Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and refer to my experience as a member of the advisory panel formed by the Government when they first considered the detention of children, particularly the detention of children who were going to be removed. We advised that it should be handled by a separate returns panel, which has since been established.

During those deliberations, we had several other concerns about a word that the noble Lord used in his address—namely, “safeguarding”. In addition to the safeguarding of children who are involved either in detention or in the removal process, there is a very large problem of unaccompanied minors applying for immigration or asylum who are distributed throughout the United Kingdom in order not to overload the social services immediately adjacent to ports or airports of entry. We felt that there was an urgent need for the handling of children, whenever they appeared in the immigration system, to be looked at particularly from the point of view of safeguarding. I am not aware that that has happened. I urge the Minister to give this his urgent consideration. Many of the things that have been said today arise out of the need to look at the treatment of children overall.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lord Judd’s amendments, which he put across with the decency and humanity we all associate with him. The government amendments make concessions on a number of issues, which we and others, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, have made during the passage of this Bill through both Houses. The Minister has indicated the purpose of the government amendments, one of which seeks to make clear that all family members will be given prior notice of their liability for removal. Will the Minister confirm the position on the minimum period of prior notice that will be given in that instance?

Clause 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to authorise the removal of a person who,

“requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it”,

or their family members as well. Subsection (6) provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding,

“the removal of family members”.

As we know, the Government’s stance up to now, which continues to be the case, is that the regulations would be made by statutory instrument but that they would be subject to the negative procedure. We remain of the view that the affirmative procedure is justified. We are disappointed that the regulations under what will become Section 10(6) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will not be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I was going to go on to refer to the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its latest report, which was published yesterday. The report reiterated the committee’s view that the power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Minister, probably with a view to seeking to address the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, has indicated that the Government will be bringing forward, if I understood him correctly, an amendment at Third Reading. He mentioned that it would address the concern that the committee had over the words “in particular”, which the committee commented on in its report. I assume that the amendment that the Government will put down at Third Reading will seek to address the concern expressed by the committee.

For our part, we want to see what that amendment is before making up our minds about whether we find it acceptable or not. Certainly, our position is that the regulations ought to be subject to the affirmative procedure for the kinds of reasons that were given by the Delegated Powers Committee, but we will see what the Government’s amendment says and whether that addresses the concerns that we too have on that particular issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. We have “reasonable force” at the moment, but I am concerned that if we left it like that then we would have reasonable force that was unreasonable. I am therefore asking that the work should be done, consideration should be given to this and, if necessary, that it be mentioned in the wording that the reasonableness refers to what has been authorised as being reasonable within the Home Office.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has spoken with his considerable knowledge of the enforced removal process and of restraint techniques. It is fair to say that his criticism is not confined to what he thinks is going on at the moment but extends to what has gone on under previous Governments as well. I do not think that his comments are geared to a particular Government; I think that they are geared to what has been happening over a period of years.

We are aware of what the noble Lord has proposed about a code of practice, and I have to say that there seem to us to be some fairly strong arguments for seeking to have such a code, in view of some of the terrible difficulties and events that there have been and to which the noble Lord has referred. He has referred today to the redrafting of paragraph 5, as I understand it from the closing words of his speech.

We on these Benches have sympathy with the arguments that he is putting forward, which are clearly addressed to trying to resolve the significant difficulties that have arisen, and may well continue to arise, with the current process and techniques. We very much hope that we will hear a helpful response from the Minister to the quite powerful points that the noble Lord has just made.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I do not think that there is going to be any marked division in this House on this issue, to the extent that I think we are agreed that whatever is done in our name should be done in a civilised and proper fashion. I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this issue to the House’s attention through Amendment 7, but perhaps I might start by repeating what I previously said in Committee. The provision in Schedule 1 to extend the use of force affects only those powers exercised by immigration officers. It does not make any change to the separate statutory powers of detainee custody officers and escorts, who are private contractors, to use reasonable force in the exercise of their particular functions.

As the noble Lord kindly mentioned, last week the Minister for Immigration and Security, my honourable friend James Brokenshire, and I had a very helpful and thoughtful meeting with the noble Lord where we discussed the proposals in his draft codes of practice for enforced removals and where I believe we agreed that there are a number of areas of common ground where the Home Office is making improvements. I think the noble Lord will know that my honourable friend Mr Brokenshire and I share an interest in this matter. He kindly mentioned my trip on a removals flight, which I found extremely interesting. I feel much better informed through having made that journey.

