Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, would like to support my colleague from the Joint Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont. In the context of the Bill, this is to do with supply and demand, as we have heard. I will not repeat it, but it is well known that serious research into the Nordic model shows the effectiveness of this kind of legislation. A strong argument was aired briefly in the other place about the market and people’s freedom to work in ways they choose, but I want to draw briefly on my own experience to explore the myth that prostitution can be simply a marketable form of employment.

I have been involved in work with people engaged in prostitution, as well as those who work with them. It is evident that almost everybody who I have come across or who colleagues work with are pathetic, abused and often drug-centred young women. Earlier this year I came across a Thai woman who was being raped 10 times a day in a brothel in Kensington, not far from here. That is what being able to purchase sex is doing to people. A few weeks ago, I met a woman who said, movingly, that before she managed to escape from prostitution, she used to ask for drugs because the pain of servicing all those people was so intense. She requested drugs, and was supplied with them. Something that has not been said but which ought to be noted in this debate is that a lot of research shows that a high proportion of those who purchase sex from prostitutes are married men. What does that say about our understanding of family and relationships? There is a strong case for taking seriously the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord McColl.

I recognise that there might be some real politics in terms of where the amendment would fit in the Bill and how this kind of legislation might arrive at being effective, but I endorse the amendment because it asks the Government to do some form of review. It would be good to do some research to see whether this kind of legislation would reduce significantly the numbers of those in sexual slavery. Would it reduce the demand that is out there on the streets? Would it reduce the numbers who are trafficked into this country like the poor Thai woman I have just spoken about? She was brought here with the promise of a good job, and then she ended up in the appalling situation of being simply a commodity for people to buy at will. Such a review would gather information from the many people who work with those in the sex trade and could receive comments from the public. We could ask for the views of organisations like the Association of Chief Police Officers, which has been mentioned. There are many people in this area who have experience and who could help us to build up a picture that would show us the outcomes if we proceed in this direction.

The passion that unites noble Lords across the Committee on this Bill is to free victims from being abused and treated like commodities—and, in a sense, such cheap commodities. It would be wonderful if we could at least try to review the effect that this kind of legislation would have. Evidence from other parts of the world shows that when a Government are bold enough to adopt it, it has enormously positive social consequences as well as a massive impact on the evil of sexual trafficking.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I will refer to what happened in Ipswich on the terrible occasion when the murders of a series of young women hit the headlines. All of them were described in the press as prostitutes. In fact, they would be better described as drug addicts who had fallen into prostitution.

I am not sure that this is the right Bill to make these changes, or that they can be made in these circumstances, but I am sure that we ought to be clear about a different approach to prostitution from that which we have had before. In Victorian days, prostitution was thought to be appalling and the women were blamed. The men were rarely considered to be in any way guilty. The Victorian approach was that men were like that. I hope that we have reached a stage where we understand how wrong that was as an attitude. However, instead, I fear we are moving to the kind of approach that my noble friend Lord McColl pointed to, where other people are treated as things for the gratification of some and for the earning of money by others. That is the real issue and where the problem really lies. I liked the way in which my noble friend presented his amendment because it seems to me that he emphasised, very characteristically, the nature of the human being, the duty that we owe to human beings and the respect which we should have for all, whoever they may be and however unworthy others may think them.

The terrible events of Ipswich concentrated the minds of people locally in a way which has never happened before. It was very interesting to see how people who would historically have dismissed this as one of those things that was nothing to do with them thought much more seriously about the nature of this offence and the way in which it made a statement about our society and how we think of other people. I know that I would not carry the Committee with me if I were to go too far with these comparators, but I must say that I think we live in a society which treats human life in a most disgraceful way. We point at others outside this country and forget what happens here to babies and what we sometimes ask to happen to older people. We are not good at recognising the value of human life nor are we good at recognising that the greatest gift given to any human being is the part that we can play in creation. It is the gift. Therefore we ought to be particularly careful in any circumstances where human beings are not just trafficked but are degraded by those who treat them as if they were not human. That is the issue that we are concerned with tonight.

I do not think that it would be proper to make so sweeping a change in the context of a Bill which has a whole range of other things that it needs to do, but it would be unfortunate if the Government were to complete the debates on this Bill without giving a real undertaking that this issue will be properly investigated and brought back to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision on it. It is a big issue. We are, on this occasion, very much helped by the work that has been done in Scandinavia. We are not in the same position as we have been before. We have seen what happens when steps like this are taken. We should not delay in treating this seriously, but should do it in a proper format. I do not think that this Bill is the proper format, but I do not want the Government to go away saying it is not the proper format, full stop. I want them to say that it is not the proper format but that they will speedily bring legislation in front of this House, after proper consideration, in order that the House and the other place might consider how best to protect people from being treated as things.

EU: Migration

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

First, my initial Answer was yes not no. It was that we have been engaging with Europe. The European Commission has endorsed this approach. The noble Lord referred to Germany. The German Government are passing legislation through the Bundestag to restrict the benefits of those who come to Germany when they are not genuinely seeking work. It was tested in the European Court of Justice. These are exactly the types of reforms and reviews which we have been pushing, from our side, and which are getting greater support across the other member states of the European Union.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that tone is very important in these issues? We should show quite clearly how much we benefit from the large number of people from the rest of the European Union working here, and how much the rest of the European Union benefits from people from the United Kingdom going there. If we talked a bit more cheerfully about this—the greatest peacetime achievement that has happened in Europe—perhaps people would be more willing to listen to our comments.

