Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 24, Schedule 5, Clause 25, Schedule 6, Clauses 26 to 29, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 30 and 31.

Motion agreed.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Henley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

I have one more question to ask my noble friend about GFMs. Presumably, there is nothing in the IOC rules that requires us to provide non-EU GFMs with free medical treatment. Does the rule change about outstanding NHS charges apply to them, as it would to any other non-EU visitor?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for introducing this debate and also my noble kinsman Lord Avebury for his comments. I start with the Merits Committee and its complaints about this. Many years ago, I was a member of what is still, I think, called the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is a relatively toothless body as regards considering the merits of particular statutory instruments. When I was a member of the Government led in this House by my noble friend the then Lord Cranborne—who is now the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—I was very proud that we brought in the Merits Committee precisely so that it could look at the merits of statutory instruments. That was some time in the mid-1990s, and a very good job it has done over the years. Therefore, we are very concerned about complaints relating to orders that we have put forward and we take them very seriously. The complaints on this occasion are largely about the Explanatory Memorandum, whether we think that was adequate and whether it misrepresented the position of various others. I thought that that Explanatory Memorandum was adequate, but if complaints have been made about it by the Merits Committee we will have to take that seriously. We will have to up our game and no doubt make sure that we do better in the future.

I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to the letter from my honourable friend Damian Green, which was sent to the Merits Committee after its 40th and 41st reports on this matter and dealt with many of those complaints. I am grateful that it has now been made available to the House and is published on the Merits Committee’s website. As I have said, we will obviously take these matters seriously and will look at the criticisms that it made.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury also objected to the fact that the statement of changes was subject to the negative procedure and not to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that we will have to go back in time to the original legislation that created them as negative resolutions rather than primary. I do not know when that was but if we want to change that, it would obviously be a matter for primary legislation. I do not think that there is any Henry VIII power for me unilaterally to change them. That is why I say to my noble kinsman that one of the reasons why very often one has to debate these matters after they have come into effect is that the order comes into effect on a certain date and there should be time for Members of both Houses either to pray against them or to have a debate of this sort in the Moses Room.

I should now like to turn to the substantive questions on the statement of changes to the Immigration Rules and set out our case because it would be useful for the Committee to know why we are doing what we are doing. As all will be aware, the National Health Service is the national health service and its resources in these straitened times are limited. It is right that it should be shielded against misuse by those who incur and fail to pay charges in compliance with law.

The NHS debtors rule is being introduced for a number of important reasons. First, it will deter overseas visitors from misusing the NHS; that is, to deal with the problem of health tourism. Secondly, it will ensure that overseas visitors understand their need to meet their obligations to pay for the NHS services they use. Thirdly, it will reassure the public that we are determined to operate fair and robust controls on migrants’ access to public benefits and services. Finally, it will enable other patients to benefit indirectly from the recovery of NHS resources. That, again, is an important point and we must always remember that those resources are finite.

The rules must also be seen in the context of the joint UK Border Agency and the Department of Health review of migrant access to health services. Following this review and public consultations by the Department of Health and the border agency last year, the NHS charging regulations for England have been amended. This amendment provides extra protection for potentially vulnerable groups, including failed asylum seekers supported by the United Kingdom Border Agency and children from overseas who are in the care of a local authority. They are no longer liable for NHS charges.

I recognise concerns raised that the new rules may deter migrants from seeking necessary medical care. I must stress that although these rules relate to the entire United Kingdom, those relating to the NHS will vary in the four different parts of the UK. In England, primary care as provided by GPs, treatment in accident and emergency departments, and most treatments carried out on public health grounds are free of charge. Furthermore, urgent or immediately necessary treatment must not be delayed over the question of payment.

The United Kingdom Border Agency also has an important role to play in protecting the economy and publicly funded services and their lawful users from the consequences of inappropriate access. The equality statement that was published with the laying of the rules outlines the Government’s view that the rules are a proportionate measure in pursuance of this legitimate policy objective. Nevertheless, all cases will be considered on their individual merits with decision-makers afforded discretion to take account of exceptional compassionate factors and obliged to apply human rights legislation, as we always do, and equality legislation. Applicants will remain able, as now, to raise any compelling compassionate circumstances which they consider pertinent to their application, and these will be considered, as is current practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggested that these changes were discriminatory and raised the question of treatment for HIV. I have made it clear that the underlying policy objective, that of protecting publicly funded services for those with a lawful claim to them, makes this a proportionate response. Medical information will not be shared between the NHS and the UKBA. However, it will remain open, as now, for applicants to raise any compassionate or medical factors that they consider pertinent to their applications. We will review the question as to whether people living with HIV and not ordinarily resident here should be exempted from their charges for HIV treatment.

I believe that we need robust controls to protect our public services, just as we need robust controls in other aspects of the control of our borders, as was made clear by the responses in another place to the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and in this House when I repeated that Statement earlier this week. Not only do we need to protect public services, it is also right that if someone does not pay the charges they incur for treatment, they should normally be refused any further immigration applications until they have paid their debt.

I hope that that deals with most of the questions that have been raised. I understand the concerns and I go back to the complaints made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, quoting from the report of the Merits Committee about our Explanatory Memorandum. As I said, if we got that wrong, we will try to do better in the future. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that this is a satisfactory and proportionate response to these issues.

[Lord Avebury]

As my noble friend is dealing with the question of NHS charges, does he have a reply to my question about whether, under the Olympics rules, GFMs will be exempt from them?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I may, I would prefer to write to my noble kinsman on that point. My understanding from discussions I had earlier with officials is that we are all right under the IOC rules, but if I am wrong on that, I will write to him.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, respect for individual freedoms and civil liberties is one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy. It is the duty of the coalition Government, as it is of any Government, to protect civil liberties and hard-won freedoms. Of course, it is also our duty to protect the security of the public. It is undoubtedly the case that we live in a dangerous world. We have to contend with the threats posed by international and domestic terrorism, and by crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. The most basic freedom is the right to live in our own homes, and go about our everyday lives, free from the fear of harm from terrorism or crime, but in responding to such threats and discharging the Government’s core responsibility for protecting the public, we must not make the mistake of undermining the very freedoms and civil liberties that we are seeking to preserve and uphold as a beacon to others.

There is a balance to be sought here and that is what we will be endeavouring to achieve in the course of the debate during the passage of this Bill. It is a balance which I am afraid to say the previous Administration failed to achieve. They went too far on a number of issues. I will list a few of them: identity cards and the national identity register; the ContactPoint database; the indefinite retention of DNA profiles of more than 1 million innocent people; hundreds of new powers of entry; a vetting and barring scheme that required the monitoring of more than 9 million, and at one stage possibly 11 million, people working with children or vulnerable adults; indiscriminate and poorly targeted terrorism stop-and-search powers; removing the right to a jury trial in serious fraud cases; and last, but by no means least, 42 days’ and 90 days’ pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects. We have already abolished ID cards and the ContactPoint database, reduced the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 14 days, and your Lordships’ House is separately considering legislation to replace control orders. The Bill deals with the legacy of many of the other measures to which I have referred.

I turn to the detail of the Bill. Part 1 introduces safeguards in respect of the retention and use of biometric material by the police and schools. There is no doubt that DNA and fingerprints are invaluable forensic tools in the investigation of crime. They help to convict the guilty and, equally importantly, can exonerate the innocent. It follows that the national DNA database should contain as many profiles of convicted individuals as possible; nothing in this part of the Bill changes that. Where a person has been convicted or cautioned for a recordable offence, their DNA profile and fingerprints will, as now, be retained indefinitely. However, it is not acceptable that, following arrest, the DNA and fingerprints of a person should be retained indefinitely, regardless of whether that person is charged or convicted of an offence. Few people would support a truly Orwellian universal DNA database, so we should not seek to build one by stealth.

