Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I feel a sense of frustration. There are so many issues that one wants to pursue, but it is not the first Bill where we will experience that. In Committee, we had a series of amendments regarding the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. Almost all of them were concerned with ensuring that the job is not so constructed as to preclude the commissioner making her own decisions on how to go about her work. I put it that way to distinguish it from the content of the work.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it very succinctly. He said that the whole thrust of certain clauses is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. Our debates largely boiled down to the commissioner’s autonomy. I did not entirely follow the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; he said that our amendments focused on independence but then set about how the commissioner should fulfil the role. Independence was a particular focus on this part of the Bill, although naturally noble Lords had been keen to draw attention to a variety of issues. That tension has been a bit of an issue today, of course, but that is perhaps by the by.

Independence is a hugely important component of the role. The Government have been arguing today that that is so in resisting some amendments; they certainly did that in Committee. It is a component, as far as possible, given that the commissioner’s position is that of a statutory officeholder funded by the Secretary of State with no separate legal persona. The framework agreement between the commissioner and the Secretary of State will be very important in this regard.

As well as the commissioner’s freedom to select her own staff—following due process, of course—in Committee we had quite extensive debate about the advisory board. Different noble Lords argued for members of the board with particular backgrounds and experience. The Bill provides for at least six members and spells out whom each of the six is to represent. I have to say that the term “represent” still troubles me. I think there is a danger of muddling representation and advice. The maximum under the Bill is 10 members. Why? Clearly, there is a huge range of problems and situations relevant to domestic abuse and so a range of individuals and organisations with a range of experience and expertise, including experience of the whole sector and its interconnecting parts, is needed.

In our view, the commissioner should have the scope —and this is a matter of her autonomy—to appoint such a board to advise her, or, in the future, him, as she considers appropriate. At this stage, I am not arguing with the interests that the six are to represent under the Bill, although I remain concerned that they will be the Secretary of State’s pick, but if the commissioner wishes to bring in more than four further people in the capacity of advisory board members she should be able to do so. There seems no good reason to impose the restriction on numbers.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this was

“to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]

That is what we all want, but efficiency and effectiveness is about more than numbers. It is about what each member contributes and how the board as a whole operates and that should be a matter for the commissioner. The commissioner can and may well seek advice from elsewhere. I dare say she can bring people into board meetings as a one-off. I am not sure whether she can co-opt—I cannot see that there is a restriction on that. However, those individuals should be afforded the respect of a permanent role if that is warranted and not be limited as the board proposes. This issue encapsulates our concerns about the commissioner’s autonomy and independence and that is why we have chosen it as the one to pursue at this stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has brought this matter back to the attention of your Lordships on Report. Clearly, the idea of an advisory board is welcome and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have no objection to the range of interests which the Bill specifies must be represented on the board itself.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although it is not the subject of the amendment, I am still very surprised by the term “representative”. I know that this is an advisory board, rather than a governance board, but having the notion of representatives is very bad corporate governance. People should be appointed for what they can contribute, not for whom they represent. I hope that that does not make it more difficult to have an effective advisory board.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the numbers to be appointed. I accept that 10 is a reasonable figure, but there may be circumstances where the commissioner would want to go above that. I fail to see why we cannot leave it to her good sense to be able to do so, if she wants to. I hope the Government will accept this very sensible and modest amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Clause 40 stand part is grouped with Amendment 31 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bach, which is very different. I shall confine my remarks to the clause. A curfew can be more than overnight. All the points about amendments we have debated this evening are relevant to the time—the hours of the day and night—during which a subject may be required to remain wherever he is living—plus, of course, in particular, engaging Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the deprivation of liberty.

The ECHR memorandum published with the Bill is explicit that this provision is so that an individual can be required to observe longer curfew hours. That is not a justification, however. We have some case law, as I am sure other noble Lords may mention. In JJ, Lord Bingham said that account should be taken of

“a range of factors such as the nature, duration, effects and manner of execution or implementation”

of a measure—very much as noble Lords said on a previous group. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, took the view that the absolute limit was 16 hours, and I understand that no curfew has been for a period longer than 16 hours since.

The ECHR memorandum makes the point that the principle of curfew does not breach Article 5, and I take that point, but the particular issue I want to raise in this connection is that the clause—that is, the change—makes it that much easier for the limits to be pushed longer and longer and throws on the individual the need to challenge them, rather than having clear limits set on the Secretary of State through legislation.

I am sure that noble Lords will understand, when it comes to the appetite, and indeed the ability, of an individual to challenge each measure, or extended measure, it is not an easy task. The balance—I think it is called “equality of arms”—moves completely out of balance through this clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not sure that our two amendments have any connection whatever. None the less, it is a pleasure to be able to make this short intervention on the Bill and to probe just a little more than I did at Second Reading the role of police and crime commissioners.

I do support the strengthening of the TPIM provisions. That the Government would have to do so was entirely foreseeable in 2011, when the coalition Government insisted on the abolition of control orders, despite the warnings that I and other noble Lords gave at the time.

My amendment was drafted after discussions with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson. Clearly, the provisions are potentially extremely resource-intensive and need to be used proportionately and only when absolutely necessary. I would like to make two specific comments.

As the thresholds for a TPIM are lowered and the range of measures extended, it is important that greater scrutiny and oversight are implemented to give reassurance to individuals and communities that the legislation is being used fairly. These are of course issues of grave national security concern. The oversight offered by a police and crime commissioner could help to give the Home Secretary reassurance that full consideration had been given ahead of any decision regarding a TPIM. Local oversight could also enhance the ability of the Home Secretary to make an informed decision when considering a TPIM application, variation or extension. It would enable PCCs to submit any additional information or make recommendations to the Home Secretary in respect of the community impact and the impact on local police force resources—which, as has already been discussed, can be intensive for a TPIM.

It is not entirely clear how police and crime commissioners are currently made aware of TPIMs within their local area. Certainly, the chief constable should advise the police and crime commissioner when a TPIM is being considered, but there are no clear guidelines on how this should take place. My amendment would formalise this process. We know that the number of TPIMs in place nationally is small, and therefore it should not be envisaged that this additional step in the process would present a burden for police and crime commissioners or forces. As part of this process, the information would of course have to be shared within the most appropriate, secure environment.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, responded to that point by saying that the Home Office already works very closely with the police before a TPIM is imposed and during its lifetime. She went on to say:

“The process ensures that TPIMs are imposed only following engagement with the relevant local police force and that community impact assessments are kept up to date.”


She then said:

“The Bill already contains a clause that will allow a TPIM subject’s relocation measure to be varied where necessary on operational resource grounds.”


On those grounds, she considered that my

“proposed amendment for an additional role for PCCs … in TPIM processes is … not necessary.”—[Official Report, 21/9/20; col. 1653.]

That was disappointing. The key issue here is that TPIMs are an intervention that places significant restrictions on a person’s life, based on the balance of probabilities. Given that, PCCs could add value in the process by seeking reassurance that due process had been followed. I remind the Minister that they do this for other policing powers that might be regarded as controversial, including stop and search and the use of covert services, and it would be appropriate if it were extended to TPIMs. I commend the amendment and hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving this Motion because I believe the regulations on charges for overseas visitors do not clarify how up-front charging can work without increasing barriers to healthcare for very vulnerable groups. They do not explain how they will not breach equality legislation through the potential use of racial profiling as a means of identifying chargeable patients. The regulations do not show how the extension of charging to community services will not lead to patients being prevented from accessing preventive care programmes. I also believe that it is a matter for further regret that these regulations have been introduced without sufficient checks of the effectiveness and value for money of the very bureaucratic process proposed.

Let me say at once that, on the face of it, charging overseas visitors to use our hard-pressed NHS is entirely reasonable. But the Government’s latest plans to extend charges to community services will raise very little money, place a huge bureaucratic burden on the NHS and deny healthcare to very vulnerable people. The UK already charges some overseas visitors for most hospital care after treatment. Patients who are not eligible for free care include short-term visitors, undocumented migrants and some asylum seekers whose claims have been refused. There are already processes in place for hospitals to identify and bill such patients. We understand that in addition to these regulations, the Government are considering extending charging to A&E and GP services.

Under the regulations that came into force last month, all community services receiving NHS funding, including charities and social enterprises, are now legally required to check every patient’s paperwork, including passports and proof of address, before they receive a service to see whether they should pay for their care. Charges are up front, with non-urgent care refused. As a person will need to provide paperwork and/or a passport to prove eligibility, there is a distinct possibility that people who are entitled to free care on the NHS will be denied treatment because they do not have it at hand. Particularly vulnerable groups here include the elderly, asylum seekers, homeless people and mentally ill people. Moreover, if patients continually have to provide details every time they need healthcare, this risks them waiting longer, with an inevitable increase in bureaucracy.

Asylum Matters, in conjunction with a number of other organisations, has commented in response to the Minister, who has written both to Members of this House and to MPs in the House of Commons to allay fears about how patient ID checks will be carried out. He says that the changes do not require a patient to provide a means of identification to qualify for free care. He says that, while that may be helpful in demonstrating eligibility, other information will be used by trained NHS staff to ensure that the residency status of a patient is identified. He says that the regulations simply require that a relevant body must make such inquiries that it is satisfied are reasonable in the circumstance to determine whether charges should be made. The problem is that those protections are not built into the regulations. They may be in the guidance but guidance can be changed at any point, and they cannot be enforced if NHS organisations choose to insist on further proof of a patient’s ID.

I have been written to by many people, and I would like to refer to a very important paper sent to me by Natalie Bloomer, in which she refers to the father of a newborn baby who recently received a letter from his local hospital demanding to know whether his eight day-old child was entitled to free healthcare. The parents wondered if they had received the letter due to the mother’s foreign-sounding maiden name. When the father went back to the hospital, it quickly told the family to disregard the letter. For me, this highlights the whole problem of this wretched and miserable policy. It is quite clear to me that, apart from the dreadful impression and reputation it gives of our country, many people who legitimately live here and have every right to NHS treatment are going to be challenged by the NHS. I find this absolutely despicable.

I gather that the Secretary of State has claimed that charging regulations simply bring us into line with our European neighbours. Of course, this is complete nonsense. The work done by Doctors of the World, which I have seen, has been researched comprehensively, and the fact is that many European countries, particularly the ones we tend to compare ourselves with, actually provide a more comprehensive package of free healthcare—for instance, to undocumented migrants.

I receive many briefings and letters from reputable organisations. This regret Motion has been backed by many trusted and well-respected bodies, including the BMA, the Royal College of Midwives, Doctors of the World UK, the National AIDS Trust, Asylum Matters and Freedom from Torture. Many of them represent groups which will be intimately affected by the regulation introducing and extending overseas charges.

They are not the only ones to oppose this new policy. An open letter addressed to the Secretary of State, published by 193 organisations and 880 individuals, has called for the regulations to be dropped as soon as possible. Among the signatories were 300 doctors, 50 nurses, the former NHS chief executive Sir David Nicholson, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Amnesty International. Not only were they all agreed that the introduction and extension of charges will place a greater burden on the NHS, but this is the kind of thing that the Conservative Government pledged to cut down—the wretched bureaucracy involved and the time that will be spent by staff trying to make these charges work. The Royal College of General Practitioners has flagged up the possibility the new system could end up overstretching already strained family doctors at medical centres. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference, in its letter, spoke of the catastrophic consequences of the new regulations and asked for them to be suspended.

Not only is this a ludicrous action by the Government, it will have no impact whatever on the finances of the NHS. The estimate is that it will bring a £200,000 saving—how ridiculous. The point I want to make in the debate tonight is that these rules are now already law. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference has asked for the regulations to be suspended, and I hope the Minister can announce that he is going to do that, but at the least there should be an early independent review of how the new charges are operating. Until then, there can be no question of extending charges to yet more services. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the organisations that have briefed us. Sending a joint briefing was particularly helpful, not because it reduces the paper but because it increases the force of the content. It came from Asylum Matters, Doctors of the World UK, NAT and Freedom from Torture. We have had briefings from others too. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Like him, I understand that some charging of visitors is entirely reasonable, but—and it is a very big but—the noble Lord has raised some very pointed questions wrapped up in the text of his Motion, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those point by point.