[Lord Bates]

I totally agree with my noble friend about tone. The British people have a reputation for hospitality and tolerance and have welcomed people who are making a positive contribution to our society. However, that of course has its limits and we need to be mindful that there is great concern about unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration into this country and the impact it has upon social cohesion and our public services.

European Arrest Warrant

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point to the importance of this; 5,000 foreign criminals have been deported since it came into effect in 2009. Of course the desire is to opt back in by 1 December, but this needs to be negotiated and there need to be agreements. Those negotiations are continuing. Her Majesty’s Government’s position is that we want to be there by 1 December. In terms of when the House will have the opportunity to discuss this, discussions are ongoing between the business managers to make time for that to happen before 20 November.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the only people who gain from our non-membership of the European arrest warrant arrangements are fraudsters, child molesters and gangs? Should we not say that this is another example of the excellent reasons why we should be full and really committed members of the European Union?

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right in respect of these measures. To keep a balance, though, let us remember that being part of the European Union is not just about signing up to everything that comes down the track. With regard to justice and home affairs, there were 135 measures in the package, 100 of which we did not feel passed the test regarding our national interest. However, 35 did and those are what we want to rejoin.

Child Abuse

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The inquiry will be entirely independent and able to make whatever recommendations it makes without fear or favour. I would not be supportive, and I do not think this House would be, of anything that smacked of a cover up. This is about finding the truth and making the truth evident. If people have done wrong in the past, that will be revealed by the inquiry. The review is designed to check that all aspects of the review conducted by Mark Sedwill, in the first instance, and the review into the Paedophile Information Exchange were properly conducted and whether there were any failures in the Home Office. I should say that the inquiry that Mark Sedwill set up found no evidence of wrongdoing by prominent figures. However, that is not to say that it will not be discovered; that is a matter for the inquiry to find out when it comes to it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that he has had huge support from every side of the House for what is a really important decision by the Home Secretary? Does he also accept that the whole House would want to thank Mr Wanless for taking on what will be an extremely unpleasant job? That is true of anyone who is going to take part in the inquiry and we ought to appreciate that. I hope he will also accept that anyone with information of any kind is duty bound to give that information in whichever of these arrangements is appropriate. Does he further accept that those without information are also duty bound not to talk to the public in ways which suggest that they seem to have, or pretend to have, or sometimes claim to have information which they do not have? The issue here is too serious for it to be a matter of innuendo. This is a matter of finding the truth. Those who have information should give it; those who do not should shut up.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I agree with that, but I think we are right to have embarked on this difficult exercise. I think nothing less would satisfy public opinion. We need to get to the bottom of what is going on. We need to be satisfied in ourselves that we have done all we can do to make sure that child abuse does not flourish in any institutions with which we are associated. I agree totally with what my noble friend has just said, but I think the Home Secretary has provided us with the opportunity to get to the bottom of it all.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Lords Chamber

There is a string of issues here. It is extremely important that the incentivisation scheme is put on a statutory basis. I am sure that the Minister agrees about the importance of the scheme. Given the very good use that local authorities are able to put this money to, it would make great sense for the proportion to be potentially higher. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us exactly how the review is taking place, what its objectives are and when we might hear the outcome. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I will insert a single sentence here, although it may be rather a long one. I am afraid that my noble friend may have great difficulty in doing what the noble Lord suggests because he will come into conflict with a deep and entirely erroneous Treasury view about hypothecation. For all my political life, I have fought the battle for hypothecation, which is the only way we will get people to accept a whole range of things in future.

It was extremely successfully done on the landfill tax, but the money was then stolen by the incoming Government, who did not understand. The Treasury had hated it in the first place; it had been forced through by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. Immediately after he went, the Treasury mandarins got the money back again because they do not like someone else deciding how the money shall be spent. I beg my noble friend to stand firm against that wholly unacceptable attitude.

The Pope was right, in the 1920s, when he talked about subsidiarity being the basis of democracy. He was, of course, attacking fascism and communism. I am afraid that bureaucratism is just as damaging in always trying to concentrate decisions about how money shall be spent in the hands of the Treasury. I think that the more people who make decisions about how it shall be spent, the more we will be able to make democracy work. Obviously, there have to be restrictions and some overall view, but I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to fight like a tiger for an essential part of any sensible democracy: hypothecation. Hypothecation should be a tick rather than a cross when something such as this is put forward.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I wonder whether Hansard will be able to resist its usual refusal to let us put lots of “ands” and “buts” in very long sentences.

I have been trying to think of something to say in Latin to the noble Lord, but my A-level Latin is too long ago for me to be able to do it. However, he is probably asking your Lordships the sort of question to which we should answer yes. I remember that from the very early days of my Latin education.

I am certainly on the yes part of the spectrum of answers to this, in principle. I think a large part of the problem is what I unkindly call “turf wars” between the MoJ and the Home Office about who should have the money when the proceeds are recovered. I realise it is more complicated than that.

On the wording of the amendment, I wonder whether it is possible to identify the communities and neighbourhoods affected in an effective and straightforward manner, if at all. For instance, on the proceeds of crime of someone high up in an organised crime organisation dealing with drugs, can you pin down the communities and neighbourhoods affected in the way suggested? I am very attracted to money going towards crime prevention and assisting those who are affected by crime, but I am just not quite sure about this provision. However, the questions the noble Lord asked the Minister about ARIS and the wider questions about how the proceeds of crime when recovered are applied are very important.

