Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is not part of the problem that the Government are trying to sweep away a whole range of different responses to anti-social behaviour and replace them with what is essentially a single measure, at least as far as the individual is concerned, and that therefore there is no gradation? There is no way to modulate what is done or provide a specific response to individual circumstances. That seems to be what is causing this problem. If there were some gradation, there might well be measures that it would be appropriate to take against children of the age of 10 or 11, who have an understanding of when they are behaving outside societal norms. However, there would not be the same level of sanction implicit in breaching an injunction.

Part of the difficulty with all of the amendments which your Lordships will be considering today is that we are left, essentially, with one type of measure to deal with a multiplicity of problems. That is why trying to find the right balance as to how best to be effective against those problems is one difficulty. Because the Government have decided simply to do away with all the existing arrangements and replace them with one simple measure, we will face that difficulty.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, because the injunctions were clearly the major issue raised at Second Reading. I think that most noble Lords who contributed to that debate raised this issue.

However, I start by saying that the late scheduling of today’s Committee sitting is rather unfortunate. There will be noble Lords who would have wished to table amendments to today’s debate but who, given that the sitting was scheduled only on the last sitting day before Recess last week, may not have had the opportunity to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made the point that we now have a clash with the Children and Families Bill, which is also in Committee as we speak. I suspect that, given the nature of the subject before us today, many noble Lords who are in that Committee would also wish to contribute here. My final plea is that this time yesterday I was in Argentina, and I arrived in the UK only a few hours ago. I promise not to do my Eva Peron impression on this issue—although perhaps in passion if not in length. The scheduling is unfortunate, and I hope that the Minister will take that message back. I would not want noble Lords who have a contribution to make to this debate to be unable to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has done us a service with his amendment, and I am also eager to probe the Government’s thinking on this issue as well. I am certainly not against children and young people being held responsible for their actions; we defined that principle in anti-social behaviour orders. We have had some debate today about the criminal age of responsibility for young people, but the amendment and the Bill are not really about that. They are about whether a young person aged 10 is likely, on the balance of probabilities, to cause annoyance or nuisance to anyone. I am not a parent, but my experience of 10 and 11 year-old children is that they inevitably cause nuisance and annoyance to somebody at some point. I do not know whether the Bill is an appropriate vehicle to make that kind of behaviour subject, on the balance of probabilities, to such an injunction. I find that somewhat strange and I would like the Minister to develop his thinking and explain why the Government think that it is appropriate.

I can think of numerous examples where 10 and 11 year-olds would cause nuisance and annoyance: persistently kicking a ball at a fence, breaking that fence or causing disruption in the neighbourhood. That is the very point that my noble friend Lord Harris made: the Government are trying to squeeze a range of interventions into one which, inevitably, will not be appropriate in every case.

I wonder, if a complaint is made about a young person aged 10 or 11 causing nuisance or annoyance, how the police are going to investigate to see whether it is appropriate that such an injunction be placed on that young person. The JCHR made the point that there is no requirement whatsoever in the Bill to judge what is in the best interests of the child before such an injunction is imposed. It would be helpful if the Government would explain their thinking why it would be appropriate to issue an injunction when a 10 or 11 year-old may cause nuisance or annoyance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for tabling this amendment, because it does seem to be a good place to start. The issue has certainly triggered a lot of arguments from colleagues, if I may say so. We have set this age of 10 because that is the age at which children are currently deemed capable of being responsible for their actions under the criminal law. My noble friend showed quite clearly that this is something that has been enshrined in legislation for some time, but I emphasise that the focus of the injunction is to nip issues and problems in the bud.

Many of us agree that the move away from automatic criminalisation of young people is a step in the right direction; noble Lords have backed the Government’s decision to move in that direction. Breach of an injunction does not result in a criminal conviction, giving the young person a chance of reform with a clean slate. This is not the case with anti-social behaviour orders, where breach is a criminal offence; this change has been widely welcomed by, among others, the Home Affairs Committee in another place. In addition to the injunction, positive requirements can be used to help address the causes of a young person’s anti-social behaviour, to help them to turn their life around before that behaviour escalates to something more serious.

We have also built in requirements for the local youth offending team to be involved at different stages in the process, to allow for the proper and thorough consideration of the needs of the young person. This goes far beyond what was required for the anti-social behaviour order. Furthermore, on the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee, we have limited the maximum period of an injunction to 12 months where it is issued against someone under the age of 18, whereas the minimum duration of an ASBO is two years. Twelve months will provide agencies with sufficient time for them to work with other agencies to address any underlying issues driving anti-social behaviour. It strikes the right balance between providing victims with the respite they need and sending a strong message to young people that anti-social behaviour is not acceptable.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee emphasised the importance of the guidance. We have published draft guidance for front-line professionals and I hope that noble Lords will take time to have a look at it. I think they will find that it complements what the Bill seeks to do, and it is a very important document. It is available on the Home Office website, but if those who want a hard copy let me know, I will ensure that one is sent to them. It will be relevant to the youth offending teams and, in relation to Part 6 of the Bill, to police and crime commissioners; again, my noble friend mentioned how important the role of the PCCs could be. We are consulting on the draft guidance at the moment, and we would welcome comments from noble Lords on what it should include.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about reporting restrictions. We are going to come to that issue; it is in this early part of the Bill and will be debated as we have amendments down to discuss it. Amendment 21A has been tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to be involved in that debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned that the House is of course considering the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. He also questioned the risk of a lack of co-ordination across government. I hope—indeed, I have had private conversations with the noble Lord about this—that all this legislation is of a piece. It is designed to address the failure of Government to get on a child-focused agenda. The IPNA in particular is part of our Home Office legislation to reinforce child focus, and victim focus, in the same legislation so that we successfully tackle anti-social behaviour.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned the question of the guidance and whether courts could be included in it. In theory, court rules could cover this, provided that the relevant rule-making committees agreed. We will consider the utility of this, as well as whether guidance could play a useful role here. I look forward to hearing from the noble and learned Lord on this issue.

If I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the timing of this particular day’s business, which I think all noble Lords will have found themselves swotting up on a little more earnestly than they might otherwise have done, was agreed through the usual channels, and indeed I understand from my colleague that the proposal was welcomed by the opposition Chief Whip, although I was not in the Chamber at the time.

I emphasise to the noble Baroness that the IPNA is not the only means of addressing anti-social behaviour by children. We have made it clear in the draft guidance that the police, local authorities and others should consider a non-interventionist basis in the first instance if they can do so. The Bill also provides for more serious cases at the other end with the criminal behaviour order, so there is a flexible response to the phenomenon. As I said earlier, the youth offending teams—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he give us some examples of when he thinks it will be appropriate to use the injunction route for a child of 10 or 11? What does he envisage as the penalties in the event of breach?

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, perhaps I could save the Minister some time. Following on from those two questions, it is comforting to hear that this is not as strong a method as I had been concerned about. Much of what the Minister has said has been reassuring. However, if one draws children into the support of the youth offending teams, they might say, “I am with all those others who are involved with the criminal law now if the youth offending teams are with me”. Does the Minister understand that concern? I hope that that relates to what the noble Lord was asking

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That follows on from where I was in my argument. The engagement of youth offender teams is key to this issue. They welcome the opportunity of intervening earlier—pre-offending, one might say—because one of the deficiencies of the current system is that the remedy lies in an anti-social behaviour order, which is a rather heavy hammer with which to deal with the problem. This is much more nuanced. I cannot answer the noble Lord in specifics because I am not thinking quickly enough on my feet. However, I hope I have reassured him that the early stages of anti-social behaviour are likely to be dealt with informally, as they would be at present. The injunction method gives a framework for remedial activity, particularly with a young offender, but we should remember that IPNAs apply to others as well as young people.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to answer the point. The amendment deals specifically with young people. Before we come to Report, could the noble Lord write to me and other noble Lords setting out, in more detail, his thinking on the circumstances which will lead to an IPNA for a young person when everything else has failed? What does he see as being the consequences of a breach? It sounded to me as though the consequence was a referral to a criminal behaviour order and the youth offending team process. I am not suggesting he try and answer now: he clearly wants to have the information in front of him. However, it would be helpful to the Committee to have that information.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The penalties, set out in Schedule 2, include up to two years’ detention for children of 14 or over, but only in exceptional cases. The noble Lord has invited me to write to him on this issue and I am very happy to do so. I hope he also has the opportunity to read the guidance because that will help in his understanding of how the IPNA is meant to operate on the ground, in particular cases, and will help inform him just as much as my letter will do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we are considering the powers to grant injunctions under Clause 1, but it is important to consider the other provisions in Part 1, particularly Clause 4, which specifies those who can apply for injunctions, including local authorities, housing providers, the local chief of police and various other agencies but excluding individuals.

The anxiety that has been generated by Clause 1 is understandable. This anxiety has been excellently analysed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but it needs to be closely examined to see whether it is justified. The Minister told the House at Second Reading that draft guidance had already been published for front-line professionals and referred to particular parts of that guidance. At page 24, it is specified that,

“in deciding what constitutes ‘nuisance or annoyance’, applicants must be mindful that this route should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities. For example, children simply playing in a park or outside, or young people lawfully gathering or socialising in a particular place may be ‘annoying’ to some, but are not in themselves anti-social. Agencies must make proportionate and reasonable judgements before applying for an injunction. Failure to do so will increase the likelihood that an application will not be successful”.

The jurisdiction to grant an injunction is given to the High Court or the county court, or the youth court in the case of a respondent aged under 18. The court has to be satisfied first that the respondent is engaged in anti-social behaviour and secondly that it is just and convenient to grant an injunction for the purpose of preventing him or her from engaging in anti-social behaviour in the future.

We should not underestimate the inherent safeguards that are present in that procedure. The expression “nuisance or annoyance” is well established in the context of landlord and tenant law and it has been statutorily incorporated into various housing Acts. The expression was introduced with little controversy by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. There is now a wealth of case law applying this test, which is applied by judges up and down the country. The words by themselves might be thought of as attracting remedies where actions complained of are relatively trivial, but in fact, for “nuisance and annoyance” to pass the threshold, it has to be to be something pretty substantial.

By the same token, judges are not easily persuaded that it is “just and convenient” to grant an injunction unless the court is satisfied that it is equitable to do so. The expression “just and convenient” is well established in law and will mean that the courts hesitate before granting injunctions, unless the behaviour complained of is such that the court considers it fair to do so. If a court were to be too draconian—as to which there has been little evidence in the past—then successful appeals would follow.

The provisions of Part 1 allow for a range of requirements to be included in injunctions, including if necessary a power of arrest. The terms of an injunction will of course depend on the particular facts of a case. Similarly, a power of arrest will be attached only if the seriousness of the allegations merits the exercise of such a power. A point made cogently by the Law Society in its briefing on this part of the Bill is that injunctions are used in the case of noise nuisance as an alternative to possession proceedings. They result in the person or their family staying in their homes, but with restrictions as to their conduct rather than their having to be evicted.

With respect, there seems to be a number of difficulties about the proposed amendments as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. They would essentially create a criminal regime—there is a criminal offence later in the Bill—for low-level anti-social behaviour, in that before an injunction could be granted there would have to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. This would mean that hearsay evidence could not realistically be used. Witnesses are often afraid of the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour and give their complaints to a housing officer who can then present evidence. One should not underestimate the misery that can be experienced by residents of, let us say, a block of flats where one of the occupants is determined to make the rest of the occupants’ lives a misery. The amendment would probably necessitate seriously frightened residents having to give evidence and be cross-examined. It is much more likely that they would simply refuse to do so.

In our anxiety to ensure that civil liberties are preserved we should neither lose sight of the victims of anti-social behaviour nor underestimate quite what a scourge it can be. I understand entirely what lies behind this amendment and the concern expressed by a number of noble Lords that essential freedoms could be at risk if the powers under Part 1 were used too enthusiastically. However, I feel that the really substantial amendments here will emasculate the right to obtain an injunction under Part 1 and result in a failure to protect those who are the victims of anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless, by way of acknowledging the very real and sincere concerns that a number of people or groups have about Clause 1, I propose in my amendment, which I will outline shortly and is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that a degree of objectivity be imported into the definition of conduct capable of causing nuisance and annoyance. That amendment, which I will be submitting, would help, but I am afraid that I am against these amendments.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I find myself in the difficult position of agreeing with much of the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and much of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The reason for that is the mess that this Bill is. The reality is that the original concept of anti-social behaviour orders was introduced because of a real, prevalent problem in many parts of this country. The problem outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is that of people whose lives were being made a misery by the actions of others, but because they were often frightened, or did not think that it was appropriate or possible, they would never bring those matters in a formal complaint and would be very reluctant to give evidence. That is why the test was lowered from the criminal standard of proof.

Those in this House who have been elected members, whether at local council level or who have been Members of Parliament, will have had brought to them cases of inter-neighbour disputes that have gone on for years. You tell them, “Keep a diary, keep a list” and so on, and they come back two, four or six weeks later with a completed list, none of which would be sufficient if we were still operating under the old system of a criminal standard of proof. That is why the previous Government introduced anti-social behaviour orders. I do not think that anyone suggests that anti-social behaviour orders have all worked perfectly, but they made a real difference to the lives of very many people. The reason was that we were changing the way in which those actions could be brought and lowering the standard of proof.

The problem with what the Government are doing is not that they are trying to simplify the system or make it better but that they have swept away what has over time developed and then moved to this system of applying for an injunction, or IPNA. By changing the test to one of nuisance and annoyance, they have opened up the prospect of a lower standard of proof being applied in far broader areas. We can all add to the list of things that cause nuisance and annoyance. While it is true that Clause 4 limits the list of organisations which might apply for an IPNA, it does not deal with the circumstances in which there will be very powerful local lobbying about much lower levels of nuisance and annoyance. The regime will be applied to local authorities; it will be applied to local housing providers—and an interesting question is what a local housing provider is. Is it somebody who happens to rent out one room? In which case, can they apply willy-nilly for IPNAs against all and sundry in the local neighbourhood? I am sure that this issue has been addressed in the guidance but that I have just not read it yet. There will be all sorts of cases where people raise matters which at the moment would not qualify for the ASBO procedure.

The reason why we are debating this amendment is that the Bill has created these anomalies. It would be clearly obnoxious for injunctions to be issued in respect of trivial matters on the basis of this lower level of proof. Equally, we are in danger, for those very legitimate reasons, of throwing away all the progress that has been made in the past few years by reverting to the criminal standard of proof. I think of my time as a local councillor and my time on the London Assembly, where much of my constituency work related to anti-social behaviour issues. The difference that it made for the local authority or for the housing association to be able to pursue these matters as they were able to under anti-social behaviour legislation, provided relief for many people. That is not to say that there were not problems or that some places were not more reluctant and so on. I shall propose an amendment later which states that there should be some coherent planning locally as to what the arrangements should be for pursuing IPNAs in a particular area and that there should be an anti-social behaviour strategy in local areas, but we will come to that later. However, the important point is that, because the Government have made such wholesale changes and have then tried to force them into the single IPNA process, we are in danger of sacrificing the civil liberties or well-being of many people who were protected by the regime of anti-social behaviour orders.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

or for other purposes. So one part of the Bill specifies education and training, but this part does not. Whatever the right wording is, it ought to be consistent between the two, and it is sensible for the benefit of avoiding doubt to put “education or training”. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20FA in my name. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is seeking to broaden the scope of the potential areas where it may be possible for the courts to limit the prohibitions and requirements of an injunction. I am going to raise some queries about whether or not any of this really makes sense. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Lord has said, but I wonder where we are going when we talk about religion in this context.

Noble Lords will remember that in 2001, 390,127 people put down on their census forms that their religion was “Jedi”. I wonder whether, for the purposes of excluding someone from requirements under one of these new injunctions, saying that you had to follow your religion of Jedi would enable you therefore to say, “I should be allowed to carry on exactly as I wish”. Similarly, are we including in religion Satanism or the proponents of animal sacrifice?

I pose these questions not because I seriously seek to know whether, when the Bill was being drafted, those drafting it were considering proponents of animal sacrifice or even those who consider themselves to be Jedi knights. I am, however, quite clear that I have come across plenty of people who behave in an anti-social fashion who, if they thought that there were some exemption from the requirements of an injunction, would suddenly pronounce that they had all sorts of religious beliefs, beliefs that a normal person—or to your Lordships here, if that is not the same—might consider was not really a bona fide religion. Is there a requirement now for the Government to define what they consider to be a religion? If there is such a definition somewhere, the noble Lord will have it to hand and explain it to me.

My second concern is that, even in an established religion which we would all recognise as bona fide, there are certain norms of behaviour. If, however, you pursue your belief in that religion with an excessive degree of zeal, does that excessive zealotry automatically mean that you can have exemptions from the requirements of an injunction? What is or is not reasonable in pursuit of your religion? We may get advice from one of the right reverend Prelates, although I suspect not.

Many years ago, meetings of the Tottenham Labour Party used to take place on Sunday mornings, next to a black church where the singing of hymns was extremely loud. The church was extremely well attended: far better attended—and probably more fun—than the meetings of the Tottenham Labour Party. However, what constitutes reasonable pursuit of your religious beliefs? For example, is it acceptable that, in pursuit of your religious beliefs, you decide to go into the common parts of an estate and pray extremely noisily every night at 2 am? Some people might claim that was pursuit of their legitimate religious beliefs, but is that reasonable in this context?

My final point is: even if this is the reasonable pursuit of a bona fide religious belief, does that pursuit have a disproportionate impact on other people? I pity the courts that have to interpret this and the local authorities or housing agencies trying to pick their way through it. I hope that, by tabling this amendment, we will get some elucidation from the Minister on what is intended by this phrase. I absolutely support and accept the principle that these injunctions should respect bona fide religious beliefs. However, we will have to define what a set of bona fide religious beliefs is, what the normal extent of practising those beliefs is and in what circumstances their normal practice has a disproportionate impact on other people.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

20HA: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after “must” insert “be satisfied—
(i) that the requirement is suitable and enforceable; and(ii) that it is reasonable for the person specified under subsection (1) to be responsible for compliance,and must”

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister and I have just made a fleeting appearance at the reception and dinner for the Police Service Parliamentary Scheme. It was a cameo appearance, at least as far as the Minister was concerned, as he had a speaking role. In his remarks he pointed out—I would not say with glee—that we had now completed our consideration of Clause 1 of this Bill. No doubt he is looking forward to the other 160 clauses. He did suggest that we might try to pick up speed. That was no doubt aimed at me as I was sitting directly in front of him.

This amendment, the first on Clause 2, relates to the section of the Bill that says that requirements under these injunctions “must”—I stress the word—

“specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. The person may be an individual or an organisation”.

The purpose of this amendment is to try to flesh out what needs to be done and what the court should be satisfied about before it designates a person, either an individual or an organisation, to be responsible for the compliance with the requirements of the injunction.

Obviously the first thing is to specify the persons concerned. It would be useful for the Minister to give us a little bit more insight into the range of persons he thinks this provision will apply to. There is obviously a world of difference between that person being, for example, the parent or guardian of a young person who is accused of being responsible for anti-social behaviour and the responsible person being the local police force, the local authority or the local probation service. It would be useful to understand what the balance is expected to be between those sorts of requirements as far as the Bill is concerned.

The substance of the amendment is that before the court requires somebody to be responsible for compliance, it must be satisfied that the requirement itself is suitable and capable of being enforced, and it is reasonable for the person charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the requirements are met to take on that responsibility. But if we consider the circumstances of a parent—an individual charged with this responsibility—that may be onerous. If they are a parent, they may feel obligated to take it on, but it may be impractical. If the underlying problem is that the parent cannot control their near-adult children, what is the point of this? Is it in fact suitable, appropriate, and reasonable for that person to take on that responsibility?

If it is a local authority, probation service, housing authority or the local police service, how reasonable is it? Is the court going to hear evidence as to whether or not they will be able to enforce the requirement? Do they have the resources to enforce the requirement?

Earlier today, I was talking to someone who has been advising me on the Bill. As it happens, they witnessed a crime a few days ago. They went along to the station with another witness to report the crime. When they got to the police station they were told that, unfortunately, the police service does not have the capacity to take two witness statements at once because of the number of officers on duty at the time. If that is the situation, how confident can we be in the current financial situation that the police service will have the resources to be responsible for enforcing some of these requirements? If it is not the police service it could be local authorities, which are facing reductions in their budgets of 30% or 40%. Where will they find the resources to manage this? These issues need to be addressed.

The purpose of the amendment is to say that the court needs to be satisfied about these things. One of the great concerns about the ASBO regime was the number of breaches, but it would be very silly if we created a new system that would result in a series of breaches simply because the people charged with ensuring compliance do not have the resources, the ability or the facilities to make sure that enforcement is achieved.

I am sure that the Minister will be able to help me with something else. I have searched through the Bill and cannot find what is intended to be the consequence for the person designated under Clause 2 if they fail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the injunction. Will they themselves be in contempt of court? Does that mean that chief officers of police will be subject to two years’ imprisonment because they have failed to achieve compliance? What is the requirement? If there are no penalties for failing to achieve compliance, what is the point of this? Again, I would be grateful for the Minister to enlighten us as to precisely what will happen in the event of the person who the court “must designate”, in the words of the Bill, to ensure compliance if they fail to do so either through wilful neglect, because they do not have the resources to do so or perhaps because it is impossible to enforce compliance because the individual is beyond those sorts of controls. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 20J, 22F and 96 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser. It is a slightly strange grouping. They do not hang together that well, but I hope I can help my noble friend Lord Harris on the points that we are seeking to address.

In principle we welcome the addition of positive requirements. There is no question about that. We introduced the concept, partly through individual support orders. The submissions that were made in the other place in the committee’s evidence sessions and the correspondence that we have received from local authorities and the police show that the point is not dissimilar to that made by my noble friend Lord Harris. It provides some clarification on how the requirements will be funded.

I took the opportunity, in the huge avalanche of a rainforest of paper that we have on the Bill, to see what the impact assessment said on the costs. Basically, every cost is caveated; the impact assessment is unable to make an estimate. Not all costs could be quantified and no benefits from reduced anti-social behaviour could be quantified. The costs took no account of the gains and losses. The Local Government Association is concerned that,

“given that use of positive requirements is predicted to impose an additional financial burden on councils, the overall estimates that the injunctions will be cheaper to use than ASBOs may not be right, and councils may be placed under an additional financial burden”.

The Association of Chief Police Officers gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee; it stated its concerns about agencies’ capacity and capability to deliver this support in difficult economic times, and said that that had to be considered. I was taken aback by the remarks in Committee in the other place of the Minister, Jeremy Browne. He said that it was important to establish how possible clients would be funded at the point of injunction being issued in the court. He did not agree that individual organisations should be responsible for supervising the compliance should be liable for the costs. He said,

“to take it literally momentarily, where the local authority, for example, applied for an injunction that was to include attendance at a drug rehabilitation course, the teacher delivering that course could be put forward to supervise compliance. Although the teacher would be best placed to monitor attendance and engagement with the course, it would not be right for the teacher, or school or college, to cover the costs of the course. Instead, we could expect the local authority, as the applicant, to cover those costs”.

But he added:

“That is because the downstream benefits of changing the perpetrator’s behaviour fall to them and other agencies, such as the police”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 25/6/13; col. 172.]

Is the Minister saying that if we can change the behaviour of somebody who is involved in drugs and crime in some way, and the interventions for positive requirements reduce that offending behaviour, the police or the local authority saves money? It was as if they incurred the costs. We know that early intervention reaps rewards further down the line, but that does not help those bodies pay for the costs at a time when the Minister is imposing positive requirements on the authority.

I am interested to know what assessment the Government have made on the savings that have been made. I understand from the impact assessment that they are unable to quantify the costs, but the Minister in the other place is saying that they will save money, so they should spend the money in the first place. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pursue legislation such as this.

I am also curious to know whether any assessment has been made of the impact that having to meet those costs will have on the imposition of requirements. If a local authority or the police say that we cannot afford to do X, Y or Z, or, if we could, we cannot afford to monitor it, there is little point in imposing those requirements if there is no funding to pay for them.

It is highly likely that one of the drivers for positive requirements will be the costs involved. It is a bit of a Catch-22 situation if the usefulness of the positive measures is limited by the available funding and quality services to meet those needs. That could create a postcode lottery, because the position could differ across areas of the country. We all know that there are some vagaries in the criminal justice system, but the position for somebody in Manchester could be completely different from that for somebody in Basingstoke or Basildon, for example. That causes enormous concern. If the needs of the person on whom the requirement is being put are being met, that is fine, but the danger is that those needs will not be met because the funding is not available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord has finished. I found the reply that the Minister gave rather disturbing as regards the issues it covered and did not cover. He spent the first half of his remarks talking about Amendment 96. We have yet to hear the reason why it is necessary to repeal all the ASBO provisions in advance of bringing in the arrangements for the new injunctions. That is quite an important point. The Minister supports a Government who I think believe in free-market principles. If the ASBO and the procedures around it are so inadequate, do not work and are so costly, what is to be lost by allowing both to coexist, at least for a period, until we see how the new regime works? In practice, people—local authorities, housing bodies or whatever—might vote with their feet and decide whether to use the IPNA route or the ASBO route. That would be consistent both with the Government’s principles about a free market and with their localism principle, and would also allow a bit of reality to creep into this—which would be unique for this Government and probably for all previous Governments. People would discover which system works by looking at the arrangements that people followed at a local level. The Government need to explain why it is not possible for the two systems to coexist so that we can see which ones work and which ones do not.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The answer is very simple: we do not think that ASBOs are effective. We are proposing a Bill that deals with anti-social behaviour and in our view the measures that currently exist do not meet the requirement that we as a Government want to present as a remedy for anti-social behaviour. That is why we do not support the retention of the ASBOs. They are expensive, not effective in reducing anti-social behaviour and not effective in providing a remedial pattern of behaviour for young people who get into trouble. We want to ditch them and replace them with those measures which the Bill provides for, which give a much better and positive way forward for young people and protect victims.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I do not think that anyone doubts that the Minister and the Government are keen to tackle issues about anti-social behaviour, as indeed were the previous Government, and as I suspect has been the case for very many years. Nobody is pretending that ASBOs are perfect or that they solve the deep-seated, underlying difficulties of anti-social behaviour. However, we are saying that these new arrangements are untried. We simply do not know whether they will work or whether they will be better. If they are so much better, as the Minister assures us they will be, then if the two coexisted on the statute book, people all over the country, when dealing with cases of anti-social behaviour, would opt for the noble Lord’s system as opposed to this dreadful, outdated system that he is apparently now so keen to scrap. However, if—just if—it turns out that under certain circumstances the ASBO route might have been better, that will no longer be available. I fail to understand what is lost by leaving in place the existing arrangements, at least for a period, to see how things work out in practice.

I turn to what the noble Lord calls the “positive” elements of the arrangements. These will not be cost-free. Ensuring compliance will involve costs. If an individual is involved—and some will relate to individuals—it will involve costs in terms of that person’s time and maybe their expenditure. If it involves an agency, such as a local authority, which is required to provide particular opportunities for individuals concerned, there will be the cost of providing those opportunities. There has to be transparency as to what those costs are going to be and how it is going to be delivered. If there is not—given that local authorities are facing very significant reductions in their budgets and the voluntary sector is facing a crisis in its funding, in many instances, or in the demand on its services—there is a real risk that the Government are creating these new injunction-based powers but setting them up to fail. I believe the Minister and the Government actually want to do something positive about anti-social behaviour, so I think it unwise to be setting up arrangements, and setting them up to fail, without addressing the question of how the funding is to be taken forward.

Briefly, at the end of my remarks, I return to the amendment that I proposed. The Minister has said that the requirement I am proposing should be included in the Bill is not necessary because it is already there. He quoted the Bill as saying that,

“the court must receive evidence”.

However, that is not the same as,

“the court must be satisfied”—

which is the phraseology that I use. The court could receive evidence but the local authority might stand up or be represented at the court and say, “We no longer have the resources to provide this”. The court could still, in the light of that information, none the less say that it is satisfied and will make the order. Alternatively—and this is also quite possible—a parent or guardian could say, “We give the undertakings. We are confident that we can prevent the recurrence of this type of behaviour and will take the necessary steps”. However, receiving that evidence and being satisfied are not the same thing.

I ask the noble Lord to consider these matters again and to come back to us before Report to say whether these requirements will work—or whether we should not be assured that we are not setting up individuals or organisations to fail by asking them to do things that they cannot deliver, that they are not funded to deliver or, frankly, that no one really believes will happen but simply satisfies them. These new arrangements, in which the Minister quite properly has a great deal of confidence, could otherwise eventually be deemed a failure simply because these issues were not addressed. As I am sure I will receive this information and those assurances between now and Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20HA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

21ZA: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Local anti-social behaviour strategy
(1) An injunction under section 1 may be granted only if the Police and Crime Commissioner for the area in which the court sits (or the Mayor of London for courts in the Greater London area) has published a local anti-social behaviour strategy “the strategy” for that area.
(2) The strategy shall set out the approach to be followed in respect of anti-social behaviour by—
(a) the chief office of police for the relevant police area;(b) each of the local authorities in that area; and(c) such other bodies as the Police and Crime Commissioner (or the Mayor of London in the Greater London area) shall consider appropriate.(3) The strategy shall only be published following consultation with the persons specified in subsection (2).”

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I suppose that we should congratulate the Minister on now having dealt with three of the 161 clauses during the course of today. The amendment addresses one of the most extraordinary absences from the Bill, which is that there is no mention, as far as I can see, of the role of police and crime commissioners—or, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, earlier raised the issue of police and crime commissioners with the interesting suggestion that they might want to fund youth services to address issues of anti-social behaviour by juveniles.

Clearly, the role of police and crime commissioners in terms of addressing issues around anti-social behaviour should be central to the Government’s philosophy. These are the individuals who will be holding the police to account and doing so much to reduce the volume of crime and so on within their areas. So it is surprising that there is no mention of police and crime commissioners in the Bill.

In his reply to one of our earlier debates, the Minister talked about the tough financial climate in which all the agencies involved are operating and the importance of using resources wisely. That is why I put forward the amendment, which provides that there should be a proper, local anti-social behaviour strategy in every police force area. That should outline the approach that should be taken by the police service and local authorities in that area, and by other agencies that might be involved in reducing anti-social behaviour. That is so important because we all recognise that this is not an issue for which there is one magic bullet. There is no magic bullet associated with anti-social behaviour orders or with the new injunctions. There has to be a suite of measures, a series of actions taken at different levels by different organisations, to reduce the level of anti-social behaviour in a community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has recognised how effective police and crime commissioners are.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Do not push it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, I welcome even modest conversions and am delighted that the noble Lord has proposed this amendment because I have always seen police and crime commissioners as being important.

Under Section 5 of the Act which introduced them, police and crime commissioners are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan, as the noble Lord said. They must do so within the financial year within which they were elected, and they are under a statutory duty to consult their chief constable in drawing up this plan.

The police and crime plan must set out the plans for, among other things, the police and crime objectives and the policing of the area for which the chief constable is responsible. In developing their plans, the police and crime commissioner must consult the public and, in particular, victims. The plan must also be scrutinised by the police and crime panel in each area before it is issued.

The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has published details on its website about the individual police and crime plans and the key priorities in them. It is no surprise, at least to me—and I do not think that it would be to other noble Lords—that tackling anti-social behaviour is consistently cited as one of the top policing and crime objectives in local force areas. Out of 41 police and crime commissioners, 30 put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour among their key priorities in their individual plans. Eight PCCs put reducing the impact of, and keeping people safe from, anti-social behaviour as among their individual priorities, and three further plans clearly set out to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, all police and crime plans make reference to anti-social behaviour.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would create duplication and add bureaucracy. If police and crime commissioners are required to produce individual police and crime plans for their own local areas—which is part and parcel of what they are required to do under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act—why should Parliament require them to publish a local anti-social behaviour strategy for their local area in separate legislation? Why should front-line professionals and the courts have to wait to use the injunction under Part 1 as required by this amendment?

This Government are serious about tackling anti-social behaviour and so are elected police and crime commissioners, as evidenced by the figures that I have given. Our anti-social behaviour reforms are about the police and their partner agencies putting the needs of victims first. This means giving the right powers to do this. I have said already that the new injunction is one of the key planks in our reforms. Agencies and the courts must be able to use this as swiftly as possible—I hope that the noble Lord does not see his amendment as a delaying tactic.

I understand the importance of PCCs’ involvement—indeed, some of our reforms provide an active role for them; for example, the community remedy, which is in Part 6 and specifically mentions police and crime commissioners. We will draw their attention through guidance and otherwise to the new powers—I hope that the noble Lord is aware of this—but what will not help anyone in putting victims first is to duplicate and delay using the new powers, which is what this amendment would do. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, this amendment was not about trying to delay the process—I think that the Minister tries to ascribe to me motivations that I do not have. The amendment is about trying to make it work effectively.

I acknowledge that police and crime commissioners are required to draw up and should all have in place a police and crime plan. But it is a police and crime plan, and they draw it up in consultation simply with the chief officer of police for their area. That is the requirement in the legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If the noble Lord will forgive me. It has to be presented to the police and crime panel as well.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

It has to be presented to the police and crime panel, but the panel has no executive role, as far as that is concerned. It does not have a power to reject or amend it. It is simply there as part of a formal process. I am sure—or at least I am told somewhere—that police and crime panels are doing a good and valuable job in terms of monitoring the activities of police and crime commissioners, but they are not part of the consultative mechanism. They are not there to represent the interests of their local authorities and it is not regarded as their function to be, for example, a series of the crime and disorder leads from the various local authorities in their area.

It is a different function. It is a function about scrutiny, whereas crime and disorder leads in individual local authorities are there in an executive capacity. I do not think that the involvement of police and crime panels solves the issue. If one is to be effective in tackling anti-social behaviour, one needs to work with the local authorities and all the different agencies involved, including the housing providers. That is what this amendment is about.

[Lord Greaves]

I am trying to match what the noble Lord is talking about to my experience in Lancashire. It is a large, far-flung county from the Fylde coast to the Pennines, from Morecambe and Lancaster south to Skelmersdale and places like that—if there are any places like that. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. I cannot understand what a new strategy document for the whole county, taking lots of resources in drawing it up, will add to anything in a place like Lancashire. Surely what is required is the allocation of resources and priorities at the county force level—which is Lancashire County Council, plus Blackburn and Blackpool—then local action plans and strategies at perhaps the borough level, tackling the problems on the ground.

Surely the answers, as the noble Lord said, will be different everywhere. The answers in old textile towns in Pendle and Burnley will be very different from Skelmersdale, which is a Liverpool new town suburb, or the rural areas of west Lancashire, or indeed the seaside towns of Blackpool and Morecambe, for example. What is surely needed is a series of local action plans involving the district councils and councillors and the bodies on the ground which are doing the work, as well as the police, not just another county-wide strategy which will get put on shelves and forgotten.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, will forgive me if I do not join him in his encyclopaedic tour of the townships of Lancashire. In fact, this amendment does not necessarily suggest that there is a single county-wide strategy, because I, like him, would accept that what works in one area would not be appropriate in another. It talks about,

“the area in which the court sits”,

and there will be different courts in different parts of the county. The relevance of this is that each of the local authorities in the area should contribute to the preparation of the plan, because this must be something which is agreed at local level. It is the absence of that agreed joint strategy, working together at local level, which is the omission in this Bill.

This could be a subsidiary part of the police and crime plan, or it could be built from the crime and disorder partnerships which exist at local authority level, but what is missing is any cross-reference to those two different processes. If we are to be serious about anti-social behaviour, if we are to make things happen at local level and have the different agencies operating in concert, working together to try to deal with anti-social behaviour, there needs to be some linkage between the existing planning structures.

While I am quite prepared to accept that this amendment does not necessarily deal with the issue precisely, if the Minister does not bring back proposals on Report, then I might well bring proposals to try to link what is being done in this Bill with both the police and crime plan, which commissioners are asked to draw up, and the local crime and disorder arrangements, which exist between the local senior police officer in an area and the chief executive of each local authority area. On that basis of looking forward to the Minister coming forward with some further suggestions about how to integrate these documents, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21ZA withdrawn.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Policing, as chair of the anti-forced marriage charity, Freedom, and as an adviser to Airwave Solutions and to Lockheed Martin.

This debate has been enlivened by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Having twice sat on Metropolitan Police appointments panels which promoted him, and indeed having sat on a third panel which did not promote him and where he accused me of heckling him, I look forward to his future contributions in your Lordships’ House.

This Bill is a strange pot-pourri of measures. It reminds us that this coalition Government have run out of steam. And what do Governments do when they are short of legislation to make themselves look busy and purposeful? Why, they turn to the Home Office, because the Home Office can always be relied on to produce a ready-basted, oven-ready Bill, and this is the 2013 offering.

In fact, I support significant parts of the Bill—for example, the extension of the role of the IPCC, some of the new child protection measures, the creation of the new firearms offences, the extension of dangerous dogs legislation and the making of forced marriage an offence. However, it is counterintuitive to be weakening the powers to combat anti-social behaviour at the same time as 80% of the population believe that the problems have got worse in the past year. No doubt the Minister will explain that to us.

However, what is missing is the context. Overall, crime has declined in the past 15 years or so. The trend in burglary is particularly marked and has been remarkably consistent. However, the significant change in the past couple of decades is that new developments—homes, both new build and refurbished, schools, play areas, hospitals, and many others—have been informed by and have adopted the principles of Secured By Design. Indeed, this morning I spent an hour and a half looking at some of the homes that have been built on the new Olympic park site. They have all been built using Secured by Design principles.

Since its inception under the auspices of the Association of Chief Police Officers in 1989, Secured by Design has achieved a great deal. Secured by Design developments—those using the products and materials that it has approved—are half as likely to be burgled and they show a 25% reduction in criminal damage. This is at a modest cost. The additional cost of using Secured by Design standards in the average home is only £170. In one year alone, some 700,000 burglaries could be thwarted if appropriate security devices were installed, representing an annual saving of more than £1.97 billion. Indeed, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that the introduction of Secured by Design standards across the UK would bring more than £3.2 billion-worth of savings to the economy over 20 years.

This is a success story and one which I am sure the Government and the Home Office would wish to trumpet. Is it not strange then that this same Government are now seeking to undermine this success story? The Department for Communities and Local Government published—in the depths of August, typically—a consultation document seeking views on the results of the recent review of building regulations and housing standards. The proposals it is putting forward on the security of buildings suggest a two-tiered standard: a basic minimum level that could be generally required and a so-called enhanced standard.

The basic standard is demonstrably inadequate and has been shown to have little security benefit. Frankly, there is little point in specifying stronger locks. They are not much of a deterrent if the door in which they are located may be so flimsy that it can be kicked in with one firm kick. Even the enhanced standard would be lower than the existing Secured by Design standards, and they could be required by a local authority only where what is described as a “compelling” case existed for the higher standard to be applied in the case of an individual development. To make this compelling case, a local authority will have to demonstrate that the development will be subject to an “elevated” risk of burglary and that there will be a higher than normal impact of burglary on the tenants.

It goes without saying that this is a test that is almost impossible to pass in respect of a new development. What is more, the test has to be applied site by site in a way which is likely to produce confusion and added uncertainties for developers, who, when they submit a proposal, will not know whether the authority will be able to apply the enhanced standard. However, as has already been said, this enhanced standard will not be as beneficial as the existing proven Secured by Design guidelines. It will not be open to a local authority to require those proven guidelines, and to apply even the enhanced standards it will have to go through complicated processes to demonstrate the compelling case required by the DCLG, with all the implicit threats of legal action that that entails.

This is the antithesis of localism. I may need to be corrected on this but I believe that it is a policy of this Government that localism is a good thing. But this is saying that local authorities shall not apply these higher standards that have been drawn up and are proven to work. Surely it should be for local people through their locally-elected councillors to decide what level of security is appropriate for their own neighbourhoods. Instead, those same local people are being forced to accept a centrally driven dumbing- down of standards, which puts their communities and individual householders at risk.

This is all being put forward as a simplification of the planning process and that somehow these Secured by Design standards, which on average cost £170 per dwelling, have been the cause of stalled developments. What world are DCLG Ministers and officials living in? Have any of them had to live in an area blighted by excessive crime facilitated by poor design and inadequate security standards? Local authorities should be able to choose the level of security standards that they consider appropriate for the communities that they represent. What is the problem that Ministers think they are going to solve by preventing that local democratic discretion? What is more, we can only assume that no consideration has been given by the Government to the consequences down the line. This change, which will curtail police influence on planning for secure facilities, is dangerous and short-sighted.

What it risks is that the progress that has been made over the past two decades in designing out crime, reducing burglary and making anti-social behaviour harder will be put into reverse. What it risks is adding to the costs of the criminal justice system. If we throw away the advantage that designing out crime has given us, how will our communities cope in the future with a diminished police force and neighbourhood policing being no more than a distant memory while the threat of crime rises again? Who benefits from this short-sighted policy? The only people who will benefit are the developers who will see an increase in their profits. Yet again we see a Government who neglect the many in favour of the privileged few.

What representations did the Home Office make about these ill thought out proposals? Is the Home Secretary powerless in stopping her Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, discarding 20 years of progress in reducing crime? May we perhaps have an assurance that, even at this late stage, Mr Pickles will be reined back? If we do not get some progress on this there is frankly no point in having this Bill, worthy though some elements of it may be. We might as well acknowledge that this Government are prepared to give up the fight against crime, solely to placate a handful of privileged developers.

Unless we get some serious assurances from the Minister on these points, this Bill will be rendered an irrelevance. We might as well pack up now. Unless we get some assurances tonight, I for one am not prepared to support this Bill receiving its Second Reading and will be not content.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a wide debate, which is not surprising given the content of the Bill. It is a testament to the House that we have been able to hear, from the direct experience and judgment of its Members, interesting and useful observations on the Bill. I hope this will help us in our scrutiny of it as it goes through the House. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. As I say, it has been a good debate. I was particularly pleased to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Paddick. He brought to it a touch of humour, good grace and a wealth of knowledge from 30 years in policing. When we come to Part 11 of the Bill, I look forward to hearing of his experience and knowledge in that area.

The evidence from today’s debate is that there is widespread support for a number of the measures in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, identified a number of areas where the Benches opposite are happy with the proposals, which is a helpful start. These include the measures to tackle illegal firearms and forced marriages; the extension of the Dangerous Dogs Act to cover dog attacks that take place on private property; and the measures to strengthen the IPCC and to reinforce the College of Policing in professionalising the police.

As is to be expected, we also heard some concerns around the House about certain aspects of the Bill, in particular the test for the new injunction under Part 1. There were also some learned criticisms of the test for determining eligibility for compensation for miscarriages of justice. In the time available I shall do my best to cover the points made. Where I am unable to do so, I undertake to write to noble Lords on the points they raised during the debate.

Let me start with the beginning of the Bill, which generated the greatest oratory. I have a list of Peers who spoke about the IPNA test—I will not recite it—and I thank all noble Lords for raising their concerns. My job as Minister is to reassure noble Lords and I will seek to do so as we take the Bill through Committee.

The nuisance and annoyance test is based on the current statutory test, which has worked well in the housing sector since 1996. It is readily understood by the courts and it will allow agencies to act quickly to protect victims and communities from more serious harm developing. This test was reaffirmed by the previous Government in the ASB legislation passed in 2003. So it is not a new test.

In considering an application for an injunction, the court must have regard to the principles of proportionality, or fairness, in deciding whether it is just and convenient to grant the injunction. There is a judicial test against which the injunction is granted. As my noble friend Lady Newlove said, we must not lose sight of the needs of victims of anti-social behaviour. I wholeheartedly agree, and this view has been widely expressed by noble Lords around the House. The test for the injunction will ensure that swift action can be taken if it is needed.

A number of noble Lords—including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lady Linklater—mentioned their concern about the impact of the new injunction on young people. I share their desire not to criminalise young people at an early age. We are keen that professionals have the discretion to use informal measures such as restorative justice or acceptable behaviour contracts where they are appropriate for the victim and the community. I believe that such measures will be appropriate for many young people, and our draft guidance makes this clear. Normally a Minister stands here trying to persuade the House to accept that draft guidance is coming, usually saying that it will be here shortly or after the passage of time. However, we actually have the draft guidance and I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate get a copy of it. I think that in some ways it will assuage some anxieties that noble Lords have expressed. With the guidance in place, I believe it will assuage some of those fears.

The professionals and the courts also need to have the necessary powers to protect victims from the small minority of young people who persistently behave anti-socially. Where an injunction is appropriate, it is right that strong sanctions should be available if it is breached. However, unlike the ASBO, these will not result in a criminal record. I am sure that will be seen as a welcome step by the House.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will forgive me if I do not give him a detailed response to the point that he made. I have full details here but time is short. I will write to him on the issue that he raised about the Secured by Design measures and the consultation that is going on at the moment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I do not wish to detain the House. I appreciate that, because of the mismanagement of the day, we are very late. Can the Minister just enlighten us as to whether the Home Office made representations that this was indeed a crazy thing for the Department for Communities and Local Government to be doing?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The Home Office works closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is fair to say that we are engaged, as we are on all measures, in discussing every aspect of government where we share interests in common. I do not want to go into detail on the Floor of the House, but I certainly will write to the noble Lord in this regard.

A number of views were expressed about eviction. Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Faulks, expressed concern about the strength of the powers to evict persons convicted of a related offence. As we saw in 2011, those who riot and trash communities can take away people’s livelihoods and homes. Although the law currently enables the landlord to seek to evict those who riot in the locality of their home, it does not capture the sort of riot tourism that we saw in 2011. The Bill puts that right. It will allow for landlords to apply to evict tenants where they or members of the household have been convicted of an offence at the scene of a riot anywhere in the United Kingdom where the behaviour takes place. That unashamedly sends out a strong message that rioting will not be tolerated and may carry housing consequences wherever it occurs.

However, I reassure noble Lords that we expect landlords to seek to evict in those circumstances only exceptionally and, where they do, important safeguards will be in place. In particular, the court needs to be satisfied on a case-by-case basis that it is reasonable to grant possession. The impact on the whole household and any young children is likely to be a relevant factor. Existing eviction powers make it clear that tenants are responsible for the anti-social behaviour of members of their household. This provision follows that well established principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, gave us the benefit of their views on the dog measures in the Bill. I believe that the provisions in the Bill will assist front-line professionals in tackling dangerous dogs, not only once an attack has occurred but to prevent such attacks. There have been calls for dog control notices today, echoing those from animal welfare organisations. The rather bright tie that I am wearing is a Dogs Trust tie; I thought that it would be appropriate to wear it today. The work of such organisations is vital to improve responsible dog ownership through education and providing support for those unable to look after their pets.

However, I do not agree that a bespoke dog control notice is needed. The Bill contains a number of anti-social behaviour powers which can be used in exactly the same way as a dog control notice. The community protection notice, for example, can be used to require a dog owner to have their dog neutered, to keep it muzzled, to keep it on a lead in a public place and to attend dog training classes. The draft practitioners’ manual explains that comprehensively. To provide for another class of notice that does exactly the same thing as existing provisions in the Bill would undermine one of our key objectives, welcomed by practitioners, which is to streamline the existing, complex mix of overlapping powers.

It was helpful to hear from my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Hussain and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about forced marriage. We know that the introduction of legislation is not of itself enough. The Government’s Forced Marriage Unit provides direct assistance to victims. It also undertakes a full programme of outreach activities to front-line practitioners and communities to ensure that people working with victims are fully informed as to how to approach such cases. Overseas, the unit also provides consular assistance for victims to secure their return to the UK, but I look forward to debating that at later stages in the Bill’s progress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised the clauses dealing with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, generally welcoming them. I will write to her on the impact of those orders in the way that she described.

Concern was expressed about PCCs commissioning victim services and whether that would lead to some services not being delivered as they have been. My noble friend Lord Dholakia mentioned that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was concerned about the impact on rape counselling. Although it makes sense for support for victims of such crimes, which have high impact but are low in volume, such as homicide, rape and human trafficking, to be commissioned centrally, the majority of victim services are best commissioned locally. That is how this issue will be divided. Police and crime commissioners are best placed to decide on the sort of issues that are needed within their communities. Major crimes will still be addressed through national funding.

PCCs will be able to respond to local needs and ensure the best use of funding. In his evidence to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee Adam Pemberton, assistant chief executive of Victim Support, agreed that the move to local commissioning of victims’ services provided an opportunity for better integration of local services in support of victims. We agree. That is why we are legislating to ensure that PCCs have clear powers. I welcome the support of my noble friend Lady Newlove for these provisions.

There has been widespread support for the Police Remuneration Review Body. It is good to hear from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond referred to the new policies for determining police pay. The Police Remuneration Review Body will deliver pay and conditions that are fair not only for police officers but for the public as well. The move to an independent evidence-based method of determining police pay and conditions is the right way forward. The current negotiating system is time-consuming, inefficient and adversarial. I can, however, assure my noble friend Lady Harris that police officers will continue to have a voice in determining their pay, as their representatives will have the opportunity to inform the annual remit letter, which will be provided by the Home Secretary and sets out issues for the body’s consideration. They will also present evidence to the new body in the same way as any other interested parties along with the Government and police and crime commissioners.

My noble friend Lady Harris asked about the applications of these provisions to Northern Ireland. Policing, as noble Lords will know, is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. This provision was introduced with the full support of the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland. However, this is an important change for Northern Ireland. The Department of Justice has consulted policing organisations, including representatives of police officers in Northern Ireland—those who, between them, are responsible for maintaining the police service in Northern Ireland—to ensure that they have a full opportunity to feed in their views. The Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland is considering those views and will respond in due course. I might say, while we are talking about police matters, that I greatly valued the observations of my noble friend Lord Wasserman.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends, Lady Berridge, Lord Faulks, Lord Dholakia, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the changes we are making to the powers in Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. I welcome the conclusion of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that,

“the Government has clearly made out a case for a without suspicion power to stop, question and search travellers at ports and airports”.

I also welcome the committee’s support for the amendments to the Schedule 7 powers we have made in the Bill. These are important changes, including a reduction in the maximum period of detention by a third.

The difference between the Government and the Joint Committee is whether the changes in the Bill to Schedule 7 go far enough. In particular, there are some who would continue to argue that the provisions in Schedule 7 are disproportionate and at odds with the convention rights and that these modifications are insufficient to cure that. Given the continuing threat we face from terrorism, the Government profoundly disagree. This is not simply the view of the Government, the police and the intelligence agencies. I refer the House to the judgment of the High Court in proceedings brought by an individual examined under Schedule 7 earlier this year. In that judgment, the court said that,

“we have concluded that the Schedule 7 powers of examination survive the challenges advanced before us. In short, the balance struck between individual rights and the public interest in protection against terrorism does not violate the fundamental human rights in question”.

I hope that noble Lords will agree with that as we debate this issue. I should add that it is our aim to respond to the JCHR’s report before we enter Committee.

Identity Cards

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can only agree with my noble friend.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, surely the point is that the Government opposed the previous identity card on the basis that it was compulsory. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is suggesting a voluntary arrangement, one which would cost the Government nothing but would bring great convenience to many people including the carriers of such a card and those who wanted an authoritative proof of identity. Surely this is something that the Government should consider again. The ability to assure one’s own identity is increasingly necessary.

Police: Racism

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

For my part, I am reassured that any drivers that ensure that the police more fully reflect the communities that they serve must be a good thing, so I cannot join with my noble friend in this regard. A lot of progress has been made in increasing the number of police officers from BME backgrounds but there are still too few, and there are still too few in the higher ranks of the police force. I hope that one of the considerations of the direct entry scheme will be to ensure that some of the higher levels of the policing profession are from British minority ethnic backgrounds.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many senior officers of ACPO rank there are from black and minority ethnic communities as a proportion of the total? Can he also say what steps will be taken to ensure that individuals who come in by direct entry from those communities are not set up to fail because they will not have been through the normal ranks structure?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course, that hazard would apply to any candidate. However, I am confident about that policy and I believe it will enhance the policing profession. I have some figures here. There are 6,604 BME officers in the 43 forces in England and Wales, representing 5% of total police officer strength. The proportion of those of chief inspector rank or above is only 3.7%. I think that bears out the point that the noble Lord is making, one with which I do not disagree. There are too few at that level.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the reasons that she has set out. I find myself agreeing with much of what the Minister said, apart from the mechanism that he advocates should be used in deciding this issue.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, this issue is so important to the national interest that the only mechanism that should be used to transfer responsibility for the lead on terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA or related agencies is primary legislation. Like the noble Baroness, I cannot imagine any urgent situation where primary legislation would impede the notion of national security and a super-affirmative order would be the better mechanism to use.

Lest I should be out of date in my feelings about this issue, I consulted the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police last Friday to see if my views and his were on the same wavelength. He is content for me to relay to your Lordships’ House that he shares my concerns that if there should be change—I am not against the notion of change—primary legislation is the vehicle that will best take care of the public interest on this issue.

I have said before in your Lordships’ House that I am not implacably opposed to any transfer. In saying that, I remind the House of my recorded interests in policing and that for seven years as commissioner this was a role that I discharged in leading the force that had this co-ordinating and leading responsibility. I believe that a super-affirmative order is the wrong way to take care of all the arguments and to preserve the public interest.

Important issues that will have to be considered if there is to be a change include the fact that more than 80% of terrorist offences on the mainland are played out, sadly, in London, and that in fighting terrorism hearts and minds and prevention are as important as detection. Therefore, an integrated approach, which the Metropolitan Police has built up over decades with school visits, visits to mosques and neighbourhood policing, is as important in the fight against terrorism as the drama of executing warrants early in the morning and dramatic seizures of explosives. This is an integrated effort that has been built up over decades.

In the 12 months to September 2012, arrests for terrorism increased over the previous 12 months from 153 to 245, an increase of 60%. The current arrangements are working very well in preserving the national interest on this issue. I am not aware of any arguing or lobbying by the security services for this change to take place. Perhaps I am out of date on that issue, but to my knowledge the Metropolitan Police Service and the other agencies involved in the fight against terrorism are not advocating these changes.

My fear is that the creation of the NCA—this fledgling, embryonic new body, which is not even fully functioning, which is already struggling with border issues and which I fear will be underresourced—has led to the administrative tidiness of considering the transfer of terrorism from the Metropolitan Police to the NCA. That may be the right thing to do in time. It is unlikely to demand an emergency overnight or within-a-few-weeks change that would lead to the notion of a super-affirmative order. I believe the national interest demands that only primary legislation should be used in this case and I urge your Lordships’ House to support Amendment 1A.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, a few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, raised the question of the quality of scrutiny of legislation by your Lordships’ House. This amendment raises exactly the same set of questions about the quality of scrutiny that is possible for executive decisions. The Minister said that no decisions have been taken and that whether this is something the Government will want to do is an open question. He said that we need to see how the National Crime Agency develops and that only then will it be necessary to review and perhaps bring forward proposals. If that is the case, why do we need to legislate in this Bill for this process to happen in this particular way? If the Minister was saying that for the next 10 years the Home Office will not be presenting any Bills to Parliament and therefore this is the only legislative opportunity that exists, then maybe there would be a case for it. However, I do not recall a year when the Home Office has managed with no Bills. Sometimes it has had as many as four Bills before the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, it is likely that there will not be a suitable legislative opportunity at whatever time in the future it is considered appropriate to carry out this review.

Such a review having been carried out, the assumption that any transfer would be a simple matter which could be considered through even the elevated super-affirmative process is naïve. The integration, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, stated, of counterterrorist work with mainstream policing is extremely important. I have probably said this in your Lordships’ House before but I live close to the Finsbury Park mosque. On the occasion that the Finsbury Park mosque was raided, as I arrived at the Underground station Metropolitan police officers were distributing leaflets explaining to the local community what had happened, why it had happened and what safeguards had been taken to protect the religious parts of that mosque. That was because counterterrorism is integrated into mainstream policing and there was a recognition that the Metropolitan Police would have to continue to police those streets after such a raid. That is why the integration of and arrangements with the counterterrorist units within the various forces around the country are so important. Shifting some or all of that to the National Crime Agency is complicated. These are not straightforward issues and they certainly ought to be debated properly in Parliament. That is what we are likely to miss.

I have another concern. We all now need the National Crime Agency to be a success and I believe it probably will be but it is going to take a while. Every reorganisation takes time. Every time you throw all the pieces up in the air and wait for them to settle, there is a period when the organisations have to come together. This is saying to an organisation which is not yet formally established, as this legislation is not yet through, that there may be some massive change to its remit just around the corner. I do not believe that is good for the current functions of the National Crime Agency; nor do I think it is necessarily good for counterterrorism if that change is to be made at some point in the future.

The Government have never answered the question of what is the problem that they are trying to fix. They say, “There might be a problem. We might have a review at some point in the future and if we do have a review, we want to be able to push this through by super-affirmative resolution”. That is simply not good enough. These are important questions. There must be proper parliamentary scrutiny in the future when these matters are considered.

Ibrahim Magag: Disappearance

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord moves the argument on considerably. We will have an opportunity to discuss all sorts of elements. Intercept is not communications data, but such data have been discussed in pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses. Therefore, these matters are under consideration.

Lord Harris of Haringey: When introducing the legislation that brought about TPIMs, the noble Lord’s predecessor assured the House that not only would extra surveillance resources be made available to the police and the Security Service but also that extra technological measures would be taken to ensure that individuals did not abscond. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether the technological measures were the cause of failure in this instance and, if so, whether the technology that has been purchased has given value for money.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not in a position to give an answer to that. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand why.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords, I shall support this amendment simply by reflecting on my own experience. I will be very brief. I served at a senior level, although not as commissioner, in the Metropolitan Police when there was no police authority. I also served when there was a police authority. With respect to the noble Lords who served on that police authority, some of whom are present, I did not always agree with them. However, in terms of strategic principle, to have a senior police officer—as the director-general will be—running a large, complex and controversial law enforcement organisation with no statutory advice from any outside body around him or her is dangerous in the modern age. As the noble Baroness has just said, it is not just dangerous for the director-general; it is dangerous for the Secretary of State.

Let us assume for a moment that the investigation which came to be known as “cash for honours” had occurred at a time when no police authority existed in London. As commissioner, while my service was investigating what had or had not happened inside No. 10 Downing Street—presided over by a Labour Prime Minister—I would have been reporting direct to a Labour Home Secretary, rather than to a more variegated body. The difficulties, temptations, pressures and politics of what that would, or could, have been like are pretty obvious and unpleasant to contemplate. What this amendment is suggesting is not a police authority. I am not at all precious about the detail of some of the appointments laid out in the different clauses; I just believe there is no need to mirror the PCC arrangement so recently announced in this kind of central body.

This amendment is less vital to me than Amendment 14, about counterterrorism functions, to which we will come shortly, but my experience suggests that a board of this sort would be an advantageous addition to the NCA, the director-general and the Secretary of State, and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. Having been a member of the police authority to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, reported, I confirm that we did not always agree with the views that he put to us or the proposals that he made—but that was a healthy tension; there was a healthy process of governance. When I was chair of that authority, on three separate occasions a proposal was brought to the police authority by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, in his previous incarnation, which was rejected each time, and in the end a modified proposal emerged, which I think was better for London.

That was a relationship of dialogue and openness. What the Government are proposing in the Bill will be very different. There will simply be the director-general, who will report to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary will have the powers to set the strategic direction, the general way in which the organisation operates and, of course, have the power to hire and fire. There will be no scrutiny of that, no external validation and no one else sitting round the table—it will be a one-to-one relationship.

One of the fundamental principles of British policing, ever since Sir Robert Peel started the whole process, is that there should not be direct political control of the police service. What we have here is the creation of a potentially incredibly powerful national policing body that will report to a single politician, with no other people sitting around the table when directions and advice are given.

The advantages of my noble friend’s amendment are that it puts a layer between the Home Secretary and the director-general—a governance board—but also that the governance board has several people and interests represented. That does not absolutely prevent political interference because I am sure that the Home Secretary may on occasion phone the director-general and there will be direct dialogue, but it provides a governance structure that is a safeguard against the distortion of operational priorities for political purposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred to the difficulties that he might have faced in respect of cash for honours. At the time of that investigation, there was a Labour chair of the police authority—it was not me; that was after my time, although I was still on the police authority—and I know that that Labour chair came under considerable political pressure from Labour Party colleagues about that investigation. Quite properly, he did not intervene on those matters; indeed, he defended the operational decisions of the police. But even had he been minded not to resist that political pressure, he had around him 22 other members of the police authority calling him to account and saying, “Actually, this must be allowed to run its course, right or wrong”. Here, there will just be the Home Secretary relating to the director-general in private, with no one else around the table able to say, “Is this appropriate or not?”.

It is a profoundly dangerous structure. I am sure it is being done for the best of all possible reasons and we will be told how efficient it is. But I have yet to hear anyone say that the SOCA board has been a waste of time, that it has not added value or that it has not improved the governance of the Serious Organised Crime Agency—none of those points has been put.

Instead, we are offered this direct-line relationship between the director-general and the Home Secretary. It is extremely dangerous. Even if the current Home Secretary and her successors have no intention of ever crossing that line and trying to intervene in the operational decision-making of the director-general, they will be open to the allegation that that is precisely what they have done. That weakens the position both of the director-general and of Ministers. For that reason I believe that the Bill’s proposals are profoundly dangerous, and I support my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and I have Amendment 3 in this group. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was looking at me—I believe he was—when he referred to some people in this Chamber having been members of a police authority at the relevant time. I was not a member, but I questioned him in public, carrying out a role that is not unrelated to the subject of this amendment, which is getting information into the public domain—a hugely important role that someone needs to carry out. I am not sure who that someone might be in this structure.

I am aware that the Government have designed an arrangement under which the director-general is accountable to the Secretary of State, who is in turn accountable to Parliament. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in response to my amendment at the previous stage, told me that a supervisory board, which was how I described it, would muddy the waters. I had taken that proposal for a supervisory board from the arrangements that the Department for Communities and Local Government had in place, as I was easily able to access its arrangements. I said then that I was not seeking to change the architecture of the Bill.

I do not propose a governing board, and I do not go as far as the noble Baroness. However, because of the concern not to change the architecture, I have amended my own amendment to include the words, “Subject to Part 1”. That deals with the respective roles of the Secretary of State and the director-general. I tabled my amendment before seeing the outline framework document, which we are told will cover internal governance. Reading Hansard following Committee, I thought that perhaps “supervision” was regarded at any rate as an indelicate term for the relationship, although I felt at the time that the Government were a little oversensitive to my amendment.

However, I will be even blunter and say that as I read the paragraph in the outline framework document, the word that comes to mind is “cosy”. It might be much less cosy if we knew more from this document about what the governance arrangements would consist of. We are to have a management board, which comes under the heading of “Internal Governance”—it is almost the whole of that paragraph. I do not regard management as being the same as governance. Neither do I regard governance as being the same as administration, although that is the umbrella word used for governance in Schedule 2. It is the term used to introduce the concept of governance.

I have used terms including “strategic and corporate leadership” and “advice” in my amendment. If the management board that we are to expect is not to provide strategic and corporate leadership and advice, what is it going to do? Perhaps the Minister can help us today by fleshing this out a little more.

The framework does not tell us what it will do, and that is clearly important. It says only that there will be a description of the role of the board. Although, as I said, my amendment does not go as far as Amendment 1, the points made hitherto raised extremely important issues about governance in the public and political sector. I ask one further question. I do not want to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Condon, because it was his question at the previous stage, but will the board include stakeholders? We know that there are to be some ex-officio members and non-executive members. Again, the House would be interested to know who it is anticipated will fulfil those roles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, my only excuse for intervening is that I was the author of the report on which the Terrorism Act 2000 was based. I was also the first Interception Commissioner and therefore had direct experience of the counterterrorism activities of both the Security Service and the Metropolitan Police.

I have not always agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has said, but on this occasion I find myself in substantial agreement with him and also with what the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said on the constitutional issues involved. It may be that at some stage it would make very good sense for counter- terrorism functions to be transferred to the new agency, but not now and certainly not by order. I am not as comfortable on these matters as the noble Lord, Lord Dear. If the matter were put to a vote, I would vote with the amendment.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blair, concluded his remarks by advising the Government with the old adage, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Of course, that is not quite what the Government are talking about here. The Government’s approach on a number of other issues is, “If it ain’t broke, take it to pieces anyway and see what happens”. However, the problem is that this clause, which my noble friend’s amendment will delete, is saying that if the Government decide that they want to change this, it will go through by the super-affirmative procedure without the full, detailed scrutiny of all the issues involved. That is why the Constitution Committee has highlighted the constitutional issue, and why so many noble Lords are concerned about it. If the Government were to propose this, it would be a very major issue with all sorts of ramifications. It is not something that would lend itself to a one-hour debate at 7.30 pm in your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Absolutely: I assure the noble and learned Lord that that is exactly the process that we are talking about. It may help noble Lords in this regard if I explain how government policy would be determined by a consultative process before any decision was taken. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for making that point.

Clause 2 provides for an order-making power so that the Secretary of State can modify the NCA in relation to counterterrorism functions, including by conferring or removing functions. The order-making power is limited to changing the functions of the National Crime Agency. It does not provide the power to change the functions of other organisations unrelated to the National Crime Agency or to close down organisations. Given the importance of such a decision in the future, before an order can be made the Home Secretary will be required to consult any bodies that she considers will be affected by the order. The order itself will also be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which is an extended programme of scrutiny by both Houses and indeed the committees of the House.

As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the Joint Committee on Human Rights yesterday published its report on the Bill and, among other things, raised the question of the mechanism for modifying the functions of the agency. Indeed the report, not unlike the debate today, called for the removal of Clause 2. I can appreciate the concerns of the committee in relation to human rights—these will indeed be important matters for the Government to consider. However, the statutory mechanism for modifying the functions does not diminish the obligations on the Government to give consideration to, and provide assurance on, a whole host of possible implications of a potential future decision. Human rights are only one aspect of a number of consequential effects of any change in policy in this area.

In addition to the Government’s considerations on any future changes, it is important that Parliament can give due time and consideration to any future decisions to modify the agency’s counterterrorism functions. The super-affirmative procedure set out in Schedule 18 will provide Parliament with the appropriate level of scrutiny should an order be made in the future. The House has been reminded of the view of the Constitution Committee on this matter. I will take the opportunity to remind the House of the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In its report on the Bill it made no recommendation in respect of this power but did comment:

“The idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

There is nothing new in this process that offends the traditions of Parliament.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Is there another example of where powers have been added to an existing body that completely distort the functions of that body and increase its activities by 50% or 100%? When the noble Lord answers that point perhaps he can also tell the House why the Government are so desperate to be able to do this by an order-making power rather than by coming back to the House with perhaps a small piece of legislation that has already had the very full consideration that he describes and which could be debated in the normal way.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

A number of noble Lords will remember that in a previous role in this Government I took through the House the Public Bodies Bill where issues such as this occurred. I should emphasise that any bodies affected by any change will be consulted and the whole matter will be a matter of public debate. It is not going to be sprung as a surprise on an unwitting Parliament.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned Northern Ireland and I was grateful for the sensitivity with which she raised this issue. It is complex and I think noble Lords will appreciate that. We will have an opportunity on the ninth group of amendments to discuss it more fully. The order-making power recognises the important and different arrangements in respect of counterterrorism policing in Northern Ireland and the clause is drafted to respect those arrangements. Should an order be made to confer counterterrorism functions on the National Crime Agency in the future then the agency will require the prior agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before it can undertake activities in Northern Ireland in relation to the prevention and detection of terrorism. This arrangement reflects and preserves how the operational relationships work at the moment in relation to counterterrorism policing in Northern Ireland.

