Brexit: Science and Research Funding

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, in answer to the original Question, I made it clear that we will continue to negotiate to make sure that we get the best deal on research. We want to be involved in all the research-based programmes with which we have been involved, and I think it is in the interests of the EU that we are involved in them. That is why I quoted Pascal Lamy on the subject. Obviously, the negotiations will continue. We will have more to say in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, on the question of regulatory harmony on medicines licensing, surely the point is that, unless a medicine’s registered licence in this country is recognised in the EU, companies will no longer invest in R&D in this country, which has a direct impact on the question put to the noble Lord.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is not happening at the moment, and it will not happen—

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I will enjoy the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s question. I welcome the amendments brought by the Minister; they follow our discussion in Committee and the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee. However, on his eloquent defence of our having this Bill before us, the Bill would be quite unnecessary if the Government were to reverse their decision to leave Euratom, which remains for many of us unfathomable and unjustified.

[Lord Henley]

On the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it is not necessary to rehearse all the arguments that we have been through on this matter because the decision has been made to leave Euratom. As he knows, that was dealt with in the transition Bill, which received a large majority in another place and is now an Act. It is a done deal. That is where we are and we have legislated on that issue.

On the more detailed technical point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, about electricity generation carried out for non-peaceful purposes, I have not got a clue and will take advice on the matter. I am assured by those drafting the Bill that this was the appropriate and proper way to deal with this matter. We wanted to ensure that we did not need to keep a residual power so that we could come back to this and make further amendments. That would have upset the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who would have accused me of retaining a Henry VIII power to seek further amendments to the primary legislation. By tabling this amendment and drafting it in that way, I have been able to make sure that there is not even that residual power. That is the proper way to go forward.

Having said that, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, to give him an idea about electricity generation that is carried on for non-peaceful purposes, if such an answer can be found. I will make that information available to other noble Lords as they so wish.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows, I am always sympathetic, particularly to his amendments. On this occasion, what he wants are some reassurances, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, about the genuine independence of the ONR and, importantly, that the IAEA sees it as an independent body and accepts it as such. I hope that, quite briefly, I will be able to provide those reassurances.

We have international obligations to ensure that the regulator is effectively independent. The provisions of the 2013 Act, which created the ONR and which I am sure the noble Lord knows well, were specifically designed to ensure that the ONR had appropriate independence. Those measures to guarantee its independence include providing it with independent public corporation status; significant restrictions on the Government’s ability to direct the ONR in the exercise of its functions; constraints on the conditions for dismissing senior ONR members; and transparency obligations that act as a safeguard against powers—which are already constrained—being used in an improper manner.

Noble Lords will be aware that as a public corporation the ONR is able to set its own employment terms and conditions, affording it greater freedom and flexibility than if it were a non-ministerial government department. If it were such a department, ONR employees would be civil servants, the organisation would be part of government and the level of its independence would arguably be more limited than it is now. The noble Lord, however, obviously takes another view.

In the factsheet we published on 19 February, we made it clear that the ONR is independent from government in its regulatory functions and decisions. The most important point to stress—this deals with the entire matter and goes to the core of the amendment—is that the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2013 that the Energy Act 2013 would,

“provide de jure independence, which will reinforce the de facto independence that ONR (and its predecessors) have enjoyed for many years”.

It is important that we listen to what the IAEA said; I cannot stress how important this is. The amendment the Committee is considering attempts to unpick the arrangements that the IAEA—the international body responsible for nuclear safeguards worldwide—considers provide the independence necessary for an effective regulatory safeguarding regime.

Having established that the ONR is independent, I would also like to note that, as well as fulfilling international obligations and best practice, this independence is crucial for the industry. It is important that the industry has recourse to appeal ONR decisions. Attempting to fundamentally change the ONR’s relationship with the Government by explicitly providing that the ONR acts on behalf of the Crown—the effect of the amendment—risks moving away from an approach deemed appropriate by the IAEA and would undermine the industry’s ability to hold the regulator to account.

I do not think I need to go any further than that. In the interests of time, it is probably best that I end there and ask the noble Lord whether he wants at this stage to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have given him the appropriate guarantees.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That has been a very helpful response and I am grateful to the Minister. However, I disagree with him: it is clear from the Cabinet Office guidance that a non-ministerial government department has more independence, whatever the status of officials. But he has given me considerable reassurance, for which I am most grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My understanding is that it will allow them to do that. I am not aware that Article 206 could be used further as the noble Lord suggests. If I am wrong, of course I will write to him, but it might be a matter of interpretation. I should remind him in respect of Article 206 that I stressed when I read out the Government’s response to the Select Committee that any agreement required unanimity. That is obviously quite a big “if” in these matters. If there is anything further I can add, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The Minister is being very helpful. It is the first explanation we have had as to why the Government are leaving. He talked a lot about the influence of the EU over Euratom’s activities, which is no doubt something that we can test and explore. But I do not understand what “close association” means. The Government clearly could not go for a formal association because the relationship would be one in which the EU would set the rules, and we know that the Government have drawn a red line against that. Does “close association” mean that we would basically subcontract the inspectorate from Euratom to work under the auspices of the ONR, with the ONR as the regulator? Does it mean that, despite everything that the Government have said, we hope that we can simply replicate Euratom rules and that it will somehow oversee it, which seems unlikely? Until we know what the Government want to get out of Euratom, it is difficult to know whether the Bill will meet the circumstances if no close association at all is agreed.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Thursday 22nd February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for making that point. I followed the noble Lord into Defra some years ago. He and I know exactly what all those who have served us in the Civil Service do for us and how well they do it. If briefs ever fail, it is the failing of Ministers, and Ministers—including the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords I see in this Chamber—know that it is our fault and we take responsibility for it. On this occasion, I think that everything we have said and done has been absolutely marvellous and wonderful and we will continue to argue our case.

May I now make my second attempt to draw stumps, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it has been a long 24 hours for many of us, so I am delighted to say that is the nicest thing that the noble Lord has said to us. I take it that the Government will, in essence, be bringing an amendment back on Report. I am very grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Energy: Domestic Tariffs

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that bad insulation is not good for heating bills, so we would like to do better on that front. I would prefer to write to the noble Baroness in greater detail on the point she raised, but we are doing what we can to help all more vulnerable consumers with their heating bills. She will be aware of the warm home discount and the cold weather payments; and there is the winter fuel payment, which quite a number of noble Lords probably benefit from and which is worth up to £300 for a couple and £200 for an individual.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord says that Ofgem is doing a good job, but over the last few years we have seen evidence that the industry raises prices as quickly as possible and reduces them—when the international market shows a reduction in prices—as slowly as they can. Has Ofgem not used all the powers it has to intervene in the market?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, what I made clear in response to my noble friend’s supplementary was that I believe Ofwat has done a very good job. Ofgem can do a very good job, but we agree with it that the energy market is not working as it should, possibly for the reasons the noble Lord has pointed out. That is why we have brought forward a draft Bill and are looking at what it might do. We will respond after the BEIS Select Committee has produced its report on that Bill.

Abu Qatada

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I would not want to comment on the sense of timing of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister has already referred to listening to the court. In terms of lost days, he will know that the Prime Minister told the BBC that his officials had checked with the European court the deadline for the appeal. Will the Minister give the House of Lords chapter and verse as to when the Home Office checked with the European court and what the court said?

Police: Racism

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend that there is a failure on this occasion. What has happened is that the police themselves have recognised that there is a problem. It was the police officers themselves who raised these allegations and are dealing with them. That is the encouraging sign, indicating that there is not the institutional racism that has been alleged existed in the Met in the past. I am very grateful therefore that that is happening and that those matters are being dealt with.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, on the question of leadership I take this opportunity to commend the police commissioner on his robust action in relation to the matter to which the Minister has just referred. Can I, however, take the noble Lord back to the Statement that he gave yesterday? He told us that the Home Secretary is considering whether an independent inquiry should be established into allegations of corruption in relation to the original investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. If the Home Secretary agrees to set up an independent inquiry, will the Minister consider passing on to her the suggestion that that inquiry might look at what progress has been made by the Metropolitan Police since the Macpherson report was published?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s opening remarks. As regards his other remarks about the Statement I made yesterday, I think he will remember that there was a general consensus in the House that this was a matter on which we needed to move relatively slowly. I can therefore say to him that things have not moved on much further in the 12 hours since I made that Statement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is therefore still considering what to do, and will go on considering those matters while the Met’s internal review continues. I will also make sure that she takes note of the comments that the noble Lord has made when she comes to make a final decision on that matter.

Stephen Lawrence

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for repeating the Urgent Question in another place as a Statement in your Lordships’ House. I echo his remarks and regret that it has taken so long to achieve convictions for the murder of Stephen Lawrence. Like the noble Lord, I also pay tribute to the Lawrence family for their tireless efforts to seek justice.

The House will know that during the investigation by the Metropolitan Police five suspects were arrested but not convicted. During the investigation many suggested that the murder was racially motivated and that the handling of the case by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. After widespread concern, a public inquiry was held, led by Sir William Macpherson. This examined the original Metropolitan Police investigation and concluded that the force was institutionally racist.

As the Minister said, allegations of corruption in the murder investigation have been looked at on at least two previous occasions. They were looked at first by the Macpherson inquiry itself, which concluded that no collusion or corruption was proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence’s murder. Then in July 2006 the IPCC announced that it had asked the Metropolitan Police to look into alleged claims of police corruption that may have helped to hide the killers of Stephen Lawrence. In 2007, the IPCC said that it had found no evidence to substantiate these allegations. However, within weeks of the convictions earlier this year, the issue of corruption in the Lawrence case surfaced again when the Independent made allegations about a detective in the Lawrence case which had previously been made in the Guardian in 2002 and by the BBC in 2006.

Doreen Lawrence has called on the Home Secretary to order a second public inquiry into the police investigation of the murder of her son. The call for a Macpherson 2 comes as the Metropolitan Police has said that it has been unable, after a month of investigation, to establish whether it passed potentially crucial files detailing investigations by its anti-corruption command to the police inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death held in 1998.