Under the Bill, whenever someone is arrested and has their DNA and fingerprints taken, the police will still be able to undertake a speculative search against the relevant national databases. If they have committed an earlier offence, they should not be able to evade justice. Indeed, it was just such a check in 2006 that led to the link being made between Mark Dixie, who had been arrested in connection with a fight at the pub where he worked, and his rape and murder of Sally Anne Bowman nine months before. If an individual is not subsequently convicted of an offence, their DNA and fingerprints will only be routinely retained where they have been charged with a serious offence, and then only for three years, with the option of extending this to five years with the approval of a magistrates’ court. The police will also be able to apply to the new Biometric Commissioner to retain the DNA and fingerprints of a person arrested for, but not charged with, a serious offence in circumstances where the alleged victim was vulnerable or where retention is otherwise considered necessary for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime.

These provisions will ensure that the National DNA Database, with over 5 million profiles, remains one of the largest of its kind in the world, continuing to support the police by helping to catch and convict serious violent and sexual offenders, but without in the process stigmatising over 1 million innocent people.

The provisions in this part also give effect to our commitment to prohibit the fingerprinting of children in schools without parental consent. It is properly a matter for schools to decide whether or not to use biometric recognition systems for such purposes as pupil registration, cashless catering and checking out books from the school library. However, schools also need to have proper regard for the sensitive nature of personal biometric information, so it is right that parents should be asked to make an informed decision about whether to accede to the processing of such information. It is also proper that pupils should have a say. Where a parent or child objects, schools will have to take reasonable steps to ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place to enable the child to access school services.

Part 2 deals with the regulation of surveillance. Closed circuit television and automatic number plate recognition systems play an important role in the prevention and detection of crime and anti-social behaviour, and in providing assurance to local communities. I fully recognise that many people want to see more CCTV cameras in order to help protect their neighbourhoods. However, as we saw with Project Champion in Birmingham last year, public confidence in the benefits of CCTV can quickly be undermined if the police, local authorities and others are seen to be imposing camera systems on local communities without proper consultation. In this regard, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who assisted the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police as part of her review of Project Champion.

The Bill takes a measured and incremental approach to the further regulation of CCTV. It provides for a code of practice on the development and use of surveillance camera systems and for the appointment of a Surveillance Camera Commissioner to oversee the operation of the code. The police and local authorities will be required to have regard to the code of practice, and we would expect that other operators of CCTV systems will also wish to adhere to the code on a voluntary basis. However, if the need arises, there is facility in the Bill to extend the duty to have regard to the code to other such operators.

The need to maintain public confidence is also at the heart of the proposals in the Bill in respect of local authorities’ use of covert investigatory powers. The intrusive powers covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, known as RIPA, must be used proportionately. Public trust is undermined if such powers are used to pursue relatively trivial matters, such as to check whether parents live within a school catchment area or to tackle dog fouling or littering. The Bill therefore subjects the exercise of these powers by local authorities to judicial oversight and, separately, we will be bringing forward secondary legislation under RIPA to introduce a threshold test so that local authorities cannot use directed surveillance powers for trivial purposes.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with powers of entry and wheel clamping. There are now some 1,200 separate powers of entry, enabling a wide variety of officials to enter people’s homes and businesses. We do not for a moment suggest that all such powers are unjustified, but there should be a compelling case and clear safeguards before a state official has the right to demand entry into a person’s home. We intend to review all existing powers of entry. Following this review, the provisions in the Bill will enable us to repeal any powers of entry that are shown to be unnecessary or unjustified, and to add further safeguards to those powers that are to be retained. We will also introduce a code of practice governing the exercise of powers of entry.

In many ways, my noble friend Lord Selsdon can take credit for these provisions. In the last Parliament he repeatedly plugged away at this issue, introducing a succession of Private Members’ Bills. I am pleased to say that his tenacity has now borne some fruit.

Moving on from protecting people’s homes to protecting use of their vehicles, I have no doubt that a number of noble Lords will have suffered the fate of having their car clamped. While there are, of course, many reputable clamping companies, the industry is also afflicted with more than its fair share of rogue operators using menace to demand and extract excessive release fees from unsuspecting motorists. This is an area where regulation has failed to tackle the abuses in the industry. We have therefore concluded that, where there is no lawful authority, an outright ban on wheel clamping is the only tenable way forward. We recognise that for some car park operators and other landowners the ban will remove one of the parking enforcement tools available to them. We also recognise that no one has a right to park their vehicle wherever they want—motorists have responsibilities too. So the Bill extends the operation of keeper liability for unpaid parking charges, which already applies to parking enforcement on the public highway, to other land.

I move onto Part 4, which reforms key counterterrorism powers following the government review overseen by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven.

The Bill enshrines in law our expectation that the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should be no more than 14 days. That is an important advance on the position adopted under the last Government, when 28 days became the norm.

The Government recognise, however, that there will be exceptional circumstances where it may be necessary to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days. This view was supported by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. As to the mechanism for achieving this, the Government reflected very carefully on the views of the Joint Committee but remained of the opinion that any increase to 28 days should normally be decided by Parliament and enacted through primary legislation. We accept that the option of recalling Parliament to pass fast-track legislation is not available during a period of dissolution. That is why the Bill contains a power to enable the Home Secretary to increase the maximum detention period by executive order in those very narrow circumstances.

Part 4 also puts in place the permanent replacement of the no-suspicion stop-and-search powers contained in Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That these powers failed to meet the test of necessity and proportionality is best illustrated by the fact that not one of more than 600,000 stops in Great Britain under Section 44 resulted in a conviction for a terrorist offence. Instead, the Bill provides for a much more targeted power that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, described as a “real and substantial change”.

Part 5 gives effect to the recommendations of the twin reviews of the vetting and barring scheme and the criminal records regime. We have a duty to protect the most vulnerable in society, be they children or adults. The Government will do nothing to increase the risk of such individuals being exposed to harm. However, we need a safeguarding system that is proportionate and promotes responsibility by employers and voluntary organisations while not putting in place unnecessary barriers to employment and volunteering. The existing system fails to live up to these aims. At worst, it creates an illusion of security by encouraging a tick-box approach to safeguarding.

The Bill creates a more balanced approach, putting an end to the requirement on more than 9 million—or, as I said earlier, 11 million—people to be registered and monitored by the state. We are also scaling back the scope of regulated activity and therefore of the barring arrangements so that they cover only those in regular or close, unsupervised contact with children, or those who provide health or personal care for adults. In the case of those working with children or adults but who do not fall within the ambit of regulated activity, it will remain open to employers and voluntary organisations to require such staff to undergo a criminal record check.

We are also streamlining the criminal records regime, including by ensuring that criminal record certificates are portable between posts within the same sector. The fairness of the system will also be enhanced by affording the subject of a criminal record certificate the opportunity to challenge any conviction or other information contained therein before sharing the certificate with his or her employer or voluntary organisation. In addition, we will increase the efficiency of the reformed safeguarding system by bringing together into one new organisation, the disclosure and barring service, the functions of the Criminal Records Bureau and the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Part 5 also rights an historic wrong. It is now more than 40 years since gay sex between consenting adults was decriminalised. However, men with a conviction for an offence involving such behaviour are still stigmatised by having to disclose any such convictions and seeing them recorded on criminal record certificates. The Bill puts an end to such indignity.

Part 6 has the twin aims of further promoting transparency, including by extending the application of the Freedom of Information Act to additional publicly owned companies, and by enhancing the independence of the Information Commissioner. Given the commissioner’s important role in regulating information rights, including data protection and freedom of information issues, it is critical that he should go about his duties without fear or favour. There is no doubt in my mind that the current commissioner and the previous holders of the office have done that, but the provisions in this part of the Bill will help remove any impression to the contrary.

Finally, Clause 107 is a culmination of the implacable stand taken by your Lordships’ House in defending the historic right to a jury trial of those accused of a serious fraud offence. In 2003 and again in 2007, this House defeated attempts to bring in judge-only fraud trials. Clause 105 consigns the thankfully uncommenced Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to the legislative dustbin.

I appreciate that I have spoken at some length and that this undoubtedly is a diverse range of provisions. The golden thread running through them is a determination on the part of the Government to restore a proper balance between protecting our communities, including the most vulnerable, and our hard-won civil liberties and historic freedoms. It is this difficult balance that your Lordships’ House has striven to maintain when discharging its core role as a revising Chamber, and which we shall seek to secure as we debate further stages of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I start with one point on which I am in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Bill will be the subject of detailed debate at its later stages and I look forward to those later stages. I also offer my congratulations to all noble Lords who spoke. I never thought it was likely that I would be getting to my feet so soon after 9 pm. I do not know whether the usual channels will notice this but I hope they do not suggest that we start every day with a two-and-a-half-hour debate on procedural matters hoping it will speed up later proceedings.

