Stalking Protection Orders

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I am aware, of course, that one of the great values of SPOs is that they can impose positive conditions as well as negative ones. I regret to say that I do not have the specific statistic for which the noble Baroness asked, but if she will permit me, I will write to her with that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, by what specific criteria will the Government judge whether their intervention with chief constables on stalking protection orders has been successful or unsuccessful, so that we can hold the Government to account?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

In the first instance, we look at the number of stalking protection orders that are sought and imposed. The figures that I have in relation to their use are encouraging. I can tell the House that 78% of SPO applications in 2021 were granted, compared to only 5% refused, with 17% being dealt with in other ways or withdrawn.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Yes, and, as the noble Lord will very well know, in a coalition there have to be compromises on both sides. You cannot get through the things you think are absolutely important unless you give way on others. However, the policy of this party now is to oppose police and crime commissioners. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to clarify the position of the party on that.

It is very difficult for one person to represent both rural and urban areas in policing, or perhaps an area where there is a large African or Caribbean community and another where there is a large south Asian or Chinese community, or even an LGBT community. These could and do exist within the same police area—as in London, for example. Therefore, with one police and crime commissioner for that whole area, it is difficult for that one person to represent all those communities. It is important to be represented when it comes to accountability around policing, particularly for minority communities, where trust and confidence in the police are not as strong as they are with others.

As others have said, the majority of police and crime commissioners are party political. Therefore, there is a danger that a small “p” political difference between a police and crime commissioner and a chief constable, or even a commissioner—without pointing at any particular examples of that—could result in a good chief constable or commissioner having to resign over that small “p” political difference, or even a personality difference with the police and crime commissioner

As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has said, we are in a position where, because it is one person hiring and firing the chief constable, we are not getting a range of candidates applying for the chief constable post. The assumption is that the incumbent deputy will have a good relationship with that police and crime commissioner and have a natural advantage over any outside candidate, and therefore it is not worth applying. For all these reasons, we feel that having a range of people holding the police to account—particularly if they are democratically elected councillors —as opposed to one person, would be preferable. But I agree with other noble Lords that the suggested way to replace the system is probably not through a series of referenda that could result in different mechanisms in different parts of the country.

As far as the abolition of deposits in elections is concerned, that is perhaps slightly wider than this Bill should be considering. Of course, as Liberal Democrats, we would have to declare an interest as far as that is concerned. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about potentially reducing the size of the deposit, rather than getting rid of it completely.

Were police authorities better? In some places, I think they were. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, the Metropolitan Police Authority was certainly very effective. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who experienced both, said there was not much to choose between the two on accountability.

For the reasons that I have explained, we agree that there should certainly be an examination of how effective police and crime commissioners are.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and other noble Lords, that we have had mixed experiences of police and crime commissioners—some have been very good, and some not so good. I will not go further than that, though, in relation to Amendment 278.

I wish to talk in particular about the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. They have drawn attention to the consequences we have witnessed as result of potential candidates for police and crime commissioner being debarred if they have been convicted of any offence, however many years ago, for which they could have received a custodial sentence, irrespective of whether they did actually receive such a sentence. I do not wish to pursue any individual cases but rather the general point, as others have done, of whether there should be another look at the reasons, in respect of previous convictions, for which a potential candidate for the office of police and crime commissioner can be disqualified.

When the issue has been raised previously, the Government have argued that it should not be reviewed because there was cross-party support for this requirement to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. If that argument was followed through to its logical conclusion, there could never be any change to any legislation that originally had cross-party support, which is a bit of a nonsense.

The other argument advanced was that people must have complete confidence in the probity and integrity of whoever it is they elect as a police and crime commissioner because of their responsibilities and powers in relation to their police force, including the chief constable. Clearly, that is true, but whether an offence committed decades ago that could have resulted in a custodial sentence but did not—because it was not considered of a sufficiently serious nature to justify such a sentence—should automatically still be regarded as calling into question the probity and integrity of a potential candidate for police and crime commissioner, and thus disqualify them from holding such an office, is questionable, to say the least. It is certainly questionable when one looks at other positions that have powers and responsibilities in relation to the police and the criminal justice system but have no such similar restrictions on being able to stand for office or be appointed to an office.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord decided to probe these two provisions. I have seen the correspondence published by the three committees. I was struck when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in responding to the previous group, referred to the code of practice having the force of law. I do not dispute that, but it is of course law that can be changed by government Ministers without coming to Parliament.