Those are some of the contexts in which we consider the Government’s response today, and I should like to ask the noble Lord a number of questions. He said that the Metropolitan Police is currently carrying out an internal review into these corruption allegations. Can he give me any indication of when that review is likely to be concluded? In view of the need for public confidence in any internal inquiry before consideration is given to a wider public inquiry, given that it is currently an internal review and given the current state of concern about these issues in relation to the Metropolitan Police, does the Minister consider that some assistance from HMIC might be appropriate? Does he accept that only an independent inquiry is ultimately likely to give the public confidence?

We understand that the Home Secretary is, as the Minister said, considering this matter at the moment but there has been an indication that one of her concerns is cost. Can the noble Lord assure me that cost will not be a factor when the Home Secretary comes to order an inquiry? Does he also accept that there are very powerful reasons for holding such an inquiry, including the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that they have recurred on a number of occasions and that the Inquiries Act 2005 states that inquiries should be held if particular events have caused or are capable of causing public concern? I suggest that that threshold may well have been reached.

If there is to be an inquiry—either a continuation of Macpherson or a new public inquiry—I should also like to ask the Government whether they will consider adding to its terms of reference consideration of progress made by the Metropolitan Police following the Macpherson finding of institutional racism and whether further changes need to be made in the light of more recent racism allegations, which I think will be the subject of an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House very soon.

Perhaps I may also refer the Minister to a number of comments made by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper in relation to the wider allegations of alleged racism involving Metropolitan Police officers reported in recent weeks. It is very important that the IPCC carries out a swift investigation of this. She has also suggested an urgent referral to the IPCC of new information regarding alleged corruption at the time of the original police inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I should also say that we on these Benches give full support for the efforts of the commissioner and commend his response to the recent allegations, including operational changes. There would, I think, be some real benefit if one saw Macpherson reconvened with the specific remit of investigating the corruption but also looking at the progress that the Met has made in tackling racism in the light of recent allegations and in the context of the stance that the commissioner has taken in recent weeks.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the commissioner in these matters, and I am also grateful that he stressed that we have already had two reports—from Macpherson and the IPCC—both of which were unable to find any corruption in the original inquiry. However, obviously that does not mean that we should not look again at these matters and that is why in this Statement, made in response to a Question, we made it clear that initially the Met will hold an internal review. The noble Lord asked when it will conclude. Obviously I cannot give him an answer to that. If it is to be an internal review, it would not be appropriate for me, the Home Secretary or any other Home Office Minister to say how it should be done and when it should report or whether at this stage any assistance from HMIC might be appropriate, as the noble Lord suggested. As the Statement makes clear, my right honourable friend is treating these issues with the utmost seriousness and is currently considering her decision on these matters. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt that decision. That is why the Statement makes it clear that she offered to meet Doreen Lawrence to discuss these matters and that she will keep the House updated as and when appropriate.

The noble Lord then asked whether an independent inquiry was the only solution or whether we should have a continuation of Macpherson, and whether cost would influence us in these matters. I can give him an assurance that, within limits obviously—we do not want another Saville inquiry, which the noble Lord will remember cost something of the order of £100 million or £200 million—we will not let cash constrain or limit us too much.

The noble Lord went on to ask whether we would consider the terms of reference for any new inquiry. Again, until we decide whether we will have an inquiry, which is a decision for my right honourable friend, I cannot speculate on that on this occasion.

I have tried to answer every question that the noble Lord has put to me, but I have given him no answers whatever because this is not the moment or stage at which to do so. However, my right honourable friend is considering these matters and they are being taken very seriously indeed. She will consider them in due course.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations concern fees charged for visa, immigration and nationality services. The fees paid by those making visa, nationality and immigration applications must be specified in regulations made under Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. Regulations that set fees exceeding the administrative cost of processing an application must be approved by both Houses before they are made; this procedural requirement is imposed by Section 42 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Regulations dealing with fees at or below cost are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The intention is to introduce two sets of regulations on 6 April that will replace existing fees regulations. The first set of regulations will deal with above-cost fees and must be approved by Parliament before it is made, and it is a draft of these regulations that is before the House today. The second set, dealing with fees set at or below cost, does not require prior approval from Parliament and has already been made. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 March. I recognise that having fees in two sets of regulations makes things a little complicated, and I am happy to take points on any of the fees proposals here today.

In general we are proposing to limit the majority of increases to 2 per cent. For example, we propose to increase the short-term visit visa applications by 2 per cent, as we recognise the importance of the visitor route to the United Kingdom economy. This is still about half the actual cost to the UK Border Agency of processing this type of application. Increases to fees that do not follow this approach include tier 1 general extensions of leave; these will increase by 50 per cent. This route is open only to those currently in the UK on a tier 1 general visa that is due to expire during 2013 and confers benefits including unrestricted access to the United Kingdom labour market, and ultimately the ability to apply for indefinite leave to remain. The new fee better reflects the value of these benefits.

Fees for tier 2 visas for migrants coming to the UK to work for a sponsor will rise by 20 per cent to £480; an incremental step towards our objective of aligning fees for the original entry visa with the fee paid in the United Kingdom to extend stay in this route. Thirdly, for media representatives coming to the UK to work for an overseas employer on a long-term assignment, this fee is being increased to align with the tier 2 visa fee to reflect the similarities between the two routes. Fourthly, for tier 2 intra-company transfer visas of less than 12 months’ duration and extensions under this route in the UK, this increase reflects the benefits conferred by this route.

The tier 4 visa fee is being increased to cover the full costs of processing these visas. In the current economic climate we can no longer subsidise these visas. The visa for extended family members of refugees and those with humanitarian protection coming to the UK is also moving to cost recovery. We are aligning it with similar settlement visa routes following changes that were introduced in the Immigration Rules in 2011.

Licence fees to those organisations that sponsor migrants in the UK are increasing to better reflect the administrative costs. For large organisations sponsoring employees to work under tier 2, the fees will be £1,500, while for small businesses and charities we will charge £500.

New fees being introduced include a graduate entrepreneur route in the points-based system. This route is being developed for those who have been identified by United Kingdom universities as having developed world-class innovative ideas or entrepreneurial skills but have yet to meet the requirements of the tier 1 entrepreneur route. This will allow them to develop their business in the United Kingdom

The new fees will cover extending the mobile biometric enrolment service to include applications for indefinite leave to remain, widening the range of services that we can offer our customers, and enabling those who have come to the UK under the tier 1 exceptional talent route that launched last year to extend their stay; this will ensure that we retain the skills and talents of those whom we have attracted to work and base themselves here.

Finally, the new fees will also cover providing certain stateless persons with the ability to acquire—or renounce—the status of British protected person. In addition, the fees paid by dependants of members of the Armed Forces will be frozen at current levels in recognition of our commitments under the Armed Forces covenant.

Legal migration brings economic, cultural and social benefits to the United Kingdom. We will continue to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality send a clear signal overseas that the country will go on welcoming the brightest and the best, and these proposals support that message.

We also continue to monitor the economic, equality and diversity impacts of our changes and to ensure that our fees continue to be priced at levels which make them competitive when compared with those in other countries.

I believe that these regulations provide a basis for a sustainable immigration system that noble Lords will want, and I commend them to the 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.

Criminal Records Bureau

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question, but I can say that in the 10 years in which this system has been running some 130,000 potentially unsuitable people have been prevented from working with children and vulnerable adults. The noble Earl can use that figure against the figure of 31 million and work out his own percentage.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that it is the Government’s view that in general the establishment of CRB checks and the system that came from it was essential to ensure that vulnerable people are protected? Having said that, and coming back to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, does he agree that part of the problem is overzealous interpretation by a number of organisations? Perhaps the Government’s best efforts should be put into working with those organisations on guidance, information and education, so as their decisions on the number of people who need CRB checks might be more proportionate.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept that it was necessary to bring in the CRB and these checks, but things had become out of proportion. That is why my right honourable friend announced her review and is why we want to scale things back to allow people to take proper responsibility for these matters. That is what we are trying to do, and it was what we were trying to do in the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but we will obviously keep these matters under review. If we can further scale down the checks without putting children or vulnerable adults at risk, we will do so.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I apologise for my near lateness but I am here on time. I beg to move that the Committee considers the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before Parliament on 28 February. I will have problems with some of the pronunciations but this order will bring 2-DPMP and its related compounds—phenazepam and any ester or ether of pipradrol—under the control of the 1971 Act, based on the recommendations put forward by our independent experts, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, following its assessment of all available evidence.

The drugs subject to the order are so-called legal highs or new psychoactive substances which imitate the effects of and are chemically related to existing illegal drugs. I make three points. First, the ACMD likens the harms of 2-DPMP and its related compounds to controlled class B drugs which include amphetamines. We accept the ACMD’s assessment of evidence that 2-DPMP and its related compounds, as defined by the generic definition which the ACMD has provided, are sufficiently harmful to warrant class B control under the 1971 Act. Secondly, the order makes a technical amendment to include any ester or ether of pipradrol not captured by the generic definition as class C drugs alongside the main drug pipradrol to which they are chemically related. This ensures that we are consistent with current definitions used in the 1971 Act. Thirdly, the order adds phenazepam, via its full chemical name, to the list of—I now have a very difficult one—benzodiazepines which are controlled class C drugs under the 1971 Act.

The ACMD’s advice highlights evidence that websites selling so-called legal highs have exploited the current position that phenazepam is not one of the benzodiazepines covered by the 1971 Act, while the harms indicate that it is one of the more potent benzodiazepines. This order, if it is made, will enable law enforcement agencies to take full steps to curtail the availability and misuse of these harmful psychoactive substances.

There will be two negative instruments to complement this order. A designation order will be made to designate 2-DPMP and its related compounds under the generic definition, as they have no recognised medicinal or legitimate use. The designation order will amend the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001. Regulations will also be made to amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. It will include designated 2-DPMP and its related compounds in Schedule 1 to those regulations while phenazepam and esters or ethers of pipradrol will be placed with Schedule 3 drugs under the 2001 regulations to reflect their medical properties. These negative instruments will be prepared to come into force at the same time as the order. We will publicise these legislative changes through a Home Office circular addressed to all United Kingdom police forces and our criminal justice partners. I beg to move.

[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.