We have done very well to get through a big and detailed Bill of this sort—a Bill with some 115 clauses and 10 schedules—in the time we have. I will endeavour to be brief in responding because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said and I agreed with him, obviously a great deal of this must be discussed in further detail at later stages.

The Bill was described rather cruelly by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, as a “mishmash” and by others as a “Christmas pie”. It is possibly a bit too early to describe it as a Christmas pie so I was going to use the word “pudding” because it is a mix of a number of things. The reason I wanted to use the word pudding is thinking of those great remarks of Winston Churchill to emphasise the fact that it has a theme running through it—it is not a pudding without a theme. There is a theme relating to the protections of freedoms that I hope I outlined at the beginning of the debate. There is also a theme that runs through the Bill which I again think is important—the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to it—and that is one of balance. On each of the different issues that we will deal with, it is important that we address the question of the right balance between the protection of our freedoms and the protection of security. Very difficult judgments have always to be made in this area, which is what we will have to do. That is why I will come back to the word “balance” time and again.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, thought that the balance was wrong, but a great many other speakers, including my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Goodhart, thought that the balance was right. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, thought that the balance was right, but he wanted to see extensions in the Bill in areas such as freedom of speech. He said that he would not bring forward amendments relating to freedom of speech or removing “insulting” from the Public Order Act while our consultation was out, but he asked whether it might be possible to have some debate on that. As always, I will say that that must be a matter for the usual channels, but no doubt the noble Lord will find some way of introducing it in Committee.

In the time available to me today I hope to run through the various parts of the Bill and make a few brief comments on them, starting with Part 1, on DNA and biometrics. I shall deal first with biometrics in schools, particularly because my noble friend Lord Lucas referred to the proposals as—I think that I have got his words right—a “daffy overreaction” to a perceived problem which would do nothing to improve safety or privacy. I note what he said, but I noted also that his general reaction to the Bill was positive. I can assure him that, although the coalition agreement is generally our bible and something that we always abide by, the proposals have been included not just for reasons of the coalition agreement. No doubt my noble friend will want to come back to that in due course.

On the wider question of DNA and whether we should keep the DNA of people who have not been convicted for three years or six years, again there was a division of opinion within the House. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Dear, both thought that the current position was untenable. I had the support of my noble friend Lady Randerson, but others, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the right reverend Prelate, had considerable concerns. I think that it was the right reverend Prelate who used that dread expression “the precautionary principle”, which always worries me. I tend to run away when I hear about the precautionary principle, because it implies that one cannot do anything because something might go wrong. I do not know what it would prevent us doing if one took it too far, but, again, I note what he says.

It was my noble friend Lady Berridge, speaking from her experience as a barrister, who reminded us of the importance of the presumption of innocence, the right to privacy and the risk of a breach of Article 8 and rights of privacy if we kept an excessive amount of data. Again, these matters will have to be looked at in considerable detail, but it is important that we get this right. It is important also that we come to address the questions raised by my noble friend Lady Doocey and by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who discussed possible costs to the police in dealing with that.

I will cover two other points in relation to the question of retention of DNA. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who suggested that we were going to be taking some 17,000 rapists off the database and that potentially some 23,000 offenders’ details per year will not be entered on the database under these provisions. The contention that every single person suspected of rape will instantly come off the database is simply not true. It is about keeping the details of thousands of innocent people, who have not been convicted, on the DNA database because of a hypothesis that a proportion of them may go on to commit—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The figures I quoted were from the Home Office’s own figures, reanalysing the cases where individuals would have been taken off the database as a result of these changes and subsequently —these are facts and involve real people—gone on to commit other crimes in 6,000 or 7,000 cases. I will have to check my notes again on the figures, but these were serious crimes, including rape and murder.

[Lord Henley]

I will obviously allow the noble Lord to check his facts again in due course, but I stand by what I said. The presumption that he was making—along with, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—was that we were taking all these people off and that they were all going to be guilty. I was trying to make clear that simply keeping the details of those people on the database, because of a hypothesis that a tiny proportion of them may go on to commit serious crimes in future, is not actually going to do anything to increase the conviction rate for rape. As I explained in opening this debate, those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, obviously will have their DNA retained for three years. It is then up to the police to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. That is set out in the Bill. For those arrested but not charged with a qualifying offence in cases where the victim is vulnerable, the police may still apply to the independent commissioner to retain their DNA for three years.

My noble friend Lady Berridge also raised the very important question of the over-representation on the DNA database of those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. Obviously, the database is not self-populating, because for a person’s DNA to be taken the person must have been suspected of committing a recordable offence and that arrest in law must have been necessary. You cannot, as another noble Lord said, simply arrest so as to get the DNA. That is a significant threshold. However, our proposals will mean that the vast majority of those who are arrested, but not subsequently convicted, will have their DNA profiles destroyed very soon unless they are convicted of a crime in due course.

We have very difficult questions to address, again, on the regulation of surveillance and very difficult questions of balance between those who feel that we need further safeguards and those who feel that people always welcome more cameras, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested. I have to say he ought to look at Project Champion in Birmingham, which I referred to in my opening remarks, and he will find that that is not always the case. I had better stop mentioning the noble Lord if he is going to rise to his feet on every occasion, but I will give way.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Perhaps I will not rise on the next occasion you mention me. The issue about Project Champion was that people welcomed the original introduction. It was when they found out they had been misled about the purposes of the cameras that the anger—the very real and justifiable anger—arose.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it was a real anger and it was quite right that something should be done about it. I think he is wrong, though, to imply that people welcome more and more cameras on every single occasion.

Obviously, we have got to get this right, so I was very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for example, welcomed the fact that we were going to have a code of practice and a new commissioner. Again, she said it was important that further things should happen. I think she saw that there was insufficient provision for complaints to be made and she also suggested that there was not—I think I have it right—sufficient oversight. I will certainly look at that, and these are obviously matters that we can examine in Committee.

The last point that I should pick up on is that made by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lady Doocey, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, when they talked about the number of commissioners and considered whether there could be a merger of commissioners. I appreciate that the number of commissioners seems to be growing, but their roles are distinct. Again, that is a matter of detail that we should be able to consider in due course in Committee.

Turning to powers of entry, my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who generally welcomed the Bill, for which I was very grateful, raised the issue that it includes a number of Henry VIII powers. Whenever that expression is mentioned, I think back to what was almost the first Bill that I handled at this Dispatch Box, which related to statutory sick pay, which was one of the earliest modern reintroductions of Henry VIII powers. I remember the savaging that I received from the then good friend of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, Lord Russell, and the problems that we had with the Bill. When I die, no doubt Henry VIII powers will be found engraved on my heart. However, the noble Lord accepts the fact that it is possibly appropriate here, in removing powers of entry, to use those Henry VIII powers. I stress—in particular, to my noble friend Lord Selsdon—that that power is only for the repeal of powers of entry. Clause 41, which allows amendments to be made to powers of entry, makes it quite clear that those powers can be used only where they do not reduce the protection for the individual. Again, I pay tribute to all the work that my noble friend Lord Selsdon has done over the years in trying to reduce the number of powers of entry. In due course, I will write to him with further details on the code of conduct.

Turning briefly to wheel clamping, that is a matter for Committee on which I know that my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has great expertise in the area, will be able to deal with it. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, this is something that we need to look at with very great care, especially access to the DVLA database. I shall also consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, what we need to do about ticketing and abuse in that area. I have also noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, did not have to say about the abuse of blue badge parking, which concerns all of us and which we should address. However, clamping in a disabled parking area is not the solution to that problem, because once you have clamped a vehicle in that area, you cannot use that area. There are other, better ways to deal with that problem.