This is not a new problem for some groups but it is now worse. During the passage of the Immigration Bill, now the Immigration Act 2014, the points were put forcefully—especially, I remember, by those concerned with maternal health and by doctors who were working with a wide range of immigrants. I remember hearing from Doctors of the World UK that, before the regulations which followed that Act came into force, there were queues round the block at its clinic of people who were anxious about what their position would be afterwards.

The charging then was presented as an innocuous extension of the system, and really very beneficial. There was a lot of talk about health tourism blocking access for those of us who are not tourists. I began to think that the world must be full of people who had had their pregnancy confirmed and immediately booked a flight for the due date minus however many weeks the chosen airline applied as the cut-off for carrying pregnant women. At that time, it became clear that many hospitals found the charging system then in force so burdensome that it had simply defeated them, and there was a good deal of criticism of those that were defeated, I recall. This time around, again there has been considerable protest from people who have seen at first hand the effect of what the pre-23 October regulations require.

When I looked for the government impact assessment on the regulations, I found an evaluation by Ipsos MORI of the overseas visitor and migrant NHS cost recovery programme, published in January this year but apparently started in 2014. The paragraph on the costs and benefits of implementation made startling reading—which I found difficult because I printed it off in such a small font. It made me doubt whether there really was benefit to the implementation. What continued valuation will there be? This is another way of asking the question that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked: will the Government consult before extending the charges into other health services, including A&E and GP services? The letter that the Secretary of State wrote in response to the open letter seems to say these things are so because they are so. I am sure that there cannot be as relaxed an attitude as that seems to suggest.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Once again, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord Henley, as we deal with orders and regulations in Grand Committee. I am grateful for his very persuasive arguments in favour of these regulations, but I have one or two points to raise.

Clearly, the regulations are about making UKBA pay its way in the world. Does there come a point where providing additional services on a premium basis and dramatically increasing the cost of applying for particular forms run the risk of effectively selling British citizenship? How precisely does the Minister assess the value to an individual who is making a particular application? That is how the amount is now set, it seems. It is not the amount it costs to run or provide the service, but the assessment by UKBA or the Minister of the supposed value to the applicants of the benefits that accrue to them. It would be interesting to know how those figures are arrived at.

What impact does the Minister think that the increases will have on the total number of people applying to come to the UK or to stay once they are already here? Will he say a little more about how much additional money will be raised for UKBA? Some increases are higher than others, but the noble Lord referred to an average of 2 per cent. Clearly, it would be interesting to know the impact on UKBA’s income.

Another point raised in the debate on these regulations in the other place was in relation to Armed Forces personnel and charges for visas. The Minister there referred to the relationship to the military covenant. Can the noble Lord explain a little more about this issue?

Finally, I come to the impact on business and the UK economy. The noble Lord will know that the CBI has condemned the Government’s decision to increase visa fees for working migrants and their sponsors as a bitter blow to UK business. Neil Carberry, director for employment and skills policy at the CBI employers’ group, was scathing about the cost upgrades. He said:

“The shock announcement that some work permit charges will rise between 20 and 60 per cent will come as a bitter blow to businesses. Firms have yet to see the improvements in customer service they were promised, in return for the last tranche of inflation-busting rises last year”.

There are two points here. First, there is the concern that increases in fees will be made but the service will not improve. That is a very important issue that the noble Lord needs to address. Secondly, there is the impact on the UK. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had time to study the article this morning by Willie Walsh, the boss of British Airways, who talks about the attitude of business people in China investing in the UK. Essentially, the perceived discouragement of overseas business men and women coming to this country, combined with policies on airport capacity, is having a chilling effect on investment in this country from countries such as China.

I watched the Budget Statement and was very disappointed that it had very little to say about how we are going to get this country growing again. The Minister may say that that is a little wider than the Home Office’s usual brief, but how policy is developed in relation to immigration and to fees can play an important part. It would be good to know how the Minister will respond to the concern of many businesses. This is also very much related to the issue of higher education and the ludicrous restrictions made on overseas students coming into legitimate institutions in this country. All that is doing is undermining one of our most successful economic sectors.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, some of the reactions to the increase in fees are well known. They are exactly what any Government of any colour would say—that charges should reflect the level of service and be appropriate to it. The problem is that we hear far too often that customer service is relatively poor. It was described to me as a “litany of minor problems”. If you accumulate a set of minor problems, in totality they become more than just minor.

There is a reputational issue, too. I was given the comparison of two people coming to the UK and to Germany; the one who arrived at Frankfurt would be dealt with there and then, whereas the one coming to the UK would have had to send his passport to the embassy in his country in advance. Obviously, there are different arrangements depending on different individuals but, in general, it is a very telling point. Businesses will stop and ask themselves where they should choose to go on that basis. I have been told anecdotal evidence of companies beginning to move their functions away from the UK because of the long-term path of the immigration system. It is, of course, more than just a concern about fees; it is the direction of policy and the complexity of our rules that are in question. I mention complexity in this context because those who have to find their way around the system, being charged what are perceived as high fees—and I hear the point made about the cost—have higher expectations of service. It is quite telling that many businesses engage lawyers and maybe other professionals to advise on how to cope with the system.

The Merits Committee, of which I am a member, commented in its report to the House of the limited analysis of the impact of the increases on business. The letter from the CBI published in the report was really quite measured and clear; it did not use extreme language in any way. It pointed out that in the view of the CBI,

“employers have yet to see the improvements that were promised on the eve of last year's increase, or that of 2010”,

and that,

“where UKBA is seeking to charge firms commercial rates, and is seeking a return … firms have the right to expect a higher level of service”.

I have a question that is obvious, to me, but it may be too soon to give an answer to it. What would be the effect on efficiency and level of service of splitting the border agency into two component parts? It was against this background that I rather blinked to see the proposal for a premium sponsor scheme. I put down a Motion directed to this but decided to withdraw it and simply raise the points during this debate. I have real concerns about this being the thin end of a wedge of our creating a first class and, to use a railway operator’s language, a standard class which is really second or third class. The service is private, but it is a public service as well. I reflect that if there is an attitude that immigration is not of general social value, then that impacts on the whole policy. As I said, it is a public as well as a private service.

Schedule 5 to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Modification) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his full explanation of the order before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I support the general thrust of what he said and will support the order. I just want to ask a couple of points. Could he say a little more about the consultation process? I note from paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that,

“Laboratories and law enforcement staff were consulted”.

Were other agencies also consulted that might have an interest in this area? I also want to ask him about paragraph 12.2. Very helpfully, the Explanatory Memorandum points out,

“The outcome will be subject to expert review in 2013”.

Obviously these are sensitive issues, but I wondered whether the outcome of that review in general would be made available in the public domain and whether there might be an opportunity at that point for further debate in Parliament.

Clearly the UK remains in a state of alert against the threat of the use of biological weapons, and that is absolutely right. The Minister will know that his own department and the police have suffered reductions in their budgets. Will he confirm that that has not had an impact on our capacity to deal with the particular threat posed by these biological substances?

The impact assessment, which I found helpful, makes it clear that, in relation to biological agents, inspections are carried out by the Counter Terrorism Security Advisors, who are located within police forces and are responsible for providing specialist protective security advice to local organisations, with their work co-ordinated by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office. My understanding is that the CTSAs have the responsibility to undertake security assessments of laboratories holding Schedule 5 substances and, as stated above, have the power to require improvements to their security arrangements operation. These are located within police forces.

I want to ask the Minister about police and crime commissioners. Will he assure me that the Home Office is satisfied that police and crime commissioners would not be in a position to inhibit the work of these people to carry out their security assessments of laboratories? What would happen if a police and crime commissioner sought to intervene with a chief constable to say that they did not think that this was a particular priority? If the noble Lord thinks that I am on a flight of fantasy, I would remind him of the actions of the Deputy Mayor of London, Mr Kit Malthouse, who has sought to interfere with the Metropolitan Police in the exercise of its operational responsibilities when it comes to phone hacking. The noble Lord was not, alas, able to be present for our debates on the police and crime commissioners except, I think, at the very end, but we raised those issues. So I think that it is entirely relevant for me to ask that question in relation to ensuring the integrity of our national security and ensuring that any perversity that might come from certain elected police commissioners would not in any way interfere with overall government responsibility for national security.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, rather like the debate that we had on the drugs order yesterday, I think it is quite hard for lay people—certainly such as I am—to judge proposals such as this. We have to rely on the experts and are grateful that they are there to advise. My noble friend the Minister has referred to the balance that has been struck. I take the point about the need for there to be a balance, although I was interested to read in the notes attached to the impact assessment the list of criteria used by the Lightfoot review as to which biological agents should be included or excluded from the list. In particular, it was quite interesting that ease of production was one of them, since a substance, a pathogen or toxin was of a level of danger or not. I do not see that as affected by the ease of production, but I suppose that the whole area of risk is quite tricky.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I looked at the paragraph on consultation and cannot believe that the health services were not consulted. The impact of any of these getting loose, as it were, is clearly relevant to them. Could the Minister say a word about their involvement in the process?

Apart from those questions, I support the order.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his explanation of the instruments and the other negative instruments that are to be seen in the context of this instrument. I congratulate him on his pronunciation— I do not intend to follow him down that route. As the noble Lord said, the Merits Committee has also advised us that the draft instrument supersedes a draft of the same title because of new advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the advisory committee, which will obviously be taken very seriously by the Grand Committee.

I noted in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the consultation process involved consulting the MHRA, which I had the pleasure to establish, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Were other organisations consulted in that exercise? The explanatory note also refers to guidance to be issued, and I noticed that it makes reference to communicating with young people. Can the noble Lord say a little more about how it is intended to do that? Finally, paragraph 12.1 refers to the fact that the policy is to be monitored and reviewed as part of the drugs strategy. Can he say anything about how the monitoring and review will take place? Other than that, I have great pleasure in supporting the order.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, reading about these substances makes me grateful that I was young in the comparatively harmless 1960s.

The orders are difficult for the non-scientist, not just in pronunciation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am grateful to the advisory committee. I do not know whether Parliament has ever rejected one of these orders. The noble Lord referred to paragraph 8.1 in the Explanatory Memorandum. The point I took from that was the comment that these substances have not been identified as having any legitimate medical or chemical use beyond potential research use. If legitimate researchers wish to use them for research, is there a route for that to happen? In other words, can research still take place?

I have no doubt that we will consider further orders which, to those of us who are not scientists, will look much the same but which, to the scientists, will be about different substances. I doubt that it is ever possible to be fully upstream and ahead of the manufacturers, particularly in the Far East, but I, too, support the order.

Licensing Act 2003 (Diamond Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I support the order. To do otherwise would amount to something like bah humbug. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

First, why did the consultation ask for comments on the basis that the relaxation would cover only two nights? As the Minister explained, the relaxation period could be up to four days. It struck me as a little nannyish not to include Sunday and Monday, as if the state were telling people that they had better be fit for work on Tuesday.

I also wondered whether there was any indication of costs to local authorities that might be anticipated. The Minister has told the Committee of the police's response, but local authorities may have concerns about policing in the widest sense.

Thirdly, I do not know whether it is proper to ask for news about Royal Assent for a Bill. Certainly, I would like to know about the commencement following Royal Assent to the Live Music Bill. I suppose it is still a Bill until it receives Royal Assent. It would allow for live music in the circumstances set out in the Bill. I am sure that we would not want to stop patriotic songs being sung during these hours. Can the Minister give me any news on that? I know that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones who piloted the Bill in this House and my right honourable friend Don Foster would be just two of those who would be glad to hear news of its impending effect.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Committee for adjourning for a few minutes to allow me to speak on behalf of the Opposition on this order. The Opposition wholly support the order. I have no questions for the Minister and I very much commend the order to the Committee.

Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for his explanation of the two statutory instruments that we are debating together this afternoon. As he rightly said, it is only a few weeks ago since we finished proceedings on the Government’s misguided proposals to establish elected police commissioners, but the Opposition will take a constructive approach to these regulations and the many others that are due to come to your Lordships’ House over the next few weeks and months.

As the noble Lord suggested, the regulations under consideration have been developed to a very tight timetable to enable London to transfer early from the current Metropolitan Police Authority to the new Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. The problem is that, because of the rush, we are not being allowed sufficient time or opportunity to explore the implications of the regulations for the rest of England and Wales before we deal with the issue in London. Can the noble Lord give me some idea of the timetable for all the other regulations that will be produced? There is some hint that there is a less than cohesive approach to doing this. For instance, while a shadow strategic policing requirement and protocol have been laid, the finance code has not—unless that has been done very recently. That makes it difficult to understand the balance of powers between the chief officer, the PCC and the panel because we do not have a complete picture.

Similarly the regulations on PCC complaints have been laid but the regulations on panels have not. Again, that makes it difficult to understand how the complaints process will work, for instance, in relation to the powers of the panel to suspend PCCs. It would be helpful if the noble Lord, either here or perhaps in correspondence, could set out the programme that the department is working to so that Parliament can consider the many statutory instruments that will have to be laid.

There are three matters missing from the regulations that I wish to put to the noble Lord. The first is the absence of any code of conduct or other means of defining what acceptable behaviour is and is not in non-criminal complaints that are subject to informal resolution. The second is the absence of any sanctions or similar powers for the panel in dealing with PCCs that misbehaved. The third is the absence of any provisions dealing with powers of the panel to suspend PCCs or the process that it should follow. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would comment on that.

I have, of course, discussed this with the Association of Police Authorities, which is worried about the lack of clarity with regard to both acceptable standards of behaviour and the panel’s power in relation to informal resolution. That might result in complainants believing that it is better to frame their complaints in criminal terms in order to ensure that they are dealt with satisfactorily. The example that has been given to me is rude behaviour by the PCC, and we have to reflect that this is a political officeholder. Rude behaviour is not unknown from such political office holders—not, of course, the noble Lord himself, who is always an example of chivalry, gentleness and kindness, but there are politicians who do not have the noble Lord’s high standards.

Taking the example of rude behaviour, the risk for the APA is that this might be framed as harassment, conflict of interest or fraud in order to ensure that it is dealt with by the IPCC, whose role is much clearer under these regulations, and that there is a proper resolution with meaningful sanctions, in contrast to it being dealt with under informal resolution. This is an important point on which the noble Lord might be able to reassure me. Clearly, however dubious I am about the elected police commissioners, one does not want a lot of complaints being made in an unscrupulous way, which would actually inhibit the police and crime commissioners in the course of their duty. I would certainly be worried if there was a temptation by complainants to, in a sense, upgrade their complaint in order for it to be dealt with by the IPCC because there is a lack of clarity about how the informal resolution process might work.

We then come to the issue of what, if anything, a panel can do under the informal resolution proposal to ensure that a PCC makes reparation for bad behaviour. If the panel has no powers in that respect, what happens when a police and crime commissioner rejects a means of reparation that the panel has suggested? What recourse does a complainant then have to ensure that the matter is resolved to his or her satisfaction? Again, I put it to the noble Lord that, if the complainant is dissatisfied, one of their options might be to have recourse to the media. The risk of that, I suppose, is that publicity will have an adverse impact on public trust in policing.

The noble Lord will be aware that one of my concerns about the whole notion of elected police commissioners is that it will reduce public confidence. Clearly we can argue about that, and I am very tempted to invite the noble Lord to have another debate about the principle, but I will not do that. However, Parliament having enacted the legislation, it is important that we work together to make it as effective as possible. I am concerned that, if the public do not have confidence in the informal resolution process, as I have said, either they will upgrade complaints in the future or the process will be discredited, and you may well find that the position of the PCC is also discredited. So I think that this is worth looking at.

Some other, rather more technical issues have been raised. Is there not a need for regulations to state explicitly that a force cannot be asked to undertake the investigation of a PCC if he or she is the PCC for that force or connected to that force through collaboration, agreement or close association? It is probably implicit in paragraph 19(3)(b) but would there be argument over how “impartially” should be interpreted?

I understand the logic of appointing the PCC’s chief executive as monitoring officer to the panel—covered in paragraph 7—to achieve national consistency, particularly in Wales where panels will not be part of local government and so will not have automatic access to monitoring officers in local authorities. Is there a risk of putting that chief executive in a difficult situation? Remember the concept of corporate sole means that the employer of the chief executive is the PCC himself or herself against whom a complaint is being made. Is there not a risk that the monitoring officer will not be able to effectively carry out that duty?

The panels will be asked to judge whether a complaint is serious or not. I assume that means that they will look to the monitoring officer for advice. Again, I point out to the noble Lord that there will be a delicate relationship between the role of the monitoring officer’s chief executive and the PCC who is their direct and only sole employer. It is rather different in corporate set-ups where the company secretary or board secretary would probably carry out that role. It is rather different if it is the chief executive. Might the Government be prepared to look at that, in terms of advice on how it might work in practice?

Paragraph 15(3)(a) raises some concerns. Complaints brought by employees to the PCC cannot be dealt with through these regulations where they concern a PCC’s conduct only towards his or her staff. I well understand that there needs to be provision within employment procedures for handling much of this through established grievance procedures but might there be a possibility that that will not address the situation where an employee is accusing, say, a PCC of a criminal complaint such as harassment? What, for instance, would happen in the case of alleged harassment?

What about joint complaints to the chief constable and deputy or assistant chief constable? With the chief constable becoming the appropriate authority for chief officer complaints, there is concern among chief authorities about the potential situation where a joint complaint has been made against the chief constable and someone in the chief officer team. This could result in a chief constable effectively investigating their own complaint. That might strike at public confidence. The question here is whether that should then give the PCC locus in relation to any less senior officer. I would be grateful for some clarification on that.

Are there enough checks and balances around the PCC’s ability to dismiss the chief officer? Of course, we have discussed this in our debate on the Bill. It is worth making the point that PCCs will have to take account of general law considerations when exercising their powers to dismiss a chief constable. It is not a matter for the regulations but it might be one for the guidance that I hope will be given to PCCs on this matter. Indeed, I would strongly advise the Minister’s department to look seriously at the advice and training or development to be given to PCCs on these matters. On that, I assume that there will be some development programmes for the newly elected PCCs. I would certainly put that proposal forward to be considered.

Turning to the fees regulations, these look straightforward. The opportunity to debate the issue of working dogs’ tails with the noble Lord, with his vast experience of such matters, and with his fellow Defra Ministers from past years would be invigorating, but I shall desist. However, I want to ask him about the financial code. A draft code has clearly been circulated round the usual bodies that comment on police matters. My understanding is that a final agreed version is not yet available, but that the work on the drafting has identified a number of challenges. The real issue here is the introduction of two corporates sole, the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner. The audit and all financial matters are unduly and unnecessarily complicated because of that structure. If there is any information that the noble Lord could give me, I would be grateful.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I resist entering into a debate on working dogs’ tails, although it was the very point that I marked when I first read the regulations. I will not repeat questions that he asked that arise from concerns expressed by the Association of Police Authorities, save about a couple of matters, one of which is to ask about updated information on what I would describe as interlocking regulations; they may not formally interlock, but in practical terms they will.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about politics being played with in complaints. It is not always the subject of a complaint who has played politics; quite often the complainant uses procedures to play politics.

It is not directly a subject of the statutory instruments, but closely related is the proposed funding of police and crime panels. I have heard concerns that the funding will be very low indeed, only enough for one member of staff and perhaps four meetings a year. These regulations are, one hopes, only a small part of the remit of the police and crime panels, which need to be funded—not extravagantly, but adequately and appropriately. The legislation gives them a wider remit than just complaints.

Thinking about that made me wonder whether that was why, in the consultation process, it was proposed that the police and crime panel should be able to delegate to the chief executive of the police and crime commissioner; the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to that. I am a bit uneasy, not because of the point about impartiality or objectivity which the APA has raised, but because it seems to confuse the roles of the two entities.

Nor am I immediately convinced about using the local code of conduct in the case of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the deputy if the deputy is an Assembly Member, because of their own role in creating that local code. That raises some quite interesting issues. We do not really know where we are with codes and local government yet. I asked one of my colleagues who is still a councillor, and he says that a lot of consultation is going on, but of course these are to be local decisions, even if local authorities adopt the same or a similar standard.

I also want to ask about Regulation 26(4) of the complaints and misconduct regulations; this is a detail, I know.

I was interested that the IPCC will be able to take a view as to whether what is a possible criminal offence is “appropriate”—that is the word—to be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am sorry that I gave the Minister so very little notice of this matter. As I have said to him, I only managed to look at these regulations at lunchtime. But it seems rather odd to put that power in the hands of the IPCC.

I am interested that the regulations modify Section 22 of the 2002 Act. They seem to do little more than substitute the dramatis personae. As now, the Secretary of State’s approval will be required for commission guidance but, as far as I can see, the power for the Secretary of State herself to issue guidance is new. It may be that the 2011 Act has allowed for this. I would just pause on regulations adding that right for the Secretary of State—not that you could ever stop a Secretary of State issuing guidance—but it might affect the status of the guidance. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to answer my question, which, in effect, is: is there a substantive change brought about in this by the regulations?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for making clear that they do not want me to go any further on working dogs’ tails and we will leave that for another day. Perhaps I may start by making a brief reference to my noble friend Lady Browning who, after all, took the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act through Parliament. She completed that before she stood down, at which point I moved to the Home Office, and we are very grateful to her for all that she did. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is mistaken in describing that Act, which is now on the statute book, as being misguided. As I have made clear, it is now a done deal and Parliament, as I have said, has spoken.

The noble Lord also complained about the rush that is taking place. I do not believe that there is a rush. Obviously, things are marginally tighter for London where things happen faster than in the rest of the country, but the rest of the country has until 22 November 2012. I am sure that it—and the Met—will cope. Certainly, we have had no expressions of concern from the Met about that.

The noble Lord also asked about training programmes and what we are going to do to get the PCCs into the right position for when they are set up, which is obviously of very great concern to my right honourable friend, Nick Herbert, the Minister with responsibility for policing and crime. He chairs a transition board, which includes all the key parties, including the chief executives of police authorities. I assure the noble Lord that everyone involved will be included. My right honourable friend has got the message and he is making sure that something effective will be set up and that we have an efficient transition.

The noble Lord was also worried about the number of further instruments that will be needed to set up these regulations. I referred to a jigsaw and this is just a part of it. Not all of what is coming through will be statutory instruments that will need to go through this House, although some will be. In order to get the detail right, it would probably be best if I wrote to the noble Lord to give him a timetable to assist him in this matter.

He also spoke about the absence of any code of conduct, which was also raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I must make absolutely clear that these bodies will be subject, as elected bodies, to all the noble principles by which we abide. That was clearly set out in the protocol. It is also obvious that they will possibly wish to establish certain locally designed meaningful codes of conduct which they think are appropriate for them. Again, that deals with one of the concerns of my noble friend.

The noble Lord was worried about the absence of any sanctions for dealing with police and crime commissioners. What he must remember is that they are democratically elected bodies. Ultimately, that is the sanction. That is why we brought them in and why we think they will do a good job. They will conduct their business in public, so transparency will be a key tool in how the public view them. I think that this will be a great improvement on the system we have at the moment.

Accession (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that the Grand Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for his extensive introduction to these regulations. I was particularly interested in the advice that he read out from the Migration Advisory Committee. He will be aware that when the extension was agreed beyond January 2009, the committee reported in a similar vein at that time and said the impact of lifting the restrictions would be small but that the risks to the labour market were mainly on the downside. That led it to recommend a cautious approach. I assume that the committee is continuing that advice on the basis of that same philosophy.