Police and Crime Panels

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I said in answer to the first supplementary question, we have increased by some 40 per cent the amount available to the panels in the light of discussions and thoughts we have had following the passage of the Bill. We believe that it will be sufficient. If individual local authorities wish to spend more, it will be for those authorities to make that decision themselves.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the police and crime panels are the only check and balance on the potential politicisation of our police forces through elected police commissioners. This is not wide of the Question. Will he respond to reports that Mr Kit Malthouse sought to interfere in the Metropolitan Police’s actions in investigating phone hacking? That is but one example of the risk to this new system, in which the police and crime panels are the only defence but the Government are not going to fund them properly.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have made it quite clear that we are going to fund the panels properly. I am not going to respond to the specific allegation made by the noble Lord, but if necessary—if I think it appropriate—I will write to him. What I am making clear is that we think we are providing appropriate funding for the panels to do the job that was set out in the police Bill last year. We think that they can do that because their job is to look at what the PCCs are doing.

Licensing Act 2003 (Diamond Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and particularly for his brevity. I will deal very quickly with what turned out to be three questions from my noble friend Lady Hamwee: she described them as two questions.

First, she asked why there were only two nights and whether we were being over-nannyish in not going for four nights or at least consulting on four nights. We thought that two nights would be more or less right. We thought that Friday and Saturday would be when people would be most likely to want to go out and socialise. We also thought that that would limit the burdens on the police. That is an important matter to take into account. That is why we consulted on just those two days.

My noble friend asked about the costs to local authorities. I am not aware that there will be any greater costs as a result of the order, although there might be as a result of Diamond Jubilee celebrations as a whole, but that is not a matter that we are discussing at the moment. Certainly, I am not aware of any objections from local authorities or the LGA as a result. If there are any, I will certainly write to my noble friend.

Thirdly, my noble friend asked about the Private Member’s Bill introduced in this House by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, the Live Music Bill. I think that it has gone through this House and the other place and is waiting for Royal Assent. It would be wrong for me to make any comment on when Royal Assent might come to that Bill, but I know my noble friend is aware of the constitutional proprieties in these matters and knows that normally when Bills have gone from both Houses they receive Royal Assent in due course. But that is a matter way beyond my pay grade.

I hope that I have answered all the questions. I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I look forward to all of us being able to celebrate Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee, something that has happened only on the rarest occasions, in the appropriate manner in due course.

“Honour-related” Violence

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 14th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend’s interests in these matters. He will also be aware of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s desire to make the breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence. I also understand what my noble friend says about the dangers of adding crimes to the statute book. We should bear that in mind. He will be aware that a consultation is in progress on this subject, which finishes, I think, some time in March. At the end of that period, we will consider the appropriate options.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for his considered response to this very worrying question and trend. May I ask about the capacity of police forces to deal with it? He will be aware that the reduction in police budgets has had a very bad impact on some of the specialist units in forces up and down the country. Can he assure me that the police are in a position to deal with this matter and give sufficient attention to it?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not believe that the reduction in budgets, which is necessary because of the situation we are in, is relevant here. It is a matter that the police can deal with in the appropriate manner, but we need appropriate information and evidence before we can act in the proper way. However, it is not just what the police have to do in this area that is important; it is also important, as I said in my original Answer, that we work with all other partners. Therefore, it is not only a question of ensuring that we can prevent this crime; it is also a matter of educating people about the inherent dangers. It is a matter of identifying and recording this, as I said earlier, and, where appropriate, prosecuting.

Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for explaining the background to these regulations. To date, the UK has partially complied with the EU regulation by undertaking the rollout of the permit incrementally by immigration application category. We support the general thrust of the regulations, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord would give the Committee an outline of what further stages need to be gone through before the work is complete.

In his speech today, the noble Lord referred to the Written Statement of 6 December in which he said that, on the overseas rollout of biometric permits, the Government will return to Parliament with plans, including policy proposals, for the final stage. This will be after the accreditation period of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Will the noble Lord give a little more information about that, and about when he intends to return to Parliament with his plans? Will he also say what will be the nature of the legislation that he will bring to Parliament—is it primary or secondary legislation?

Perhaps I might also ask him about public consultation on the regulations. Page 5 of the impact assessment sets out the process of consultation in some detail, and also refers to two surveys launched by the UK Border Agency in 2011. The impact assessment says that these various consultations,

“have informed the high level policy”.

That is always reassuring to know. However, it is silent on the actual results of the consultation. It would be helpful to know what the main thrust of the results was and how that informed high-level policy.

I would be grateful if the Minister would answer three further questions. First, will he give me an idea of how many permits he expects will be issued under these provisions? The second follows what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said in relation to the UK Border Agency’s staff resource issues over the past 18 months. The Minister and his esteemed predecessors brought to your Lordships’ House a number of proposals and changes in policy that added to the responsibilities of the UK Border Agency. We know that the agency has had to bear its share of the cuts in funding to the Home Office. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the UKBA has been given additional responsibilities and fewer resources. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will talk about efficiencies that he hopes to drive through the system—which is a very fair point—but my experience is that when you do that, in the end the thing falls over. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given examples of the impact on the time taken to process applications, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will come back to us on that.

Thirdly, on IT, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that this might be a routine application. My experience in government is that nothing in IT should ever be described as routine. One has to accept that these are very complex issues, but it would none the less be helpful to the Committee if the Minister would say something about the IT challenges that are being faced. Will the Minister also talk about the cost of implementation overseas? How does he anticipate that cost being met out of his budget?

However, in general, the Opposition support these proposals, which of course flow from the UK Borders Act introduced by the previous Government.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for finally getting to that crucial bit at the end and saying—as did his right honourable friend in the Commons—that the Opposition welcome these orders. After all, they simply follow from what his Government started as part of a continuous process of gradual rollout. The noble Lord asked what further stages were necessary for dealing with this. He will be more than happy that I can give him an assurance that—as I understand it; I will write to him if I am wrong—no further primary legislation will be necessary, although there will be a need to return to Parliament with some secondary legislation in due course.

For the overseas rollout of biometric permits, we are completing a very comprehensive analysis of our options to identify the most cost-effective solution that will have the least impact on our customers and will take account of our commitments under EU legislation. A number of factors are relevant, including the timing of the 2012 Olympic Games and the rollout of other new technology for the agency, and we will return to Parliament with this as soon as possible after the Games. For that reason, at this stage I cannot say anything more about what I think the noble Lord described as his third question—although there seemed to be more than three—on the cost of implementation overseas. If I have any further information, I will let the noble Lord know in due course.

The noble Lord also asked how many permits in total we would issue each year. Based on 2010’s published figures, we could expect around 550,000 permits a year to be issued. However, a reduction in this figure to around 400,000 could be expected given the significant number of grants made on a discretionary basis in 2010, mainly under measures aimed at clearing a backlog of outstanding unresolved cases and because of the impact of policy changes to the points-based system. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.

Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2012

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Monday 23rd January 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I shall speak also to the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) (Amendment No. 4) 2012 order. The two statutory instruments introduce procedural rules for court proceedings under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. They add a new part to the civil procedure rules for England and Wales, and a new order to the rules of the Court of Judicature for Northern Ireland. The rules came into force on 15 January last year—the same date that the Act came into force—because it was necessary for TPIM proceedings to take place soon after commencement. However, the Act requires subsequent approval of the rules by each House, which is why we are here today.

The rules substantively reflect the rules that are already in place for control order proceedings. They set out the procedures to be followed when the Secretary of State applies to the court for permission to impose a TPIM notice—or for the court to confirm, or quash, one imposed without prior permission—and for the subsequent directions hearings and review hearings that must be held. The rules also set out the process for an individual to appeal against decisions made by the Secretary of State in relation to a TPIM notice.

The guiding principles behind the court rules are that the decisions that are the subject of the proceedings are properly reviewed; and that the court must ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. The rules provide that sensitive “closed material” may be relied upon and must be protected, although the requirements of a fair trial take precedence. They also make provision about the role and functions of special advocates, who may be appointed by the Attorney-General to represent the interests of the individual in closed proceedings.

In our recent debates on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, the use of closed material and special advocates was explored in some detail. Closed material proceedings are undoubtedly controversial, I accept that, but are necessary to ensure that there can be effective judicial oversight of TPIM decisions, which inevitably rely upon sensitive material.

I can assure the Committee that the use of closed material and special advocates in this type of context is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, a position that the courts have confirmed. Indeed, the Act expressly provides that the rules do not require the court to act in a way inconsistent with Article 6 of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial. This is also the effect of the Human Rights Act.

Notwithstanding that the system is ECHR compatible, we understand that concerns remain. The Green Paper on justice and security is looking carefully at the use of sensitive information in civil proceedings, including suggestions as to how the special advocate system can be improved.

The rules provide a framework within which the Secretary of State, legal representatives, special advocates and the court work. In line with those provisions, the Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland were consulted on the draft rules. Moreover, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee was given the opportunity to comment on a draft. I commend the rules and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the two Motions that have been spoken to together. I also thank him for the invitation in our last debate for a meeting with the UK Border Agency chief executive. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would wish me to say that we would very much appreciate that opportunity.

We have had extensive debates about the TPIM legislation going through your Lordships’ House, and this is not the moment for me to engage with the noble Lord in another debate on the principle. However, I would like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions. First, I understand that nine people are currently subject to control orders. Would he be able to confirm that? Can he confirm that all nine people will be the subject of applications in relation to TPIM notices? He will be aware that, of course, a high threshold is required for the imposition of a TPIM notice. The TPIM regime provides for more tightly prescribed powers than control orders. It is therefore reasonable to ask him whether the new regime is intended to apply to all these nine people currently subject to control orders. If it is considered that there are some people who will not meet the new threshold, can he provide some satisfaction in relation to the safeguarding of security interests in relation to those people? I understand that this is a sensitive issue and that the noble Lord may be somewhat restricted in what he has to say, but he will probably get the drift of the general principle that I am putting forward here, which essentially is this. What are the differences between the current control orders and the TPIM notices?