The point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about forum shopping is interesting. As he said, I have asked for assistance on the meaning of some terms during the passage of the Bill. I questioned what is envisaged by the terms “conduct” and “requirements”. I read both to restrict, rather than expand, the scope of what may be done. I would be grateful to have that confirmed or, if not, to understand why not. In short, we should not be expanding opportunities for criminal conduct authorisations without, at the very least, understanding exactly what we are doing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, well in his campaign against skeleton Bills, as that issue is getting worse, not better.

The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, Amendments 57 and 74, in his name, would remove those provisions and, as he confirmed, their purpose is to probe the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.

Earlier in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, stated that the order-making provisions in the Bill

“allow for additional requirements to be imposed before a criminal conduct authorisation may be granted, or for the authorisation of certain conduct to be prohibited.”

He continued:

“I assure the Committee that they can only be used to further strengthen the safeguards that are attached to the use of criminal conduct authorisations. They could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards ... The requirements that can be imposed under these powers concern matters of practicality and detail, and therefore it is appropriate that they are contained in secondary legislation.”—[Official Report, 1/12/20; col. 676.]


When the noble and learned Lord said that the order-making powers could not be used to remove any of the existing safeguards, did the Government mean that the wording in the Bill would make it contrary to law to do that, or did they mean only that the intention was not to use the order-making powers to remove any of the existing safeguards? That, of course, is a very different thing, as intentions can change.

No doubt in their response the Government will address that point and give specific examples of the purposes or intentions for which these order-making powers to prohibit the authorisation of certain conduct and impose extra requirements that must be satisfied before an authorisation can be given would—and, equally, would not—be used by the Secretary of State.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments have been tabled to discuss the extent to which the operation of criminal conduct authorisations can be amended by regulation.

As I set out in response to the amendments to the order-making powers tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, there are good reasons why these powers have been included. I do not wish to repeat the detail of what was said on group 7 of the amendments, other than to highlight again that the provisions have been drafted to resemble closely the terms of Section 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which provides the underlying authorisation for CHIS use and conduct.

To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I repeat what I said earlier and provide the Committee with reassurance that these powers could be used only to impose further safeguards and not to remove them. That point was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts posed the question of whether the Secretary of State can add bodies to, or remove them from, the list of authorising bodies. The addition of bodies can be accomplished only through the affirmative procedure. The changes to the bodies listed will reflect changes over time in investigative functions and the threats that the country faces. The rank of authorising officers is set by secondary legislation and will be dealt with in line with Section 29 authorisations.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, posed the question of whether the terms of the provision are such as to make it impossible for the powers to be extended rather than removed, or whether that is merely the intention of the Government. He correctly remarked on the fact that the persons occupying posts will change from time to time. As I see it, the legislation will not simply rely on the intention of the Government but will have force beyond that. I think that I also addressed the matter when answering the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She focused on the meaning of the words “conduct” and “requirements”. I am able to confirm that her understanding was correct. Indeed, as a consequence of what I have said, the interpretation of those words restricts, and does not permit addition to, the provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

This is the Minister’s police force. The point I am trying to make here is: who do we believe? What is the problem that the Bill is trying to solve? What is the nature and extent of the problem? We have no idea, and with the greatest respect, I am sure that the Government have no idea either. We are relying on anecdote and subjective opinions because no one, not least the Government, knows the facts. Our Amendment 79 would establish the facts.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Two amendments in this group stipulate the action that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must take on becoming aware of unlawful or inappropriate conduct linked to a criminal conduct authorisation, or on becoming aware of an inappropriately granted or unlawful criminal conduct authorisation. I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to these two amendments.

A third amendment requires a review within six months by a High Court judge that would consider the grant of criminal conduct authorisations in relation to children or vulnerable people, the conduct of covert human intelligence sources, the oversight and monitoring of, and reporting on, such conduct, the oversight of persons allowed to authorise criminal conduct authorisations, and the sanctions available if they misuse those powers.

Under the terms of the Bill, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the power to conduct investigations, inspections and audits, but would not appear—I will listen to what the Government say in response—to have the capacity to investigate every time a criminal conduct authorisation is used. The Commissioner also covers the use of the power to grant criminal conduct authorisations in the annual report, which must also be laid before Parliament but which may be redacted. Of course, we do not know how much the annual report will reveal in practice. As an annual report, it will be reporting a long time after any particular issues with criminal conduct authorisations may have arisen.