Immigration Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

As we have been told, there are probably going to be only a handful of people affected by these provisions, but what is far worse even than the effects on those few individuals and their families is the appalling example we are setting to the rest of the world. Britain was in the forefront in promoting the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and has since worked to reduce the pockets of statelessness that still exist all over the world, such as the Bidoon in the Gulf states, the Rohingya and the Palestinians. How can we now pretend to a share in the leadership of the UNHCR’s continuing effort to eliminate statelessness when, at the same time, we are enacting domestic legislation to create more stateless people? I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I suddenly thought that the court which heard St Paul declare himself a Roman citizen must have been just as surprised as we are at some of the people who claim to be British citizens, both by name or background and present place of abode. Your Lordships will remember that St Paul made an important and entirely supported point. Having declared himself a Roman citizen, he was treated in a different way. We have an important point here, and I commend my noble friend Lord Avebury in raising it. This is a very difficult area, not least because the exemplars are not ones that are easily taken to the heart of the broad mass of the British people. That means that those people should be particularly able to call upon this House.

I live in a house which was previously occupied, a long time ago, by the man who won the War of Jenkins’ Ear—the Battle of Porto Bello. At that time we thought that British citizenship was of enormous importance. People who found it quite hard to explain how they had managed to become British citizens were still supported, sometimes for pretty dubious reasons.

I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully the points which the noble Lord has made. We live in a world in which statelessness is one of the most terrible things that can befall anyone. If you do not belong and cannot come to belong, you are placed in an impossible position. In a sense I welcome that this is so peculiar. This so special a situation which has been adumbrated, and the others around it are small in number and, as I suggested, do not affect many people or raise their sympathy in this country. Indeed, I fear that they could easily be used by some organs of the press as another way to beat the Government on their immigration policy. That makes it all the more important that we are very serious about this.

I therefore hope that my noble friend, in expressing his view on this amendment, will reassure the House that we do three things which are basic to British justice. First, we will recognise that if we have granted citizenship, or if someone has citizenship, we will defend it, and do so even though it be to our own hindrance. Secondly, we will not continue, unless there is some really good reason, the unacceptable position in which we say to somebody, “We will take away your citizenship but will not tell you why”. I find that unacceptable. I can see why people do that, but the circumstances must be most extreme before it is reasonable and acceptable. Thirdly, to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right.

We have been the signatory to and the driver of much of the international law that seeks to reduce statelessness to its minimum. I fear that in this particular case, we may, for very good reasons—in seeking to close loopholes and make neat what is essentially a not very neat kind of law—do something which will do great injustice to a very small number of people. However, it is none the less injustice if it affects but one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I will be brief, because I do not want to repeat the lengthy debate we had on this issue on Monday evening. That the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised this again tonight, as well as the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, indicates the strength of feeling and the very grave concerns about the Government’s provisions, which would make stateless some people in this country who are currently citizens. The issue was never, as the noble Lord perhaps thought on Monday, about the withdrawal and deprivation of citizenship, but about the consequences of making people stateless, not just for that individual but for public safety, national and international security. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point about somebody either being trapped, stateless, in this country, and our obligation to that individual, or somebody being isolated overseas, with the implications that that has for the security of that country and our relationship with it.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I support the motive behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I think that everyone agrees that litter is a scourge and that it is getting worse. Were it not for the street cleaners, who are the unsung heroes of our local communities, we would realise how terrible is the amount of litter that is thrown and discarded. It is partly a matter of disfiguring the environment but it also poses a potential serious danger to other drivers on roads. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will give a very sympathetic response to my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, having fought some of the battle with my noble friend and neighbour on this matter, I just wish to commend to your Lordships the constant pressure that my noble friend has brought to bear on this simple issue.

I draw just one thing to the attention of the Minister, who I understand is going to be extremely helpful: this is a symbol of trying to do the things that everybody wants done. The most frustrating thing in life is that there are many things which everybody wants done but which the Government always find impossible to do. I am afraid that the phrase “Better not, Minister” is one of the most dangerous that civil servants tend to use. Often, one should say, “Better to do things, Minister”. It is better to try and better to see whether we can solve this problem rather than have constant debates of this kind.

Therefore, if, as it appears, the Minister is going to be accommodating, I am sure that he will be accommodating quickly. That will show my noble friend Lord Marlesford that his pressure for sensible, moderate and reasonable changes in the law has again been successful, and I hope that your Lordships’ House will congratulate him on it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, as one who spoke at the Second Reading of my noble friend’s admirable Bill, I want to say how much we appreciate his persistence in good causes. He did a very splendid job for five years as chairman of the CPRE and when he gave up that particular job he did not give up the interests that went with it: keeping a cleaner, tidier and more beautiful Britain. Having been a constituency MP, I know that when people indiscriminately chuck things out of the windows of their cars, some of the loveliest reaches of the countryside can be truly defaced.

