept that exceptional factors were at play in this instance, relating to the objections that were lodged by the Spanish, the Poles and the Austrians in July, which we did not anticipate. This then coincided with the recess period. The Spanish objections were listed only on 7 November and we needed to avoid an operational gap. That was why, in these exceptional circumstances, the Home Secretary had to take the decision to override scrutiny—which she did not do lightly. She did so to avoid people being at risk through the European arrest warrant not being in place. We have met the chairs and the work will be ongoing to ensure that this does not happen again.

Justice and Home Affairs: United Kingdom Opt-Outs

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak today in my capacity as the chairman of the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, and to follow the Minister, who has brought some good news to us and who, characteristically, has done his best to explain this extremely complex topic.

I am preceding my colleagues, who will speak on behalf of their sub-committees today, and other noble Lords who I am always very pleased to see participating in these European debates. They will be able to go more into the detail of these complex opt-out decisions, because, frankly, they and their sub-committees have conducted the scrutiny leg work. That has resulted in two excellent reports, published—as is the convention, in the name of the Select Committee itself—some time ago, in April and October of last year. The House has debated them and the issue of the opt-out on numerous occasions before. I think therefore that the House will appreciate it if I keep my own remarks brief.

In broad terms, we are pleased that most of the recommendations of our reports have been followed—I know that others will make their contributions where there are specific points of difficulty or disagreement. I acknowledge readily that Ministers in this House have been helpful in the handling of the decision process. Nevertheless, I must record with some sadness rather than anger that the process has been made more difficult than might have been needed. Our committee has relied on the timely provision of information with which to consider the decisions being taken under the very complex Protocol 36. Occasionally—or perhaps one should say sporadically—we have met with a recalcitrant approach to this on the part of departments. However, in a sense that is in the past, and on the whole, as the Minister indicated, on the substance we are on the same page and in broad agreement with what the Government propose.

Within and beyond that, I will raise two specific points. First, a highly illogical and rather disturbing approach seems to have been taken by government in relation to the impact assessments laid before Parliament recently. I can assure the Minister that this is not just a long-running saga, because it is of immediate and contemporary interest also. That document as published ran into the hundreds of pages, but it was unindexed, lacked a contents page, and contained only the impact assessments for the 35 measures opted into, presented in what appeared to be a somewhat shaky batting order. It certainly was not an easy or user-friendly document to read.

Alongside the presentation of the impact assessments, it could appear that the evidence had been selected to support the decision, rather than the decision in each case being based on the evidence. No impact assessments were made—or as far as we are aware even conducted—on the 100-odd measures not being opted into under Protocol 36. I point out for new readers that it will be clear from the Minister’s remarks today that this is a shifting number—they jump in and out of that particular figure for adoption or not.

We have had the benefit of an assessment of the impact of the 35 measures that the Government now propose to opt in to, but it is not a particularly illuminating story in relation to the overall picture. I therefore ask the Minister: are assessments being conducted on the impact of not opting in to certain measures? Will the Government be sharing their rationale for not opting in to each of these measures? Was their decision in each case based on the evidence of the impact assessment?

I appreciate that some measures have been, in the terrible jargon, “Lisbonised”—that is to say, wrapped up under the treaty of Lisbon—and it would be redundant to opt back in to them, so there is no need for us to do so. For all the others, we are genuinely not clear about what assessment has been made of the impact of not opting in to them, and I request that this should be considered and completed. At the very least, I would have expected the Government to provide impact statements for the quite small minority of recommendations that we put forward in our reports and that they have decided not to opt back in to—in other words, as far as this House is concerned, the particular measures under current contention.

My second point is perhaps a less technical one, but it is no less important. It concerns transitional arrangements and measures. The Minister did say something about those, and I think we can take some relief from the fact that we appear to be moving towards an agreement with the Commission on the readoption, or reinsertion, of these measures. I still have a simple request for him: can he please give the House his assurance that, when the opt-out comes into force on 1 December—in the absence of measures being readopted—where measures have not yet been accepted by that date, transitional measures will be in place, that those transitional measures will have been well considered, and that they will cause the minimum disruption, or in certain cases even potential danger, to the public from their not having been adopted as substantive measures because of the process that we are engaged in?

European Union: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate briefly in the debate in my capacity as the chairman of the European Union Select Committee of this House. It is a privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, and thank him for his continuing expertise and the input he has made to the work of the European Union Select Committee, specifically in his chairing of its home affairs sub-committee. However, that expression of thanks and praise is tinged with a degree of sadness as the time has come for him to step down from both committees. We shall miss him hugely, as will the House. This work necessitates not only massive and in-depth expertise across the whole range of matters European but a readiness to be tireless and, if I may say so, appropriately tiresome, in holding the Government to account in what they do, and is an example to us all of the kind of work that this House does very well.