I take the point the noble Lord made that it is difficult to attach facts and figures to this measure but does he accept the committee’s assessment of its impact? I would be interested to know whether he can put any figure at all on the likely impact of extending the measure by a further two years. He will know that the Merits Committee rather took the Government to task as regards the laying of the regulations and made the point that they have had rather a long time to consider the extension but, by leaving it to the last moment, it will have to be put in place. In a sense we are legitimising that through the current process. The Merits Committee would have preferred the policy to have been agreed somewhat earlier, which would have allowed the regulations to be laid before Parliament in draft and be subject to approval by resolution of each House. Will the noble Lord comment on that? What is his response to the Merits Committee?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, on the point about the timing of the measure, is the Minister satisfied that individuals and employers will not experience any practical problems as a result of that? I cannot quite get my head round what practical steps need to be taken. Is it the case that an application has to be made for a new accession work authorisation document and that there may be individuals—this goes to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about numbers—who might have expected that they could continue to work for the same employer in this country beyond the end of this year but will, in effect, be given a matter of a very few working days to apply for the authorisation? Perhaps it is not as few days as from now until the end of December as the regulations were made—oh no, the regulations come into force on 30 December. I am getting very confused about the dates. I suppose that the warning was there for the employers but the regulations will not be made until the day before they need to be in formal terms, but there may be practical implications for individuals caught up with this. I hope that I have made myself at least moderately clear. The Minister is nodding, so I am glad about that.

In applying the tests, which the Minister has told the Grand Committee are about both the labour market and skills, will there be any changes from those that have been applied? My other question was about other EU member states. The Minister told us what some states are doing, so are we to understand that, in effect, the other member states are all maintaining their own status quo apart from Spain, which is reimposing restrictions, so that there is no other change across the European Union? The point has already been made that this cannot be looked at in isolation.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness agonises over whether she puts this to the vote, the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, about the Secretary of State’s responsibilities is well taken. I congratulate her on what is probably her first appearance at the Dispatch Box, certainly in this Committee stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gets there before me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I shall speak also to Amendment 53. This would be a new clause dealing with a matter that I regard as of the utmost seriousness. It is addressed in particular to mental health issues.

The proposed new clause is by no means an opposition to mechanisms for addressing protection of the public and the prevention of terrorism. It is a separate issue about how measures are applied in practice and about the impact of those measures. I have mentioned the matter already today but it is important to repeat it as the context for the provision. It concerns in particular tipping the individual, his family and members of his community into the precise action that we are seeking to avoid; to avoid tipping an individual into breach of the restrictions on him, which is a criminal offence and may turn into a criminal someone who is not a criminal and has no criminal record; and to avoid our failure to recognise that at the centre of all this is a human being.

The moment my new clause was published I saw a drafting error, but I will speak to it as I intended it to be. It would provide for an assessment to be made on the likely impact—my drafting error is that I failed to refer to the actual impact—of the imposition of measures, or the variation of them on the individual and his immediate family every three months, when measures expire or are repealed or revoked, and thereafter at intervals which the individual may request. The assessment I talk of would include an evaluation of the impact on mental health. It should be made by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State but not only by that person. I suggest that of course the person should be appropriately qualified, but shall work in conjunction with the nominees of the individual who can make separate reports. That is an important point because it is all too easy and obvious that independent experts appointed by the Secretary of State, as has happened with control orders, are perceived as agents of the Secretary of State being there to gather evidence and information.

I have proposed the new clause for the reasons I have already given and because one needs to increase the opportunity for transparency around this whole area. I have said that the costs should be met by the Secretary of State because I thought that someone might ask about that. It seems to me that the numbers of cases we are talking about are small and this would be entirely proper given that the measures applied are potentially so very stringent. Amendment 53 would bring these assessments within the remit of the independent reviewer.

The experience of control orders has been not only that in some cases they are very damaging but that the controlee is essentially broken. I want quickly to share with the Committee the story I heard earlier this week of a controlee who had failed to report to the police on time. I asked how late he had been and was told that it was one hour. His control order of course required him to report at a particular time and having failed to be there on time he was charged with a breach of his order. He found himself in Pentonville. The shocking part of the story is not just that: it is that the individual will not apply for bail. For him, being in Pentonville is preferable to being under a control order. That is what the state has done to some individuals. If that is what we are going to do to them in order to protect the rest of society, we should know what the impact is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not quite understand the noble Baroness. Presumably this person was in breach of the control order by not attending on time. I do not understand the issue.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The issue is that to this individual, being in prison is more acceptable than being in his place of residence under a control order, with the restrictions imposed by the system. I am sure that the noble Lord has heard, from people who had been under control orders that were quashed, the impact they had on them and their families. The interference with anything that any of us would recognise as a normal life has been literally intolerable. That is the point I make to the Committee. I beg to move.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, begging the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for the term that I am about to use, I do not think that the choice today is “reform or no reform”. I use that term in the current context; I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. Nor even is it a choice between alternative models of reform, to which I shall come back in a moment.

Given both a free hand and the benefit of the expertise on this subject around this House, which has impressed me increasingly day by day, I do not pretend that I would have designed the model that we have in the Bill, but I have always said that the proposal for directly elected police and crime commissioners is in the coalition’s programme for government, subject to strict checks and balances. Although the Whips may not agree, the scrutiny which this House gave to the checks and balances is what the House is here for. The outcomes of those debates were not always as I would have wished—I argued for several tougher checks and balances, although I acknowledge now, which I did not at the time, that some would have undermined the direct accountability of the police and crime commissioners. But now we know what the elected House wishes, and we know what is before us.

My noble and, if I may say so, good friend Lady Harris of Richmond has pursued her amendment with terrier-like energy. I am sadder than I can say that I cannot support her today, and that is not because I disagree with so many of her arguments. It is an inevitable outcome of our procedures and the way in which we undertake our business that her model is insufficiently developed. That is not her fault. After the surprise vote, she and other noble Lords put enormous effort and ingenuity into consequential amendments—if I may use that term in the widest sense. They were not successful and therefore my noble friend’s model is left without the infrastructure within the Bill that would make it work. That is what I mean by not having a choice of models today.

With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, as has been said, at the root of many of the concerns that have been expressed is the possible politicisation of policing. We do not know whether independent candidates will be tempted to stand for the position. It is hardly possible that under my noble friend Lady Harris’s model independents could stand, because almost the whole of the panel from which she is proposing that a commissioner should come would have been elected on a party-political basis as local councillors would make up that panel.

We do know that the more different sets of elections are aligned, the more the focus on each is distorted, often to the basis of the lowest common denominator. There may be mayoral elections in November 2013, but they would be fairly limited geographically, so that date at least reduces that risk, if I can put it that way. I am thinking now not just of the elections for police and crime commissioners but about the local elections that will take place in May—pretty much every May.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is making an interesting speech, but if the case is so persuasive for having separate elections—separate from any other elections—why do we not have a proposal to always have these in November?

[Baroness Hamwee]

I will come to that if the noble Lord can contain his patience.

Local elections should be about local issues and very often they are not. What I wrote down without having to be prompted by the noble Lord is that the first elections for anything tend to set the tone. There could be a debate about having elections every four or six months for different things throughout the year, although that might be going a little far.

This debate has referred quite a lot to the convenience of campaigners. I am sure that many noble Lords have gritted their teeth and hung their canvass sheets on radiators to dry throughout the year. The convenience of campaigners is the least of the factors in this. But decoupling the elections should help avoid the diversion.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, all I would like to say on the amendment is that we have discussed in previous debates the inconsistency between different parts of government in relation to inspection. I must declare my interest again as chair of an NHS foundation trust and as a consultant trainer in the NHS. NHS foundation trusts, which the Government support, were meant to be given much more freedom than other NHS bodies but they are still subject to the tender mercies of a regulator called Monitor. For the life of me, I cannot see why the Government have taken such a light-rein approach to the construct in the Bill when we have such an excellent inspectorate in the form of HMIC. These amendments seem wholly constructive. By the grace of the usual channels, we have been given a little extra time—a day—to consider these matters. Is this not a matter which the Government might take back and consider?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, with regard to fees, I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to give any comparables, but I think that local authorities have to pay—or have had to pay—for Audit Commission inspections and that it is the Audit Commission that has set the rates. There must be comparables. Maybe there are comparables which go either way; I do not know.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It is. Why is that? It is normally of those present and voting. It seems to me that simply by not being there you count as an assenter—a dissenter, if you like, from a proposal to veto a precept. It seems rather an extraordinary state of affairs.

I refer the noble Baroness to later amendments where the Government propose that an elected mayor within the area of a police force becomes members of the police and crime panel automatically. I am not arguing about the principle, but elected mayors are going to have many other responsibilities apart from serving on police and crime panels. One can think of a number of metropolitan areas so it is quite likely that under the noble Baroness’s amendment a considerable number of elected mayors will serve on the panels. However, there will be circumstances in which such people will not be able to be present at a meeting of the police and crime panel and because of the noble Baroness’s amendment the numbers relevant to the veto are the members rather than those present and voting. It seems to me a rather extraordinary state of affairs that simply by being away or being ill you add to the threshold that would have to be reached if a veto were to be exercised. I hope the noble Baroness will be prepared to give that point further consideration. It is a very odd state of affairs.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I very much welcome the reduction from three-quarters to two-thirds. I think I said at an earlier stage that it can be a bit disconcerting to see that a Minister has her name to the amendment you thought you had tabled. We came in as back-up on this occasion, although clearly on the same day. I welcome it even though it probably only makes a difference of one individual. However, perhaps as important as the proportion is whether it is a proportion of the whole membership or of those present—I will come back to that in a moment—and more important than both is what can be vetoed, which we have debated and will continue to debate.

I know the Government take the view that a simple majority would detract from a commissioner’s accountability through the ballot box. There is a subsidiary argument the other way that members of the police and crime panel indirectly elected are expected by their own electors to have perhaps a greater voice than can be exercised when the threshold for the veto is set so high. As I say, that is subsidiary; it is a different position from the commissioner, but one that may be a little confusing to the electorate of the councillors who make up the panel.

It is right and proper that the calculation should be made based on those present, but I have a couple of questions. I do not know whether this is going to cause the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a problem, as I am speaking after him, but what would happen to abstentions under his amendment? Where do they count? Some of us—before I get teased about this—are used to abstaining in person in this Chamber. But we need to sort out—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It may help if I intervened at this stage. My assumption in drafting “present and voting” is that you have both to be present and to vote. I do not think that abstention can be taken as a positive vote. I hope that is helpful.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I shall ponder on that. My other question, which my noble friend Lord Shipley may have asked on a previous occasion, is whether, given the importance of the numbers, the Government anticipate providing through regulations procedures for substitutes for members of the panel. Furthermore, is it intentional on the part of those who proposed these amendments that they apply only to the precept and not to the appointments, which is the other candidate for veto? Whatever we end up with should stay the same. I think it is right that a member can affect an outcome by staying away, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House on that point.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my recollection of the transition/shadow period for the Greater London Authority was that it was very short and clearly not long enough, but that is not the point I will make tonight.

I sometimes think that, faced with a difficult decision, it is wise to ask oneself, “How will I feel, looking back in six months or a year, if I did or did not do something?”. In this situation, if the Government postpone the changes in London, they will be able to look back a year and a half from now and say, “Phew, that went okay. What damage did we do by not making the changes? Well, none really. What damage have we suffered? Maybe a little to our egos, but does that matter?”. How much better to be in that situation if there has been a problem, which may or may not be related to the changes in governance, than to be told by the noble Lord opposite or my noble friend behind me, “Well, we did warn you”, and for the world to say, “You were warned”.

I do not see a problem if the Government make what is hardly even a concession but more a slight shift in thinking. The balance is between very little on the one hand, and possibly nothing but possibly something catastrophic on the other.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for raising this matter. The Government’s approach to the Bill is on a par with their approach to other pieces of legislation. We have already seen the debacle of the Public Bodies Bill, and the Government are replicating the approach with the Health Bill. I declare an interest as chair of a foundation trust and as a trainer consultant in the NHS. The NHS is facing the biggest challenge that it has ever faced in reducing its spending and in its efficiency programme. At the same time, the Government are drawing up all the structural bodies that are in place and forcing the health service to devote a huge amount of time to structural issues when it should be focusing on how on earth it will cope with the largest reductions in real-terms funding that it has ever faced.