It is critical that in creating the National Crime Agency, we do not limit its ability to respond to the changing threat picture of the future. For this reason, the statutory remit of the agency is broad, yet it provides a clear mandate for the agency. However, the clear remit conferred on the agency by Clause 1 and the flexibility of these arrangements go only so far and would not provide sufficient scope for the agency to take on a counterterrorism role in future. This order-making power affords the necessary flexibility to extend the agency’s functions to encompass counter- terrorism.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way a second time. Would the order-making power enable the Government to change the Police Act 1996 which confers counterterrorism responsibilities on the Metropolitan Police?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The effect of the order-making power would be to make new arrangements for counterterrorism policing in the United Kingdom, if that was the decision that was made. I cannot state the matter more clearly. No decision has been made. I am arguing neither for nor against the change. I speak neither for the status quo nor for the future. I am seeking to provide through the Bill a mechanism by which future government decisions can be reflected after a due process of consultation with all bodies involved and after the parliamentary process.

We expect police and other partners to be fully involved in the review when the time is right. Any decisions should be evidence-based and preserve those features of the current arrangements that work well. No one is going to upset an arrangement that is fully satisfactory unless they can be certain that the alternative arrangement will be an improvement.

We all recognise that counterterrorism policing structures work effectively. It is right and proper that we do not rush decisions in relation to counterterrorism now. Equally we do not want to rule out the possibility of some change in the future. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to place a duty on the director-general of the National Crime Agency to notify police and crime commissioners before making a request to a chief constable to perform a task under Clause 5. Likewise, a similar duty is placed on a chief constable to notify the police and crime commissioner before making a request of the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task. The amendments also place a duty on the director-general to “make every reasonable effort” to notify the appropriate police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for that police and crime commissioner’s area.

We had a debate on this issue in Committee when an amendment was moved referring to the director-general consulting the police and crime commissioner responsible for the policing of an area. The amendments today refer to notifying the police and crime commissioner. Without wanting to repeat everything that was said in Committee, one has to go over the argument again to some extent. A police and crime commissioner for a police area has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of the police force for their area, to ensure that the police force is efficient and effective and to hold the chief constable to account for a wide range of duties and responsibilities, including the effectiveness and efficiency of the chief constable’s arrangements for co-operating with other persons in the exercise of the chief constable’s function. The police and crime commissioner will also be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan, which is required by law to set out a number of matters including the policing of the police area which the chief officer of police is to provide. However, it currently appears to be possible, under the terms of the Bill, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to come to an agreement with the chief officer of a UK police force for that chief officer to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance in relation to resources or impact, on behalf of the director-general or, alternatively, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance on behalf of the chief officer of a UK police force without any apparent duty in either case even to tell the elected police and crime commissioner, despite the significant statutory responsibilities the police and crime commissioner has in relation to their police force.

If the director-general of the National Crime Agency was requesting the chief officer of a UK police force to carry out a task which could well have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force in question or on their ability to deliver or adhere to the police and crime plan, one would have thought that it was a matter on which the director-general of the National Crime Agency should be required at least to notify the police and crime commissioner. Likewise, if the chief officer of a UK police force found it necessary to request the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task on behalf of or in support of that police force, there should be a duty on the chief officer first to notify—that is what the amendment now calls for—the police and crime commissioner who, after all, might want to satisfy himself or herself that this was not a task that their own police force should be competent and capable of performing and that the request to the director-general was not, in reality, seeking to cover up a weakness in the performance of their police force.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the Government’s response was that we were putting forward amendments that would put at risk the operational independence of chief constables. We said at the time that that seemed a bit rich. Bearing in mind that our amendments state “has first notified”, it would be stretching it a bit if the Minister were to tell us again that we are putting at risk operational independence. Clearly, if directions are being issued to a chief constable by the director-general of the National Crime Agency they could well, under the terms of the Bill, be of a magnitude, size and scope that could call into question the ability of that chief constable to adhere to or deliver the plans and strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner.

It was also said in Committee that if the director-general of the National Crime Agency had to consult the police and crime commissioner that would cause delay and it might be an emergency. We have sought to address that issue, unlikely though it would be to arise, by once again referring in the amendment to the director-general having to make “every reasonable effort” to notify the police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for their particular area.

I hope that the Minister’s response will be more helpful than the one we received in Committee. In the wording of the Bill there are no parameters laid down which means that, on the key issue of the director-general of the NCA being able to come to either a voluntary arrangement with or, if he feels it necessary, give a direction to a chief constable, this could be of unlimited scope and have a very considerable impact on the ability of that chief constable to deliver the strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner for the area. That there is no requirement at all for the director-general even first to notify the police and crime commissioner could, indeed, have an effect on the ability to deliver, for a period of time, effective policing in that area. That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a more sympathetic response than the one we received in Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have been trying to work out how this Bill was prepared and I can only assume that there was collective amnesia in the part of the Home Office that was preparing it about their other major piece of legislation, which created police and crime commissioners. The mentions of police and crime commissioners in this Bill are few and far between. Had it not been so vigorously resisted by the Minister in Committee, I would have assumed that it was a simple drafting error not to include that the police and crime commissioner should be informed or, better still, consulted—although today’s amendment possibly moves us away from that—about a possible direction or requirement for the use of resources in their area.

Has the Home Office really thought about the practical politics that will arise and the consequences that may flow from failing to put this very simple provision into the Bill? Put yourself into the position of someone who has been elected earlier this month to the position of police and crime commissioner. They sit there with all the majesty of their electoral mandate: many of them have had as much as 4% of the electorate in their areas voting for them, so they know that they have the people behind them. It is clear that they have a substantial, legislative obligation on behalf of the communities they represent, whether it is the 4% or all 100% of them, to hold the chief constable to account for the use of policing resources in that area. That is what the legislation that we spent so many happy hours debating a year or so back was all about. Yet here is a provision in the Bill which enables the director-general of the National Crime Agency to require the use, either by direction or agreement, of police forces in their area.

I can conceive of circumstances in which police and crime commissioners have been elected having said very clearly that their prime focus is going to be on local crime concerns in their particular patch and that they want “zero tolerance”—a number of them did in fact say in their manifestos and websites that they wanted zero tolerance of crime on the streets of their particular area. However, they are suddenly told—or they find out, perhaps because their chief constables tell them, they read it in the newspapers or hear some gossip—that a substantial proportion of the local resources that they thought were going to be devoted to keeping street crime and burglary down in the areas of their mandate is being diverted to some, no doubt very important, serious crime operation. You are likely to then get precisely the sort of row about operational policing that we have said we do not wish to see between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, because police and crime commissioners will suddenly discover that the resources that they thought were being devoted to dealing with crime in their patch are being diverted to another—no doubt very worthy and important—area.

The very simple, practical and political—with a small “p”—way of doing this is to have an obligation on the director-general to at least inform, if not consult, the police and crime commissioner. That might perhaps ensure that, because they hear it first from the National Crime Agency—the people who are making the request—they have an understanding of it. That is much more likely to be acceptable to a police and crime commissioner than their hearing about it from some other source. I wonder why the Home Office, having devoted so much energy, effort and even money into having police and crime commissioners elected, has then excluded them from this part of the Bill. Unless my noble friend’s amendment is passed, you are going to have a situation in which you almost encourage conflict and a reaction from police and crime commissioners saying, “I do not wish the see the resources of my police force area being diverted for those national or other purposes”. You will have created a conflict, because the police and crime commissioner does not have the right to be informed by the National Crime Agency of what is being done.

Maybe the Minister will tell us in a couple of minutes that his expectation is that the chief constable will explain it to the police and crime commissioner. It looks as though that may well be what is in the Minister’s brief. Of course there will be discussion and dialogue, but the common courtesy of the director-general of the National Crime Agency going to the police and crime commissioner to say, “I am about to make this request”, or, “I am asking your chief constable for this”, and, “These are the reasons”, will smooth the passage and make this work better. I cannot understand why, for the sake of a simple telephone call or e-mail, this has been omitted from the legislation. The reality is that it would not delay things, but would make them less liable to create conflict between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable who has accepted the request from the National Crime Agency director-general, with the police and crime commissioner grandstanding about how he or she is fighting for the people of his or her area and about not having police services diverted to other functions because those services are there for the people of his or her community.

North Wales Abuse Allegations

Lord Harris of Haringey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have tried to provide a proper balance between my regard for the way in which the original report was undertaken by Sir Ronald Waterhouse and what we are seeking to achieve today. We would be wrong to ignore the terms under which that inquiry was held. It has much to contribute to discovering what went on in the light of the allegations being made today. We would be mistaken if we chose to preserve that inquiry in aspic and say that it did not have lessons to teach us about how to investigate these matters today.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the fact that there is to be a new police inquiry into these matters, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the thinking behind this being led by Keith Bristow, who is heading up the new National Crime Agency. I have enormous faith in Keith Bristow himself. However, given that the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the yet-to-be-created National Crime Agency are going through a period of enormous flux and confusion while this happens, and the job of the chief executive of an agency that is being set up is usually pretty highly committed to setting up that agency, how will it be possible for him to lead the sort of inquiry that all noble Lords have said they want—very thorough, potentially extremely lengthy and potentially extremely involved? In practice, where will the resources come from? I am not talking about the money but the individual officers. Who is going to co-ordinate that? How is that going to be practically done when the person you are asking to lead the inquiry is supposed to have a more than full-time job setting up a new government agency?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I remind the noble Lord that the Statement made it quite clear that it was the chief constable of North Wales Police, Mark Polin, who actually requested Keith Bristow to head up this investigation, and to do so using the resources that are available to him through SOCA and other assets that are available for serious investigations. Indeed, we will face a new world with the National Crime Agency, but that still has to come before your Lordships’ House and I would not presume on that. This is a recognition that the inquiry itself may well cross police boundaries; it may well be a matter that is quite properly addressed by an agency set up to deal with serious organised crime.