Also on the positive side, I commend the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—for delivering on the Government’s commitment to debate on request an annual report on Protocols 19 and 21. It is entirely sensible that we should roll this in with the separate debate on the continuing saga of the Protocol 36 negotiations. I feel that this is a little bit like a piece of classical music with two themes inextricably intertwined in this debate. I fear that my remarks will tend to flit from one to t’other.

I also find myself in an interesting and rather European position, as it were, as the centre of the troika between the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, who will speak after me, as they chair the two relevant sub-committees of our European Union Select Committee, and I find myself in the middle. I would not for a moment claim that I have or wish to replicate their expertise because they express remarkably intense and effective scrutiny. One has offered and one will, I am sure, offer the technical assessments of their respective committees. They will highlight, for example, not just the historical record of the Protocol 36 saga, as I have called it, but the difficulties with post-adoption negotiations—for example, in relation to Europol and Eurojust, the EPPO and other matters that may arise down the track.

If we look at what happens in Europe, it is interesting and appropriate to record—the Minister has acknowledged this—that Her Majesty’s Government consistently opt into a majority of new proposals roughly in the proportion of 2:1, as working rule. It is fair to assume that neither myself in a personal capacity nor my committee generally would dissent from participation in those proposals. However one defines—if one can find a working definition to meet the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—what is or is not the national interest, we are at least pleased that the Government are proceeding on that basis.

We will continue to assess any new proposals and policy matters that arise in the area of security, freedom and justice on their own merits and in relation to the national interest. We can hardly ask the Government to do otherwise. We would ask them to commit themselves to continuing to take into account the views of our committee wherever possible. It happens—it is an unexpressed factor in this debate—that we have developed over the course of the past 12 months, in the light of the Protocol 36 issue, a habit of consultation with Ministers and the troika, if I may call it that for shorthand, in relation to the handling of these issues. We are getting a better understanding but, frankly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, revealed, the old Adam comes out from time to time and we cannot say that the work has been concluded yet, because things go wrong.

In that light, looking at the historical record, I have no wish to rake over the coals but I should like the two Ministers to consider saying a little more on the record about why the Government did not consult thoroughly and properly with the European Union Committee of this House, as had been agreed in relation to Protocol 36 issues, on the decision on the block opt-out. We had, in effect, a last-minute presentation of a fait accompli, which was not the right way to do this business.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has explained to the House, there will be continuing doubts in my committee as to the precise range of measures to be opted back in to. However, if we take the 35 measures in which the Government have indicated an interest, we can at least say that it is broadly the view of my colleagues that those measures are in the national interest. As we are actually doing them, it is sensible that we continue to do them and, as a number of noble Lords have said, particularly in relation to criminal justice, do them without any discontinuity as we reach the deadline.

It is fair to report to the House that there is a continuing contradiction—or I could call it a difference of emphasis—in the Government’s position on some of these issues. On the one hand, they express a continuing reluctance, as it were on principle, to consider as being appropriate our accession to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on particular issues—their bias is against it. At the same time, on the majority of measures for very good reasons, including the national interest, the Government opt into justice and home affairs policies related to it. That, of course, immediately represents acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to those matters.

As regards future negotiations, Ministers are well aware, perhaps painfully aware, that a number of ongoing and very technical dossiers are to be negotiated, with a view to opting in, following adoption of the measures. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, may wish to respond later a little more on the Government’s thoughts on how successful the negotiations are likely to be. It would useful if he could inform us.

In relation to the block opt-out, nobody here is asking for a detailed account of any negotiation or indeed of the negotiating position, because that would be an entirely unreasonable position for us to take, including the disclosure of the stance of other members of the Council. However, I put it to the House that there must be some middle-way solution between complete transparency of action and—what we are sometimes faced with—either a last-minute announcement or the emphatic silence that greets us when an update on progress is requested by members of the committee.

That is a challenge for the House, for Ministers and for us as a committee. However, if some reasonable information can be shared—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who has already spoken to us has indicated some of it—and the Government can level with Members of this House and of the other place and with the general public at large, that may be positive for the process because it may encourage a measure of participation in, understanding of and interest in the matters being negotiated. Having said that, as has already been indicated, those matters are, frankly, desperately technical. Even getting them understood around Parliament would be a start but it would not be a finish. However, the more that can be done, the better.