Moving to counterterrorism and the questions raised about the reduction to 14 days, I note that most noble Lords are happy with the reduction from 28 days to 14 days, but I note the concern about the measures that would have to be used to raise that 14 days to 28 days if we were in a difficult situation where we needed to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was very honest when he said that it was difficult to see how we could get from the 14 days back to the 28 days. We have to look at that. At the moment we have Clause 58 and the powers in the Bill as set out, but certainly we will want to look at those again very carefully. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, had to say, that he thought that we had not gone far enough in what we were doing, and that it would be too difficult to do it. He would certainly want to try to extend Clause 58, as I understood him, to allow the Home Secretary to extend the period in other circumstances where appropriate. I was grateful that he made it quite clear that he hoped she would never have to make use of any of those powers.

I come now to vetting and barring, and again that expression I used at the beginning about getting the balance right is more important here than in virtually any other field. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, put it, our first priority must be the protection of children and young people, and that will remain our priority. However, we obviously have to have the right balance, as was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, though others thought that we had got this wrong and thought more protection ought to be brought in. As I said at the beginning, I want to stress that if you bring in too great a control and too great protections, there is the danger of encouraging a tick-box mentality, which might not provide the better protection for children and young people that we want. Again, I will look at that as we discuss these matters in Committee.

I would say to my noble friend Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, but more particularly to my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint, who all spoke about sporting issues, that I would be more than happy to see a delegation of sports bodies if she would like to bring them to see me in due course.

I would also like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said that he was not happy about what might happen to volunteering and the risk to volunteers, that he look at some of the briefing provided by Volunteering England, which states:

“However, we would not want to see this wording tightened up by use of terms such as ‘close’ or ‘constant’ supervision, as has been suggested by other organisations, because it could further restrict the involvement of volunteers. If the requirements for supervision are too prescriptive, organisations may be put off from involving volunteers and potential volunteers deterred from volunteering”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Will my noble friend give way momentarily? One of the questions now is: what is “frequent and intensive” when dealing with children and vulnerable adults? Are we going to have a new definition of it, and if there is a new definition of it, will it be available for discussion in Committee? Clearly, there is a wide range of opinions around the Chamber about how we should tackle that.

[Lord Henley]

How you would interpret those words is really a question of fact and degree. I will have a further look before we get to Committee to see whether I can write in greater detail on that. If I cannot, I am sure that it is something that we would want to discuss in greater detail in Committee and at later stages.

Finally, I come to freedom of information and data protection in Part 6. I will touch on this only very briefly because I understand the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady O’Loan, about the publication of research, particularly early publication. I accept that there is a genuine concern coming from Universities UK.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

I just want to clarify that. There is absolutely no concern about the publication of research. That is what researchers aim to do. The concern is about applying the publication criteria to databases which are of a size that precludes their being published in journals, monographs or any other way. These are causing concern for large numbers of research institutions which have such databases but are committed to open publication.

[Lord Henley]

I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Baroness. I have written down “pre-publication”. I will look carefully at what she had to say. Certainly, I hope that we can address that in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that we should copy Scotland but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was not so keen on that idea. Again, we need to address these matters in due course and examine them in a manner that I properly understand, particularly as I just seem to have misunderstood the noble Baroness on this occasion. The noble Baroness went on to ask what she described as some boring questions about costs. As they are allegedly boring questions—I am sure they are not—I will address them in a letter.

That is a rather rapid gallop through some of the comments that we have received today. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. If we can agree on nothing else, we can agree that we will have an interesting and possibly somewhat lengthy Committee stage. As noble Lords will know from the Motions that I will move after this Bill has had its Second Reading, it will move down a novel line with some of the Committee stage taking place in the Chamber on the more contentious issues and some taking place in Grand Committee. I hope that that will have the agreement of the House and that once the Second Reading Motion is agreed, your Lordships will permit me to move the other Motions that stand in my name.

Bill read a second time.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That (a) the following provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House—

(i) Clauses 1 to 25 (destruction, retention and use of fingerprints etc.);

(ii) Clauses 54 to 56 (vehicles left on land);

(iii) Clauses 64 to 78 (safeguarding of vulnerable groups);

(iv) Clauses 79 to 84 (criminal records);

(v) Schedule 1 (destruction, retention and use of fingerprints etc.);

(vi) Schedule 4 (recovery of unpaid parking charges);

(vii) Schedule 7 (safeguarding of vulnerable groups: Northern Ireland); and

(b) the remainder of the bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill have been committed that they consider those provisions in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 19, Schedule 1, Clauses 20 to 25, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 4, Clauses 64 to 78, Schedule 7, Clauses 79 to 84.

Motion agreed.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Henley]

That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Bill have been committed that they consider those provisions in the following order:

Clauses 26 to 39, Schedule 2, Clauses 40 to 53, Schedule 3, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 5, Clauses 62 and 63, Schedule 6, Clause 85, Schedule 8, Clauses 86 to 109, Schedules 9 and 10, Clauses 110 to 115.

Motion agreed.

UK Border Agency

Lord Henley Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the United Kingdom Border Force, an operational division of the United Kingdom Border Agency.

The border force is responsible for ensuring that only legitimate travellers and goods are allowed to enter and leave the United Kingdom, while reducing threats, including illegal immigration, drug smuggling and terrorism. Border force activities include verifying the immigration status of passengers arriving and departing the UK; checking baggage, vehicles and cargo for illicit goods; and searching for illegal immigrants.

Border force officers confirm the identity of passengers arriving at the United Kingdom border, check passengers against a watch-list known as the warning index and undertake a visual inspection of passengers’ passports. Where a biometric passport is held, the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, is opened and verified. Non-EU passengers undergo additional checks. Officers establish whether a visa is required and whether a visa is held; if the passenger has a biometric visa, then a fingerprint database check can be made; and officers decide whether the passenger should be granted entry to the United Kingdom.

In the past, under the previous Government, some of these checks were lifted at times of pressure on the border. In the summer of 2008, warning index checks were suspended on EEA nationals—children and adults—on Eurostar services. At Calais, warning index checks were suspended on European economic area and UK car passengers—again, adults as well as children were not run against the index. Since 2008, at various ports and airports, this happened on more than 100 occasions.

Officials have told me that once, in 2004, local managers at Heathrow terminal 3 decided to open controls and no checks were made. To prevent this happening again, and to allow resources to be focused on the highest-risk passengers and journeys, in July I agreed that the United Kingdom Border Agency could pilot a scheme that would allow border force officials to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers.

Initial options had been put to the then Security Minister and the Immigration Minister in January, and this resulted in proposals for a risk-based strategy coming to me in April. After further work, I agreed an amended and limited pilot scheme in July. That meant that, under limited circumstances, EEA national children, travelling with their parents or as part of a school group, would be checked against the warning index, designed to detect terrorists and serious criminals, when assessed by a border force official to be a credible risk.

The pilot also allowed, under limited circumstances, border force officials the discretion to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, on the passports of EEA nationals. Those circumstances were that the measures would always be subject to a risk-based assessment, that they should not be routine, and that the volume of passengers would be such that border security would be stronger with more risk-based checks and fewer mandatory checks than with more mandatory checks on low-risk passengers and fewer risk-based checks on high-risk passengers. The advice of security officials was sought and they confirmed that they were content with the measures.

I want everyone to understand what was supposed to happen under the terms of the pilot. In usual circumstances, all checks would be carried out on all passengers. Under the risk-based controls, everybody’s passports would be checked; visa nationals’ fingerprints would be checked; all non-EEA nationals’ biometric chips would be checked; all adults would be run past the warning index; all non-EEA nationals would be run past the warning index; and border officials would be free to use their professional judgment to check the biometric chip of EEA passengers and free to use their professional judgment to check EEA children travelling with parents or a school group against the warning index.

The pilot was extended on 19 September and was due to end last Friday. The results are not yet fully evaluated but UKBA’s statistics show that, compared to the same period last year, the number of illegal immigrants detected increased by nearly 10 per cent.

Last week, John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, raised concerns with Rob Whiteman, the chief executive of UKBA, that security checks were not being implemented properly. On Wednesday, the head of the UK Border Force, Brodie Clark, confirmed to Mr Whiteman that border controls had been relaxed without ministerial approval. First, biometric checks on EEA nationals and warning index checks on EEA national children were abandoned on a regular basis, without ministerial approval. Secondly, adults were not checked against the warning index at Calais, without ministerial approval. Thirdly, the verification of the fingerprints of non-EEA nationals from countries that require a visa was stopped, without ministerial approval.