It is surely important to have as much transparency as possible in how, and in what kind of circumstances, covert human intelligence sources and criminal conduct authorisations are used and granted, since the powers and activities provided for in this Bill are considerable and potentially wide ranging. They have to be applied appropriately, and the greater the transparency that is possible, the more likely that is to be the case and the greater the public confidence in how the powers are being deployed, and with what objectives in mind.

The review referred to in Amendment 79, which would be laid before Parliament, would be one way of contributing to that transparency and ensuring public confidence. If the Government are not going to accept the amendment, I hope that in response they will indicate a willingness to look further at the powers, duties and role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to ensure that transparency in how and in what circumstances the powers given in the Bill are exercised is maximised as far as possible. I await the Government’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would not expect me to respond to the case that he brought before the House this afternoon, but I would be happy to sit down and discuss it with him, if he would like. I think what he wants from Amendment 79 is to require a review of all criminal conduct authorisations to be undertaken by a High Court judge, with the review to be commenced six months after the Act has come into force.

The IPC, supported by judicial commissioners, already has oversight of all criminal conduct authorisations. He and his judicial commissioners have all held high judicial office and are entirely independent of the Government. The commissioners are supported by expert inspectors and others, such as technical experts, who are qualified to assist them in their work. They are responsible for inspecting the full range of agencies and departments that will use this power and will ensure that they are complying with the law and following good practice. This includes investigating systems and processes, checking records and paperwork, interviewing key staff and investigating any known errors.

The frequency of these inspections is decided by the Commissioner, and the inspectors must have unfettered access to documents and information to support the Commissioner’s functions. This allows inspectors to undertake thorough and robust investigations of each police authority’s use of the power, covering the entire chain of events and decision-making.

A report is issued after each inspection that sets out IPCO’s conclusions and recommendations and identifies any areas of vulnerability or non-compliance. It also identifies areas of good practice which may be of interest to other similar organisations. The report will enable organisations to take action on the basis of IPCO’s recommendations. This process provides for systemic review of all public authorities’ use of the power and allows for continuous improvement in the authorisation and management of the capability.

Amendments 75A and 75B seek to put obligations on the IPC to report conduct to other bodies. Criminal conduct authorisations will be subject to the existing error-reporting processes for investigatory powers, which require public authorities to report all relevant errors to the IPC. This would include situations where undercover operatives’ conduct has taken place without lawful authorisation or there has been a failure to adhere to the necessary safeguards. Where it amounts to a serious error, the IPC must inform the person of an error relating to them where it is in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the horse will be out of the stable again in January: refreshed, I hope. I am sure that the Minister will welcome the pause after the marathon she has had to undergo. I am not for a moment suggesting she is anything like a horse—I am sorry, perhaps I should not have followed that simile.

My noble friend Lord Paddick recently spoke to Amendment 79, and it is clear that several noble Lords have concerns in this area, so we will come back to it. Noble Lords clearly agree on the importance of evaluating what goes on and of transparency, as has already been mentioned. However, I cannot help thinking in the context of the precise formulation of this amendment of what the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, talked about a week or two ago, to which my noble friend referred: the problem of the extent to which one can report in detail without endangering those who are protecting us and whom we, in turn, do not wish to endanger. I cannot help thinking that if a lot of the material listed in Amendment 75C were to be published, an awful lot of it might be redacted. However, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in spirit, and I think that his last point about material damage or civilian harm is an important one that we must not lose sight of. We still need to explore how best and to what extent we can achieve what is obviously troubling a number of us.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The purpose of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is described as being to probe the adequacy of information provided to Parliament on criminal conduct authorisations and to probe the efficacy of the authorisations.

I think that this comes back to the issue of transparency. To be a little more particular, will we be told in advance, during the passage of the Bill, precisely what kind of information about criminal conduct authorisations will be provided to us and to the public by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the annual report or other reports? At the moment, I am not clear about what information will be provided and what it will cover, and whether it will give us a feel for what is happening over criminal conduct authorisations or whether we will be told that the information provided will be limited and that, on grounds of security, it cannot be disclosed.