My noble friend had a brief word with me before this debate and I am delighted to hear that the Minister has been—not at all surprisingly—both engaged and helpful in this cause. I hope that at the end of this debate we will have the confirmation in Hansard of that helpfulness and can go forward, make those people who despoil our country guilty of what they do and ensure that they are suitably reprimanded.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Deben]

93R: After Clause 142, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of amplified noise equipment in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 142 there is inserted—
“142A Other controlled areas in vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “Palace of Westminster controlled area” means the area of land in the City of Westminster that is comprised in—
(a) the highways in the postal district SW1 known as—(i) Bridge Street,(ii) St Margaret’s Street, and(iii) Abingdon Street,(b) so much of the highway in the postal district SW1 known as Great College Street as immediately adjoins Abingdon Street Garden, (c) Old Palace Yard,(d) Abingdon Street Garden (and its pathways), and(e) Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) In subsection (1)—
“Abingdon Street Garden” means the garden constructed on the sites of properties formerly known as 18 to 28 (both inclusive) Abingdon Street, London, SW1, together with the garden surrounding the adjoining Jewel Tower and the lawn surrounding the King George V Memorial;
“highway” has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980 (see section 328 of that Act);
“Old Palace Yard” includes the King George V Memorial.”
(3) In section 143 (prohibited activities in controlled area of Parliament Square)—
(a) in the title, at the end there is inserted “or in Palace of Westminster controlled area”, and(b) in subsection (2)(a) after “Parliament Square” there is inserted “or in the Palace of Westminster controlled area”.(4) In section 144 (directions under section 143: further provision), in subsection (5) after “Parliament Square” there is inserted “, or the Palace of Westminster controlled area,”.
(5) In section 145 (power to seize property)—
(a) in subsection (1) at the end there is inserted “in that area”,(b) after that subsection there is inserted—“(1A) A constable or authorised officer may seize and retain a prohibited item that is on any land in the Palace of Westminster controlled area if it appears to that constable or officer that the item is being, or has been, used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 143 in that area.”,
(c) in subsection (2) at the end there is inserted “in that area”,(d) after that subsection there is inserted—“(2A) A constable may seize and retain a prohibited item that is on any land outside of the Palace of Westminster controlled area if it appears to the constable that the item has been used in connection with the commission of an offence under section 143 in that area.”, and
(e) in subsection (8), for “subsections (1) and (2)” there is substituted “this section”.(6) In section 146 (power of court on conviction)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b) for “the controlled area of Parliament Square” there is substituted “a relevant area”,(b) in subsection (2) for “the controlled area of Parliament Square” there is substituted “a relevant area”, and(c) after that subsection there is inserted—“(2A) In this section “relevant area” means an area consisting of either or both of the following areas—
(a) the controlled area of Parliament Square, and(b) the Palace of Westminster controlled area.”(7) In section 147 (authorisation for operation of amplified noise equipment), in subsection (1)—
(a) after “Parliament Square” there is inserted “or the Palace of Westminster controlled area”, and(b) after “that land” there is inserted “(or any part of it)”.(8) In section 148 (meaning of “authorised officer” and “responsible authority”)—
(a) in subsection (2) after “Parliament Square” there is inserted “, or in relation to any land in the Palace of Westminster controlled area other than Royal Park land,”, and(b) after subsection (3) there is inserted—“(4) “Responsible authority”, in relation to any land in the Palace of Westminster controlled area, means—
(a) the Secretary of State, for any land comprised in Royal Park land;(b) Westminster City Council, for any other land.(5) In this section “Royal Park land” means any land of a description specified in Schedule 1 to the Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997/1639), as that Schedule has effect on the day on which the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is passed.”
(9) In section 149 (effect of Part on byelaws), in subsection (3), after “Parliament Square” there is inserted “or the Palace of Westminster controlled area”.
(10) In the italic cross-heading before section 142, for “Garden and adjoining pavements” there is substituted “etc”.
(11) In the title of Part 3, for “Garden and surrounding area” there is substituted “etc”.”

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is an amendment which we discussed and withdrew at an earlier stage. It is what I might call a moderate amendment. It is an attempt to put right a problem of oversight rather than anything else. As was found earlier in the case of littering, your Lordships would be surprised at the complications which arise if you try to do what seemed to be a simple matter, which is to apply the rules that obtain in Parliament Square to the areas outside this House.

The reason for doing that was, first, that there is a real issue about the ability of those who have offices immediately opposite the King George statue when very loud amplification is used. Having raised the matter, I discovered that there was an even greater issue for those who were trying to have a service within Westminster Abbey. The sadness is that most of those who would be demonstrating would be very upset if they realised that their noise meant, for example, that the wedding day of someone who had looked forward to it, either in St Margaret’s or in Westminster Abbey, would be destroyed because it would be impossible to hear. A number of those who demonstrate have strong religious views themselves and would not want that.

Obviously, the best way in which one can avoid that is what might be called pre-notification. Indeed, that is to be encouraged, but we live in a democracy and it is right that people should protest. I would be the last person to seek to restrict protest wherever possible, because it is part of the whole fabric of a society in which human rights matter. Our debates on the Bill have been illuminated by lawyers and non-lawyers insisting that, however tough the threats to this country through terrorism may be, we must always be concerned to protect the rights of the individual.

This proposed new clause does not go very far: it simply extends the area covered by the present legislation, which has worked well. In preparing it we had discussions with various authorities which showed that, until now, the mechanisms by which the existing law has been enforced have been faulty. There have been difficulties in putting together the roles of the Royal Parks, which controls part of the area, and of Westminster City Council, the Metropolitan Police and the London Assembly, all of which have a say in this. It has therefore been very helpful to put the mechanisms on paper as we have before us today. I thank the Minister for the considerable efforts he has made to bring the various authorities together. We have concluded with those bodies that this is a sensible way forward.

There is a slight change from my original amendment in that Amendment 93R does not include putting up tents. This is because legislation already covers the only places where you could reasonably put up a tent; that is, the Acts and byelaws relating to the Royal Parks.