I did not give my consent or authorisation for any of these decisions. Indeed, I told officials explicitly that the pilot was to go no further than we had agreed. As a result of these unauthorised actions, we will never know how many people entered the country who should have been prevented from doing so after being flagged by the warning index.

Following Mr Clark’s conversation with Mr Whiteman, the latter carried out further investigations and, on Thursday morning, he suspended Mr Clark from duty with immediate effect. The Home Office Permanent Secretary, the Immigration Minister and I were notified of his decision that morning. The pilot scheme, which had been due to end the next day, was suspended immediately. And on Friday two other border force officials, Graeme Kyle, director of operations at Heathrow, and Carole Upshall, director of Border Force South and European Operations, were also suspended from duty on a precautionary basis.

There is nothing more important than the security of our border and, because of the seriousness of these allegations, I have ordered a number of investigations. Dave Wood, head of the UKBA Enforcement and Crime Group and a former Metropolitan police officer, will carry out an investigation into exactly how, when and where the suspension of checks might have taken place. Mike Anderson, director-general of immigration, is looking at the actions of the wider team working for Brodie Clark and John Vine will conduct a thorough review to find out exactly what happened across UKBA in terms of the checks, how the chain of command in the border force operates and whether the system needs to be changed in future. For the sake of clarity, I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers. That investigation will begin immediately and will report by January. I will place the terms of reference for these inquiries in the House of Commons Library.

Border security is fundamental to our national security and to our policy of reducing and controlling immigration. The pilots run by the UK Border Force this summer were designed to improve border security by focusing resources at passengers and journeys that intelligence led officers to believe posed the greatest risk. The vast majority of those officers are hard-working, dedicated public servants. Just like all of us, they want to see tough immigration controls and strong enforcement, but they have been let down by senior officials at the head of the organisation who put at risk the security of our border. Our task now is to make sure that those responsible are punished and to make sure that border force officials can never take such risks with border security again. That is what I am determined to do. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, at least I can welcome the fact that the noble Lord welcomed the fact that we are making a Statement. He alleges that the Government are failing in their duty. I think that is a bit rich from the party opposite when one considers some of the failures that I outlined in the Statement made by the Home Secretary, which were failures of the party opposite when in government. We accept that there have been failings here, which is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up those two internal inquiries and, as she quite rightly emphasised, the third and most important external inquiry that will be conducted by John Vine.

As I made clear in the Statement, the terms of reference for both inquiries will be set out and placed in the Library, and I will make sure that the noble Lord gets copies. The draft terms of reference are still being discussed with John Vine, but they will cover a number of aspects, particularly investigating and reporting the level of checks operated at ports between 1 January and 4 November—Friday of last week—and fully reporting any potential adverse outcomes to border security created by any unauthorised relaxation. The noble Lord will be well aware that at this stage I cannot say whether anyone posing a threat snuck through on those occasions. That is what we hope John Vine will discover as part of his inquiry.

As I made clear in the Statement, initial results from the pilots that we discussed were fairly good. The problem was that although the pilots were authorised by the Home Secretary, quite rightly, in June of last year after extensive consultation—I could take the noble Lord at considerable length through the whole decision-making process, but that will come out in the inquiry—what seems to have happened is that certain officials went beyond what was agreed. My right honourable friend made it quite clear that they were not go to beyond what was agreed, which is why we are asking John Vine and others to look into this.

Again, I stress that my right honourable friend gave the authorisation for those pilots. We will publish the decision-making process as it is unearthed by John Vine as part of his inquiry. Again, my right honourable friend made that clear in her Statement. I shall quote her words to remind the noble Lord. She stated:

“I am very happy for Mr Vine to look at what decisions were made and when by Ministers”.

I feel that that makes it as clear as can be to the noble Lord that we are not trying to cover up anything whatever. Nor are we asking officials, as he put it, to carry the can for ministerial decisions.

My right honourable friend made a decision about pilots, as I said. It is alleged that certain officials exceeded their authority. That is what we want to have examined and will have examined because the security of our borders is fundamental. I look forward to passing on copies of those inquiries to the noble Lord. As I said, John Vine hopes to report by January. We hope to have the initial report by Dave Wood in a somewhat shorter time. However, as the noble Lord said, the independent investigation by John Vine is far more important.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefits of short questions to the Minister in order that as many noble Lords as possible have the opportunity to ask a question.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will share with the House the extent of the pilot. Is there a link between that and the suggestions that we heard today in the media that staff were deployed in the wrong places? To give us some context, does he have information about the number of number of staff in the border agency workforce, the number who have already left and how many of them were on the front line? Finally, I wonder whether he might consider that the last two paragraphs of the Statement, which refer to “those responsible” being “punished” because they “put at risk … security”, may be a little premature in view of the investigations that are still to take place.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I again make it clear that these are only allegations at this stage. The individuals have only been suspended—two of them only on a precautionary basis. We will have to wait for the results of the independent inquiry. As to staff levels, I do not accept there has been a misdirection of staff in these matters. It is very important we use staff in the best manner possible. We all know that we have to reduce the size of the United Kingdom Border Agency. Over the spending review period it will have to lose some 5,000 or so posts. That is the nature of things when we have to deal with the cuts that we are faced with—and we know why we are faced with them.

We will make sure, as far as possible, that the staff are used in the best possible way. That was one reason behind a pilot of this sort. The initial report from the pilot seemed to indicate that it was doing rather well in terms of the increased numbers of people whom it was catching. Obviously we will have to wait for the result of John Vine’s inquiry.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that border controls were relaxed without ministerial authority because of the unacceptably long queues at ports of entry? If it is the case, as the Statement asserts, that,

“there is nothing more important than the security of our border”,

surely it should be the highest priority of this Government to ensure that the border agency employs sufficient staff to ensure that full checks can be carried out at all ports of entry without the unacceptable delays that cause the need for such measures to be adopted.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord would not want me to speculate on why certain individuals are alleged to have relaxed the rules beyond what the Home Secretary authorised in the pilot. That is the point of the investigation being mounted by John Vine. We look forward to that investigation in due course. I do not accept his second point that we have necessarily to maintain United Kingdom Border Agency staff numbers at the precise level that they have been for some time. The noble Lord will know that the numbers went up quite considerably when the Border Agency was created a few years back with the merger of a number of different agencies. We now have to reduce it in size but we will make sure that staff are deployed in precisely the right manner. That matter, too, will be covered by the investigation.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

Is my noble friend aware that part of the problem of delays, which has been spoken about, is that the biometric machines installed at great expense at our airports, partly in order to speed up the process, in fact take a great deal longer? I speak as a regular weekly commuter and from experience. The technology is so defective that they take much longer than the old manual system. Is he further aware that when I flew into Gatwick last night the biometric machines there were not operating at all? When I asked the border official why they were not working, he said that he did not have a clue.

[Lord Henley]

I take note of what my noble friend has to say. We inherited these machines and will try to make sure they operate as well as we can. Whether it would be right at this stage to spend very large amounts of taxpayers’ money on installing new machines is another matter. Obviously, as my noble friend says, we want to reduce delays, because delays cause major annoyance to a great number of individuals and cause damage to business. We will do what we can. At the same time we need to maintain border security, which is one of the reasons why we want to make sure that biometric details on passports are properly read.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

I am not sure whether I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that there was a cut of 5,000 in the staff required, but no discussion about the effect of those cuts? It is a bit rich now to come to the House and say, “We’re going to try to find out the optimum number”. Surely that is a dereliction of duty.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course there has always been discussion about how many people are needed to maintain the appropriate level of protection at our borders. However, very difficult decisions have to be made in this, as they do regarding the police and other matters. Obviously, it might be a matter on which John Vine would also want to comment in his report. That is a matter for him: he is independent. The important thing is that Ministers made appropriate decisions at the time of the spending review about what was appropriate, which, in terms of making decisions, we have had to do across the whole of government.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, while not wishing in any way to endorse the cuts in UK Border Force staff which have led to delays of up to three hours in clearance at Heathrow, I wonder whether this is not one of the few times when instead of Ministers being driven into resignation due to the negligence of civil servants, as happened with Charles Clarke, a civil servant is being required to take the rap. It is a precedent that I fully support.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the delays, the border agency is largely meeting the targets imposed on it. The noble Lord will no doubt have examples of some pretty severe delays, but in the main, at something like 95 per cent of all locations, the agency is processing individuals with the appropriate speed. As for the noble Lord’s final remarks, all we are saying is that it seems that this official, or these officials, went beyond what Ministers authorised. That is why this process is taking place.