I hope that, at least in their response either to this amendment or on Report, the Government will be prepared to spell out what information will and will not be provided so that we all know where we stand on this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the points they have made. To take the penultimate point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I hope that I can provide some of that clarity this afternoon.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson is interested in the information that will be included in the IPC’s annual report. The commissioner has a very clear mandate to inform Parliament and the public about the use of investigatory powers. He must provide a report to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister must publish and lay before Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Act already sets out, in detail, what should be included in that report, and I refer my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to Section 234(2).

I reassure my noble friend that there is already a requirement for the report to include statistics on the use of the power and information about the results of such use, including its impact. The report is therefore extensive but, as would be expected for such sensitive information, safeguards are in place to ensure that that information is protected where necessary. In consultation with the commissioner, the Prime Minister may exclude from publication information which could, for example, be prejudicial to national security. However, public authorities will receive this information and will respond to recommendations made by the IPC.

Turning to a matter that has nothing to do with the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked: why go further than the status quo? The status quo is that there is legal uncertainty around undercover operatives, and this Bill creates that legal certainty.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I can be very brief, because others have put the point so well and also because of the next debate to follow. I would simply say that this degree of micro-precision becomes particularly important because the Bill goes further than the status quo and creates these advanced criminal and civil immunities. I will leave it at that, because I think we are all really quite keen to hear the Minister’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

As drafted, the Bill refers to criminal conduct as conduct

“in the course of, or otherwise in connection with”

the conduct of a covert human intelligence source, and as

“conduct by or in relation to the person”

who is specified as the covert human intelligence source. As has been said, the amendments would establish that criminal conduct is conduct by the covert human intelligence source in the absence of any explanation as to why the additional words to which I have referred are needed, and what the consequences would be, and for whom, if they were not in the Bill. A further amendment in this group also puts on the face of the Bill that a criminal conduct authorisation cannot retrospectively give clearance for behaviour that has already happened before the date the authorisation is given.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights also raised these issues in its report on the Bill when it said that the definition of what amounts to “criminal conduct” for the purpose of an authorisation is wider than simply criminal activity by a covert human intelligence source, and referred to the wording which the amendments in this group would delete. The only explanation for this which the Joint Committee on Human Rights could find was in the draft code of practice, which states that

“a criminal conduct authorisation may authorise conduct by someone else ‘in relation to’ a

covert human intelligence source,

“namely those within a public authority that are involved in or affected by the authorisation.”

No doubt the Government will wish to respond in some detail setting out why the words “in connection with” and “in relation to” are essential, what exactly they mean and, giving examples, explaining why it is considered necessary to enable a public authority to authorise criminal conduct by someone other than the covert human intelligence source, which some might feel is rather at odds with the title of the Bill.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, having made my maiden remarks at Second Reading, it is a pleasure now to assist the House in scrutinising the detail of this legislation. I hope to reassure noble Lords with regard to the scope, safeguards and limits to conduct that can be authorised under a criminal conduct authorisation. I recognise the feeling of the House on the last appearance of the Bill as a recognition of the complexities and difficulties which attach to this field of criminal investigation.

With regard to the remarks by my noble friend Lord Cormack, he will perhaps recollect that when I spoke at Second Reading I recognised the inelegance of the expression “CHIS”, and I fully share his concerns about it. However, until such time as we have evolved a suitable replacement, if that is possible, I trust I will not trespass on his patience if I continue to use the expression.

The Bill is drafted to allow things to be authorised which are certainly connected to the conduct of the CHIS but not the same thing as it: actions which are connected to the activities of the CHIS but which are not the CHIS activities themselves. This is deliberate and it is to allow for activity which facilitates and supports the core conduct of the CHIS, most obviously to allow the CHIS to avoid detection in order to remain in place and to provide the intelligence needed. The purpose of the expressions “in connection with” and “in relation to” is to ensure that such activity may be authorised. This language also serves the function of ensuring that the scope of a criminal conduct authorisation is properly limited. It helps to make it clear that it is not the case that any and all criminality by a CHIS may be authorised. It cannot be some private venture that the CHIS has involved himself or herself in. The criminal conduct to be authorised must be connected to the conduct of a CHIS and to the criminal conduct authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and our amendment, are directed to the same issue; I can only think that I may have drafted ours before I had seen hers. RIPA allows for the use of CHIS outside the UK, and the noble Baroness, with her very particular perspective, must not be ignored. As has been said, that experience should inform all of what we are discussing.

Quite apart from the propriety and ethics, how would extraterritorial jurisdiction work in this case? We cannot legislate for what other countries regard as a crime or how decisions about whether to prosecute are taken. My noble friend Lord Thomas listed the offences where there is extraterritorial jurisdiction and where prosecutions can take place here. It struck me as I was listening to him reading them that they are very close to the crimes that noble Lords are seeking to take out of the scope of criminal authorisations, which we will come to later—except that I was interested to hear the reference to domestic abuse.

I had wondered whether minds in the Government had been directed to the military and intelligence services outside the UK on this issue; my noble friend also mentioned the Baha Mousa case. But this is not the Bill for that. As he said, we have other legislation that we will come to soon, when we will also no doubt be considering the issue of rendition. But to leave open any suggestion that anyone should have free rein anywhere in the world because they are acting on behalf of the state is certainly something we want to see quashed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 7 in this group would ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are not covered by the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which provides that:

“The conduct that may be authorised under this Part includes conduct outside the United Kingdom.”


Amendment 9 in this group specifies that conduct outside of the United Kingdom may not be authorised under this Act and amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to similar effect as Amendment 7.

As far as I can see, the code of—[Inaudible]—covert operations occurring in UK embassies, military bases and detention facilities where the subject of investigation is a UK national or is likely to become the subject of criminal or civil proceedings in the UK, or if the operation is likely to affect a UK national or give rise to material likely to be used in evidence before a UK court.

The noble—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I think we have managed to re-establish connection with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Yes—I am in some difficulty, because I do not know how much of what I said was heard. I think the best thing I can do is to read the Minister’s response and see the extent to which it actually replied to the issues I raised. I think I had best leave it in that context.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the quality of their maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, told the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that as a young man he could still be in this House in 2070. I am not sure whether that was meant as a threat or a promise. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke about the day of, as I understand it, his maiden speech in the House of Commons and the sudden realisation that it was also his wedding anniversary. I can say only that I am heartened to find that there are others who teeter on the brink of having to look closely at the provisions of divorce law, particularly someone who was a distinguished and forensic senior detective.

This has been an interesting and informative afternoon and evening—nearly a night as well—enhanced by Members of this House who, without drawing attention to their expertise, can and do speak with real authority on the subjects covered by this debate. I hope that the Government will reflect on the many points made and not simply forget about what has been said today immediately the debate is brought to a conclusion, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

The gracious Speech contained a number of legislative announcements. One was a sentencing Bill which, in essence, will provide for what the Government describe as tougher sentences. That appears to be code for longer periods of time in prison and more extensive conditions attached to community sentences. Many would argue that the most effective sentence—indeed, a tougher sentence—is one that reduces to a realistically attainable minimum the likelihood of the offender reoffending once they have completed their sentence. That is certainly the sentence that best protects society, since the issue of bringing down reoffending rates is surely crucial to enhancing protection of the public. Can the Government say what measures in the gracious Speech they consider are geared to reducing the rate of reoffending? Is it their view that longer prison sentences and more extensive conditions attached to community sentences will impact on offending and reoffending rates? If so, in what way and to what extent?

Assaults on prison staff have increased considerably and are at their highest level ever recorded. That hardly suggests that our prisons and prison staff are being provided with the necessary resources to deliver effective rehabilitation programmes designed to reduce reoffending rates. There does not appear to be anything in the gracious Speech to address this issue. Indeed, if the prison population increases as a result of the terms of the proposed sentencing Bill, the position could get worse.

The gracious Speech does not appear to address the problems arising from the Government’s less-than-happy reorganisation of the delivery of probation services and their apparent belief that public sector delivery is always second best. If ever there was a reorganisation that was driven by the heart rather than the head, it was that one.

The gracious Speech promises a royal commission on the criminal justice process. Is it the intention that the royal commission will cover everything from reporting a crime through to sentencing? What is it from the Government’s perspective that has led them to the view that a royal commission is needed?

Of course, this is not the only commission that is apparently to be set up. There will also be a constitution, democracy and rights commission, about which much has been said today but which will not be an independent royal commission. Its role will be to ensure that checks and balances in our democracy work for everyone. I hope that proves to be the case rather than “work for the Government”, because this Government are acquiring a track record of threatening any power that challenges them, including the Supreme Court. There is a whiff of vengeance in the air, with talk of changing the arrangements for the appointment of judges and restricting judicial review. We have seen in some other countries how easy it is for democracies with effective checks and balances to have them weakened by elected leaders who believe that they should be immune from criticism or challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us that constitutional reform should be done by consent.

There are also concerns over government plans for photographic identification at polling stations and the impact it may have on the likelihood of some people voting, particularly those without passports or driving licences. No one of course would condone the actions of people who vote using someone else’s identity, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has said, this does not appear to be a major problem. In addressing the issue, we should not introduce arrangements and processes that result in rather more people who are entitled to vote no longer doing so when compared with the number of cases of people voting under false identities.

On the issue of voting, can the Government say what the measures are in the gracious Speech that prevent people with two or more properties in different constituencies who are entitled to vote in each location at local elections from voting in more than one constituency at a general election? What check is there to ensure that this cannot happen, and how many people have been the subject of criminal prosecutions for voting in more than one constituency in the three general elections prior to the one last month?

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to the Government’s commitment to a consultation on many of the same issues regarding trust in our institutions and democracy as those covered by the Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, he suggested that the consultation be based on the report of the Select Committee due in June this year. I hope that I am accurate about what the noble Lord said; if I am not, I apologise in advance, but can the Government indicate their willingness to consider such a course of action in relation to that report?

A number of speakers referred to the rundown in police numbers and the pledges made to reverse the cuts. My noble friend Lord Bach spoke very powerfully on this issue, as a serving police and crime commissioner. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said the Government would be recruiting 20,000 extra officers over the next three years. As has been pointed out, to reverse the cuts since 2010, a figure of nearer 40,000 police officers will need to be recruited over three years to achieve a net increase of 20,000. Can the Government confirm that 40,000 officers will need to be recruited? Can they confirm, or otherwise, what my noble friend Lord Bach said, which is that £120 million of the £750 million the Government are likely to allocate to fund police officer recruitment will have to be funded by so-called efficiency savings after a decade of austerity?

A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan, referred to the lack of emphasis in the gracious Speech on the current threat to the future of the union. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, has undertaken an independent review into the UK Government’s union capability—I think he said he has completed it. I stress that I speak only for myself when saying that I feel he has been asked to carry out a finger-in-the-dyke job, and that the issue of independence for Scotland is now nearer to being a case of when, not if. I hope I am proved wrong.

In the opening speech the Government spoke about ending free movement and taking back control of our borders. What does taking back control of our borders mean when a recent tragic event has shown that a large number of people can apparently die in a container brought into this country through a recognised and established port of entry without being detected? Can the Government say which measure or measures in the gracious Speech would prevent a similar tragic event happening again? Clearly, if the Government cannot prevent people being brought into this country in containers through recognised ports of entry, they can hardly claim to be taking control of our borders.

Finally, an Oral Question today asked about children involved in county lines drugs gangs being seen as victims, not criminals, a point the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester referred to in his speech. In Wiltshire alone, hardly the most heavily populated county, police have stated that almost 100 children are at risk of being exploited by county lines gangs and £50,000 is spent on heroin and crack cocaine every day. Bearing in mind the reduction nationally in funding, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, what is there in the gracious Speech to address the growing issue of child exploitation through county lines, about which we have known for some time now? Are the Government considering a definition in law of child criminal exploitation?

Many points and questions have been addressed to the Government in this debate. Now is the opportunity for the Government to respond in a meaningful way and indicate that, at the very least, they will reflect on what has been said over the last six and a half hours or so.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

History tells us that we cannot rely on the press to regulate itself or on politicians who, as we know, are subject to manifold pressures from the press which they often find it difficult to stand up against. We need Section 40, and we need the amendment which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has moved this afternoon in order to clarify what is being asked for.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, when the amendments moved on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, were discussed, the Government said that they did not believe that they would achieve the outcome she was seeking since the relevant clause dealt with the interception of private telecommunications systems, such as a company’s internal email or telephone system. The fact that the noble Baroness has been permitted the amendment before us at Third Reading suggests that it is accepted that it seeks to address the point made by the Government on Report; namely, that the amendments that were carried on Report do not achieve the outcome the noble Baroness is seeking.