It seems that the same thing is happening to our police forces. The Government have drawn all the wrong conclusions from the first Blair Administration. They feel that they need to speed on, but destruction is inevitable because of the speed with which they are moving. I can only conclude that it is because no senior Minister in the Government has any experience whatever of running anything. If they had, they would not rush in the way the Government are rushing, with no understanding of the impact on essential public services.

When one considers the challenges facing the Metropolitan Police—I shall not go through the list again but they include: the Olympics; the continuing threat of terrorism; the mayoral elections; the budget reductions; staff issues, to which my noble friend referred, including pensions; and the phone hacking issue—it is obvious that over the next months and years there will be intense scrutiny on the force and its senior officers. There are to be two inquiries into the phone hacking issue, one of which is bound to look in close detail at the actions of the Metropolitan Police. The last thing the force needs during the next two to three years is to cope with a structural change in governance. The noble Baroness’s amendment is eminently sensible, and I hope that even at this late stage the Government will give it sympathetic consideration.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

If the noble Lord is teasing me about a previous amendment, he can probably read my answer in the fact that I have stayed put. I am not averse to being teased.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I was merely trying to liven up the debate.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am sorry if I am boring the noble Lord.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Far from it. I was just trying to follow in the noble Baroness’s footsteps with lively engagement.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Let us go on to the Local Government Association. That seems to follow, as Amendment 239A would add police and crime commissioners as statutory partners on community safety partnerships. Under the Bill, commissioners do not replace police authorities as members of CSPs; they simply have a duty to co-operate. The Local Government Association, making the point that this is an all-party view, says that it is concerned about fracturing current local community safety governance arrangements and that placing commissioners as statutory members on CSPs would help to ensure that all bodies involved in local community safety work together through a collaborative approach in the best interest of local communities and that the commissioner does not undertake contradictory efforts to those of the other CSP members.

I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time it has taken me to introduce all those amendments. It is a medium-sized group in the context of the Bill.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Parliament has indeed produced a lot of Acts and, in my view, one of the problems is repeating bits of legislation time and again. A piece of legislation should be good enough to stand on its own and not require repetition or reference in other legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I was very interested in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She will know that lists are often proposed in amendments, not least from her own Benches. If you list certain duties and responsibilities, there is always the problem that you might detract from other important duties and responsibilities. One has to use one's judgment. We certainly support the government amendments and I am sure that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that, by listing the Children Act matters in the way that the Government propose, that does not exclude many other important matters from the chief constable's responsibilities.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on his success in persuading the Government today to bring forward this amendment. This is a significant day for him as he has been elected Convenor of the Cross Benches. I wish him future success in bringing forward further amendments to which the Government will no doubt respond.

I have one question for the noble Baroness. When we debated this matter in Committee under a number of amendments, at col. 1428, the debate concerned the Children Act and the Human Rights Act. I wondered whether there was a reason why the Government have brought forward an amendment in relation to the Children Act but not in relation to the Human Rights Act. Referring to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, does focusing on the Children Act detract from responsibilities under the Human Rights Act?

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for instigating this debate, although the precedent he sets of seeking to put right past legislative mistakes is rather disturbing for some of us. We would not have much Summer Recess this year if we were to follow his course of action. I had an enjoyable two years as Health and Safety Minister and dealt with the Health and Safety Executive on a regular basis. I recall discussions with the Minister of Defence on some similar issues; not in relation to Armed Forces in the theatre, but certainly in training exercises where some of the same issues obtained because of the need in training to help the Armed Forces understand the dynamics of being in theatre. I have some sympathy with where the noble Lord and noble Lords who have served as police officers are coming from.

However, my experience of health and safety is, first, that the legislation since 1974 has had a hugely positive impact in terms of a dramatic reduction in the number of lives lost and injuries suffered by people in the workforce. One ought to pay tribute to the Health and Safety Executive for the work that it has done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, when he recognised that and described the HSE as taking what he described as a common-sense approach. Secondly, my experience is that the HSE moved away from a kind of performance-management culture which judged the inspectors on the number of prosecutions that they instituted to one that was much more proportionate. That starts from the basis that if we can encourage employers to do the right thing in health and safety that is our preferred option unless there has clearly been a gross abuse of the law by an employer.

To be fair to the HSE, it has come under considerable criticism in recent years as the number of prosecutions that it has undertaken has gone down, but I think that that has been a common-sense approach. I am sure that the focus of inspectors on giving advice and guidance and seeking improvement is right. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the urban myths that often surround health and safety stories in the media. I share that view. When you dig down into some stories in the media, you find that, far from the Health and Safety Executive inspector saying, for example, “You can’t have hanging flowers in pots”, that is often an excuse used by public authorities for reducing expenditure.

The second problem relates to health and safety advisers. I very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Harris, who has great experience of this. One of the problems is that a whole plethora of health and safety advisers has grown up and the advice that they give to organisations is often very risk averse. Sometimes employers run away from the fact that in the end this matter is not the responsibility of the health and safety adviser but of management and the employer. Sometimes employers need to say to health and safety advisers, “You may have given this advice, but it defies common sense and we are going to carry on doing what we want to do”.

If the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, were tempted to press the amendment either today or on Report, he would risk compounding his original error by encouraging us to pass bad law. This matter is much better dealt with through effective dialogue between police forces, the DWP and the Health and Safety Executive. I invite the Minister to encourage her colleagues in the DWP to institute discussions between the police service, the HSE and the Police Federation because it is important that the staff in the police force own any future development. The development of a dialogue and a greater understanding between the three parties is probably the best way forward rather than the way proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am relieved at the way this debate has developed because, when I first saw this amendment, knowing of the noble Lord’s seniority in his party I wondered whether this was some sort of “done deal”. Clearly, that is not the case. It sounds terribly patronising to say this, but the balanced attitude which noble Lords have displayed in their speeches is extremely welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked about not exempting the police force en bloc, but where is the demarcation line? I think that all noble Lords have recognised that there needs to be one. Like other noble Lords, I think that health and safety, with a capital H and a capital S, is important and has had an unjustifiably bad press—not that I tend to read that press but one cannot avoid hearing about it. The law in regard to health and safety, and certainly the way in which it is applied, may have gone too far one way, but the pendulum should not swing too far in the other direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shipley and I have not necessarily taken the same view on this part of the Bill as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. If I may put it crudely, we start from the localist rather than the business position, but I deliberately said on Second Reading that I thought that local authorities have responsibilities to businesses in the area as well as to residents. However, we are both sympathetic to these amendments—except, perhaps, for one of them.

The issue has been cast as a subjective versus objective test. Can the Minister say whether, on either or both “appropriate” or “necessary”, the term “reasonably” would be implied? That might help us to see the position as a little less polarised. My noble friend Lord Shipley, with his local government experience, reminds me that it could be difficult for the licensing authority to administer what is appropriate. That could be much more difficult to assess.

I depart from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on one amendment: Amendment 240P. I can see an argument for using the appropriateness test for making the new early morning alcohol restriction orders. We are talking about something a little different there, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have added my name to those who have given notice to oppose the question that Clause 110 stand part. I do so as a way of probing the intentions of the Government. We will have to see what the Government have to say in deciding what view we take on Report.

I start from a position of supporting a rigorous approach to licensing. In this area, it is right that we have a rigorous approach. Equally, it is important that those bodies and individuals who apply for licences are clear what is required to be done under the law. My concern at the moment is that the arguments for changing the law as the Bill suggests do not seem to have been supported by the publication of policy, or anything more than the anecdotal evidence referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in discussion in another place. If it is true that the LGA is concerned about the changes—I can imagine the uncertainties that they bring to local authorities—there is a problem here. I invite the noble Baroness, between now and Report, if she cannot do so today, to set out the evidence that supports the change in the policy. If she could do that, we could come back on Report and have a more thorough debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is moving that the clause stands part of the Bill. I have Amendments 240C, 240E, 240F, 240G, 240H, 240J and 240K in this group. My noble friend mentioned parallel provisions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have managed a degree of parallelism which probably adds to the confusion, but I think we are heading in the same direction.

In response to my noble friend, I say first that when we get to some amendments later on the subject of New Year’s Eve, I have a lot of sympathy for them. As I understand it, temporary event notices or TENs—I have always known that word in a completely different context—have grown in number far more than was anticipated. Almost 125,000 were used in the financial year to March 2010. They were introduced as a means of minimising the regulatory burden on small, ad hoc events, as my noble friend said, but they have grown somewhat. The Bill proposes that only following a representation from the police or environmental health will licensing authorities be able to insist that relevant conditions from the licence also apply for the duration of the temporary event notice and that regulations will stipulate the process, format and timescales for notifying applicants of the conditions.

I was glad to hear my noble friend’s comment about standard conditions. We know the view of the Local Government Association on this matter. It has briefed noble Lords that a more transparent and less burdensome approach would be for all existing premises licence conditions to apply automatically, apart from those that will be altered by a temporary event notice, such as hours. Licensing authorities should be given the ability to add appropriate conditions to a temporary event notice. Currently, there is no mechanism for adding controls in unlicensed premises. During the Commons stages, the Government responded that TENs would increase bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not always a bad thing. Some bureaucracy is necessary. Giving authorities an effective tool would give them greater, but not disproportionate, control. Standard conditions would actually reduce bureaucracy.

Secondly, on the time allowance for temporary event notices, I share the LGA’s concern about the extension of the duration to seven days from the current four. Seven days seems to me to be qualitatively different from four. The Bill does not introduce a mechanism whereby unlicensed premises can be conditioned when using a temporary event notice, and the LGA is concerned about the scenario of periods of up to seven days with no conditions on things like closing times, door staff and so on. There would be a qualitative difference, and I think this extension would go too far.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, may I in parallel—if that is a word—follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and not for the first time in this Bill? I am very puzzled because the argument the Government have used in relation to this clause about increasing bureaucracy and their concerns about it seem to contrast with their approach to Clauses 113 and 114. There does not seem to be a consistent approach here. I do not understand why the proposals that the noble Baroness has talked about would increase bureaucracy. I would have thought they would be more straightforward. The Bill proposes, in relation to a TEN, that only following representation from the police or environmental health will licensing authorities be able to insist that relevant conditions from the licence ought to apply for the duration of the TEN. Surely a more transparent and less burdensome approach would be for all existing premise licence conditions to apply automatically, apart from those to be altered by the TEN. I do not understand why the Government are taking this approach.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I do not understand the extension from four days to seven days. We heard from the Minister when we debated earlier clauses why the Government think there has to be extra vigour in the licensing process. Why, when we come to temporary events, has it suddenly been loosened up and the four-day limit extended to seven days? I would have thought that extending to seven days changes the circumstances. I would have thought it likely to lead to contentious, more costly disputes between operators, police and local authorities, and certainly on the part of the general public. The clauses are very close to each other. It seems they have been drafted by different bits of the Home Office, and they are wholly inconsistent.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

In addition to this amendment, I also have Amendment 47 in this group. They are two amendments among a number proposing different models of piloting the proposed new policing governance. Before I turn to the substantive issues, noble Lords will be aware that we have quite a difficult day ahead of us in that the groupings of amendments today have been described as aggressive in an attempt to get us to move on more swiftly with the Bill. Apart from one enormous grouping of about 60 amendments, I have been quite happy to go along with this, but I think it may leave the Committee in a difficult position. It is inevitable that on a number of the groupings many of us will make rather more general speeches than we might otherwise have made, and I am just a little concerned that we will not give the word-by-word content of the Bill this House’s normal detailed scrutiny. Perhaps I say that not on behalf of the whole Committee, because I am sure other noble Lords will be more competent than I in dealing with this situation, but just as a disclaimer on my own behalf.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, one way to deal with that would be for the Government to write letters in response to the amendments so that the technical details, which might normally be addressed in the winding-up speech of the Minister, could at least be on the record and placed in the Library. When we come back on Report, the noble Baroness and other noble Lords would then have the benefit of a Government response. I do not know whether that is helpful. It might be one way in which to alleviate the concerns of the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate on a lengthy collection of amendments. Having complimented the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on his skill in drafting amendments, I should add my compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on her deeply conscientious and detailed scrutiny of all aspects of the Bill.