I should like the noble Lord to reassure me about the state of readiness of the police and the security services for the new regime. We have the transition period that will allow the new circumstances to be brought into operation. I shall not go over in great detail the evidence given by the Metropolitan Police to the Special Bill Committee which considered the Bill in the other place, but he will be aware that at that point, the representative of the Metropolitan Police said that it would take at least a year to get the right equipment, resources and people in place in order to be able to implement the new regime. In our debates on the Bill as it went through your Lordships’ House, the Minister and his predecessor were confident that the arrangements would be in place sooner than the period of 12 months. Is he satisfied that the appropriate people are in place, that they have been trained and that they have the right equipment so that the new regime can start in good order from the date set out in the order?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot comment on whether the nine individuals referred to by the noble Lord will transfer to TPIM notices, but what lay behind the gist of his question was whether people, in terms of civil procedures, come under what used to be referred to as the White Book. We are not immediately repealing the old civil procedure, so any that were being dealt with in the courts using the old civil procedures, those procedures will still apply, but the new TPIM ones will be covered by what we are debating today, and they came into effect in December.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That is very helpful. I realise that it is difficult for the Minister to talk about individual people who are affected, but on a theoretical basis, if a person is currently under a control order, is it possible for them to continue under that order? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?

[Lord Henley]

What I am saying is that if they were still under a control order, they would be dealt with under the old control order civil procedings. I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further. All I am saying is that we have not repealed the old orders. If they were being looked at under a control order, they will continue under the control order proceedings, and these broadly reflect those proceedings. As I have said, all we are dealing with here is the process of making amendments to civil procedure. It is therefore still possible to use the old procedure for those who are covered by it. But, obviously, control orders will not continue beyond 25 January, at which point it will be a TPIM. What we are debating here is the civil procedure. I hope that that deals with the noble Lord’s queries.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not want to be difficult. All I seek is a reassurance. I understand entirely what the noble Lord is saying about the basis for the civil procedure, but I am really looking for some reassurance that he is satisfied that as we move from a control order regime to the new regime, the people who were affected under the old control order regime and need to be subject to those provisions will, in the new circumstances of TPIM and given that the security provisions are paramount, indeed be subject to them.

[Lord Henley]

Obviously those provisions are of paramount importance, but as I made clear in my opening remarks, the right to a fair trial is also equally important.

The second major point made by the noble Lord was on the state of readiness of the police, which goes wider than the matter we are debating today. The noble Lord rightly said that when I introduced these rules, I made it clear that I was confident that that was the case, but before he even asked the question, he wrote down that I had moved from being confident to being satisfied, which formed the basis of the question he put to me. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that I am satisfied that everything is in place as it should be, and that I think the same is true of the police. With that, I hope that the Motion will be agreed.

Immigration

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we will obviously listen to those academics but I have to say that the university sector as a whole is not complaining about what is happening. What we did was introduce a cap of just over 20,000 people, following the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee, on the number of skilled workers who were coming in. So far, in the first six months of this year, some 6,000 of those places were taken up—there is obviously a lot of slack in the system. There is no danger that any skilled workers are being denied the opportunity to come in.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, can we come back to the issue of universities and overseas students? The Minister has always maintained that the Government’s restrictions were aimed at bogus colleges. If we accept that, will he acknowledge that universities are now reporting that the policy is having an impact? First-class universities are being affected by the cap and first-class students are being turned away. Surely that part of the policy ought to be reviewed.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously, we will keep all these matters under review as is appropriate, but the noble Lord will also accept that it is quite right that we should attack the bogus colleges, which his party took no trouble to attack over the years. That is why there was a dramatic rise in the number of people coming here allegedly to learn English or some other thing, who went to colleges where no courses were going on and virtually no one enrolled other than to get round immigration rules.

Elected Local Policing Bodies (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in speaking to the Elected Local Policing Body (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2011, I shall speak also to the Local Policing Bodies (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2011. The first set of regulations make consequential amendments to various existing statutory instruments arising from the replacement of police authorities by PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and from the fact that chief officers of police will employ police staff in the future. The second set of regulations sets out the way in which complaints against police and crime commissioners, the mayor’s office and their deputies will be handled.

I will come to the regulations in a moment but I want to start by setting the context and talking about PCCs more generally. The Committee will recall that the Government’s plans for police and crime commissioners are set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. There will be 41 elected PCCs in England and Wales who will take office on 22 November 2012. Ahead of that we expect to have a live PCC model up and running in London when the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime comes into effect in January.

There has been vigorous discussion and full scrutiny of our plan for PCCs. There has been a public consultation and, as the noble Lord will remember, a lengthy debate in Parliament. The Government listened to concerns. We strengthened the checks and balances on PCCs. We have taken every step to ensure that the British model of impartial policing, which we all prize, is preserved, and Parliament has now spoken.

I now turn to the secondary legislation that is needed to bring about these changes and the subject matter of this debate today; namely the 2011 consequential amendments regulations and the complaints and misconduct regulations. I will take them in turn, starting with the consequential amendments regulations. The regulations make consequential amendments to various existing statutory instruments arising from the replacement of police authorities by PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and from the fact that chief officers of police will employ police staff in the future.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act makes significant changes to the governance arrangements for policing in England and Wales, with the exception of the City of London police area. The Act abolishes the police authorities responsible for maintaining police forces outside London and replaces them with directly elected PCCs. The Act also abolishes the Metropolitan Police Authority and replaces it with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, an office held by the Mayor of London. In the City of London, the Common Council retains its role as the police authority, and the status of the commissioner of the City of London Police remains unchanged. The Act refers to PCCs, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council collectively as “local policing bodies”.

The consequential regulations in question are not intended to change the substantive effect of the various instruments being amended, except for the purposes of reflecting the changes made by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Specifically, the regulations will amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Drug Testing of Persons in Police Detention) (Prescribed Persons) Regulations 2001 to ensure that members of police staff continue to be prescribed as persons permitted to take samples from suspects in police detention for the purposes of drug testing. The amendments to the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007 allow members of police staff to continue to present police dogs for certification as working dogs for the purposes of the working dogs’ exemption to the prohibition on the docking of dogs’ tails. Finally, the changes to the Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008 allow for costs in relation to members of police staff designated as community support officers to continue to be included in charges levied in relation to alcohol disorder zones. The costs incurred in relation to the staff and police officers that are currently payable to the police authority will be payable to the local policing body.

Section 6(15) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 requires the Secretary of State to have consulted those persons appearing to her to represent interests with which these regulations are concerned as she considers appropriate. As the amendments made to the Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations 2007, to which that requirement relates, concern only police dogs, and the only amendments are for the purpose of replacing references to police authorities, the Secretary of State considered it appropriate to consult only the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers. These bodies had no comments to make on the instrument.

Sections 15 to 20 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, under which the Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008 were made, are repealed by Section 140 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. However, the Government do not intend to bring Section 140 into force until later in 2012.

As the amendments made to existing instruments are limited, the Home Secretary has no intention to issue guidance or review the impact of these changes. The intention is that these regulations will come into force in January 2012 in the Metropolitan Police Service area of London and in the following November for the rest of the country.

I now turn to the Elected Local Policing Body (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations. It is expected that PCCs and their deputies will uphold the highest standards of public office. However, in the event that there is a complaint or an allegation against one of them, it is important that this is handled effectively to ensure that public confidence in policing is maintained. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 therefore provides for regulations to set out the way in which complaints or conduct matters about elected local policing bodies will be handled. The Act requires the regulations to provide for allegations of criminal behaviour to be referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and allegations of non-criminal behaviour to be resolved informally by police and crime panels.

The reason for requiring criminal allegations to be referred to the IPCC is that otherwise the office holder may be, or may be perceived to be, at an advantage in relation to the police investigation because of his or her responsibilities for holding their police force to account. The IPCC has extensive experience of handling sensitive, complex and high profile cases and will provide independent scrutiny of the handling and investigation of allegations of criminal behaviour in this context. The regulations set out that criminal allegations will have to be passed to the IPCC quickly and give the IPCC a call-in power—a power to require that allegations against the office holder are referred to it. The regulations also give the IPCC strong powers to investigate criminal allegations which are similar to those for investigating police forces, and require the IPCC to publish a report following its investigation.

Where a complaint is not serious enough to require investigation by or under the management of the IPCC, the regulations provide for it to be resolved informally by police and crime panels. The arrangements for PCP resolution of non-criminal allegations are intended to be light touch and locally determined, although it is intended that the Home Secretary will give some guidance in this area. Panels will be able to delegate the initial handling but not the resolution of complaints to the IPCC’s monitoring officer. We expect that the officer will wish to keep abreast of the handling of complaints through regular reports. The regulations allow non-criminal complaints against the mayor, as the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, if he or she is a member of the London Assembly, to be dealt with in the same way as complaints about the Mayor of London or the London Assembly. This is intended to avoid any potential confusion arising from the MOPC being subject to two different standards of procedures.

The regulations have been developed by the Home Office with some of the main delivery partners who will be affected by the proposals, as set out in the regulations. There has also been a public consultation process which received 31 responses. The Government have considered those responses very carefully and have made some important changes as a result. The main changes that we have made are designed to improve co-ordination of the handling of complaints at local level and to keep any bureaucracy associated with administering the system to an absolute minimum. The intention is that these regulations will come into force in January and will have effect from that date in the Metropolitan Police Service area. They will have effect from November 2012 in the rest of England and Wales when the first PCCs take office.

I said at the beginning that Parliament has now spoken in relation to the PCC model, and the Government’s focus is now on making this model a reality. The regulations before the Committee are an important part of the legislative jigsaw that will make this happen and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

[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.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the noble Lord and I fully understand the point. Indeed, I remember that when the standards board came in in relation to local government, I thought that some of its earlier judgments were actually inhibiting the democratic process. In no way would I want, if you like, to encourage a bureaucratic process that interferes with the relationship between the elected police and crime commissioner and the electorate. The problem I have is that if the public think the informal resolution process is not very effective, they will be tempted to over-egg the pudding and go for a complaint that will have to be considered by the IPCC. If that happens, I worry that many police and crime commissioners are going to be held back because they could get a plethora of complaints like that. It suggests that there is a need to get the balance right and that we must ensure that the informal process has at least some potential for dealing with these matters effectively in order to prevent a kind of upgrading of complaints.

[Lord Henley]

I am glad that the noble Lord used the word “balance” because obviously that is the thing we have to get right. We believe that we have got it right and it is important that we ensure that the processes are in place. There is transparency and the democratic process which I think will be sufficient. If I am wrong in that and if, as the noble Lord puts it, there is a plethora of complaints, we would have to think again. However, I do not believe that that will be the case.