The noble Lord has proposed in the draft code of practice on use of restraint that any use of force must be justifiable, proportionate, accountable, necessary, safe and supportive and must be applied for only the minimum period necessary to achieve the lawful objective. Published enforcement instructions and guidance explain that the use of force must be proportionate, lawful and necessary in the particular circumstances, and also set out that force should be used for the shortest possible period, be the minimum needed, be used only when all other avenues of securing co-operation have been exhausted and should be de-escalated as soon as possible. Whether that use of force was reasonable must be justified by individual officers on a case-by-case basis. I can assure noble Lords that only those immigration officers who are fully trained and accredited may use force. Arrest training is currently provided by the College of Policing, and training on the use of force, including control and restraint techniques, is in line with ACPO standards.

If we were to accept this amendment, although it would maintain the status quo, there are half a dozen coercive powers which sit in the 2004 and 2007 immigration Acts, where there is no specific reference to the use of reasonable force. Although the use of force is currently implied in these arrest and entry powers, it is our intention that this should be set out explicitly in statute to ensure that there is greater transparency. I previously gave noble Lords the example of an immigration officer trying to safely arrest a person for the specific offence of assaulting him or her, under Section 23 of the UK Borders Act 2007, where it is not expressly stated in the legislation that an immigration officer can use reasonable force to restrain that person in doing so. The extension of the power for immigration officers to use reasonable force beyond that contained in the 1971 and 1999 immigration Acts will ensure that existing powers can be operated effectively and are in step with other law enforcement bodies’ powers and that current enforcement practices are not at risk of legal challenge on the grounds that the ability to use force is not explicitly set out in statute.

The noble Lord asked whether the Home Office monitored the restraint techniques used at Colnbrook removal centre in 2004, which led to the tragic death of a 16 year-old. I cannot answer that question at the Dispatch Box but will write to him and copy the letter to other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

With the assurance that we in the Home Office very much value the noble Lord’s input in this area, which reinforces our interest in making sure that these jobs are done in a proper fashion, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will fell able to withdraw his amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Rosser

Monday 10th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I was concerned that timing might be against us getting to this point this evening, because I have an unavoidable engagement to which I must go. Having looked at what was said on the amendments in this group, both at the recommitment and in Committee, I do not feel that there is much more that I need to add. My concern about what is included in the section that I am seeking to have removed is that it is based on perception and not on fact. For example, I learn today that 50% of all cases involving violence are now dealt with outside the courts, which suggests that there is some confusion over where violence should be dealt with. I am very concerned that the word “punishment” should be added like this, because from talking to magistrates and others I know that they are already quite clear what their duty is in terms of the sentences that they have to impose. What we are talking about here is not so much the need to add this initiative to sentencing but looking at and seeing what is actually done with and for those people who receive the sentence.

As I have said before, we are in the dark here because we simply do not know what the Secretary of State has in mind. We have not yet seen the terms of the government response to the probation consultation. We understand that there are going to be commissioners all over the country commissioning community sentences, although we do not know whether they are going to come from the probation service, the voluntary sector, the private sector or whatever. We are in the dark and, frankly, I think it is a great pity that something like this should be left in such an imprecise state. That is why I wish to see the thing removed. There is so much work to be done in this area. Anything that needs to be done should be brought back after further work on the whole area, including study of the probation consultation, has taken place. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have an amendment in this group. It is interesting that the Government’s response to the consultation on effective community sentences states:

“We will legislate to place a duty on courts to include in the community order a requirement that fulfils the purpose of punishment for the offender. The court will be able to exercise this duty by imposing a fine instead if it considers that to be appropriate. While we will not specify what requirements courts should impose, on the basis that what is punitive for one offender may not be punitive for another, our expectation is that these would generally be restrictions of liberty that represent to the public a recognisable sanction (such as curfews, exclusion, or community payback). The duty will provide for an exemption in exceptional circumstances where it would be unjust to impose a punitive element”.

The Government’s response refers to restrictions of liberty such as curfews, exclusion or community payback. The use of the words “such as” implies that a court could impose other requirements that would be regarded as restrictions of liberty. Can the Minister confirm if that is the case? What might the other restrictions of liberty be that would be regarded as punitive? Will he also confirm that if a court imposed as a punitive element something other than a curfew, exclusion, community payback or a fine, that would not be regarded as acting outside the terms of this Bill?

The Government’s response to the consultation on effective community sentencing also refers to a punitive element being a restriction of liberty that represents, to the public, a recognisable sanction. Who is to determine what represents to the public a recognisable sanction? Will it be for the court to decide? If it decides that a punitive element is something other than a curfew, exclusion, community payback or fine, will the court, whether the original court or an appeal court, be regarded as having acted outside the terms of the Bill?