We are discussing with considerable care the right balance between the PCC and the PCP and the distinction between accountability and scrutiny. I know that is a concern across the whole House. We need to strike the right balance between the need for the police and crime panel to scrutinise effectively and the police and crime commissioner being inundated with requests for information to the point that his, or her, ability to discharge his duties effectively is limited. In the design of this Bill, it is the role of the police and crime commissioner to scrutinise the chief constable and the role of the police and crime panel to scrutinise the police and crime commissioner. The intention of the Government and the elected House is that policing is for the chief officer of police to deliver and it is for the locally elected body—the PCC or the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—to ensure that public priorities are met and that performance is appropriately high. That is the dynamic of a single individual responsible for this to the electorate. It is not intended that he or she will share this role with the police and crime panel. Its role is to advise and scrutinise the police and crime commissioner, especially in respect of the annual policing and crime plan.

The details of how one works out that relationship and exactly what reporting is required are what these amendments investigate further. The public already have access to street-level police performance information thanks to the introduction of a police website. It is, and will continue to be, the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to provide the public with information on force performance, including an annual report on the state of policing nationally.

Amendment 87 is scarcely necessary because of course the principle should be that everything should be made public except matters that relate to national security, personal safety or the prevention or detection of crime, which are the only caveats in the Bill. Otherwise, the exemption does not apply.

The majority of the work the panel will undertake will be done in public and will remain accessible to the public. The Bill states that the panel must hold a public meeting to review the annual report it receives from the police and crime commissioner, must publish all reports and recommendations it makes to the police and crime commissioner and must hold public confirmation hearings for new chief constables prior to making recommendations for their appointments, but there may be good reasons why the panels will, on occasion, want to meet without the public present. None of us would wish to block that completely.

We will need to write about some of the further amendments. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the panel requiring the police and crime commissioner to explain and justify any decision that he or she has made. That is a natural part of the relationship between the two, but—

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but surely the problem is on the other side. There is nothing to stop the panel requiring. It is the obligation on the recipient of that request or requirement to respond. Will the Minister take that away and think about it?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, might you not have a situation where the elected commissioner has made it clear that he does not expect police officers to go to the panel? That would permeate through, and even though police officers received a summons, they would know that they would incur the wrath of the commissioner in going. Some people who were elected might very well take the view that because they were pursuing what we might regard as perverse or bizarre policies they would not want senior police officers to appear before the panel because the police officers would disabuse the panel about the policies being pursued by the commissioner. I worry if the only relationship is going to be between the commissioner and the panel. Surely we must have senior police officers at those meetings.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am not sure that that question should be directed to me or to the noble Baroness, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a multifaceted issue.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate. I know well the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the licensing legislation and the point he makes about pilots. I hope that we will come to the question of pilots later on. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that there should be no complacency about the level of crime or the effectiveness of the police force. However, it is accepted and a matter of record that the last 10 to 15 years have seen dramatic reductions in the number of crimes committed, including violent crimes. This has been confirmed by independent surveys such as the British Crime Survey. However, I also have to say that we are seeing elements of crime rising again. The latest figures for the West Midlands police force, published last Thursday at a meeting of the West Midlands Police Authority, show that the trend is reversing.

I still do not understand why the party opposite has such a downer on the police; it is a great puzzle. That is clear from the statements made during our discussions. There seems to be a real sense of angst in the party opposite about the police service which I just do not understand, and it is part of the problem we face in debating the Bill. Having said that, let me turn to the issue. Whether you have an elected or appointed police commissioner, I believe that what is needed is strong and effective corporate governance. That point was made by all of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about checks and balances. It is the absence of proper corporate governance or checks and balances that is so worrying and inexplicable.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the Government have some form in this area and tried to invite the noble Baroness to respond on House of Lords reform. On Monday I tried to do that without any success, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is going to be any more successful. But let me try another area, that of the National Health Service. Here I declare my interests as set out in the register as a consultant trainer and chair of the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust. The proposal for GP consortia is shocking in relation to the absence of proper corporate governance. The original proposal was for £80 billion to be given to GPs. That has now been reduced to £60 billion, but it is still an awful lot of money. It is to be given to one profession which would then decide where it should be spent. Again, that was done in the absence of proper and effective corporate governance. Yet the party opposite has a record to be proud of in its work before 1997 on enhancing corporate governance in both the public and the private sectors. I well remember the initiatives sponsored and supported by the party opposite when it was in government. It set up a number of reviews and initiated developments to strengthen corporate governance. It encouraged the IoD and the CBI. I remember well the Cadbury report, which I know that the Conservative Party strongly supported. So it is a puzzle to me why the Government now seem to be moving away from effective corporate governance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

It would probably be useful if there were further discussions in the usual channels about this. My experience is that, when there is a desire through the ping-pong process to achieve an agreed change, then the ways of this place and the other place seem to find a way to do it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I want briefly to add a word. We all seem to be of a mind to find a way to make the procedures work for us and not to be overburdened by them. I hope that, in whatever order we do things, there will be a proper opportunity, whether through a fairly prolonged ping-pong or not, to contribute the experience and expertise all round the House, as the noble Baroness said. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this. We need to collaborate.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

Perhaps I will be not quite the last noble Lord to give a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether she expected a rerun of Second Reading. I hope that she has found it helpful, because there have been some very perceptive, interesting and thoughtful speeches. I cannot resist saying that she will have noticed that we are right behind her.

In view of the time, I will edit my remarks as I go, and I hope that they are not too disjointed. The longer the debate goes on, the more I wonder whether it will be possible to have sufficiently strict checks and balances on an individual, and the more we expose the nature of the position of an individual with so much power, with all the characteristics that are often intrinsic to an individual in a powerful position, some of which—but not all—need to be guarded against. I am in no position to comment on whether bishops may sometimes operate as commissars. However, I can see that the commissioner would be in a very distinct position from that of a chief constable, who has the eyes and ears of a police force on the ground.

Chief among my fears is that of moving towards the politicisation of the police. I fear that this will be difficult to avoid, not just because of the likelihood of candidates having a campaigning infrastructure of political parties behind them—as elected mayors have, with whom they may well be confused. That is perhaps an issue for another debate. The very nature of a democratic mandate involves policy, and one cannot separate policy from a budget because the money facilitates the implementation of the policy. Like other noble Lords, I fear that what is populist may sometimes be dangerous, and may not reflect the needs of those who can shout less loudly.

However careful and detailed the protocol—it seems to be a useful summary of the Bill which I wish I had had when I started reading the Bill—it is not a great deal more than that, and cannot change the statutory structural framework. Nor can it apply the governance. I was chair of the London Assembly budget committee when the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was chairing the Metropolitan Police Authority. Who was the check and balance on whom, history may tell.

I wonder whether, ironically, this is a move against localism. I have a question for my noble friend. I very much welcome the fact that she has enabled the House to have a debate at this stage of the Bill. Democracy has rightly been mentioned often. Her proposed structure involves panels. Perhaps she can tell us how she envisages democracy being used in connection with the panels.

Lastly, I will be wary throughout the Bill of appearing to be either promoting or opposing the interests of a number of sectors, but particularly the police. I, too, would like to see us achieve the production of a collaborative framework. Most importantly, my noble friends and I are on the side of citizens.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, to her position. She will already have got the message from the House that we very much welcome her appointment. She comes from the other place with an excellent reputation and we very much look forward to working with her. Four years ago, I was appointed Minister for Health, and three or four days later I found myself on the first day of Committee in your Lordships' House, so I know a little of the challenge that she faces. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for allowing us to have this very important debate.

I do not stand here pretending that our police forces are without blemish, or that there are no areas of performance that could be improved. I agree with the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I, too, have read the report of HMIC assessing police authorities' performance that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. However, in the past 15 years we in this country have seen both a dramatic fall in crime and an improved relationship with the public and local communities. My noble friend Lady Henig gave many examples of this. More than that, there is in our police, with their political impartiality, tolerance and philosophy of policing by consent, something precious that we undermine at our peril.

Why is this being put in peril? The Government argue that police reform is needed because the current governance arrangements are not working, and because police forces look too much upwards to the Home Office. However, as far as concerns policing and crime, I do not think that the public really worry about police authorities or the name of the chairman. They are concerned about the performance of the chief constable and of the force. Surely it is right that that is where their focus is concentrated. I see no appetite among the public for this change, and certainly not for the perverse consequences that could come about. My noble friend Lord Harris described some of them. Perversely, accountability may be reduced and police forces in future may come with a political label. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said that there was a possibility of non-political people being elected police commissioners. Of course, that is entirely possible. However, the electoral areas are so large that it is almost inevitable that only those on party tickets, with the support of a party machine, will be successful. One should consider the cost of the elections. I suspect that it is only political parties which will be able to support candidates.

On the question of the Home Office and targets, I confess that I was once Minister for targets in the Department of Health. I once asked officials to add up how many targets we had set. By the time we got to 435, we thought we had better stop. However, some targets are important. We have drastically reduced waiting times because of targets, and I have no doubt that Home Office targets in relation to reducing crime have had a dramatic effect for the better on our communities.

Surely the role of the Home Secretary is balanced against the work of the police authority and that of the chief constable. We call it the tripartite relationship between operational independence, local accountability and national strategic direction. I have not yet heard any convincing argument that suggests that we should upset that relationship. The problem is that the Bill risks the politicisation of our police forces; conflict and confusion between the role of the police commissioner and that of the chief constable; the marginalisation of local government, and a loss of public confidence. I really regret that these proposals have not been subject to a Green Paper, a White Paper, pre-legislative scrutiny or even an assessment by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the regulations before the House tonight revoke the Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) Regulations 2004, which regulate access to the UK labour market by nationals of eight of the states that acceded to the European Union in 2004. This is required because the treaty governing the accession of those states to the EU provided that existing member states may restrict such access to the labour market for up to seven years following accession, and this period expires on 30 April 2011.

The UK signed up to the right to the free movement of people within the EU, as codified in the EU directive 2004/38/EC, which included provision for free movement of workers within the territory of member states and the European Economic Area. Since the expansion of the EU on 1 May 2004, the UK has accepted immigrants from central and eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus. There are restrictions on the benefits that members of those countries can claim, which are covered by the worker registration scheme. The significance of that is that the consequence of revoking the regulations, as we are doing tonight, is the closure of the worker registration scheme.

The scheme was introduced in the UK as a transitional measure to monitor accession states nationals’ access to the UK labour market. The scheme did not place any restrictions on the access of nationals of accession states to the labour market in terms of numerical ceilings, resident labour market test or a skills test, but it did make employment subject to a requirement that workers register their employment under the scheme within one month of starting work. Workers ceased to be subject to the requirement to register after 12 months of continuous employment in the UK in accordance with the 2004 regulations.

The reason that I have sought a debate on the regulations is to seek from the Government an assessment of their impact. This matter was raised by the Merits Committee in its 26th report. In that report, the committee drew this statutory instrument to the special attention of the House. The Explanatory Memorandum to the SI states:

“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is negligible. The lifting of the registration requirement imposes no additional costs on business, charities or voluntary bodies and means that employers will no longer need to be compliant with the requirement to ensure that an accession State worker requiring registration has registered their employment … The impact on the public sector is that the UK Border Agency will no longer incur the cost of administering the Worker Registration Scheme. This impact is negligible for the public sector because these costs were recovered though the fee charged for applications”.

We are informed in the Explanatory Memorandum that no impact assessment has been prepared.