Perhaps I may move on to some of the other queries of the noble Lord. Having listened to the Association of Police Authorities, he worried about rude behaviour on the part of police and crime commissioners themselves, something he said was not unknown among elected politicians. However, I suppose that I am only a partially elected politician and the noble Lord is an appointed politician. We both know that this can and does happen occasionally, but I hope that it does not happen too often. Moreover, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks. The important point to remember is that if any rude behaviour went so far as to be illegal, it would be something that the IPCC would have to deal with. If not, it would be something that quite rightly would go back to the police and crime panel itself.

I turn now to some of the more detailed points made by the noble Lord in relation to conflict of interest. I have to make it clear that we would leave it to the IPCC itself to decide if it was appropriate for the home force or another force to deal with the issue. Again, the IPCC is the right body to deal with this. The noble Lord went on to ask whether a police and crime commissioner’s monitoring officer would have a conflict of interest if he was handling a complaint against the PCC. I do not think that there is necessarily a conflict of interest. The police and crime panel can choose to delegate the handling of complaints to the PCC’s monitoring officer, but it does not have to do so.

The monitoring officer will only be responsible for the initial handling of complaints, not for their resolution. In many ways the arrangement reflects current police authority practice, where police authority staff handle complaints against members of staff.

The noble Lord then asked a fairly detailed question about staff complaints under paragraph 15(3)(a), I believe. I refer him to paragraph 15(3)(b). It does not take a complaint by a member of the PCC staff outside the scope of the regulations, and it allows but does not require the PCC to set aside the regulations. The PCC could decide that it would be proper to continue to deal with the complaint—for example, of bullying by the PCC. So that is something that they would be able to deal with.

Then there was the important question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee as to whether the level of resources would be adequate; my noble friend was very worried that they would not be. I can give her an assurance that I believe that they will be both adequate and appropriate. Police and crime panels will be resourced to perform their vital scrutiny function in relation to the PCC—including work and relation complaints. They will also be able to delegate the initial handling of complaints to the PCC’s monitoring officer, which I hope will minimise the administrative burden involved. They will retain responsibility for the informal resolution of complaints but will be able to delegate that task, where necessary, to a single panellist and a subgroup of the panel or any other individual and return matters to the full panel only where required.

Lastly, the noble Lord asked about the financial code. I can give him an assurance that it is being drafted with partners. We are confident that we have worked through the issues and that it will be produced at an appropriate stage. I cannot give a precise date at this point, so I will just say soon, which seems to encompass a vast range of time on this occasion.

I appreciate that I probably will not have dealt with all the more detailed questions, and I am certainly more than happy to write to both my noble friend and the noble Lord in due course to pick up some of those points. I do not believe that these are highly controversial regulations, so at this stage I hope that noble Lords are satisfied.

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be now considered by the Grand Committee.

This is a slightly different subject and I shall set it out in a degree of detail. The Government announced on 23 November that transitional restrictions currently applied in respect of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals’ access to the labour market will be extended to the end of 2013. These regulations achieve that by extending the transitional period during which the current regulations apply until the end of 2013. The amending regulations make no other changes to the current regulations.

The context of the Government’s decision is that the terms of the treaty governing the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union provide for the existing member states, if they choose, to regulate access to their labour markets by nationals from the Republic of Bulgaria or Romania. This is a permitted derogation from the EU’s free movement rules. Such restrictions may be applied for up to a maximum of seven years, but may only be maintained beyond five years where there is, to use the words in the treaty,

“serious disturbance of the labour market, or the threat thereof”.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are committed to reducing net migration to the United Kingdom. It is of course the case that after 2013, Bulgarian and Romanian nationals will be free to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of work in the same way as any other EU nationals. The free movement of workers within the EU is a fundamental element of the internal market and it is one that brings benefits to the United Kingdom, not least as an exporter of workers to other member states.

On the other hand, the United Kingdom experienced a very significant influx of workers from the new member states that joined the EU in May 2004. It has been sensible, both in the light of that experience and the changed economic circumstances, to take a more gradualist approach to subsequent accessions. The Government are clear that they will apply transitional restrictions to nationals of countries joining the EU in the future. Similarly, for as long as it remains legally possible and proportionate for the United Kingdom to apply transitional restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian workers, and there is a compelling labour market case for doing so, it will be prudent for those restrictions to be maintained.

The United Kingdom has applied restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian nationals’ access to the labour market since those countries joined the EU on 1 January 2007. Whereas nationals of those countries joining the EU in May 2004 were simply required to register their employment under the worker registration scheme, Bulgarian and Romanian nationals have been subject to more substantive restrictions on permission to take employment in the United Kingdom. Their effect is to preserve the level of access to the United Kingdom’s labour market which Bulgarian and Romanian nationals enjoyed when they joined the EU. The standstill clause in the treaty means that we cannot impose controls that are more restrictive than those that were in place on 31 December 2006.

Under the current regulations, Bulgarian and Romanian nationals are required to obtain authorisation from the UK Border Agency before they take employment in the United Kingdom. This will normally require the employer to apply for a work permit in respect of the job in question and such a permit will normally only be issued in respect of skilled employment and where resident labour is unavailable to fill the vacancy. Bulgarian and Romanian workers are also able to obtain authorisation to take lower-skilled employment in the agricultural and food processing sectors under the quota-limited seasonal agricultural workers scheme and sectors based scheme. As the terms of the derogation require, the requirement to obtain work authorisation ceases once a Bulgarian or Romanian worker has completed 12 months’ authorised employment in the United Kingdom. The regulations also provide for the most highly skilled to be granted free access to the labour market from the outset.

The effect of the current restrictions is that a Bulgarian or Romanian national who intends to take employment in the United Kingdom will have a right to reside as a worker only if they are working in accordance with these restrictions. However, the restrictions do not and cannot interfere with the ability of a Bulgarian or Romanian national to exercise a right to reside in the UK on some other basis; for example, as a student or for the purpose of engaging in business. What they do ensure is that labour migration from Bulgaria and Romania reflects the UK’s economic needs by restricting employment authorisations to skilled work or employment in sectors where there are well established shortages of labour. Furthermore, the numbers given permission to work under these arrangements have not increased since the date of accession. Excluding participants in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, the number of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals issued with accession worker cards in 2010 was 2,616, compared with 2,776 in 2008 and 2,097 in 2007.

As I have noted, the United Kingdom can only maintain its existing restrictions in circumstances of serious labour market disturbance. The Government have been concerned to ensure that the question of whether there is a labour market case for extending the restrictions is examined fully. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship therefore asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to consider whether there is a serious disturbance to the United Kingdom’s labour market and whether maintaining the restrictions would assist in addressing that disturbance. The committee’s findings, which it published on 4 November, were clear. On the question of whether the labour market is seriously disturbed, it examined the performance of the labour market against a number of indicators and concluded that it was performing poorly relative to the period prior to the last recession. On that basis, it is in a state of serious disturbance. It went on to conclude that an increase in the inflow of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals could have negative impacts on the labour market, particularly if it coincided with a change in the composition of that inflow, and that lifting the current restrictions would increase that risk. On the composition of the inflow, a particular risk would be that lifting the restrictions might increase the number of Bulgarian and Romanian nationals entering lower skilled occupations where migrants are more likely to substitute for, rather than complement, the resident labour force.

The committee acknowledged that the extent to which maintaining restrictions would assist in addressing such disturbance is subject to considerable uncertainty and it would not be sensible to attempt to put a numerical range around the likely inflow if restrictions were lifted. The Government would be equally cautious of attempting to do so. Nevertheless, the conclusion to be drawn from the committee’s findings is that a decision to maintain the restrictions would be both justifiable under the derogation in the treaty on accession and a proportionate response to current labour market disturbance. Accordingly, the Government have decided that the restrictions should be maintained.

I should add that Germany and the Netherlands have recently announced that they will maintain their restrictions. Spain has recently reimposed restrictions and will maintain them until at least the end of 2012. This is significant and not just because it means that the United Kingdom is not out of step with key EU partners on this issue. As the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out in its response, the risk of greater inflows would be highest if the United Kingdom lifted its transitional measures but other member states maintained theirs. The Government’s decision has avoided that outcome.

The Government believe that extending the current restriction to the end of 2013 is proportionate and the right response to current labour market conditions. I therefore commend the measure to the House.

[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?

Police: Officer Numbers

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many police officers are currently employed by police forces in England and Wales and how many were employed in May 2010.

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

My Lords, police personnel data are collected on a financial year cycle. Published statistics show that there were 139,110 full-time equivalent police officers in England and Wales as at 31 March 2011. This compares with 143,734 as at March 2010.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will be aware that police authority grants for the next financial year show a £700 million cut in real terms, which is part of the 20 per cent cut front-loaded over a four-year period. How can the Government continue to claim that these cuts are not having an impact on front-line policing when the latest statistics show a worrying rise in crime? What does the noble Lord have to say about that?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, I remind the noble Lord that we have a deficit and that must be tackled by seeking better value for money from every public service. That includes the police. There is no need for the noble Lord to make signs of that sort.

I accept that there has been a decline in police numbers, but there is no need to get fixated on this. At the same time, we have seen over the period that I mentioned—March 2010 to March 2011—a decline in recorded crime of 4 per cent.

Immigration

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there are no plans to do so.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, on the economics of immigration, is the absurdity of the Government’s position not shown by what has happened in relation to the students whom he mentioned? Already, universities are reporting a downturn in the number of international students coming to this country, causing grave disadvantage to the UK. What does he say to the House when other countries have opened their doors with open arms to such students?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not going to take lessons from the noble Lord on the absurdity of our position when the party opposite, when in government, did absolutely nothing to control immigration—nothing whatever. It is right to control the numbers and we will continue to try to do so. It is also right to control the number of students, particularly the number of bogus students coming to bogus colleges who should not be coming in at all.

UK Border Agency: Prisoners

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Thursday 1st December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not accept that our response to that particular recommendation was lukewarm. We accepted it in part and we accept that there is a need to improve the quality of our decision-making. We also accept that it is necessary to increase the number of those whom we manage to deport, as and when their sentences end. The number of those who have not been deported has come down steadily over the past few years.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is not the reason for the potentially muted response of the UKBA and the Government to this report because the core conclusion is that the quality of decision-making needs to be improved? The UKBA is faced with a 20 per cent cut in its budget and major new responsibilities. No wonder the Border Agency does not have that much confidence in improving the quality of the work that it is doing.