Even the Government’s own response to the consultation states that nearly all respondents indicated that offenders with mental health issues should be excluded from a mandatory punitive element and that many suggested that offenders with learning difficulties, those unable to carry out a punitive requirement because of poor health or addiction, those with personality disorders and young adults with low maturity should also be excluded. Does the Minister also hold that view, and would the number of such offenders exceed the 5% that it has been widely suggested would be the percentage the courts might feel able to regard as covered by the definition of “exceptional circumstances” laid down in the Bill and thus exempt from the Government’s definition of a punitive element?

One rather assumes that the Government’s approach is conditioned by the kind of recent statement made by the Secretary of State for Justice, that he shares public concern that offenders given community sentences often feel they are getting away with it; that they have been slapped on the wrist rather than properly punished. However, if that is the case, who is it giving that impression to the public other than politicians who make statements like that rather than spelling out just what a community sentence is? Two-thirds already include a punitive element, on the Government’s apparent definition.

Published research on short custodial sentences found that many prisoners preferred short sentences over community sentences because they found the latter more challenging. Does the Minister agree or disagree with those findings by the Howard League? Why does he take the view that a rehabilitation element in a community order cannot be at least as challenging to an offender, if not more challenging, than the Government’s version of what constitutes a punitive element?

For someone who has an addiction, learning difficulties or low maturity, or has led or been allowed to lead a thoroughly dysfunctional and disorganised life, having to face up to the realities of their lifestyle or situation through a challenging programme that they have to attend at specific laid-down times as instructed and co-operate with, or else risk being taken back to court and sentenced in another way, is at least as difficult as doing community payback or paying a fine related to their means. Yet that apparently is not the view of the Minister. Perhaps he could explain why that is not his view. I hope that he will be able to get a bit further than telling us it is because that is not the view of the tabloid press.

If the current position were changed and virtually all community sentences included a punitive element along the lines that the Government appear to be trying to enforce, does the Minister accept that that could be at the expense of rehabilitation elements in a community order? If a punitive element had to be included in an order that currently incorporates what the Government regard as only a non-punitive element, will the Government be providing additional resources to the probation services to cover the cost of this additional requirement, or will probation service budgets be left as they are so that, in order to remain within budget, those services may have to drop the rehabilitation element from the order to enable the cost of the additional punitive element to be paid for within the laid-down budget? What reassurances can the Minister give that this will not happen? The loss of the rehabilitation element in the order where deemed necessary will not contribute anything towards reducing reoffending.

The fact that the Minister does not appear to regard community order requirements involving challenging programmes for rehabilitation as at least on a par, in terms of restrictions on liberty and difficulty for offenders, with unpaid work in the community, a curfew or a fine—which are about the only things the Minister regards as in any way imposing a restriction on liberty—is a step backwards and simply seems to confirm, not challenge, the view that community orders are “soft”. Where unpaid work, a curfew or a fine is appropriate, that is what the offender should be given, but not where it would be inappropriate. The reality is that the Minister has decided that in some 95% of cases involving a community order as a sentence, unpaid work, a curfew or a fine is appropriate. It is usual to hear the facts of a case before coming to a conclusion on what is the appropriate sentence, but that is not what the Government are doing as they seek to specify what must be included in a community order in 95% of cases.

The Government appear to have lost confidence in the courts at a time when crime is falling, without explaining why, other than their own unwillingness to challenge the perception they believe the public hold that current community orders are soft. The reality is that the most important thing the public want to see delivered by a sentence is a reduction in reoffending, and an end to reoffending by the offender. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will be prepared to change his stance, or at least review it, and support my amendment, which includes a range of existing programmes and orders as being within the Government’s punishment requirement in the Bill.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Rosser

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I must apologise to the Committee for not being here when Clause 5, on the requirement on the police and crime commissioners to issue police and crime plans, was discussed. Had I been here, I would have referred to Clause 79, on the strategic policing requirement. The police and crime plans, whoever draws them up, must always be an amalgam of national, international and local policing requirements. It is always going to be a difficult balance to decide which of those has priority and how the resources are to be allocated to them. That is one of the reasons why I have always been a supporter of the dissenting comments of Dr Goodhart in the 1962 police commission on the need for a national police force to cover the fact that crime does not observe local boundaries.

The time has come to look nationally at these issues and then to make certain that they are covered properly. The question is who will cover them. You could be forgiven for thinking that the proposal for elected police commissioners in areas around the country is putting the local policing issue at the top of the pack. Is that actually so? The Home Secretary, quite rightly, will insist that international terrorism or international drug dealing, for example, are given due recognition. What worries me is that I do not see this issue being resolved by the Bill as drafted or the guidance. I had hoped that I might have found it in the draft protocol. It states that local police commissioners have the,

“legal power and duty to … set the strategic direction and objectives of the force through the Police and Crime Plan … which must have regard to the Strategic Policing Requirement set by the Home Secretary”.