We have tried to make sure that we do not make anything onerous or push the matter any further than it need be. The amendment has the enthusiastic support of the dean of Westminster Abbey, and I think that most Members of this House have said that this is the proportionate way of proceeding. Some have wanted me to go further and have compulsory pre-advice when anyone was going to have a protest. There are temptations to do that, because it is a reasonable thing to ask for in most cases. But it is not always satisfactory and, in the end, I do not think that it is right to exclude the occasions when a gathering of people will grow and people will want to make a statement about something they feel strongly about.

This is the balance we need. It is a balance which has served the House of Commons perfectly well. This amendment merely ensures two things will happen in future. First, there will be every reason to give advice that a protest is to be held. That is good for sensible policing and providing information so that people know the law. There will also be every reason to stop what would otherwise happen, which is a migration of the kind of activity which has caused so much difficulty outside the House of Commons.

Your Lordships will see that a range of people supports this amendment. When we debated it before, it had widespread support. I have not yet been told of anyone who feels unhappy about it. I very much hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible change supported by all those who have to implement the regulations. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

I thank the Minister for those comments. I hope very much that the House will agree that this is a sensible way forward. It has certainly already achieved a much better way of implementation. I hope therefore that we can go forward with this amendment.

Amendment 93R agreed.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have an interest to declare as the holder of a firearms licence. I understand very well what the noble Baroness was saying in introducing her amendment, but we must be clear about what is already happening. The amendment refers to the necessity of performing background checks, but I believe they already are being performed. I speak with some experience of dealing with firearms officers in different parts of the country, which I hasten to admit is by no means necessarily a representative sample. None the less, these checks are being dealt with with a good deal of thoroughness. They have access to the police national computer, and the National Firearms Licensing Management System, the domestic violence unit and others are all sources of information. In addition to that, every applicant for a firearms licence must have a sponsor, who has to make a positive statement that they know of no reason, under a whole list of criteria, why that person should not hold a licence.

Furthermore, there is another element: the applicant must have permission from a landowner on whose land they are going to shoot, or be associated with a club where they are shooting and have the countersignature of the person who is the secretary of the club. So there are a considerable number of safeguards here. However, I am bound to admit that in the Atherton case, as in the Dunblane case and the Hungerford case that went before it, licences were given by the police for weapons, which, in the more historic cases, it was totally inappropriate for any private citizen to have possession of. The result of that was that these awful offences occurred.

With regard to the substantiated evidence of violence, there is already a duty on a police officer not to grant a licence to anyone who is a danger to public safety or the police, or to those of intemperate habits. As I say, there are safeguards. I double-checked with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which very kindly responded to my inquiry for this afternoon. I am not a member of BASC, but it provides the secretarial back-up for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conservation, at whose meetings I am an occasional visitor. With regard to public safety, the chief officer must follow guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Guidance, of course, means just what it says; each case has to be considered to a degree on its merits. I do not really see how it can be any other way. As I see it, firearms officers in the various police forces are taking their responsibilities extremely seriously.

On the question of full cost recovery, which the noble Baroness has raised before, the difficulty with any cost is that it is potentially a blank cheque of some sort. It takes no cognisance of the police efficiency with which the matter is dealt, nor of wider public safety issues that may lie outside and beyond the specific application. The costs incurred could be very high if the system is not effective. The question then arises—I do not have an answer to this—of how much society should pay for the protection that licences afford, as opposed to costs being recovered from the individual. There are many different walks of life where similar situations apply, such as whether the cost of a driving licence or the grant of a passport covers the full cost of the scrutiny. There are certain things that are done in the name of society and for its protection when it is not considered appropriate to recover the full costs. I made the point in previous dealings on a similar amendment at an earlier stage, and I think that it is probably fair to say, that the present level of the firearms licence fee looks quite low. However, that is a different matter; it is a matter for making an order as to what the fees are, which is rather separate from the question of amending the legislation and the framework for how things are dealt with.

There are issues about the fact that, notwithstanding all the guidance that is in place, licences for firearms have been granted to people who were patently unfit to receive them. I do not know any way to ensure infallibly that that can never happen in future. It may be impossible to devise a means for the number of people in the country who could be affected by these things, whether they are people with firearms licences who are resident, on a visitor’s permit or whatever. It will be extremely difficult to legislate out all possibility of that sort of thing, although one must always be vigilant—and, of course, they are terrible things that we should strive to prevent happening. However, I am not sure that the amendment would advance things materially as the noble Baroness suggests.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, although the amendment is entirely good hearted—I quite understand the reason for it, and the problem it seeks to address is a serious one—I fear that I follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in thinking that the difficulty with which we are faced is a belief that, somehow or other, by passing laws we can solve every problem. That is the kernel of this issue.

The vast majority of people who hold any kind of firearms licence—I declare an interest, as I am one of them—are law abiding and go to huge trouble to ensure that the firearms do not get into the wrong hands, that they are properly locked up, and so on. Already, the very considerable time spent on checking people who have never given any reason for complaint is a source of irritation—although combined with some understanding—to large numbers of people. We must recognise that we already have a very significant amount of regulation in this area.

We have to ask whether any further regulation of this kind, any further step taken in this direction, will do what is intended. I fear that I come to the conclusion that it will not. One of the difficulties is that those with bad intent seem to be much more able to acquire the means to put that intent into action than we would expect, if that is not our way of life. We rather naively sit here thinking that if we write the right legislation, somehow or other it will corral such people.

I have great sympathy with my noble friend who has to answer this debate, but I say to him that we have a long history of doing things because we feel that “something must be done”, even if what is done is not helpful but causes considerable expense and further aggravation. I ask him to be extremely careful and to make his response very balanced. We all have sympathy with the intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, but I suspect that this is not the answer to the problem.