The Explanatory Memorandum is silent on assessing the impact of the termination of the worker registration scheme on the benefits system. That is what particularly caught the eye of the Merits Committee, to which I pay tribute for the thoroughness of its work and the help that it gives Members of your Lordships' House in understanding what are sometimes the mysteries of statutory instruments. It will be seen from the 26th report that the Merits Committee followed that comment up in correspondence with the Department for Work and Pensions. That response is helpfully published as Appendix 1 to the 26th report, which states that the DWP says that,

“over 11,000 claims from nationals of the eight countries for income-based Job Seeker’s Allowance were refused last year, but which may have succeeded with the end of the WRS and the transitional arrangements under the Accession Treaty”.

The Merits Committee informs us that,

“DWP say they are still working on the potential costs following the end of the WRS … DWP also say that rules are in place to prevent abuse and they have an expert team scrutinising the quality and consistency of decision making on claims from nationals of the eight countries”.

As the Merits Committee comments, it is disappointing that the Department for Work and Pensions is still working on the potential costs following the end of the worker registration scheme.

This debate is an opportunity, first, to encourage the noble Baroness’s department to be more forthcoming in its impact assessments in future. Secondly, I hope that the noble Baroness will update us and the House on whether the DWP has made any further progress in its work in analysing the potential costs following the end of the worker registration scheme. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this statutory instrument was drawn to the attention of the House because of the public policy likely to be of interest to it, not because of a defective Explanatory Memorandum. It is not so long ago that we had no Explanatory Memoranda to orders, only Explanatory Notes, which still exist but which are much narrower, technical and often, I must say, opaque. It has only been since 2004, when the Merits Committee was formed, that we have had this type of assistance. I should declare that I am a member of the Merits Committee at present. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the committee's advisers, Jane White and Grant Oliver, who pursue with a quiet doggedness issues which arise on too many of the literally thousands of SIs which come before us: things such as lack of reporting on the outcome of consultation, and very often the late presentation of an order so that there is no proper time to investigate before it comes into force.

It should go without saying—although I had better say it—that accountability and access to what the Government do is of the utmost importance. Transparency may be a little overworked as a term, but the concept is not. Information must be available and accessible, not least to avoid any suggestion that what we have—this is not my term, although I wish it was—is not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. The Explanatory Memorandum is important, because it is a public document, but I think that this Explanatory Memorandum is clear. It is detailed within its own terms. Perhaps it would be good to have an impact assessment to accompany statutory instruments, but, as things are at the moment, that is not usual.

My greater concern is the usual—the importance of joining up different parts of government. The SI comes from the Home Office; it was announced by the noble Baroness. Her statement dealt with the procedures affecting people coming into the UK from the accession states, not the wider impact. The report notes with disappointment that the DWP has not provided an estimate of associated costs. It had seven years to do so. I cannot resist the basic arithmetic, which tells us when six of those seven years were.

The noble Lord has raised a number of interesting questions, and I will, to an extent, repeat them. Given the time that there has been, why have the Government not sought to develop a more accurate measure of the likely numbers? The noble Lord referred to the 11,000—it may be almost 12,000—claims rejected in the past calendar year which apparently would have succeeded with the ending of the transitional arrangements. How confident are the Government that those figures are close to being accurate? How will they seek to verify them? Newspaper articles use the figure of more than 100,000 migrants. If I were to ask the Minister whether she knows where the newspapers got the figure of 100,000 from, that would probably be an unfair question, because we all know that newspapers are not necessarily the most accurate reporters.

Have the Government worked out the cost of the increased access to benefits? It would be helpful if the Minister would say a little about the Jobcentre Plus team to which the noble Lord referred. Is it dealing with just these accession state nationals? I hope not, as I hope this is all in a wider context. I also hope that it is not just the DWP but, for instance, BIS or Communities that have considered the implications of this change. I am not suggesting that they have not.

The point of the transitional arrangements was to monitor accession state nationals’ access to the UK labour market. We are told that by paragraph 7(2) of the Explanatory Memorandum. What was the result?

The best argument for a full Explanatory Memorandum dealing with the impacts is yesterday’s Daily Express, whose front page screamed, “Migrants Flood Back to Britain”. I know the reluctance to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but perhaps fuller Explanatory Memoranda on this sort of issue would assist in ensuring accuracy rather than raising the temperature so unnecessarily and unpleasantly.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 7th February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks in introducing this order. The scientific evidence and advice on which the Government have acted is very clear and I welcome the Government’s action. The first two provisions in the order follow advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. A letter about tapentadol from Professor Les Iversen of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in July 2010 concludes that the abuse liability of the drug would be substantial and has the potential to cause social harm through diversion and addiction. Measures for amineptine were also on the recommendation of the advisory committee, which supports that drug being controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The Explanatory Memorandum discloses that no consultation has taken place on this and that the Minister’s department has concluded that it is not necessary or beneficial so to do. The noble Earl will be aware that the Merits Select Committee has suggested that this Committee should satisfy itself that the review processes for the changes are sufficiently robust. I invite the noble Earl to respond to that comment of the Merits Select Committee.

In relation to these first two drugs, I take this opportunity to thank Professor Iversen and his advisory committee for the extremely valuable work that they do. The Minister has also explained that the changes in the draft order about mephedrone will not affect its classification. It is, and will remain, a class B controlled drug. The proposed clarification is simply a technical change in the legislation to make it more straightforward for prosecuting authorities to prepare charges. That seems extremely sensible and the Official Opposition are glad to support the proposal.

It is only a few months ago that mephedrone was brought under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class B drug. As has been explained, the paperwork accompanying the order makes it very clear that these drugs are harmful and dangerous and, in addition to legislative controls, a series of actions is required going beyond law enforcement and embracing prevention, public health and education. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could say something about what progress has been made on these fronts since the drug received the classification last April.

I would also like to ask the Minister about the impact of the proposed changes to the National Health Service on public health programmes in relation to this and other drugs. In so doing, I should refer to my declaration of a number of interests of mine in healthcare, declared in the House of Lords register of interests.

I understand that many useful public health programmes in relation to drugs are organised and funded locally by primary care trusts. The noble Earl will be aware that, under legislation now in the other place, primary care trusts are due to be abolished, with most of their public health functions being transferred to local authorities, alongside ring-fenced funding. Perhaps the noble Earl—if not today, but in writing—can assure me that his department will work very closely with the Department of Health and CLG to ensure that the budgets for drug prevention work, which are currently held locally, will be protected and that local authorities will be strongly encouraged to be proactive in that area.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I, too, am happy to support this order. I would like to follow up the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on consultation. The Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee referred in its report to amineptine having been dealt with by the Commission on Narcotic Drugs as long ago as 2003. That is quite startling. I am sure that the noble Earl will have been briefed as to the reason for the delay.

I also want to ask about the reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to consultation not being necessary. One might say that it is or is not, but at least one would understand it. I simply do not understand why consultation may not be “beneficial”, which is the term used in paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. When is consultation not beneficial? I hope that the noble Earl can find an answer to that perhaps more philosophical question.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 7th February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I apologise for keeping the Committee waiting. I had an enormous opportunity to think up some more questions but, alas, the excitement of the vote rather inhibited me from doing so.

In his introductory remarks, the noble Earl mentioned that when the orders that will follow come to the House, they will be subject to certain scrutiny in relation to the fees. In relation to those subsequent orders, will there be full consultation before they are brought to the House?

I would finally like to ask him whether he can explain how he thinks the UKBA can be expected to carry out its crucial duties effectively when having to take out such a huge amount of people and finance. If he says that this is to be a more efficient use of the way in which the UKBA organises itself, and that there will be no impact on front-line UKBA services, I would be grateful if he could give me a definition of what he might mean by front-line services. He will be aware that I put down a Question to the Government on 1 December about the definition of front-line services in relation to police forces. As of today, that was still unanswered. It is the only Question that is still unanswered in your Lordships' House from before Christmas. A delay from 1 December to nearly mid-February is not very much to the credit of the Home Office. I realise that he is not answering such questions today, but I think that it would be helpful if he could give a definition of front-line services.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my questions follow a number of those that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, although I will not follow him on the desirability or otherwise of the changes to the Immigration Rules—or on the definition of front-line services in the case of Labour Party research on police numbers.

However, as I am confused about this—I apologise to the Committee if it is utterly clear to everyone else—I will ask my noble friend Lord Attlee whether this order lays the ground for changes to the Immigration Rules which Parliament has not yet agreed and has not yet had sight of. The answer may be that the rules which we will be asked to agree are a mixture of the same sorts of provisions as are in place at the moment but that they will be a different mix. I am unclear and slightly uneasy at the prospect of being asked to agree a structure for fees if this is related to the new rules themselves.

I should also be grateful if my noble friend will give us an assurance that moving fees relating to immigration and nationality matters from the consular fees order to regulations under the 2006 Act provides us with exactly the same level of scrutiny as has been available under the arrangement which is being superseded.

In terms of the substantive comment, there are a couple of matters on which I should like to have a word. As regards students, we are told in the Explanatory Memorandum that a student moving between institutions is currently not charged for the, let us say, visa—I am not quite sure of the status of the permission—and for the UKBA’s consideration of that. We are told that the order will enable—a term used throughout—fees to be imposed for the request to change institutions. I take it that the word “enable” means that there will be a fee. My comment is that, although I share the view expressed by consultees that it is right that the taxpayer does not bear the whole of the cost of this service, overseas students nevertheless bring a lot of money and potential good will with them. I feel a little uneasy—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Yes!

[Baroness Hamwee]

Oh! The result of the Division in the House makes me feel even more uneasy. I also feel a little uneasy about the prospect of charging such students more.

With regard to the new provisions explained in paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, will the Minister say what thought has gone into allowing fees to be charged to provide “a route to … citizenship” for children born outside the UK to members of our Armed Forces? It seems to me to be pushing it a little to charge members of the Armed Forces for this. I hope that the Minister can amplify the thinking behind that.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their considered response this afternoon.

The order concerns itself with the ability to set the fees. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used somewhat flamboyant language to describe our current immigration policy. Clearly we shall have to look forward to our discussions in the coming months, when he can table suitable Motions and Questions to explore his concerns further. However, I understand them; I am listening to similar concerns being expressed right around the House, and I will discuss these issues with my honourable friend Mr Damian Green tomorrow. I will use a lot of the noble Lord’s speech, when I read it in Hansard tomorrow, as my starting point. We can also look forward to the Oral Question on immigration next week; I am sure that the noble Lord is. There will be plenty of time to discuss all the issues in the detail that we want.

The level of fees will be set by further orders. Where the fees are above the level required for cost recovery, there has to be an affirmative procedure. Where the fees are lower than necessary for cost recovery, there will be the negative order procedure, but we intend to make sure that we can discuss all the fee levels together.

Some 2.5 million people are looking for work, many of whom have key skills to offer employers. There is more reason now than ever to limit economic migration. We are fully aware that we will not meet our target of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands by looking at economic routes alone, so we are looking at all the main immigration routes. We will also consult on changes to the marriage route and entitlement to settle in the UK, to make settlement a less automatic prospect.

I was asked how we decided the level of the limit. The MAC recommended a reduction of 6,300 visas in 2011-12, which we accepted. Applying that reduction to our 2009 baseline of 50,000 tier 1 and tier 2 visas results in an overall limit for 2011-12 of 43,700. However, the 2009 baseline includes 22,000 ICTs. As they have been exempted and need to be excluded from the baseline, that gives an overall limit of 21,700.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked what additional consultation had taken place since 2009. The UK Border Agency published results of the last full consultation on fees in January 2010. That consultation established the principle that the agency should charge flexibly to take into account wider policy aims, and 90 per cent agreed. Since then, we have engaged with the task forces representing the Armed Forces, education, employment, arts and the entertainment sectors.

The noble Lord also asked about the impact assessment and specific fee levels. We expect to raise £829 million from fee income in 2011-12, but that is only 36 per cent of the UK Border Agency costs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, touched on whether the fees covered all the UK Border Agency’s costs; clearly, they do not. We will publish a full impact assessment when we lay the subsequent fee regulations, which will be brought before the House through the affirmative resolution procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned much of our immigration policy. The Government believe that Britain can benefit from migration but not uncontrolled migration, which places unacceptable pressure on public services. We can reduce net migration without damaging our economy. We can increase the number of high-value migrants—the entrepreneurs, the investors, the research scientists—at the same time as we reduce the total number of people coming into Britain through economic routes.