That does not resolve the issue, either.

My concern is that the person who will lose out, if we are not careful, is the person who will have to carry the can through the heat of the day—the chief officer of police or the chief constable. To my mind, there is only one person in an area who should draw up these plans—the chief constable. It should be done necessarily in draft and then it should be cleared with those who have to provide the resources. However, it should also be cleared with those with responsibility for influencing the balance between the international, national and local requirements of policing in that area. We will be doing a great disservice to the chief constables and chief officers of police if we do not make that clear and if we set them the problem of having to resolve something that is not resolvable, with a whole lot of competing people around them who may not necessarily come together in a way that will resolve the matter. This issue is too important for the public to be left not properly resolved.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I, too, wish to speak to amendments in my name—Amendments 220ZC, 221A, 225ZB and 228A. Clause 79 provides for the Secretary of State to,

“from time to time, issue a document (the ‘strategic policing requirement’) which sets out what, in the Secretary of State’s view, are … national threats at the time the document is issued, and … appropriate national policing capabilities to counter those national threats”.

I am not quite sure what “from time to time” means in this context, but perhaps the Minister will be able to throw some light on it. The Bill provides for the chief officer of police to,

“have regard to the strategic policing requirement”,

in exercising their functions. One of my amendments adds that the police and crime commissioners must also take into account the Secretary of State’s strategic policing requirement document in exercising their functions.

A further amendment to Clause 79 provides for Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary to report annually on how each police and crime commission and the mayor’s office is fulfilling the strategic policing requirement. The clause places a requirement on police and crime commissioners and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to have regard to the findings of the HMIC report. The final amendment would retain a requirement, which appears to be deleted under the Bill, for HMIC to report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces.

Under Clause 5(5), a police and crime commissioner must, in issuing or varying a police and crime plan, have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State. My amendment, however, makes it clear that account of the strategic policing requirement has to be taken by the police and crime commissioner not just in issuing or varying a police and crime plan but in exercising all their functions. For that reason, it would provide a much clearer and stronger form of words. I do not wish to repeat the points made by my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Harris of Haringey, but it is surely necessary to have some checks against any potentially maverick police and crime commissioner and, in short, some acceptable consistency in strategy and approach.

Yesterday, the Government announced their proposals for a national crime agency. In the Government’s view, the new agency represents a major change. It is surprising that in the middle of the Committee stage of the Bill the Government should announce proposals that could, depending on what their intentions are, have a significant impact on the powers and functions of the bodies and organisations that are referred to in the Bill, including police and crime commissioners. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government see the national crime agency as the creation of a new enhanced national policing force or whether it simply brings together under one roof a number of key organisations that are largely working well at present and will not be helped by the distraction of the cost and time of the creation of a new organisation and its associated bureaucracy.

The Government have said that the national crime agency will be a crime-fighting organisation that will tackle organised crime, defend our borders, fight fraud and cybercrime, and protect children and young people. With a senior chief constable at its head, it will harness intelligence, analytical capabilities and enforcement powers and will have strong links to local police forces and police and crime commissioners. The Secretary of State yesterday said that the national crime agency will comprise a number of distinct operational commands, one of which, the organised crime command, will,

“tackle organised crime groups, whether they operate locally, across the country or across our international borders. Fulfilling a key pledge in the coalition agreement, the border policing command will strengthen our borders”.

Other commands will be border policing, economic crime and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. The Secretary of State also said that the national crime agency will,

“use … intelligence to co-ordinate, prioritise and target action against organised criminals, with information flowing to and from the police and other agencies in support of tactical operations”,

and that,

“the NCA will have the ability and the authority to task and co-ordinate the police and other law enforcement agencies”.

She continued:

“For the first time, there will be one agency with the power, remit and responsibility for ensuring that the right action is taken at the right time by the right people—that agency will be the NCA. All other agencies will work to the NCA’s threat assessment and prioritisation, and it will be the NCA’s intelligence picture that will drive the response on the ground. That will be underpinned by the new strategic policing requirement”.

The Secretary of State concluded by saying that all areas of the country suffer the effects of organised crime,

“from the very poorest communities to the most affluent, from the smallest villages to the biggest cities”,

and that we owe it to them to tackle it. Her penultimate phrase was:

“The National Crime Agency will do all those things and more”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/11; cols. 232-34.]

That is quite a build-up for an organisation that will have no more money than the aggregate cost of its predecessors, which already face significant reductions in their budgets, including a cutback in a number of front-line staff as a result of cuts made by the Government that are too deep and too fast.