[Lord Marlesford]

Does my noble friend agree that there have been repeated occasions when the incompetence of the Home Office immigration department has been denounced, going back to a time when the noble Lord, Lord Reid—who in my view was a very effective Home Secretary—declared the department not fit for purpose? On that occasion the head of the department was actually promoted to be Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. Is my noble friend aware that not only are we deeply disturbed by the apparent incompetence being revealed, but that there have been press reports over the weekend of criminal corruption at the heart of the service in the headquarters at Lunar House? That is deeply worrying. Will he add to the inquiry’s terms of reference the possibility of replacing the top operational command of this service, currently exercised by Home Office officials, with the appointment of retired military officers who have spent their professional lives defending the realm?

[Lord Henley]

On my noble friend’s first point, I am aware that there has been a certain amount of criticism over the years of the various controls that we have on our borders—going back, as he pointed out, to Mr John Reid, now the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others. We are trying to put that right. My noble friend also commented on criminal activity within the UK Border Force. No doubt they are only allegations at this stage, and are another matter that it will be permissible for Mr John Vine to look at in his review. As I said earlier, at the moment we are still discussing the draft terms of reference for the review, but I am sure that he would be more than happy to look at matters of that sort as well.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, is it not the case that Home Office Ministers frequently visit our border posts? In the circumstances, is it not surprising that they did not visit sites where these pilots were taking place—or if they did, that they did not notice or hear from the staff concerned how the pilots had been extended? Can the Minister also tell us what arrangements Ministers made to monitor the pilots and the way in which they were working?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, speaking for myself, I have to say that I have not visited any of the pilots, but then I have not been in the Home Office for that long. No doubt I will make inquiries of my honourable and right honourable friends and let the noble Lord know what visits have been made. However, I believe that Ministers have visited ports and airports on quite a regular basis to see how these things operate. I certainly was intending to do that at some point in the near future, but when I will be able to manage that is another matter. Of course Ministers always want to evaluate any pilot schemes they put into place, whether by visits or by other means.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that when the inquiries are over, the reports have been read and dissected and the dust has settled, we will not lose in that process the concepts of risk assessment and intelligence-led operations?

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend is quite right to say that those are very important. It is obviously important that we do not burden every single individual with a full investigation as they go through. That is why we have different procedures for UK citizens and EU nationals in comparison with what we have for other people. There will always be a place for making decisions based on the perceived risk as seen by the individual officer concerned.

[Lord Stirrup]

My Lords, few would argue with the principle of risk assessment and the targeting of resources more appropriately, but can the Minister tell us whether, as a result of the pilot, the total effort or quantum of scrutiny that went into protecting our borders was increased or reduced?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is early days for saying much about the pilot other than that it looks as though it achieved rather good results by focusing on the more high-risk people rather than on the lesser ones. However, no doubt we will be able to tell the noble and gallant Lord more in due course once the pilot has been fully assessed.

[Lord Skidelsky]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of Adam Smith’s famous remark that defence is more important than opulence. Does he agree that defence is also more important than austerity, and that the security of the realm should not be sacrificed to the cuts?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have not sacrificed the security of the realm to cuts either in this area or in other areas. However, I thank the noble Lord, as always, for bringing to my attention another bit of Adam Smith that I was unaware of, but then I was never quite as well educated as I ought to have been, if I had had the chance of sitting at the feet of the noble Lord at an earlier stage in my career.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, is it appropriate for my noble friend to tell your Lordships’ House by whom the biometric machines are manufactured?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, not without notice, but no doubt I will write to my noble friend.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, are there lessons to be learnt from the Israelis in this? While people are waiting to be assessed and interviewed by the immigration authorities, assessments are made and they are profiled, and of course in some cases they are targeted very successfully.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously, lessons are always to be learnt from all around the world. No doubt, if the noble Lord wishes it, we will look at the experience of the Israelis as well as that from other parts.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, one of the allegations made by the Home Affairs Select Committee was that at least 125,000 people have been lost in this country and can no longer be traced. There is no indication of what will happen to them. Would it not be wise to extend the scope of the inquiry to see why those illegal entrants are still in this country?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is trying to take the inquiry on to other, equally important matters which should be looked at. We want John Vine to be able to report by January of next year. Therefore, he should focus on the issues in front of us—that is, why officials were going beyond what was authorised by Ministers, and what Ministers authorised.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, will my noble friend comment on my suggestion that the Vine terms of reference should include the possibility of bringing in the retired military to run this service in the future?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that Mr Vine will have noted what my noble friend had to say. I am not going to comment at this stage.

Police: Station Closures

Lord Henley Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many police stations have been closed since May 2010.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, this information is not collected centrally. Decisions about resources are, rightly, matters for chief constables to take locally with their police authorities. What is important is how visible and available the police are. We want to see police officers on the streets, preventing and cutting crime, rather than behind their desks. Modern policing reaches people through many means, not just through police stations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that illuminating Answer. Could it be that the Government do not collect this information centrally because the information is too embarrassing to them? Can the Minister confirm that the recent Sunday Times survey that showed 350 public counters due for closure in the next few months is accurate? Can he also confirm that his ministerial colleague in the Home Office, Lynne Featherstone, has been running a campaign in her constituency against police cuts and the closure of public counters? Does he agree that this is somewhat hypocritical, and does it not show that she knows that these cuts are going to have an impact on the police’s ability to fight crime?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am aware of the research in the Sunday Times to which the noble Lord refers. I am not sure it was conducted on the most scientific basis and therefore we will not take much notice of it. I am also aware of what my honourable friend Ms Featherstone had to say about issues in her own constituency. I understand her views were purely about her own constituency, and she is a very good constituency MP. I can assure the House that, like all government Ministers, she is fully committed to what the Government and the Home Office are doing to make the necessary savings—savings forced on us by the profligate manner in which the party opposite behaved when they were last in government.

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Does the Minister agree that the economic situation and budget cuts may force the new police commissioners to choose between maintaining police numbers and selling police properties?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question, and I am aware that she is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. The question is about police contact, and the important thing to remember is that police contact is not just about stations; as I made clear in my original Answer, it is about police stations and all other means by which we can achieve that police contact. Police stations are not necessarily always the best means of doing that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Given that contact is the key issue, how does the Home Office view the decisions by the Mayor of London and his deputy for policing to cut by nearly a half the number of sergeants responsible for safer neighbourhoods and liaising closely with local communities? Is that not a significant reduction in contact with the community?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is a member of that police authority and will no doubt put those questions to the mayor in due course. The important point is that those decisions are made by the appropriate authority. It is not for us to micromanage these things; it is for us to make the appropriate resources available to the police. We accept that the cuts that we are having to make, which were forced on us by the previous Government, are difficult. However, they are challenging but manageable, and all police authorities will manage to achieve them.

[Baroness Chalker of Wallasey]

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister encourage chief constables to use those early-retired persons who are prepared to volunteer their services both to man desks in police stations and to carry out other non-police but essential back-up tasks? This is working extremely well in a number of areas of the Metropolitan force, and I believe that it should be widely extended across the country.