The noble Lord asked broadly what the UK Border Agency is doing to ensure that the effect of any increase is minimised. The agency has committed to cutting its budget by up to 20 per cent in real terms over the next four years. That is the economic situation that we are in; that is the reality. The UK Border Agency is cutting overheads by more than a third over the spending review period. The agency will save around £500 million in efficiencies by reducing support costs, boosting productivity and improving value for money from commercial suppliers. The agency is determined to ensure that applicants pay more of the costs of running the agency, with taxpayers paying less. That will ensure that we can continue to provide the excellent service that noble Lords would wish.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the definition of front-line services. We will provide a written response to that as soon as possible. I apologise for the delay in providing that information, but I will personally look into this with the Home Office.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the Armed Forces nationality fee. It is fair that, rather than the taxpayer, those seeking a benefit from the application should meet the costs of the consideration. A person or their parent makes a choice on whether they wish to register as a British citizen, so they accept that it involves the payment of a fee. Enabling a choice to be made also ensures that the person can make decisions regarding any other nationality that they may hold.

The noble Baroness also asked about the possibility of pricing out students. We remain committed to maintaining the UK as an attractive destination for work, for study, to visit or for cultural visits. We recognise that migrants make a valuable contribution to the wider British economy and continually monitor our fees to ensure that they remain competitive with similar endorsement types offered in other countries. We believe that our fees remain competitive, particularly when one considers them alongside the entitlements which are offered to successful applicants. We also need to ensure that the charging system is fair to those who use the system and fair to the UK taxpayer, who will continue to support the immigration system that brings benefits and enrichments to this country. The fees that we charge are neither designed nor expected to deter migrants from choosing to come to the UK.

We will return to Parliament in March with regulations under the affirmative procedure to ask for approval of the regulations that will detail the fee levels for the visa immigration and nationality services covered by this order. The Committee should be assured that the brightest and the best will continue to be welcome in the UK, as will those who seek to come here to visit or to invest.

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 20th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I welcome the order, which the Opposition are happy to support—as the noble Lord no doubt learnt from my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland in what must have been an exciting tutorial a couple of hours ago. As the Minister said, it relates to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act, which the previous Government introduced to enable the UK to participate in improved arrangements for international co-operation in the fight against terrorism and other crime.

As the Minister informed us, the UK opted in to a Council decision to conclude a mutual legal assistance agreement between the EU and Japan. The agreement seeks to improve international co-operation. I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum that, until now, mutual legal assistance has been conducted with Japan on an informal basis. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on how well that has worked in the past few years. What outcome does he expect from the conclusion of a rather more formal agreement? What discussions have been held between the UK and Japan to ensure smooth implementation of the agreement? We welcome such agreements. Are there discussions between the EU and other countries to extend the number of participating nations? Any information that the Minister could give on this matter would be much appreciated.

These agreements are clearly important, given the development of cross-border crime. International crime affects us all. Greater freedom to travel and live in other countries and the growth of international trade mean that crime is no longer confined by national boundaries, but the impact of international crime is often felt on a local scale. It is the larger criminal gangs who facilitate local crimes in the UK—for example, by supplying goods or drugs. Drug smuggling is one of the main cross-border crimes and the main activity of serious and organised criminals, but the problem is not confined to drug trafficking. Other cross-border crimes have an impact on society more widely, such as people trafficking, counterfeiting, money-laundering and cigarette smuggling. Terrorism is, of course, an ever present concern for all of us.

The best way to tackle international crime is to work closely with other countries. In the past, too many obstacles to international investigations have served only to protect the criminal. The success of co-operation between the many countries involved in these agreements is essential in order to combat such crime, which is why we very much support the intentions of the 2003 Act and the order. However—this point has been made both in the passage of the 2003 legislation and in debate on previous orders—it is important that there be confidence in the judicial and police systems of other countries partaking in such agreements. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how confident the Government are that satisfactory standards are in place and being maintained by the countries subject to the agreement, and that they will continue to be monitored in future. Overall, though, we are happy to support the order.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have not had the benefit of a tutorial from any colleague, in this House or otherwise, on international comity, although I was surprised to see that dealings had occurred “on an informal basis”; this does not seem the sort of subject that should be dealt with informally. Be that as it may, we are told in the Explanatory Memorandum about consultations carried out before the order was put forward. The Serious Organised Crime Agency is not mentioned, and I would be interested to know whether it was consulted. Perhaps it comes under some umbrella that is mentioned. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the sort of serious crime with which SOCA deals is very much something to be targeted.

The noble Lord has asked almost all my questions, so I will not repeat them unless it will be for anyone’s convenience for me to talk a little longer; I have noticed some notes going to and fro. I will ask my noble friend about the position the other way around; I may have missed something on it. Are there mutual arrangements in Japan? I can deal with this fairly quickly. Whichever countries come within this arrangement, it is clearly important that there is a balance and that we can expect the same assistance from the other country involved.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we come to an important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept, to do right by those members of the public who in good faith purchased an ID card. The introduction of ID cards was controversial and subject to intense debate in your Lordships' House. We on this side saw the ID card scheme as a convenient and secure way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was more affordable than a passport and functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, and we saw it as a way of demonstrating eligibility to work and as proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. The parties opposite disagreed with that principle and in their election manifestos argued for abolition of the cards. For that reason, we have not at any stage sought to oppose the Bill, although in Committee we tabled some probing and constructive amendments, including this one.

The point of my amendment is this. As a result of the introduction of ID cards, 12,000 or so members of the public purchased a card for £30. The cards were for a period of 10 years. As a result of the Bill, should it successfully pass, the cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date. That is fair enough; it is a decision of the Government and is why they have brought this legislation to your Lordships' House. What is not fair is the Government’s decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card.

I have been rather disappointed by the Minister’s somewhat unsympathetic attitude. On Second Reading, she said:

“We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.

She went on to say that,

“citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]

She then dismissed the potential refund of £30 as,

“rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 742.]

The Minister seemed to be saying that members of the public are meant to have a thorough understanding of the views of political parties, make an assessment of who is going to win an election and then make their dispositions accordingly.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am confused—I do not know whether other noble Lords are. Is the noble Lord speaking to the first and third amendments?

[Baroness Hamwee]

I did not hear because of the kerfuffle.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

In the flurry of Members leaving, the noble Baroness may have missed that my noble friend Lord Brett did not move the first group. I am talking about Amendment 2.

Even if you were to accept that argument, which I do not, the fact is that there were mixed messages. I shall read an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 24 May 2010:

“Chris Grayling, the former shadow home secretary, had signalled that there would be refunds for cancelled cards”.

So even if you accept the argument that members of the public were meant to read the newspapers to get an understanding of what the opposition parties were saying would happen with ID cards in the event that they won—that even though a member of the public had bought a card for 10 years, it was tough luck—the fact is that the position was not clear in the media and there were conflicting statements.

I encourage noble Lords to think about the wider principle, not just about ID cards and £30. An incoming Government are saying that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is simply tough luck that members of the public decided to act on that policy. They are simply expected to have this right taken away from them without any possible compensation or recompense at all. I think that that is a rather extraordinary principle to adopt. I also think that it impacts on the reputation of governments as a whole. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is really developing a new principle which can only reduce trust in government generally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

In Committee I raised the issues on subsection (10) to which reference has just been made, and I did so for the same reasons—the concerns about, for instance, judicial oversight of a Secretary of State’s decision to retain information for these purposes. I was told then that subsection (10) reflects the provision in the Data Protection Act. I went away and looked at that, and I ought to say thank you. I was entirely happy that although the wording is a little different, it amounts to precisely the same thing. That is not to say that the issue is entirely satisfactorily dealt with. Perhaps it should be dealt with in a different way in this piece of legislation or, as I would like to see, more widely. However, I think that that is a different point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers, to our debates on—

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I thank the noble Baroness for her careful explanation of the regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has taken us into a rather wider debate. His comments were very interesting and I hope that we will be able to hear more about that issue. There is great concern that the way in which the current cap is operating is doing real damage not just to British business and industry but to the arts and academia, as we have discussed in the House on several occasions in the past few weeks. I hope that we will receive an early announcement from the Government that they will look at the policy again and make it more flexible.

Having said that, we support the general principles that the noble Baroness has outlined. We recognise the challenge of balancing the burden of the administration of the system between the migrant and the taxpayer. My reading is that the burden on the migrant is increasing slightly, although not significantly. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that. I should also be grateful if she could say what impact the fees increase is likely to have on the number of applications. Has an analysis been carried out of the possible impact on at least the main categories of application and whether there will be any unwelcome impact on regular migration when fees are increased? The Minister rightly mentioned some of the benefits of migration, which I must say was welcome.

Has an analysis been carried out of where there is clear benefit to our country from the skills that have been brought in and of our costs and prices as compared with those of other countries, such as Australia, European Union countries and the US? To extend the theme that was mentioned by the noble Earl, we need to be mindful that this country is a great global trading nation. We must be wary of any action that we take that would undermine the ability of UK companies to attract the best people. That has been one of our great strengths over the past 30 years, which it is important that the policy on immigration should not undermine. It is worrying to hear of small companies looking to, say, New Zealand for R&D purposes because of the constraints of the current system.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the increase in the cost of visas, particularly settlement visas, is part of a more general policy to bear down on numbers. Is the price increase part of a general policy of reducing net immigration? Perhaps the Minister would also refer to the matter of the migration impact fund, which was raised by my right honourable friend when the regulations were debated in a committee of the other place. I understand that the visa fee increases of the previous year took into account a £50 million contribution from migrants to that fund, which was intended to pay for projects in constituencies with a sudden increase in the number of immigrants. The Government have decided to abolish the fund, but the amount to cover the fund is staying within the visa fee. If the Minister could give us an explanation of that, it would be extremely welcome.

Will the Minister also provide a little more explanation of the alignment between fees in country and fees out of country, which she referred to in her introduction? Is the goal to have equalisation? Given the policy of looking at the proportion or cost of the administration of the fee, what measures will be put in place in that regard?

I note the significant increase in the fee for dependants. We do not oppose that, as there is a huge benefit to the dependant, but is that increase part of a deliberate policy to deter immigrants from bringing in dependants? Is it in line with the reductions of the rights of dependants, such as work rights, as part of the scheme, or is it just a method of raising extra resources when there is pressure on budgets?

Will the Minister also reassure me that no fees or charges will be imposed on Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House who make inquiries about the progress of an immigration application, on behalf of a constituent, in the case of an MP, or of someone who has approached a Member of your Lordships' House, as happens from time to time?

I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to these questions, orally or in writing. She may take it that we support the general principles, although I share the noble Earl's concern about the wider aspects of the cap, which are doing great damage to British business at the moment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very closely and will try not to repeat what he said, but I, too, have a number of questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how our fees compared with those of a number of other countries. I would be particularly interested in those of EU countries, because that is the context in which we should look at ourselves.

Wider policy objectives are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 8.2 gives the example of attracting specific groups of migrants who are beneficial to the UK. Like both the previous noble Lords, I find it difficult to separate that from the wider issues of immigration policy. Perhaps the Minister could amplify on that, without taking us into a bigger debate, which we will no doubt have very soon.

Can the Minister tell the House how the monitoring of the impact of the fees, which the Explanatory Memorandum promises will be monitored closely, will be done? Will it be a matter of looking at trends? Important as the examples that we have heard are, those examples would probably not feature very much, if at all, in the statistics. However, sometimes anecdotes are useful.

Like the noble Lord, I am happy to support the approach that has been taken in the regulations.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I respond to that, as we are in Committee? The noble Lord raises an important point. I have no objection whatever to the general principle behind Clause 10, which seems entirely sensible and in the public interest. It is simply a matter of ensuring that there is due process and accountability.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I wondered whether to table an amendment probing paragraph (i), but since the provision would require an order, I thought that that was the inbuilt protection which subsection (10) seems not to have.