We as a committee are not going to seek a running commentary on negotiations. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, wrote to us in January and we have allowed a certain franchise before we have come back to him. We do not want a running commentary but it would be helpful to have information as and when it is available and appropriate to let us share it.

In concluding my remarks, I once again endorse the need for a sensible dialogue to take place as a matter of routine between government and the European Scrutiny Committee. I often say—and I am anxious that we should not compromise the position—that we are scrutineers, not the Executive: we do not join in the Government’s decisions. However, the habit of collaboration and co-operation is to be encouraged and, if it is sensibly and sensitively handled, it will be of mutual benefit.

EU: Justice and Home Affairs

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for a useful report and, in my role as chairman of the European Union Select Committee as a whole, I extend those thanks to all those who are participating in this debate, which is exposing some interesting issues.

Be it far from me to suggest that the issues are easy to grasp at first instance and, to be frank, I would not recommend them to a novice member of my committee who had never been to one of these debates because it is not the easiest territory on which to start. However, we should remember as a committee that this subject reflects the real interests, welfare and, in certain cases, security of our citizens. It is important that we get it right. I am heartened by the way in which the Minister presented his case in terms of looking at the issues and making decisions on their merits. I say, with respect, that that is the way in which our sub-committees have tended to produce their reports, even on occasions when their conclusions have differed from those of the Government—or perhaps have not been confirmed by government until a later stage.

Inevitably because of those comments, my emphasis will be on aspects of the process. I have to offer some praise to the Government and some blame, too—alternatively, as it were. We certainly all welcome the fact that this report is being debated approximately two months after its publication. That is in line with the request made by the committee during the debate on the first annual report in 2011. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Roper, attending this debate, and he will remember that request. So far, so good but, as the Minister wisely confessed to the Committee, it is regrettable that this, the third annual report, was published nearly four months late, although its two predecessors were bang on time and both came out in January. The importance of timeliness should be emphasised by the Minister in rallying the outlying departments that have to be consulted on these matters. I hope that he can give an assurance that unless some great disaster intervenes, the fourth annual report will be published on time in January next year. There is a related issue to this and it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify how the report’s delayed publication will impact on the scheduled publication of the mid-year update to the report, which should be available by now, or very shortly in early July.

While on the subject of complaint, we also note that two of the opt-in decisions listed in Annexe 1, which is a very helpful annexe, cited incorrect legal bases. These have been subsequently corrected in correspondence with the European Scrutiny Committee in another place. Mistakes happen, of course, but we trust the Government will ensure that such errors are not repeated in the next annual report.

To turn to the positive, we, too, welcome the recent publication of the Government’s code of practice on scrutiny of opt-in and Schengen opt-out decisions. This is for the attention of all government departments to ensure that the views of Parliament are taken into account. I thank our officials in the Select Committee for their input to that process which has been mutually beneficial.

To come to what is, I suppose, the most important legal crux, but, again, not a particularly immediately obvious one, there is a consistent implication from the Government that the UK opt-in will apply to proposals which include justice and home affairs elements, despite not citing a Title 5 legal base, which is the normal legal basis for a justice and home affairs proposal. The Select Committee of this House and the European Union Scrutiny Committee in the other place have had little sympathy for this approach in the past. We suggest that it tends to fall on deaf ears in the Commission and Council. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to this Committee whether the legal base of a new European Union committee has ever been amended as a result of the Government’s approach in this regard and what the current Commission and Council position is on this matter.

Turning to slightly more substantial matters, the report notes that negotiations continue on a number of proposals where although the United Kingdom Government did not opt in during the initial three-month period, it remains their objective to seek to amend the text in a way that will allow the United Kingdom to exercise its right to opt in to the proposal after it has been adopted across the board. This situation applies to the directive on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime and the directive on the right of access to a lawyer. I think we all have some sympathy with doing this; the question is whether an acceptable outcome can be achieved. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update regarding what progress has been made in relation to both these proposals, including the likelihood of post-adoption opt-ins by the Government.

The Minister’s report refers to the proposed Europol regulation as a “forthcoming dossier”. Owing to the delay, the proposal was published very shortly afterwards. We acted fairly quickly in our Sub-Committee F report regarding the measure, which recommended that the United Kingdom should opt in. It was debated and endorsed by this House on 1 July. We note that the Government must reach a decision in response to that by 30 July, which will take the views of both Houses into account. We look forward to receiving notification of that decision, presumably before the other place goes into recess on 18 July. There is not much time for that, but it is important to know where we are.