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend makes a very good point indeed and I will certainly take it on board. It is quite right that we should make use of the expertise that we have to make sure that policemen who are still available for front-line duties can do them and are not wasted behind the doors of the police station doing bureaucratic jobs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister, who said that he does not know how many police stations have closed. In my county of Essex, seven police stations have closed, but, worse than that, we now have no more 24-hour police stations, and most police stations are open only between noon and 6 pm. Given that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that a 12 per cent cut in police budgets was the most that could be saved, how can the Government justify a 20 per cent cut in Essex? What impact will this have, and why did they not listen to the chief inspector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is obviously a matter for the authorities in Essex. We accept that things will be difficult, as I have made clear in all the supplementary answers that I have offered to the House. The noble Baroness will be aware of the most recent report from HMIC, Adapting to Austerity, which was published in July this year and which sets out a summary of forces’ workforce plans for the spending review period. The number working in front-line roles is expected to fall by just 2 per cent on average, but it must be for each force to decide how to do that itself.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

Since the Official Opposition are leading with their chin, does my noble friend recall that under the doctrine of collective responsibility Labour Ministers were seen on the picket lines and at the protests against the closure of hospitals in their constituencies?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is not unusual for the Opposition to lead with their chin, so perhaps I ought to remind them of what one of their own former police spokesmen said only too recently. Vernon Coaker, the former shadow Police Minister, said:

“Ideally, you want the station to remain in the town but if that's not possible and they don't have the money then we have to look at alternatives … A lot of areas do operate without a station but they all have a presence”.

[Lord Taylor of Blackburn]

My Lords, what would the Minister’s reaction be to the recommendation, if it was made, that the police station at Penrith close?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not aware of such a suggestion, but, if it was made, obviously I would want to discuss it with the chief constable of the authority I happen to live in. However, it would be for him and not for me or for any other Home Office Minister to decide what was appropriate for Cumbria policing and policing in Penrith.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on the Government’s priorities for the police service in this country, given that they are introducing, at great public expense, an untried and unpiloted new system that replaces police authorities instead of using that money in the way the overwhelming majority of the public want it to be used: on the police service in their locality, including police stations?

[Lord Henley]

I will not rehearse the debates that we had at some considerable length on the police Bill when it recently went through this House. This House and another place, Parliament as a whole, decided in favour of police commissioners, which we feel is the right way forward and is what we will do. It will create much greater local accountability. If the noble Baroness looks at what we have at the moment in the form of police authorities and what we will have in the future with police and crime commissioners, she will, in due course, recognise that that will be a great improvement.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Henley Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing forward these amendments, which are all essentially probing amendments. I commend her for so doing, as this is what the House does very well. I hope I can respond to and answer most of the points she has made in her four amendments—in fact, there are five, but they are in four batches.

If I start with Amendment 54, which is about the meaning of “appropriate”, I must first describe what subsection (9) does. It provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order,

“may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation, in accordance with this section, of the enhanced TPIM power”.

We believe that subsection (9) is essential to the clause. It allows the Secretary of State to make the consequent provisions to make sure that the enhanced TPIM regime functions properly, and it allows for equivalent provision to be made, to occur in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the draft enhanced TPIM Bill.

This specifies that the operation of Schedule 6 to the TPIM Bill, which relates to the retention of DNA, is modified in order to accommodate the ETPIM regime. In particular, it takes account of the fact that the same individual may, at a different time, be subject to both an enhanced TPIM notice and the standard TPIM notice. I hope that my noble friend will accept that.

Amendment 55 would insert a new clause after subsection (10). The provisions of Clauses 26 and 27 already ensure that the order will apply the provisions of the Bill to the enhanced TPIM regime to the extent that it is appropriate. This includes all the nuts and bolts of the TPIM regime; for example the role of the court, and the way in which the TPIM notices are varied or revoked. The provisions that are not applied to the order are those which are not yet relevant. For example, an enhanced TPIM notice may not be extended for a year under the order, as the order, unlike the enhanced TPIM Bill, only lasts for 90 days and cannot be renewed.

Amendment 56 would delete the provision allowing the Secretary of State to amend any enactment under the order-making power. The noble Baroness stated that the amendment was not quite as elegant as it ought to be. She may have raised a point that we will certainly consider. At this stage, we want to see whether that provision is necessary; we will come back to the noble Baroness, have discussions with her, and possibly bring forward an amendment on Report.

Amendments 59 and 63, which are to be taken together, relate to commencement. I think the noble Baroness was really asking not so much about commencement but rather consideration of the draft legislation of the enhanced Bill. Obviously, it must be for the usual channels to decide what is appropriate, which committees are available, and so on. However, I am sure that with discussions between the usual channels—between the Government, the Opposition and others—we will come to the right solution as to how the enhanced TPIM Bill should be considered by this House and another place, or perhaps both together, while bearing in mind the resources available to both Houses. Different noble Lords will have different views on this, to which we will listen in due course, as will the usual channels, as always. I hope those explanations are sufficient for the noble Baroness but if they are not we can discuss them further. However, with that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for all of that. With regard to his reply on my first amendment, I shall have to take his word for it. That is my failure of concentration, not his failure of explanation. It is certainly a reply that deserves to be read in Hansard as it was quite technical.

On Clauses 26 and 27 applying to the extent that is appropriate and what is not appropriate, the Minister seemed to give examples rather than a complete reply. I am sure that his brief includes examples for him to give, which is fair enough, but it would be helpful to understand the extent of the point. May I ask him to let me have a complete answer in writing after Committee stage? These clauses are quite difficult to follow. I think I said on the previous day in Committee that a flow chart would be helpful in some cases. Given the powers that the Secretary of State would be granted, it would be appropriate to have as extensive an understanding of what is meant as possible.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, whether I can provide a flow chart is one thing but I certainly promise to write to my noble friend so that we can sort these things out between now and Report. At this stage I will just give a commitment to write to her but that commitment does not necessarily extend to providing a flow chart.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not think I was asking for a flow chart but I share the Minister’s wish to get this sorted out before Report. These issues do not lend themselves terribly easily to debate across the Floor of the Chamber. As regards the enhanced Bill, I hear what the Minister has to say. I thought it was worth continuing to ask the question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for that comment. Yes, we are satisfied and it would be very troubling if we were not. Perhaps I may also deal with the brief point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the terrorism co-ordinator. I am assuming that by that term used in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, means a senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, but I shall let him address that in due course.

I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She emphasised, first, the point of the role of Home Secretary and, secondly, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself addressed—that we should look not just at the Bill on its own but at the Bill plus the additional resources that have been promised. That is the most important matter before the House at this stage. It is not just the Bill that we are talking about, but the whole package that the Government have put forward.

I thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the concerns that lie behind his amendments. I appreciate that he raised the subject of relocation and the case of CD, in which, on that occasion, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary used relocation. However, as I have said, we must look at the package; and it is because the package will be in operation that we believe that relocation will not be so necessary in the future. As the House will be aware, there has been considerable debate over the past few weeks, here and in another place, about the arrangement for the transition from control orders to the new system of TPIMs. These amendments are an attempt to return to the issues raised by amendments tabled in another place and debated at some length on Commons Report.

The Opposition have been consistent in expressing their concern that the police and the Security Service may not be ready for the commencement of the Bill when the time comes. These amendments, in common with those tabled in another place, are intended to provide reassurance on that point by delaying commencement of the Bill or by making it subject to agreement with the police on the readiness of the significant additional resources that we are providing. However, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, that must, in the end, be a matter for the Home Secretary.

I accept that such concerns, particularly in the run-up to the Olympic Games, are well intended and are born of a concern to deal with matters that relate to the safety of the public. However, I am happy to confirm that I do not believe that they are necessary. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the public will be protected by the Bill because we are satisfied that there are sufficient resources available, including in relation to the date on which the Bill comes into force. We believe that the Bill plus the robust package provide the appropriate measures to protect the public, and alongside it there will be considerably increased resources to strengthen covert investigative capacity. We have repeatedly made it clear that for obvious reasons we are not able to provide details of that additional funding or its deployment, and that remains clear. However, we have also been clear—and I am pleased to confirm this again—that we have been in discussion with the police and the Security Service for some months on this matter, and arrangements will be in place to manage effectively the transition from control orders to TPIMs.