Interpol

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the first point I ought to make is that the United Kingdom will not arrest or extradite any person solely on the basis of a red notice. I cannot confirm or deny, in the particular case the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, whether Mr Benny Wenda has or has not received a red notice from the Indonesian Government through Interpol. I can confirm that there are arrangements in place whereby objections can be made to what Interpol have done. I referred in my opening answer to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files. I would hope that those who are interested in this will take up those measures as is appropriate.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, will the Minister answer the more general point raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, of whether the Government will institute discussions with Interpol about whether, at the Interpol level, they can mitigate the use of red notices for political reasons? He has given some assurance to the House in regard to the specific case mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, but there is a much more general issue at stake here.

[Lord Henley]

I accept what the noble Lord says, and I will take note of that. He will know that Interpol’s constitution enshrines neutrality, and its Article 3 forbids Interpol’s involvement in political, military, religious and racial matters. The noble Lord will also know that all notices that are issued should be—I stress “should be”—checked by Interpol’s secretariat to ensure that they meet Interpol’s criteria for neutrality. Any that do not should not then be published. The wider point of whether the United Kingdom Government should take this up, or whether it should be taken up by Mr Benny Wenda or his friends, is another matter. However, there are two ways this can be done. First, member Governments can intercede with Interpol, and secondly, there is the procedure by which complaints can be made through the CCF, the Commission for Control of Interpol Files.

Police: Custody

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, that is something that I believe the police are managing to do in the 43 police forces up and down the country so that they better reflect the communities they serve. With the introduction of police commissioners, that, again, will be a matter that police forces will be able to continue to address in years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is particular concern about deaths in police custody among members of black and minority ethnic communities. Often investigations fall to the IPCC to undertake. Can he tell me why, despite months of notice that a new chairman was required, the Government have yet to appoint a new chairman of the IPCC?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I join him in agreeing that every death in police custody is a tragedy. If he looks at the figures that the IPCC published, he will find that the deaths in custody—sad though every single one of them was—are generally proportionate to the ethnic make-up of the detainees as a whole. As regards the appointment of a new chairman to the IPCC, I hope that we will be able to make an announcement shortly.

Immigration: Students

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we accept that most of our universities are proper, reputable institutions, and that is why we have given universities additional flexibility in some matters. However, I will look at the specific point that my noble friend has raised. In the main, UK universities are fine on this; the abuse occurs elsewhere.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the new student visa rules have placed a further responsibility on the UK Border Agency at the same time as it has received a 20 per cent cut in its budget for a four-year period. Is the noble Lord confident that the UKBA has the resources to do the job that it has been given?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, yet again the noble Lord seems to be denying the need to make cuts as a result of the profligacy of the party opposite. Yes, we are confident that the UKBA has, and will continue to have, sufficient resources to deal with the job that it has. No doubt I shall be dealing with these matters later when the noble Lord raises a somewhat spurious amendment to the terrorism Bill.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

Given that the noble Lord is quite an experienced Member of this House, he will know that the grouping is not a matter, sadly, that the Government have any control over, and that it would be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to decide that he wished to have this amendment grouped with the other amendments. Of course, the Government are more than happy to go along with that.

If I may, I will deal with that amendment very briefly. It is an amendment that asks for yet another report and I have to say that it is not necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, knows, there is ample provision already in place for independent review. We have the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism, currently David Anderson QC, and for 10 years before him we had my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who did that job exceedingly well. The independent chief inspector of the United Kingdom Border Agency, currently John Vine, is also required to review the operation and effectiveness of the measures in place at our ports and airports. They both report annually to the Home Secretary and their findings and reports are laid in Parliament.

I will not go much further than that and I will not deal with the specific points that noble Lords have raised in relation to recent events, partly because John Vine has been asked by the Home Secretary to make a report into these matters. There are also two other internal reports that deal with these issues—again, which have been promised by my right honourable friend—that will be made available when they come out. It would therefore not be right or proper to deal with those matters.

Referring on to the question of private planes coming in and what controls we have there, as my honourable friend in another place, Damian Green, made clear, we have absolutely nothing to hide. We have in fact strengthened the procedures there compared to what they were pre-2010 and we have made sure that we prioritise and make appropriate risk-based assessments on any planes that come in. A Statement was offered to the party opposite but for reasons of its own it wished not to take it.

I turn to relocation. Again, I accept that this is an issue that has been debated extensively throughout the Bill’s passage both in this House and in another place. Obviously there are strong views on all sides. We accept that relocation has proved effective in disrupting terrorism-related activities, but it does, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald made clear, raise particularly difficult questions of proportionality. The question is therefore, as I put it at Second Reading and which I repeat now, one of balance. Our review of counter-terrorism acknowledged these difficult questions and considered them carefully. The review concluded that the best balance lies in a more focused use of the robust restrictions that will be available under the Bill together with the increased resources that will be available for covert investigation. It concluded that it will be possible to protect the public without the powers of relocation being routinely available.

We must always remember not to look at this Bill on its own. It is part of that wider package of changes, including those in the counterterrorism review, aimed at striking a better balance across the whole range of counterterrorism and security powers, and it will be complemented by the significantly increased funding that we are providing for those purposes. We have also published the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill, which will be introduced if necessary, in exceptional circumstances, after some degree of prelegislative scrutiny, as is found appropriate by the authorities in this House and another place. It would provide more stringent restrictions, including that power of relocation, if necessary.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has concerns over timing, particularly in relation to the Olympics. Again, he ought to listen to what my noble friend Lord Newton had to say about that, and possibly the Olympics is the one occasion when we would not want to be showcasing to the world the fact that we have measures of this sort. However, I take his concerns about the Olympics. The Government have made very clear that arrangements will be in place to manage effectively the transition from control orders to TPIM notices. Security arrangements for the Olympics are being planned on the basis that the TPIM Bill, and the powers available under it, will be in force. These plans are also proceeding on the basis that the additional powers contained in the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill will, we hope, not be needed or be necessary. As is right and proper, our planning for the Olympics is both flexible and risk-based, and we will continue to monitor the threat to ensure that we adopt the most appropriate response, including keeping this issue under review as necessary in the light of developments.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Faulks raised a detailed and very important question about the transition period when this Bill comes in, which will be over Christmas. He asked whether I could provide some reassurance that the police would be able to manage this transition during that period. As the House will be aware, the Bill includes provision for a transition period during which control orders will remain in force to enable the necessary arrangements for TPIMs to be put in place where appropriate. The Christmas and New Year holidays are likely to fall within that period because we are approaching the time when the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses, assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the Christmas period. We have recently received advice from the Metropolitan Police that while extensive preparations are being made for the transition to the new regime, an extension to the transition period from 28 days to 42 days would be required to ensure that operational risks are minimised over the holiday period. I give an assurance to the House and to my noble friend that I undertake to bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Third Reading that will make that necessary change in Schedule 8 to the Bill—I think it is more or less the last sentence of the Bill.

I hope that with those explanations, and stressing again the need for balance and proportionality, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could not respond somewhat more positively to my Amendment 44A. My noble friend Lord Harris asked a number of pertinent questions. No doubt when the official inquiries report, we will get answers to them. There is an underlying concern about the security of our borders and the resources available to the UK Border Agency. I hope that we will have another opportunity to return to this in due course.

As for my other amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that at Second Reading I recognised the exceptional and intrusive measures that control orders imply and I do not at all detract from that. I just happen to think that they are one of the tools that should be open to the Government, with ample judicial review where they happen to be used.

I very rarely disagree with my noble friend. I was surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said. After all, if the Opposition had indeed voted with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the Government would have been defeated. Government defeats are something that I usually rejoice in, but the fact is that I feel that it is right that we are consistent with the position that we took in Government and our view that, in the end, it is for the Home Secretary to make that judgment, rightly or wrongly. I do not think that it is a sad day for the Opposition. It would have been a sad day if we had taken an opportunist position.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked a very good question and I think that he got a very good answer. Forty-two days has a certain ring about it in the history of debating this legislation and I look forward to the debate at Third Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, brings forward his amendment. At the end of the day, my noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, had it right: the amendments I am putting forward are modest ones. All they do is give the Government the opportunity to use exclusion orders for a very limited period to take us through a challenging period, with the option at the end—within just over a year—to come to this House with an order to remove those provisions from legislation and let this Bill follow its course. I still believe that that is, and would be, a sensible way forward, and I am disappointed that the Government are not going to take it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are either equipped or we are not equipped. That is the Government’s position, to be either equipped or not equipped. They have made a great song and dance of getting rid of exclusion orders but have then said, “Just in case, we will have emergency legislation up our sleeve, and, by the way, there are certain circumstances when Parliament cannot be recalled, so we had better have it in this Bill as well”. We can talk about being equipped or not equipped: it is absolutely clear that the Government know that they might need these provisions in the future. That is why they are legislating for them, either through the emergency legislation, which is going through pre-legislative scrutiny at some point, or in this Bill. They ought to have welcomed the flexibility that my amendments would give them.

However, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has advised me not to move the amendment on this occasion. He was a wonderful Bishop of Birmingham when I first met him. In this case, I will take spiritual advice and will not seek to press the House on this any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

What I was saying, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue my argument before he intervenes, is that we do not think that an annual review of this by Parliament is necessary: once during each Parliament should be sufficient. However, as I made clear, other reports from the independent reviewer and from my right honourable friend will come before Parliament to inform debate on these matters.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

All I wanted to say to the Minister was that while he referred to a Henry VIII clause, he might also have reminded his noble and learned friend of the other Henry VIII clause, which allows the Home Secretary in certain circumstances to go back to control orders.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord said it for me. All I am saying is that the Bill can be withdrawn by my right honourable friend, should she so wish. Those powers are set out in the Bill.

Police: Station Closures

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Lord Henley]

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

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

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

Police: Stop and Account

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that this goes back to 1981, but the recording of stop and account came after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. This Question is directly related to the fact that we will no longer make it compulsory to record stop and account, which I have explained. I do not have at my fingertips the figures that the noble Lord seeks, but I shall write to the noble Lord and make sure that he has them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The Minister has not answered my noble friend’s original Question, which is how the Government intend to meet the requirement for information from the UN committee. The Minister says that this is about reducing bureaucracy, but does he not agree that this is another signal of the Government seeking to abdicate from responsibility for policing? Since the number of police officers is going down and crime is going up, it is easy to see why the Government want to abdicate their responsibilities.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is wrong and the UN committee is wrong. There is no need to record this activity, but we have left it open to local police forces to make the decision. There is a correct balance to be struck between accountability and bureaucracy. We do not want to overburden the police, as did the party opposite when it was in power, with excessive bureaucracy that prevents them doing the job that they are supposed to be doing.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I made clear that, as part of that review, we considered moving to that test. I was not in the Home Office at the time, so I do not know what precise consideration was given, but in the end the decision was taken that, yes, we will raise the standard from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief, but that to take it beyond that would create risks. A decision had to be made on where the appropriate balance should be, and that is why we came down in favour of reasonable belief rather than a balance of probabilities.

I hope that the noble Lord can accept that, but I can see that it is a very difficult one and we will no doubt discuss it in later stages of the Bill. We believe that reasonable belief should deal with the questions raised by the noble Lord. The same applies to his Amendments 42 and 43 when talking about the decision being made by the Home Secretary herself. Again, I noted what my noble friend Lord Faulks had to say on that matter. Possibly they were better words for use with the Home Secretary’s decision rather than when talking about a judicial process. Again, we feel that we have the balance about right.

I turn now to the question raised on the full merits review in the noble Lord’s Amendments 42 and 43, which I mistakenly said were his amendments on the alternative, but that is covered by his Amendment 17, so I correct myself at this stage. His Amendment 42 specifies that a full court review of a TPIM notice under Clause 9 must be “on the merits” and would delete the subsection of that clause which specifies that,

“the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.

As the noble Lord explained, these amendments are designed to ensure that the review of an imposition of a TPIM notice provides a full merits review. He articulated the view of the Constitution Committee—yet another committee that has been looking at this—in its report on the Bill: that it should be clear, on its face, in cases concerning TPIM notices. The function of the court is not limited to ordinary judicial review. Such a constitutionally important matter should not be left for clarification in the Explanatory Notes. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made it clear that the purpose behind his intention to oppose the question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill is to facilitate consideration of this same issue.

The Government have been clear that judicial oversight of the process of imposing measures must be a key feature of the new regime. The involvement of the courts is an important safeguard for the rights of the individual, and the Bill takes a comprehensive and multilayered approach to this. As the Explanatory Notes explain, the case law relating to control orders is subject to a particularly intense level of review by the High Court. It is absolutely the case that the Government intend for the same intense level of scrutiny to be applied in court reviews of TPIM notices under Clause 9. All noble Lords will be aware that the courts have not been slow in finding against Home Secretaries of whatever regime for many years in control order litigation, and have used their powers to quash control orders or to give directions to the Secretary of State as appropriate under the current system of judicial review principles, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the case of MB.

We are of the view that the courts will apply relevant case law to TPIM proceedings as appropriate. That will, of course, include the case law on the type of review undertaken by the courts in these kinds of cases. In summary, in relation to the full substantive review of each control order, the Court of Appeal ruled again in MB that the High Court must make a finding of fact as to whether the reasonable suspicion limb of the statutory test for imposing a control order is met, and must apply intense scrutiny to the Secretary of State’s decisions on the necessity of each of the obligations imposed under the control order while paying a degree of deference—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because it enables me to anticipate the arguments we are going to have later, on whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. He will know that the Opposition have concerns about the Bill, both because we think that it in some ways weakens our ability to prevent terrorism acts, and because we think that it weakens some of the safeguards. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this. Given that the enhanced level of scrutiny has been one of the ways in which we have seen that the control order regime works effectively, I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept the spirit of what the Constitution Committee has put forward. I still do not understand why it is not possible to put this in the Bill.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I shall develop those arguments further when we get to Clause 9, which the noble Lord wishes to discuss. Late this evening though it might be, that might be the appropriate time, and I look forward to that in due course.

I shall now move on to the fourth point I want to deal with, which relates to the question of the time limit and how long a TPIM notice can have an effect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, proposes changes to the provision relating to the period for which a TPIM notice can be served. In his model, as I understand it, there would be a requirement for new terrorism-related activity to have taken place while the TPIM notice was in force in order to allow the TPIM notice to be extended into its second year. Again, we do not think that this strikes the right balance—and again, it is “balance” that we want to stress—in the context of preventive orders of this kind. Indeed, it would undermine the Government’s ability to protect the people of this country from a risk of terrorism.

Although we have decided that extension of a TPIM notice for a further year should only be allowed on one occasion—after which new evidence would be required to impose a new TPIM notice—we do not believe that new terrorism-related activity should be required in order to extend the original TPIM notice for that first year. In other words, one could make the original notice for a year, then extend it; but if one wanted to extend it further than those two years, then there must be new activity.

An ongoing necessity for the notice can be made out on the basis of the original terrorism-related activity, particularly where that activity was very serious, suggesting that the individual’s mindset and intention to do serious harm will not have changed after just one year subject to whatever restrictive measures have been imposed in the TPIM order. Indeed, many court judgments in the context of control orders confirm that ongoing necessity, for the purposes of public protection, is not dependent on any new terrorism-related activity since the imposition of the control order.

Although the Government’s view is that TPIM notices should not be used simply to warehouse people for very long periods and should not be imposed indefinitely on the basis of the same evidence—as can happen with control orders at the moment, if the statutory test continues to be met—we do not think that a notice that can only last one year without evidence of new activity while subject to the measures will be sufficient to disrupt the threat posed by the individuals concerned in many cases. Therefore we believe that the right balance—again, I stress “balance”—is this “one year plus one year” approach. It is a balance between protecting the public from persons believed to be engaged in terrorism-related activity and protecting the civil liberties of those individuals. I hope that also answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to whether one could go beyond two years with a TPIM notice. What I want to stress is that, if one wants to go beyond two years, one has to find some other terrorism-related activity.

I hope that that has dealt with most of the points that have been made in the very useful debate we have had on this large group of amendments at the start of the Committee stage of this Bill. No doubt we will be coming back to all these matters at a later stage of the Bill, just as we will be coming back to them on Clause 9, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has assured us—possibly later on today. I hope that, as I have answered those points, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and we can move on with the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as someone who started his ministerial career some 20 years ago sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton, I am grateful to hear those remarks. I always knew that he was sound, loyal and supportive of the Government in every possible way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was somewhat disparaging about the Enhanced TPIM Bill and asked why we have it. It obviously indicates that we believe there is a need for bringing in relocation because we have it in the Enhanced TPIM Bill. At Second Reading, I made it very clear that we hoped that we would never have to bring that Bill into force, but I also tried to point out how important it was that we should be able to debate it in a measured manner, which is what pre-legislative scrutiny will allow for, when the threat was not as high as it might be when and should we have to bring it in. That might be a better way to proceed than to debate it in moments of crisis and rush it straight off the shelves while minds are not necessarily as settled as they should be.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Does not the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, propose an even better way? Essentially, he is saying, first, let us get over the Olympic-year problem by allowing the Government to have use of this power in this Bill. We are able to scrutinise it properly and if at some point in the future the Government are able to conclude that they no longer need it they can bring an order before Parliament. If I were sitting in the Minister’s place, I would be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it is a very helpful amendment.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says, but I do not accept that. The power might be necessary in the future; that is why we have brought the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill to the House and why the House will have its chance for pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that we will not need to bring it into effect. However, we might have to bring it into effect at a time when Parliament is not sitting, which Clauses 26 and 27 allow us to do. As was made clear by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and others, it is question of getting the balance right. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, repeatedly stressed the word “balance” because it is all about balance.

Perhaps I may say a little more about how we reached this decision and where we think we are. The Committee will be aware that relocation has been of particular interest during the passage of the Bill both in another place and here and strong views, as we have heard today, have been expressed on all sides. No one disputes the very powerful disruptive effect that relocation of an individual to another part of the country can have on their involvement in terrorism-related activity. Equally, as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, it can have a very powerful effect on the individual and his family likewise. So such a power raises very difficult questions of proportionality, including in relation to the impact that it can have both on the individual and their family. The counterterrorism and security powers review acknowledged these difficult questions and considered them very carefully.

As was made clear following that review, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate without consent to another part of the UK. Debates on the issue, as, again, has been made clear, frequently turn on that question of balance, specifically between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. Views on where the right balance might be understandably differ in different parts and, dare I say it, on all sides of the House—not many noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have intervened, but I am sure that he would find that there are one or two on the Benches behind him who do not agree with everything that the Opposition have had to say. As the noble Lord will be aware, the former Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of the wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. That was a perfectly legitimate position, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has used the power to relocate on a number occasions when she has imposed control orders.

However, the coalition Government do not think that this is the only approach that can be taken. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions that will be available under the TPIM Bill, together with—it is important to remember this and I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us of it—the significantly increased funding that we are providing for covert investigation and other measures, will allow us effectively to protect the public without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach differs from that taken by both my noble friend and the Opposition in their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I wish to make only one point. I said at the beginning of business that I had only recently seen the Joint Committee’s report, which was published at 11 am today, and I had not yet read it in detail. The noble Lord seemed to imply that I would have managed to read it during the course of this debate. For once, I thought it was more important to listen to the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, rather than reading the book. Of course, we will study the report in detail, and it might be that a further response can come between now and Report. I do not think that, as the noble Lord put it, our thoughts have advanced much during the previous two or three hours.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, who manages to make marmalade as well as being a senior Minister in this Government, is clearly multitasked and multiskilled. I had thought he would easily have been able to read it while considering how to reply to noble Lords, and indeed noble and learned Lords, in our debate. That has been, as usual, an enlightening response from the noble Lord. I will not oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I hope I can answer the noble Baroness’s three points on these three separate amendments, which we are taking together. I shall start with Amendment 47, which deals with Schedule 3. As the noble Baroness is aware, Schedule 3 provides that an individual who has been convicted of the offence contained in Clause 23 of the Bill—contravening, without reasonable excuse, a measure imposed under a terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice—has a right of appeal against that conviction if the notice or relevant measure is subsequently quashed, and if they could not have been convicted had the quashing occurred before they were prosecuted. Schedule 3 provides that the court must allow such appeals. This is obviously not a provision that we expect to be used on a frequent basis. However, its clear purpose is to provide an important safeguard, and to ensure that the person will be able to get a conviction overturned for contravening a measure that the court has subsequently quashed.

It is therefore important that the schedule be agreed to. I know that the noble Baroness is only suggesting removing paragraph 1, but that is the operative provision of the schedule, and without it the remainder of the provisions in the schedule are neutered. I hope she therefore accepts my explanation and can withdraw that particular amendment.

Amendment 48 deals with subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 18 and is really a question about why we are considering having appeals only on a point of law. We believe that the limitation is appropriate, because in cases such as this it is the court of first instance that is the appropriate fact-finding body. It is this court that has developed a particular expertise and body of knowledge in this area of national security, among a small and experienced body of judges who hear these cases. This makes it the right court to review all the material upon which the Secretary of State relies to make her decisions and make findings on that basis.

With regard to the appeal on a point of law, the noble Baroness asked us whether we thought proportionality would be a point of law. Dare I say it—I might have to be corrected—but I think she is probably correct, and it probably would be. If I am wrong, I will correct that in due course. I will certainly write to her and copy that letter to other noble Lords who have taken an interest in these matters.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 51, which deals with Clause 19. Clause 19, as the noble Baroness is well aware, places a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a quarterly basis on the exercise of her powers under this Bill. These are specifically the powers to impose measures on a person by TPIM notice, extend a TPIM notice, vary the measures specified in a TPIM notice, and revoke or revive a TPIM notice.

Amendment 51 would amend Clause 19(2)(a) to add “and the measures imposed” at the end of the subsection. The relevant provision would thus state that the requirement was for the Secretary of State to report on her powers to impose measures on an individual via a TPIM notice under Section 2, and the measures imposed. As noble Lords will appreciate, the details of the operation of the system and the particular cases will necessarily be sensitive and could not be disclosed publicly. However, taken together, the list of matters on which the Secretary of State must report ensures that key information about the operation of the system will be in the public domain, and will be debated regularly. Crucially, this will include information about the extent of the Secretary of State’s use of her powers and the number of cases in which measures are imposed.

We understand that there is interest in as much information as possible being made available about the operation of the system and about the cases of those individuals subject to the measures. That has certainly been the case in relation to control orders and it is likely to continue in relation to TPIMs. Having that information available will help to ensure that any debate about the powers is as informed as possible.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may ask a question about that. The Minister said that the report laid by the Secretary of State would be as comprehensive as possible within the constraints of the information that she can make available. He then said that that could be regularly debated. As your Lordships know, there is a debate to be had next week on annual orders as opposed to a system of parliamentary scrutiny every five years. Does the Minister envisage other ways in which such information can be debated in Parliament?

[Lord Henley]

The ingenuity of the noble Lord and others will find ways in which this House, which seems to have a more liberal approach in these matters, can debate these quarterly reports. There are Questions, Questions for Short Debate and all range of things, but it is not necessarily for the Government to offer those. As regards the debate next week, I look forward to it.

I hope that that deals with the points made by my noble friend. If not, perhaps we can discuss it further in due course, but I hope that today she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will be glad to know that, unlike in previous debates, he is receiving unanimous support from noble Lords tonight for the remedial order, which I believe to be an entirely reasonable and proportionate response. I echo the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the timing. Clearly, it is within the due time. I agreed, through the usual channels, that we would have this debate after the Second Reading. On reflection, it is not sensible to have such a debate at this time. Many noble Lords who have spoken on Second Reading would have liked to have taken part in these deliberations as well. We might learn from that for the future—perhaps when we potentially come to annual debates on the previous legislation; we shall see.

I refer the noble Lord back to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the two reports of the Joint Committee. He will know that in the first report, the Select Committee asked the Government to provide Parliament with more detailed evidence of the set of circumstances in which the police have experienced the existence of an operational gap in the absence of a power to stop and search. I thought that that was a reasonable request by the Select Committee. The committee’s second report expresses muted disappointment that the Home Secretary had not accepted any of its recommendations. However, the committee goes on to say that, none the less, it thinks that the Government should find a way to tell Parliament more about the undisclosable reasons for their belief that there is a significant operational gap in the police's counterterrorism powers.

I am not being naive here. I well understand the issue for the Government: there are circumstances where it is difficult to give that information. I hope that, none the less, the noble Lord will see whether it might be possible to provide some information as a follow-up to the debate. The Select Committee has put its finger on an important point.

However, I do not intend to repeat the comments made by other noble Lords in the debate. I very much support them. We support the remedial order and look forward to the noble Lord's response.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I am very glad to see that unity has broken out, not only among the Labour Party but throughout the House.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am not going to let that go. I had the opportunity to look at the noble Lord’s Benches during the debate. I knew I was on a roll when the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was nodding while I was speaking in my opening remarks. The Minister was not able to see that. Then I was struck by the absence behind the Minister. There were plenty of Lib Dems there, but it did not seem to me that he was getting much support.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I think I got a reasonable amount of support; I am not sure that the noble Lord got quite as much; but we will leave it there.

I shall just respond to a few points briefly. First, on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as to why it took so long, I understand that we have 120 days to respond. It was explained to me how the 120 days are counted, and I have to say that I could not quite understand it, but I am told that we are within those 120 days by a matter of five days or so. The important thing is that the draft order had to be laid for 60 days to start with, so that is half the time gone, to allow representations to be made. The remaining time was to allow those representations, including the report of the JCHR, to be properly considered. I am also grateful that my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others welcomed the code, but obviously have some concerns about it. I think that my colleague in the Home Office, James Brokenshire, in his response to the JCHR’s second report has made it clear that we will consider whether the code of practice, proposed new Section 47A or the test of its use could be amended through the Protection of Freedoms Bill when we get to it in due course. Obviously this matter can be considered by the department and there will be a chance for the House to consider it when we deal with the Bill.

I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the code refers only to random searches in the context of specific intelligence-based authorisation. Again, as I said, I am happy to look at the guidance further to ensure that this is clear for the police. My noble friend Lord Carlile stressed that Section 44 had been overused, misused and abused. That is a succinct way of saying what the problem was and I am grateful for the support that I have had from all sides of the House for its removal and replacement with proposed new Section 47A. Obviously we can look at this again during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill.

There was a final question from my noble friend Lady Hamwee on paragraph 8.39 of the report of the independent reviewer of terrorism last July. I have to admit that it is not exactly at my fingertips at the moment and I hope that my noble friend will be happy if I write to her in due course. I promise to do that as soon as possible.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That is extremely helpful but, on that basis, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible for the commencement order to start on, let us say, 1 January 2013, so that we can get through the Olympic year using the present provisions? Would that not be a more sensible approach?

[Lord Henley]

I will make no guarantee at this stage. I noted that my noble friend Lord Carlile suggested a delay for the Olympics. We will certainly look at that. It is something that I am sure will be argued in Committee. I give no guarantees but it is something that can be looked at. Obviously, it is important to get these things right.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Henley

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I regret that we have been deprived of the pleasure of having my noble friend Lord Greaves move this amendment this afternoon, but I am very grateful that his noble friend was able to step in and move it, because it is important that the Government set out their case in relation to the waterways.

As the Committee will be aware, the British Waterways Board was originally established under the Transport Act 1962 to operate and maintain much of Britain’s waterways network. In passing, I shall mention that we are dealing with England and Wales here; Scotland is another matter. I am not sure that any waterways go across the border, so there are not going to be any concerns there. However, I remember that with the passage of the Scotland Act we had problems with some of the rivers—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Because the boundary moves.

[Lord Henley]

Indeed, because the boundary moves. If the noble Lord remembers correctly, that legislation allowed the Scottish Government to have an interest in English matters relating to some rivers’ tributaries and vice versa. With England and Wales, the case is different. I do not know the answer to the noble Baroness’s question about the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government but I shall certainly write to her in due course.

In the intervening years since 1962, the British Waterways Board has done an excellent job in transforming what was a very run-down industrial transportation network, with its roots in the industrial revolution, into a hugely valuable environmental, heritage and leisure asset, but it is one which still—again, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Greenway, for stressing this—also carries some freight, so it continues to have a commercial operation. Its network consists of some 2,200 miles of historic canals, rivers and docks, and it is visited by some 13 million people a year. Again, as I think noble Lords have made clear, it provides benefits that range from not just freight, which has been mentioned, but flood relief and sanctuary for wildlife, as well as its users, through to employment and recreational facilities for walkers and others.

The intention behind setting up a new waterways charity—and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for stressing that the previous Government were thinking of something along very similar lines—is to give waterways users and the communities alongside them greater involvement in how waterways are managed, thus contributing to their sustainability in the longer term. Moving the powers, functions and assets of British Waterways to civil society through the creation of what we would like to think of as a sort of national trust—a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—for the waterways will allow key stakeholders the opportunity to play a role in their governance and allow them to bring their expertise and passion to the organisation. Providing greater engagement by local communities will, we believe, lead to a range of enhanced public benefits, including green travel to work, health and well-being, support for inner cities and rural regeneration.

As I have mentioned governance, it is worth stressing that the consultation includes proposals for governance on the charitable company model. Subject to the passage of this Bill through Parliament, there will be further consultation on the draft order or orders—I cannot remember whether there is one or more than one—required to transfer the duties and functions of British Waterways to that organisation. However, in relation to the questions that the noble Baroness asked, following on from the speech of her noble friend Lord Hunt in relation to Clause 5, I hope she will await a response from my noble friend which, I am assured by him, will come before we get to Report stage.

There are obvious concerns over funding, particularly in the light of what has been, as we know, a very tight spending review settlement—and I will not say again why it has been so. British Waterways’ funding has seen a reduction in line with other bodies that are attached to Defra and to other parts of government. It is no greater because British Waterways is becoming a charity. We recognise, however, that the move to a charity will require a long-term contract for continued government support, and we have given a commitment to maintain levels in line with the spending review until 2022-23. That will obviously be subject to—