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, the worrying thing about the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Smith is the idea that the police decide whether to prosecute on the basis of their chances of winning or losing some court case. That is extremely worrying. It means that the law as put into practice depends on someone’s estimate of whether the police should deal with somebody who might sue them, and who has a big enough legal budget to be able to do that. This seems to call into question the whole legal basis of the way we operate. I very much hope the Minister will explain the situation and say that decisions are not being taken according to the chances in the law court. That seems a complete negation of how we are supposed to operate our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention to detail he has given and for responding so fully to what has been an interesting debate. I am intrigued by some of the comments. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey perhaps hit the nail on the head in trying to bring the debate back to the intent of my amendment.

In some ways, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Marland, that you cannot legislate out crime, but I am not pretending for one second that by passing this amendment there would never be another incident. You could make that argument for any provision in the Bill. You could argue that you should not have legislation on anti-social behaviour because that will not get rid of it or that you should not have legislation to evict people for riot offences because that will not stop all rioting. That is not an argument for not bringing forward legislation that can make a difference.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, hit the nail on the head. You have to legislate with facts—not in haste. What we are seeking is to ensure the police have the powers they need. I take the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of background checks. Yes, we understand that, and we know that background checks are made. I made this point very clearly in my comments on Michael Atherton’s application, where the licensing officer would have liked to refuse because of evidence of domestic violence—he had received a caution. The licensing officer would have liked to refuse, but for various reasons the police may come back and say, “We do not think we can”. When we read that it has cost Hampshire police thousands of pounds when licences have been challenged, we realise that there is a case here.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that a decision must be taken on its merits, and that is exactly what the police are seeking to do. They want to take decisions on their merits, but there is a fear of legal action. The amount of discretion offered means they could be challenged. In the Michael Atherton case, three people were murdered with a legally held shotgun despite a previous caution for—and therefore substantive evidence of—domestic violence. It is worth nothing that after this case the IPCC said that there has to be legislation alongside guidance.

I do not accept the Minister’s comments. It is not a matter of having evidence but of giving the police the tools they need to act on the evidence they have. That is what the legislation at present does not do. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I do not share his confidence that there is no legislation that could be brought forward to protect the public. The public will be absolutely horrified to know that, where there is evidence of violent behaviour or domestic violence, people can be legally allowed to have firearms. That is quite shocking and I am surprised that it is being defended by noble Lords.

I am sure that when checks were undertaken on the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marland, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, no evidence was found of violence in their backgrounds, so they were happily given a licence. But there are many people who are not like the noble Lords and who do need to have some checks and balances.

[Lord Deben]

The noble Baroness has not mentioned me among those who said that but I should like her to include me within the list, otherwise it would be incomplete.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am very happy to include the noble Lord in the list, unless he tells me otherwise. However, the point is valid. The checks are being done now but the police are clear that there are cases where they have felt obliged to issue a licence although the evidence has told them that they should not. On the issue of subsidy—

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first moment or two of debate on this amendment. As one of the Ministers who went round the countryside talking about the importance of Secured by Design, I merely say quietly to the Minister that there is a great deal to be said for any actions which mean that you get started right. So much of what we do is retro-fit. It is being faced with a difficult situation and saying: “What the blazes do we do; how do we actually sort this out?”.

The point about this concept is that you start off right, and say from the very beginning: “Would we not do better if we organised things so that it was more difficult for people to find themselves in a vulnerable position, and more difficult for those who wish to be criminals actually to be criminals?”. My reason for speaking is this: I look round the House and it is probably true that there is a high proportion of us who were lucky enough to have been brought up in circumstances where our environments encouraged us to behave properly. That may not be true of everybody, but of an awful lot of us. The older I get, the clearer I become that the environmental effects upon children and young people are really important.

This is just one aspect of it—a tiny, but very important one. I hope that the Government will think carefully about this. I will not indulge in the discussion about interns writing lists of things, but it is not true that this is a burden. It is what any sensible developer ought to do without any question. It is the natural way of developing today. I say that and declare an interest because I advise a number of developers, trying to make them do these things in any case, so I know perfectly well that this is what they would normally do. I hope that the Government will think very hard before this is removed from what ought to be the natural way of things.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I feel slightly like the meat in the middle of a robust sandwich, because I am afraid that I shall voice a slightly different view. In addition to my declared interests in connection with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, I am also a chartered surveyor in private practice. To some extent I become involved with issues of design, and although I am not any sort of specialist security consultant, security becomes a necessary part of that.

I re-read with some interest what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Second Reading. I hope that I listened with sufficient care to what he has just said, but while not actually disagreeing with any of the ingredients that he set out, I would voice a word of caution about his conclusions. First, it must be said that this is about a commercial initiative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, or rather a subsidiary company of ACPO. It is an accreditation-based approach in which, as I understand it, Secured by Design would become the accreditation body and would set the standards. As I see it, this amendment paves the way to giving this statutory backing. The question is: do the Committee think that that is appropriate or that it is proof against later mission creep?

Secondly, I asked a building control officer of my acquaintance, quite a senior man who goes around lecturing on these matters, what he thought about Secured by Design as a necessary ingredient in building control and planning matters. He did not think that security should be singled out as a category for statutory treatment, or that the regulatory burdens should in some way be increased thereby. That said, I feel sure that, where it is necessary and desirable to do so, developers and others will be pleased to adopt Secured by Design standards on a voluntary basis and as a marketing tool. That is entirely fair.

Residents also need in the context of their built environment, whether it is Secured by Design or not, themselves to be vigilant and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the opportunities for criminal activity against their homes and belongings in a residential setting are minimised. That is inevitably a movable feast. There might be a perverse incentive here. If people feel that Secured by Design somehow gives a warranty or guarantee or underpins a relatively crime-free environment, they may tend to forget those things. I think that getting people better in tune with the real risks, bearing in mind that this is a movable feast and that criminal activity is always changing and evolving, might be a better incentive. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 56ADC and 56AL are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Loan. As something urgent has come up, I am afraid that my noble friend cannot be here today. Essentially, I tabled these amendments in order to find out a bit more about what the Government see as the implications of Clauses 86 and 89. My understanding of the Government’s case is that they want to speed up the process of evictions from social housing in order to,

“better protect victims in the most serious cases of anti-social behaviour and criminality”.

I am sure that we would all support that.

The DCLG consultation described the proposed new measure on possession as limited to cases of proven,

“serious housing-related anti-social behaviour”,

which suggests that there would be limited application of these clauses rather than using them as a way of increasing the number of evictions. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this point because only one of the triggers for mandatory possession in this section relates to a conviction for seriously violent crime. The other triggers relate to breaches of injunctions or criminal behaviour orders.

Given the high rate of breaching of ASBOs over the years of approaching 58%—of that figure, another 43% of all ASBOs issued have been breached more than once—there does not seem to be proportionality in these sanctions. Where is the discretion to allow for different circumstances and for the fact that approximately seven in 10 children breach their ASBO, often due to lack of support or organisation rather than calculated non-compliance? It seems that this proposed new power must inevitably lead to a rise in evictions. If this is not the Government’s intention, will the Minister tell the Committee how the Government will prevent such a rise? These clauses could have very severe implications for under-18s. It will affect children who have done nothing wrong but who have had the bad luck to share a dwelling with somebody who has. The clauses could also be deemed detrimental to the children and young people who do breach or offend.

I am concerned in particular that children will suffer. There do not appear to be many, or any, safeguards. Therefore children will suffer due to the impact of, potentially, one person’s behaviour, especially as a family evicted on these grounds may be deemed to have made themselves intentionally homeless—that is, of course, what the amendment seeks to address—and are thus unlikely to be rehoused in comparable accommodation in their neighbourhood. How does this sanction address the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour? Surely making a whole family homeless due to the behaviour of one family member, or indeed a visitor, is both a both a double punishment and counterproductive. My understanding is that even if mandatory eviction would not amount to a breach of the human rights convention, it is still a public policy proposal that doubly punishes the most vulnerable families in our society. A mandatory requirement for the judge to order possession removes all but the bare minimum of judicial discretion in deciding whether or not an individual or a family is to be evicted.

Can the Minister explain how it is desirable that by the simple act of having a visitor in a dwelling place, a family might be made homeless? How is someone supposed to know that a visitor has breached an ASBO? How will these clauses be policed and monitored? I am particularly concerned that care leavers, who may be helped through the allocation of a local authority flat when they leave care, often find it difficult to prevent local drug dealers or other undesirable elements subject to ASBOs entering their property and sometimes settling in for a long stay. What would the consequences be for a young person in this position who felt bullied into providing accommodation for someone in breach of an ASBO?

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be very careful about not accepting the amendment for a very important reason. The noble Baroness talked about the most vulnerable people in society. From my experience as a Member of Parliament, the most vulnerable people I ever came across were decent families whose whole lives had been made totally unacceptable by their neighbours. I am afraid it is one of the facts of life that up till now no measures have been introduced that have dealt with this issue. Unless these measures are very serious, these people will go on suffering, not just for a year or two but very often for whole lifetime. The situation is remarkably regular; it is not one of those things that happens occasionally. Indeed, I fear that it has become more likely today than it was when I first started being a Member of Parliament 40 years ago.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Deben]

22R: Before Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Extension of “the controlled area of Parliament Square” to the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster
(1) Section 142 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after subsection (1)(b) insert—
“(c) the footways of Bridge Street, St Margaret’s Street, Abingdon Street, and so much of the footway of Great College Street as immediately adjoins Abingdon Green,(d) Old Palace Yard,(e) Abingdon Green, and(f) the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens.”(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) before the definition of “the central garden of Parliament Square” insert—““Abingdon Green” means the garden constructed on the sites of properties formerly known as 17-28 (both inclusive) Abingdon Street, London SW1, and the garden surrounding the adjoining Jewel Tower;”
(b) after the definition of “footway” insert—““the northern end of Victoria Tower Gardens” means that part of Victoria Tower Gardens which lies within 100 metres of the metal railings which mark is northern boundary;
“Old Palace Yard” includes the King George V Memorial and the surrounding lawns and paving.””

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

This is a simple and, I hope, uncontroversial concept. The other House introduced legislation to deal with the twin issues of enabling access for those who wish to protest or state their case to the Houses of Parliament, but in a way that does not inconvenience unduly the work of the Houses of Parliament and, indeed, other people who wish to use Parliament Square. Parliament took some time to get the right balance. I think it would be true to say that to start with we did not have proper protection; we then moved to a position in which many felt that there was not enough freedom for people to demonstrate; and then to the present arrangement, which I think now has all-party support, which states that people can properly demonstrate but that they must have permission to use equipment that amplifies the words they say. That is a not unreasonable request, and that is the balance that has been reached. Unfortunately, the present rule refers only to Parliament Square itself and the part closest to the House of Commons.

It was always thought that if there were movement in any other direction, the police would be happy to take action. However, without blaming anyone, it seems that that is not the case. The police would prefer not to intervene. The problem that arises is that this means that on an increasing number of occasions, part of this House is almost impossible to work in. I came to terms with this when I was trying to have a detailed discussion with one of the officers of the House and we had to move out of his office into the corridor because we could not have a conversation, so loud was the noise from outside. It also did not help that one could not hear what the noise outside was about, because the trouble with much of the amplification used is that it obscures the sense while increasing the noise. I fear that this is one aspect of human life today in any case, but it is particularly notable in this case.

The difficulty is merely geographical. The law at the moment stops before you get to the House of Lords—and those who protest have discovered that. They feel that it is perfectly reasonable, therefore, to do within the curtilage of the House of Lords precisely what they used to do, to the concern of the public, in the area immediately in front of the House of Commons. All my amendment therefore does is increase the geographical area by the minimum necessary to provide the House of Lords with the same protection and opening that the House of Commons already has, without the intervention of the police.

There is an additional reason about which the House should know. On Sunday, for example, when the House of Lords was not sitting, a large collection of people gathered outside the House of Lords to address us. Of course, the only people whom they addressed were those attempting to worship in Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s, Westminster. I received no direct complaint about that, but there is no doubt that the noise made the worshippers’ activities, which were perfectly proper for a Sunday, almost impossible if one was close enough to the noise.

I hope that no one in this House would accuse me of being anything other than usually entirely on the side of freedom. I have a long history of doing that and I do not want to restrict anyone from protesting. Indeed, I can think of few happier occasions than when many of us went out to join those who had come to celebrate the passing of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. It was a happy and cheerful activity, and not something that one would have wanted in any way to stop. However, what has to be stopped is the kind of behaviour that made it impossible for the House of Commons to continue and that caused it to pass legislation that protected it and—I am sure by some oversight—failed to move just far enough to protect this House.

I therefore very much hope that we will be able to have this protection. The convenience of the Bill is that such a provision is clearly within the remit of the Long Title, and therefore that we can pop in the new clause to no one’s detriment. We will still ensure that Her Majesty’s subjects who wish to complain to us about any subject under the sun will continue to be able to do so but, we hope, with a voice that is clear but not so loud as to be impossible. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I support the notion, if not necessarily the detail of finding a way of using what is at the heart of our democracy and an area that has Parliament, Westminster Abbey and the Supreme Court, around it, and which is indeed a world heritage site—I shall not get into the issue of whether traffic should be using it—to provide a means of public expression. I mean expression by the public, not those of us who are in the buildings. That is something in which the Hansard Society is interested as well.

My noble friend’s speech was about the amplification of noise and his amendment would extend the prohibitions to the other prohibited activities, which are about putting up tents, having what is called sleeping equipment, and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, may have referred to this, but other noble Lords have focused on noise. If there is to be an extension—I agree that the fewest extensions or prohibitions the better—I wonder whether it is necessary to deal with both aspects.

[Lord Deben]

Yes, it parallels exactly what is already enacted for Parliament Square. The reason for that is: when people look at the present situation they could easily duplicate what was the major problem in Parliament Square, which was people living there week in, week out. It excludes that, but it does not exclude the normal arrival to speak or to put forward views, or indeed to ask permission for loudspeakers, which is also possible. It would merely put us in the same position as the House of Commons, which seems to be a not unreasonable proposition.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I accept that, of course, and the possibility of seeking permission. But we have not experienced the problem of people moving into Abingdon Green, and so on. I think that my noble friend will understand my slight caution about that part of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have to hold out that possibility but, on the other hand, it might not. If the latter is the case, it is perfectly proper for this House to seek a remedy which enables it to perform its function and for its Members to carry out their duties without the gross disturbance which they have otherwise been subject to.

We need to progress with a certain amount of caution here. We have to justify anything that we do by way of legislation with our friends in another place and with the greater public opinion outside. I advocate that as a matter of caution. However, we need to seek a way forward. I am looking to work with others to find a solution. We need to make sure that it is a sensitive and effective solution. I hope that with that and all that I have said my noble friend will be ready to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the consideration with which he approached my amendment. The truth is that the laws and by-laws to which he referred exist but are not enforced. He made that point. That was precisely what happened in Parliament Square. Parliament and the House of Commons decided that the square would need a special arrangement because that was the only way to make sure it was enforced. It has now been enforced in the new, much more elegant form brought in by the 2011 Act, about which I have heard no complaints, even from the most extreme of campaigners. They see that the balance is roughly there. It seems odd that what is sauce for the elected goose should not be sauce for the unelected, but happily continuing, gander. I have difficulty in understanding why there should be a difficulty, if I may put it as elegantly as that.

I am very happy to meet my noble friend and all the other people he spoke of, but I suspect that the House will want to come back to this at a later stage. However much conversation we have with the same people who failed to regulate the matters in Parliament Square before the law was changed, I suspect that we will want to come back to this House and propose again the simple concept of moving what is now limited to Parliament Square further along the road. Of course, I undertake that, in those discussions, the actual boundaries will be looked at again in case we have not quite got them right. I do not want to go further than is absolutely necessary because I do not want this to be different from, or impinge upon, other jurisdictions. This is about the Houses of Parliament. At the moment, it is about one House of Parliament—all I want to do is make sure that it is about both Houses. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment but hope that our discussions will end up with an amendment that is acceptable to the Government when we come to Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22R withdrawn.