Pre-charge Police Bail: Time Limit

Debate between Lord Patel and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally recognise the point that the noble Lord makes about domestic abuse. Our proposals will ensure that bail is used in most domestic abuse and sexual offences where necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, the House will soon have the opportunity to debate a report on forensic science provision and the criminal justice system that the Science and Technology Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has produced. It strongly recommends that the regulator should be put on a statutory basis. I know that the noble Baroness has just said that this is the Government’s intention, but it was not in the Queen’s Speech. When will that legislation be brought forward? Furthermore, forensic science provision, as she knows, is in dire straits, with private providers going bust all the time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I pre-empted that the noble Lord might, rightly, bring this up. I know that it was not in the Queen’s Speech, but it is our intention to bring that legislation forward, and I shall keep him posted on its progress.

Immigration: Points-based System

Debate between Lord Patel and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, on 19 February, the Government published a new policy statement, to which noble Lords have referred. As part of this, we announced the expansion of the seasonal workers’ pilot, which raised the quota for this year from 2,500 to 10,000 places. It is not designed to meet the full labour needs of the horticultural industry; it is designed to test the effectiveness of our immigration system and to support UK growers during peak production periods, while retaining robust immigration control and ensuring that the impact on local communities and public services is kept to a minimum. It must be said that seasonal workers can stay in the UK for up to six months in any 12-month period.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I have made the point before, and the Government have recognised, that our science and innovation sector is world-class. That cannot be achieved without a team, and that includes a lab technician. Yet the Government, through their immigration policy, do not recognise that, although they are skilled workers, they are not paid up to £20,000. Is it not bizarre that we train our own people as lab technicians and pay them less £20,000 but we cannot accept through our immigration system somebody who is paid the same amount of money because it is less than £20,000? The same applies to computer scientists: we have a great shortage in cybersecurity of low-level, trained, skilled people who will, in due course, move up, but initially they do not earn £20,000.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

New entrants will receive a 30% reduction on the salary threshold that would otherwise be required for their occupation. Given that the skills level has come down to A-level, I think a new technician entrant would meet the salary threshold.

Future Immigration

Debate between Lord Patel and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I say, this is purely the beginning of a journey, which is the consultation process. These measures will not come in until 2021. Of course, we will be working with the construction sector and others towards the implementation of the immigration system.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement saying that international graduates will be allowed to work in this country, but it is disappointing that it does not say whether or not there will be a cap on how long they can be employed. Perhaps we will hear about that later. I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the minimum salary level of £30,000 is for consultation. I hope that the Government will listen to the consultation and not ignore it. I say this because, like the construction industry, the professional organisations in science research, such as the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the MRC and many others, have grave concerns about our ability to recruit technicians—who do not earn £30,000. They are crucial to research. The same applies to PhD students and post-docs, who are the workhorses of biomedical research. If this is implemented, our science research will be absolutely devastated.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally get the point that the noble Lord makes about technicians, particularly in research and science, because they are traditionally paid a lower salary. We will work through all this in the next year in getting towards the final suggestion for the salary level which, as I said earlier, is a suggestion from the MAC and not an intention from the Government at this stage. Regarding graduate students, if an undergraduate secures a graduate job the salary will of course be lower. At the moment, I think it is about £20,600. That remains the case but I hope that in the course of the consultation next year it will all be worked through. Please do not take it as a figure set in stone, my Lords.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Patel and Baroness Williams of Trafford

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I apologise to the House. Let me clarify the fact that we are debating Amendments 50 and 51.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 5 and 6 in particular. Before I start, let me say that I absolutely agree with the Minister that female genital mutilation—FGM—is a horrible procedure, and it is right to criminalise it, with the severest of penalties for anybody involved. I have seen many adolescent girls and young women whose subsequent health has been affected by female genital mutilation—occasionally resulting in death during childbirth, but much more often in the horrible condition known as obstetric fistula, which I have seen in Africa. I am therefore totally committed to making sure that this horrible procedure is made illegal and removed.

During the passage of the Bill through the Commons, the Government introduced an amendment to make it a duty for regulated healthcare professionals to notify police of female genital mutilation, and the amendment was accepted there. Like the professional organisations—particularly the regulators of the medical profession, the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association, and some of the colleges, particularly the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health—I am concerned about that amendment.