I hope that those assurances are sufficient for the noble Lord. If they are not, we will obviously come back to this matter on Report. However, I hope he will accept that we obviously cannot go into detail on what the resources are, and he would not expect me to do so. However, what I have said should be sufficient to allay his fears and I hope that he will therefore be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed by his response. I just refer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the evidence given by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne to the Public Bill Committee when he was asked about the effectiveness or not of relocation orders. He said:

“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 5.]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a question of the Bill plus resources. He said that he is confident that, alongside the provisions of the Bill, sufficient resources are being made available to the police and security forces. Of course, I can only accept the assurance that the noble Lord has given but I simply wonder whether he is wise to move to a new system within a very short period of the Olympics coming to this country. I wonder whether there is not a case for the implementation of this measure being delayed until after the Olympics. That really is the intention behind my amendment, which is meant to be helpful, and I hope that the Government will give it further consideration between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I strongly support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It seems to be highly desirable, to put it at its very least, that, as problems change, there should be an annual review of the existing law dealing with terrorism. Like all previous speakers, I, too, support the amendment.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have three brief points to make, which will take me a little time, about why we do not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, we believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance—a word I have used on many occasions; secondly, I believe that annual renewal is unnecessary, and I shall return to that in more detail; and, thirdly, there are other means by which the Bill can be amended or repealed.

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulks for his comments reminding the House that the provisions that face us follow a very lengthy review of all our counterterrorism provisions by the Government, with the announcements earlier in the year and consideration of this Bill, in due course, in both Houses. This is very different from what happened with the 2005 Act. We believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance and reflects the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that the powers do not remain in force longer than necessary. It also reflects the competence of Parliament to apply intense scrutiny to legislation and to arrive at a position when it will not need to be reviewed annually. We are moving to a position where we hope that each Parliament will last five years, so each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this in the context of the situation at the time and take its own view. That is in line with the length of Parliaments, as I have said, provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Secondly, I believe that annual review is unnecessary. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, say that he was wasting his breath. He never wastes his breath in this House. I have been here for many years and I have listened to him with great devotion on many occasions. I do not always agree with him, but he is not wasting his breath. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is more optimistic and feels that an annual debate provides a better opportunity for these things, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, a copy of whose book Just Law—however you pronounce it—sits in my room in the Home Office to this day, and I will always have it there to be reminded about how I should go about my duties. However, I have to say that I do not agree with her, or with others, on this occasion about whether annual renewal is necessary.

The important thing is to distinguish the process we are going through on this occasion from the process we went through following the 2005 Act. This Bill will be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny with the usual timetable—we still have not completed it in this House—allowing for a settled position to be reached. In contrast, the 2005 legislation was, as the noble Lord will remember, rushed through with very little opportunity for debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded the House of her role in that. We believe that that makes annual renewal an appropriate safeguard for the 2005 Act, but one that we do not think is necessary for this Act.

My third point is that there are also other means by which the Bill can be amended or replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stressed that these powers seem to be permanent, but I ask him to look very carefully at Clause 21(2) which states that:

“The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument … repeal the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers”.

It is unusual to give the Secretary of State the power to repeal something, but that provision allows her, if she feels they are no longer necessary, at any stage to repeal and take away the powers that she has given herself. Again, I make this point in terms of how, if it becomes clear that the powers should be changed, the legislation can be amended by Parliament at any time in the usual way.

I appreciate that many noble Lords feel that an annual debate would be preferable to one every five years. It happens on other occasions. I think there is some financial Motion that we debate once a year under EU rules following some vote in this House, and I have noticed, and I think other noble Lords will have noticed, that the number of participants in that debate seems to decline each year as time goes past, so I wonder whether a debate every year is necessary, given the fact that this Bill has been given full coverage in both Houses.

I appreciate that others may feel differently but, at this stage, I think that what we are offering and have brought forward as a concession in another place—a debate once each Parliament—is appropriate and will be sufficient, given the other safeguards in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will feel that on this occasion he can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the contributions they have made based, I have to say, on considerably more experience and knowledge of the issues involved than I can claim to possess. Perhaps I should also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her determination on this point with the previous Government.

There is no disagreement that this amendment raises a key issue of real significance. It is about parliamentary oversight of extraordinary and exceptional executive powers which directly affect to a considerable degree the freedom and liberty of a small number of individuals whom the Secretary of State reasonably believes are or have been involved in terrorist activity. That oversight, involving human rights and civil liberties, cannot be properly exercised if done only once every five years. In reality, the Bill would be amended or dropped in the intervening years only if it were the Government, not Parliament, that wanted to change the legislation. That is surely a fact of life.

St Paul’s Cathedral

Lord Henley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, everybody has a right to peaceful protest, but that right comes with responsibilities, including respecting the rights of others. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has asked protestors to leave and so enable the cathedral to reopen. The Government believe that the protestors should comply with this request. The police are working closely with the cathedral as they monitor the situation, and the Government are being kept informed of developments.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but there is a clear difference between a normal protest and a permanent encampment. For some years we have had the national embarrassment, which still continues, of the permanent encampment in Parliament Square. Now we have a situation where one of our major cathedrals, an icon, is closed and the surrounding traders are suffering severely. Is it not time that the Government actually came out on this and took new powers to deal with these permanent encampments? If they are not dealt with at this stage, I fear that they will spread.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the two issues are slightly different because the ownership of the land involved in Parliament Square and at St Paul’s is different: at Parliament Square the land belongs to the local authority whereas at St Paul’s it belongs to the church and the City of London. We have taken measures to deal with the Parliament Square problem, which were covered in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and I hope that we will be able to deal with that problem shortly. As regards dealing with demonstrations of this sort on private land, I note what my noble friend says about the need to look at changes in the law. Certainly, if problems like this persist, and if we have problems like this that are likely to disrupt the Olympics or whatever, it is certainly something the Government will have to look at in due course.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, should not the protestors be told clearly that they have made their point and that the longer they stay the more they will possibly alienate public opinion, losing potential supporters in the process? They would be far better to leave in a dignified manner, having made their point clearly.

[Lord Henley]

I agree totally with the noble Lord. The right reverend Prelate has made that point; the Government have made that point; others will make that point. I think it is time for them to pack up their tents and go, but we have no power to get them to go while they are on private land.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that what is needed is not action “in due course” but action now?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what my noble friend has to say, but this is on private land and therefore it is a matter for the owners of that land to deal with it. We do not have the powers to deal with it at the moment, but as I said in response to the original Question from my noble friend, obviously if we continue to have problems of this sort, this is something we will have to consider.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, the noble Lord in an earlier answer referred to Parliament Square, on which he said that action would be taken shortly. We all know what “shortly” means: it can mean either “some time in the future, perhaps, when we get round to it”, or “we are on the verge of taking action now, and it will happen fairly soon”. Is it the first or the second?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, when a Minister, has used the word “shortly” before now. We all do use it from time to time. The noble Lord will also be aware that we have given ourselves powers in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Those powers need to be brought into effect. I cannot confirm precisely when, and that is why I used the word “shortly”, which the noble Lord will be familiar with.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I declare an interest as I have an office in Paternoster Square. Is my noble friend aware that the police thermal imaging cameras in the helicopters flying over this camp have revealed that during the night there are very few people in these tents and that they go off home or go off to live in hotels? Is this not making the stage laugh at the audience? Do we not need to recognise this for what it is, which is a disruption and not a legitimate protest, and to take the powers necessary rather than getting involved in arguments about who owns the property? This is a clear disruption of the life of the city and the life of the cathedral, and the Government must act.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I am very grateful to him for pointing out that the protesters seem to be very much what might be described as part-time protesters. The sad thing is that this is on private land. Therefore, it is not a matter for the Government to intervene. It is a matter for the owners of that land, which, in this case, is the dean and chapter, to take the appropriate action. As I have said, obviously we have to look at the future and I was very grateful for the comments made by my noble friend in his supplementary question in terms of whether we need to change the law to deal with further problems later.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the right to peaceful protest. Is there not also a right to worship in a church when one wants to do so?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course there is a right to worship but it is a matter for the church authorities to decide whether they can open that church or not. I do not answer at this Dispatch Box for the church. It was the dean and chapter who decided on grounds of health and safety—whether that was right or not is a matter for them to argue—that they could not continue to open the church. That is not a matter for the Government.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, is not an empty tent litter, whether it is on public property or private property, that can be removed without further legislation?

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend makes an interesting point. Whether an empty tent is litter is a matter that I am not going to argue now. I go back to the principle that this is something on private property and, therefore, is not something on which the Government currently have powers to intervene.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords—