Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have spoken so movingly in support of the amendments. The importance of communication for victims of domestic abuse and their children cannot be overemphasised. The Minister for Safeguarding having emphasised the importance that the Government attach to improving speech and language outcomes, I had hoped that the Government would consider including some of the contents of these amendments in the Bill. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I must advise the Committee—rather unusually—that, if this amendment is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments 2 to 28A for reasons of pre-emption.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

I will speak to Amendments 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 20. I do not disagree at all with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Indeed, I welcome the fact that she has spelled out a lot of the responsibilities on local authorities which were not present in the original Clause 1.

Before speaking to my amendments I would like to place on record that my request at Second Reading that Committee should be delayed so that we had the opportunity to prepare properly for it, rather than trying to complete all the procedures during the Recess, was not honoured. It has been a nightmare trying to get things done without the expert briefings that we are normally accustomed to, as well as meetings with Ministers, and trying to deal entirely by email with the Public Bill Office. I sincerely hope that the usual channels will note this and that in future we shall not be expected to come so ill-prepared into such an important bit of legislation.

My concerns about these amendments are not to do with the corporate parenting principles but are all built around the word “must” in Clause 1. As my noble friend Lord Bichard would have said, if he had been here, the whole point of setting out corporate parenting principles explicitly is to make those responsibilities explicit and leave those most affected in no doubt as to what their responsibilities are. My concern about Clause 1 as currently represented is that words such as “have regard to” can equally be “disregard”—and we do not want any of these principles disregarded. Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will consider altering the words rather than waiting until Report before having a vote. That applies to Amendment 6. Amendments 8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 remove the word “to”, which again makes the language if anything more robust rather than leaving anything to disregard.

I would also like at this stage to introduce the problems faced by children in the criminal justice system. My noble friend Lord Laming produced a masterly report called In Care, Out of Trouble, which I referred to at Second Reading. The duty on local authorities and their responsibilities must include the children in the criminal justice system. My noble friend in his report points out that one of the problems of not having clear instructions to local authorities is that you have inconsistency. For example, it is laid down that a child who is going to be placed after release should have that location confirmed to them at least 10 days before release—but all too frequently that information does not reach the child until the day of release, which makes it impossible to plan for a child’s engagement with education, employment or other services.

Therefore, I am calling for an acceptance that corporate principles are laid out and that the language should be robust, so that there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of local authorities as to where their responsibilities lie.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 243, 271, 272, 304, 305 and 306. Since all the amendments are to do with the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority, they have been deliberately grouped together rather than with specific clauses. They aim, as I said at Second Reading, to,

“strengthen the Bill by increasing co-operation between the authority and other police forces, particularly in counterterrorism and in the run-up to the Olympics”.—[Official Report, 27/4/11; col. 173.]

I shall first outline the context in which the amendments have been tabled and apologise to the House for being unable to be here when they were debated in Committee. Again, as I said at Second Reading, I am an unashamed proponent of two-tier policing in this country, with a national police service complemented by a number of local and specialist forces. Bearing in mind that the last royal commission on policing was in 1962 and much has happened since then which suggests the need for reform of the policing as extant at that time, I was very disappointed to find that although called the police reform Bill, there is very little in it about reform, except about the governance of policing, which is not the same thing.

However, these amendments are about long-needed reform; they are an attempt to complete business that was begun as long ago as October 2001, when the then Government issued a consultation document entitled Modernising the British Transport Police, which included detailed proposals to bring it in line with Home Office police forces in terms of accountability, status and powers. It proposed, first, placing the jurisdiction of British Transport Police constables over the railways on a statutory basis; that was partly addressed in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which gave them the powers and privileges of a Home Office constable, not only over all railway property, but throughout Great Britain in relation to railway matters. It secondly proposed giving British Transport Police constables jurisdiction outside the railways in certain circumstances. This, again, was partly addressed in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, emergency legislation that followed 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

However, although welcoming these changes, the Transport Police and its authority regarded them as only partial introduction of what had been proposed. Therefore, they tried to use the opportunity presented by the August 2008 consultation that preceded the Policing and Crime Act 2009 to address the identified anomalies once and for all. They submitted a formal request for a number of legislative changes that addressed the issues of police powers and jurisdiction to which, reprehensibly, they received no formal feedback from the Home Office. Instead, there was no consultation and they were surprised to find that Schedule 7 of the Act stated that:

“Where a member of the British Transport Police Force is for the time being under the direction and control of the chief officer of another police force by virtue of a police force collaboration agreement … the member shall have all the powers and privileges of a member of that other force”.

Furthermore, no attempt was made to address an added complication to co-operation that they had raised, namely that the powers of jurisdiction of police officers from Home Office forces were not extended to match those of a British Transport Police officer, which include the ability to police in England, Wales and across the border in Scotland.

Charitably, the British Transport Police assumed that these continued inequities were not intended, but resulted from a lack of knowledge about the anomalies that resulted from gaps in existing legislation. Therefore, they continued to look for opportunities to obtain parity of police-officer powers regardless of employing force, the next opportunity coming in September 2010 with the coalition Government’s consultation before the Bill, entitled Policing in the 21st Century; Reconnecting Police and the People.

The Bill envisages annual police plans, covering areas of the country yet to be determined, drawn up by elected police and crime commissioners. Assuming that, in logic, this must include all police forces, the Transport Police, in its response to the consultation, pointed out that, as the specialist national force for the railways, cross-border working was part of its day-to-day business. It welcomed the fact that, in drawing up their plans, PCCs would have to look beyond their own force borders,

“under a strong duty to collaborate, in the interests of value for money and to tackle cross border, national and international crimes”.

The British Transport Police also said that it was keen to ensure that the different governance structures between it and its authority and their Home Office colleagues and their authorities did not create difficulties in the excellent communications and partnership working that currently existed between them. There must be, for example, adequate provision for communications between the authorities and committees of the Transport Police, the Civil and Nuclear Constabulary, the MoD Police and police and crime commissioners, if they subsume the role currently filled by the Association of Police Authorities.

I mention this not to criticise the Bill so much as to suggest that these amendments to do with the British Transport Police ought to be government amendments. Identified anomalies that inhibit national and local policing have existed for far too long and have been drawn to the attention of both the Home Office and the Department for Transport over a number of years. Amendments 242, 271 and 272 are designed to rectify the status anomaly; Amendment 243 is designed to provide the opportunity for the Transport Police to protect the travelling public by taking preventive action against possible sex offenders.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, will speak to Amendments 271, 272 and 304 to 306, covering licensing and firearms. All are designed to save money and better protect the public.

I appeal to the Minister to accept the opportunity created by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to complete this unfinished business. I know that both she and the Transport Police and its authority have been in contact with the Department for Transport and I look forward to hearing what may have been agreed between them. I accept that she will be unable to promise more than that the issues I have raised will now be tackled positively and not allowed to drag on as they have over the past 10 years. In that anticipation, I beg to move.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I speak in favour of the seven amendments. I start by expressing my appreciation to the Minister for the constructive approach she has adopted in conversations with both the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and me about the role, powers and jurisdictions of the BTP. I know that she has written to the Transport Minister about these amendments and I hope that when she answers the debate she will be able to say that the Government at least accept the spirit of them, if not accept them tonight.

I know from what the Minister said in Committee that she is particularly concerned about licensing issues and the difficulties that the BTP and the travelling public face with anti-social behaviour on the railway fuelled by excessive drinking. I shall come to the amendments which deal with that issue in a moment.

I would like to add a word to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about jurisdiction. This is covered in Amendment 242. The British Transport Police Authority has sent me a copy of a letter which was sent on 7 July from the chief constable of the force, Andrew Trotter, to the Minister of State for Transport, Theresa Villiers. In a paragraph headed “Jurisdiction”, he says:

“The current legislative anomalies mean that there are a number of caveats applied to the powers of BTP officers, these are provided not through our own Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, but the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (section 100(2) and (3)) which pre-dated it. The amendment laid before the House of Lords seeks to remove the ambiguity the current legislation creates through these caveats. If the amendment is approved, in the eyes of the public and the rail industry, it will have no obvious impact on day-to-day policing of the railways and I can assure you it will have no impact on costs or other resource implications. It will however put BTP officers on the same footing as their Home Office colleagues when not physically on rail property or carrying out duties related to the railways, i.e. they will be warranted officers not civilians”.

Amendments 271 and 272 deal with the Firearms Act. I read in the latest issue of Railnews, which is the monthly newspaper for rail industry staff, that the Government have approved the creation of an armed response unit for the BTP. That paper states:

“Transport secretary Philip Hammond said the Home Office go-ahead was not in response to any specific threat but would reduce the burden on other police forces which provide armed support to the BTP”.

That is all well and good and it is what the BTP chief constable asked for, but it appears that BTP officers, once selected and through the selection process, will have to apply individually for firearms certificates. This seems ludicrous and flies in the face of the Home Secretary’s determination to reduce bureaucracy in the police service—a point made by the chief constable in his letter to Theresa Villiers. The cost in direct financial terms and in opportunity costs to the BTP and Home Office forces to process more than 100 applications is completely avoidable simply by giving the BTP the same powers as those expressly quoted in the Act for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It also creates a delay in trained officers being fully operational. Our amendments avoid that and I hope the Minister will feel able to accept them too.