Our concern is about the proposed duty to report FGM in all known cases in girls and young women under 18. That duty will be a significant step change in the law. I am not aware of any other circumstances in which healthcare professionals are required to refer patients to the police without any regard to the potential impact on the patient. That is what concerns me—the potential impact on the patients, particularly young girls under 18, including 16 to 18 year-olds.

Doctors are required to make the care of patients their first concern, but of course they have to balance that duty against wider public interest considerations. There are clear circumstances in which they should disclose information to an appropriate agency. For example, it might be necessary to protect a specific person or people, or the public more broadly, from a risk of death or serious harm, or to assist in the investigation or prosecution of a crime. The General Medical Council guidelines in Protecting Children and Young People: The Responsibilities of All Doctors make that absolutely clear.

The proposed duty, however, allows no scope to consider the best interests of the child or young person. In effect, the duty mandates that the wider public interest in investigating whether or not a crime has been committed would always outweigh the girls’ rights and interests, including those of the individual child or young person. It is difficult to see how that satisfies the proportionality argument or requirement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also means that doctors will sometimes be obliged—I agree, in rare circumstances—to act against what are considered to be the best interests of the patient. That is in conflict with the primary duty of doctors.

The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health also found that,

“there is no credible or conclusive evidence that ... mandatory reporting … better protects children at risk of harm, and its introduction would undermine that cultural approach of risk and responsibility sharing that has been developed in the current system. Mandatory reporting still raises more questions than it provides answers”.

In response to the Government’s consultation, the professions argued that any duty to report FGM should include a “reasonable excuse” for not reporting if it would be contrary to the best interests of the child or young person to do so. Further consideration needs to be given to the position of young women between the ages of 16 and 18. There is no clear line between childhood and adulthood. While under-18s have a different status in law, at 16 it is presumed that young people have the ability to make a whole range of decisions, including about their own care. Discussions about the treatment and care of a 17 year-old may be indistinguishable from those relating to an adult. Particular risk may arise in the context of maternity care, and here I have a particular concern. A young woman may not present to healthcare services if she fears it will result in a referral to the police. Young women who have undergone female genital mutilation as children will be at increased risk during maternity care and childbirth. They require particular and extra care during labour. That duty would undermine the provision of care that might be given to them.

There are many positive aspects to the Bill which I absolutely support. It makes a real difference to the lives of children and young women. This particular duty goes counter to that and I wish there was a phrase saying that in some circumstances there might be a need to protect children and young women. If we cannot change this today, I hope that at least there will be a commitment on the Minister’s part to make sure that the guidance will reflect our concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. She repeated that it has been a criminal offence for 30 years and I absolutely agree. However, what has been a criminal offence for 30 years is to perform female genital mutilation, and we have failed to prosecute anybody for doing so. This might be a means to provide encouragement when a prosecution does come along, but we have to be aware, as my noble friend Lady Howe said, that there are serious things that may happen because of the amendment. If this amendment had already been in the Bill, we would have explored it in Committee in great depth. I am encouraged that the Minister says the guidance in the consultation will be wider. I hope that in the formulation of the consultation document, the noble Baroness and Ministers will also consult the professionals and teachers. It is not only the British Medical Association that did not like this amendment; it is also the General Medical Council, which is the regulator. If I do not report a case, I am breaking the law after this legislation, the General Medical Council will be obliged to investigate me and it might be to the point that it removes my licence to practise—I am temporarily still licensed to practise though maybe not for long. Therefore, it is a serious amendment to address.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his years and years of experience, of which I have none. I take his point that although it has been a criminal offence for 30 years, there have not been any prosecutions brought. This legislation has not come without extensive consultation with a variety of different stakeholders or without raising awareness within the population as a whole—that is why the Girl Summit sought to raise awareness. The noble Lord is absolutely right: it will not be done by legislation alone.

The consultation will involve a wide range of stakeholders. What we had before was certainly not perfect or else we would not be revisiting it 30 years later. We can only hope that, by raising awareness, trying to change culture and putting in place the various measures that we have, we will actually get to a better place for these girls in the future. We are going to watch progress as time goes on.

I will just mention to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we received 150 responses from a wide range of different areas when the consultation closed on 12 January and we have had various workshops with healthcare professionals. I hope that gives him some comfort regarding the Government’s intention.