Then there is what I might call the elephant in the room, which is the United Kingdom’s opt-out decision to be taken on the existing or pre-existing measures in 2014. The report correctly notes that this is a separate issue as it concerns the pre-Lisbon measures, but it is relevant in the context of this debate. All the post-Lisbon measures that the United Kingdom has chosen to participate in are listed in the report. It is worth recording that the average participation by the United Kingdom Government in these post-Lisbon measures varies, but is somewhere between 70% and 80%, so the significant majority are acceptable to the Government on consideration, although in certain cases, including the two I have referred to, it may take time, and it may take more than the three months to reach an acceptable decision. We would feel better late than never, if I may put it like that in shorthand.

Granted that all the post-Lisbon measures involve the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, we wonder about the Government citing concerns about this jurisdiction as one of the reasons for exercising their opt-out in relation to the pre-Lisbon measures that I have mentioned, which they suggest were not drafted with the court’s jurisdiction in mind. In the report that our joint sub-committees have issued on the opt-out report in relation to Protocol 36, this suggestion was considered and rejected. We therefore look forward to a further announcement on the opt-out, which we understand is now imminent.

It would be fair to say, in summary, that although we are not in any sense ideologically in favour of always acceding to justice and home affairs measures, and have aligned ourselves on a number of occasions with the Government in not doing so, we are broadly sympathetic to the approach where we can do so. We hope that the Government will wish to consider the Protocol 36 decisions sympathetically and provide a good portfolio of responses in due course.

Universities: Anti-Semitism

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 requires university governing bodies to ensure as far as possible and practicable that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers. Institutions have to issue and keep updated a code of practice on the organisation of meetings and other activities taking place on their premises. These codes often include the right to refuse permission for an event. However, universities have to balance freedom of speech with their legal obligations, for instance in the Equality Act 2010. Only institutions themselves can make decisions about speakers. No other body could make judgments about each and every case. They are subject to the courts in this, as with other laws. The 1986 Act does not apply directly to student unions but indirectly through the universities’ codes of practice.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I can only repeat that the Government cannot tell universities and higher education institutions who they can or cannot invite. However, universities have to follow very strict codes of practice. We are always working with universities, and wherever there are incidents and we hear of them we try to ensure that universities have the tools in place to counter those sorts of vicious speakers and their contributions.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, given that the Minister has already confirmed that because universities and colleges are in receipt of very substantial amounts of public funds, they are bound by the public sector equality duty—which is an important factor that they should bear in mind and take seriously—will she also, on the positive side, celebrate the work of the Equality Challenge Unit and of others who are working positively towards ensuring that universities are, as they always should be, places of enlightenment, and not an opportunity for the expression of prejudice?

[Baroness Verma]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. We see universities as places not only of learning but of great understanding. All the organisations that my noble friend mentioned are at the heart of those tasks of moving forward. However, we take the concerns very seriously and we understand why the noble Baroness has posed this Question and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has raised it. We are working to ensure that all universities stand up for any students who feel under threat, regardless of their race, religion or background.

Violence against Women

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot take the noble Baroness much further than saying that the consultation on forced marriage will end on 30 March. We will obviously have to respond after that and consider—as the Prime Minister made quite clear last year—whether forced marriage should become a criminal offence in itself. However, we also have to look at other issues, particularly whether extra-territorial jurisdiction should be extended. There are very real problems in that area. The simple fact is that we can only sign up to the convention as a whole—we cannot sign up to it in part. Until we can get decisions on all parts of it, we will not be in a position to sign up. However, I make it quite clear to the noble Baroness that we broadly support the intention behind the convention.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, we currently have the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers in the Council of Europe, and this issue affects and concerns noble Peers across all sides of the House and is widespread in this and other countries. Would it not be a wonderful opportunity, despite the reservations that my noble friend has rightly announced, to get on with this and get our signature on the paper before we leave the chair of that excellent organisation?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we would like to make progress on this, but the concerns, particularly in relation to extra-territorial jurisdiction, are very real indeed. My noble friend will be aware that, at the moment, we believe that extra-territorial jurisdiction should apply only to very serious crimes such as murder or torture. To sign up to this, we would have to change the law to make it cover such matters as common assault or harassment. We do not think that that is necessarily the right way to go about these things. However, colleagues in the Ministry of Justice will certainly look at these issues.

Violence against Women and Girls

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that this is a matter not only of depressing statistics—disastrous as they are—but of culture and education and of involving men just as much as women? In that context, will she consider taking a leaf out of the practice of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and I both have the privilege of serving, where parliamentarians of all countries and genders are prepared to make a public commitment against these practices, or even borrow the practice of some national Parliaments where a specialist committee of men is set up to involve themselves in actively dealing with this sort of issue?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is about ensuring that men and women will be part of the solution to this culture change. I will take back what my noble friend said about the convention in Europe, but a lot of work is going on in this country where men are at the forefront of trying to ensure that we tackle the vile problem that we have in society. We will never be able to solve the problem unless both men and women are signed up to it.

Violence Against Women

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, the United Nations General Assembly designated 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and invited Governments, international organisations and NGOs to organise activities designed to raise public awareness of the problem on that day. Women activists have marked 25 November as a day against violence since 1981. The date came from the brutal assassination in 1960 of the three Mirabal sisters, who were political activists in the Dominican Republic.

Violence against women has been described as perhaps the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe. Governments have obligations to prevent violence against women under international and national human rights and equalities laws. Under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the United Kingdom has obligations to prevent violence against women before it happens.

The UK Government's commitment to tackling violence against women is clear. Our success in tackling this will be a test of this Government's ability to build a fairer society. There is clearly much more to do to ensure that women and girls are not held back. We should strive to be ambitious in our aims and to meet a shared commitment to ending violence. Violence against women and girls in the UK is still, sadly, widespread and has serious social, health, emotional and financial consequences. It is more prevalent among women in England than stroke, diabetes and heart disease. Attitudes that justify and excuse abuse are, sadly, still deeply entrenched.

Gender equality cannot be achieved while violence continues. In modern-day Britain, two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. Sexual harassment in schools, communities and workplaces is still routine, and 60,000 women are raped every year. Trafficking and sexual exploitation affect thousands of women in the United Kingdom, and an estimated 6,500 girls in this country are still at risk of female genital mutilation each year. This is a scandal, and we simply cannot go on like this.

Just last summer, Jane Clough, a 26 year-old nurse working in Blackpool Victoria Hospital was brutally murdered by her ex-partner, the father of her baby, as she arrived to begin her night shift. Her murderer, Jonathan Vass, had appeared in court the previous December charged with three counts of rape. He had been further charged with six counts of rape and three assaults. Despite strong objections by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, he was released on bail by Judge Simon Newell, who had been told that he posed a real threat to the victim as a witness. Just recently, I watched a TV documentary about this awful case, which was so harrowing. For weeks, Jane Clough lived in fear. She kept a diary of how she feared for her life. Despite this fear, Jane did all the right things. She reported the rape and the violence, but her rapist was bailed, and he went on to kill her. This young woman was badly let down by the judicial system, resulting in her brutal death, leaving a small baby. When will victims receive more protection, and when will lessons be learnt? How can victims have confidence in the system when we still have incidents like this which, unfortunately, are still commonplace?

I declare an interest as a commissioner in the Equality and Human Rights Commission. As part of the commission's role as the national human rights institution and in line with our international reporting responsibilities, we at the commission have supported the drafting of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. This convention sets out legally binding standards for all forms of violence against women, bridging some of the existing gaps in human rights protection. However, the United Kingdom has yet to become a signatory of the convention.

In April 2011, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a new convention on preventing and combating violence against women. It has not, as I mentioned, been signed by the UK Government. Since the convention opened for signature in June, 17 countries have ratified, including Austria, France, Germany, Iceland, Macedonia, Sweden, Turkey and Ukraine. The commission, and many of us, would be expected to encourage the United Kingdom Government to adopt international human rights standards. Can I ask the Minister whether the United Kingdom Government have reached a decision on becoming a signatory? In a recent response to a similar question, the Equalities Minister stated that the Government would consider the equality implications when making a decision on that signature.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

I speak as a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have some experience of these situations there and I am very much in sympathy with what the noble Baroness said about the need to combat violence of all kinds against women.

Would it not be fair—I am perhaps setting this up for the Minister also to comment—to say that in the United Kingdom we tend to take a very rigorous view of our ability to have the legislation and the other administrative arrangements in place before we sign up to conventions and that there will always be, as indeed there was in relation to the convention on the trafficking of women, where a number of us pressed very hard for a British signature, a certain reticence before we sign up? It is not a lack of commitment—or at least I hope it is not—but rather a determination to get our ducks in a row before we commit ourselves. Some of the other member states may take a slightly lighter view of their responsibilities, although they should, of course, take them equally seriously.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend, as always, for making a constructive suggestion to resolve this issue. I will, of course, with other points that have been raised, take that into consideration.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, would an alternative approach, which would be not unfamiliar from board practice, be to establish through the panel a nominations committee, which could provide an element of filter, rather than a direct overtly or covertly political appointment?

[Baroness Browning]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I have explained to the House that I am very happy to take this forward without closing the door on it tonight, even though I cannot accept the amendment. I will return to the House at a later stage with this.