I understand the Government oppose this amendment. Perhaps they will argue that this amendment also does not achieve the objective the noble Baroness is seeking. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, reminded us, on Report the Government said that they fully understand that many noble Lords, particularly those who have been victims of press abuse, are frustrated about what they see as a lack of progress towards implementing the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry report, albeit that the Government went on to say that they did not accept that that frustration was justified.

I am not able to comment personally on whether this latest amendment, which was tabled at a very late stage, achieves its purpose or not. But I do know that the Government do not seem to have been particularly helpful so far in seeking to assist with what wording would achieve the purpose sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the other noble Lords who are signatories to the amendment concerned, bearing in mind these were amendments which, on Report, had the support of the House.

On Report, the Government accepted the commencement provision amendments, while making it clear that that did not mean that they had accepted, or would be accepting, the earlier amendment related to Leveson which had been passed by the House. Despite that earlier stance, the Government do not appear to have been willing to adopt the same approach to getting the wording right, in their view, for the amendment carried in this House on Report.

We will support this amendment if it is put to a vote. Therefore, if it is carried, the Government will have another opportunity, albeit in the Commons, to put forward wording which achieves the objective sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and indeed up to now by this House in relation to this amendment and amendments already carried on Leveson-related issues, before the Commons makes a decision on whether to accept or reject the amendments passed by this House or to put forward an alternative amendment of its own.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, we discussed this issue in some detail on Report. As we previously made clear, the cause of action, or tort, provided for in Clause 8 is intended to replicate the safeguard in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This focuses on circumstances where an individual’s communications are intercepted on a private telecommunications system by a person who has the right to control the operation or use of that system. This was a necessary safeguard to protect individuals, in very limited circumstances, where their employer may unfairly be intercepting communications on a company’s internal computer system, which is not within the scope of the offence of unlawful interception.

A number of noble Lords have spoken about the objective of the amendment. With great respect, the fundamental difficulty is that it really has nothing to do with the purpose or purposes of Clause 8. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested, simply a case of deleting “private” and substituting “public” , or of seeking to amend the proposed amendment at this stage or to improve it—it simply has no place in the clause. Clause 8 was not intended to regulate the press or to deal with awarding costs in circumstances where such a case is brought against a publisher. It simply has no application in this context. I quite understand the concerns about Section 40 that have been expressed, and the question of commencements is understood and is under consideration. But to amend Clause 8 in this way is to ignore the very purpose of this part of the Bill.

The Bill already provides for a criminal offence where an individual has unlawfully intercepted communications. An individual convicted of such a crime is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine or indeed both. So anyone carrying out phone hacking would face, under this Bill, a criminal conviction. That is a significant penalty and, in our view, the appropriate penalty for such an offence.

As we made clear in the previous debate, there are already avenues for individuals to pursue civil claims against those who carry out unlawful interception such as phone hacking. For example, cases have been brought on the grounds of misuse of private information. Although I agree with the noble Baroness that the outcome of Leveson and press regulation are very important issues, I maintain that this Bill, and in particular Clause 8, is not the appropriate place to deal with them. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

Let me take this opportunity to say that, while very differing views have been expressed in this House about the Bill, I believe it is accepted that it has benefited significantly from the attention it has been given through pre-legislative scrutiny and investigation, including by a Joint Committee, and during its passage through both Houses. We have now concluded our consideration of the Bill, and I want to take this opportunity to thank Ministers and the Bill team for the thought they have given to the issues that have been raised, including those left outstanding following the Bill’s passage through the Commons. Finally, I want to thank our own team, particularly Nicola Jayawickreme, for all the help and support they have given me and my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this takes us to Clause 208 concerning additional functions. Clause 208(1)—there should be a limit on the size of Bills so that one can handle them easily—provides that a judicial commissioner must give the tribunal the documents and so on as the tribunal requires. The first of my amendments would substitute “request” for “require”. These words are often used as synonyms, but the use of “require” suggests that the documents and information—the matters mentioned in Clause 208(1) —are objectively necessary for the tribunal. I should have thought that the tribunal would have the scope to ask for what it wanted, because I think that one can rely on it not to be frivolous in making requests.

I should have said that I would be speaking to Amendments 191L, 192A, 192B, 192C and 194G. Government Amendment 192 is also in this group. Amendment 191L relates to Clause 210 concerning annual reports. It would require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to report on the operation of the Act. He or she will have a great deal of experience of far more than simply the functions of the judicial commissioners, as provided for in the Bill. Again, I may be told that this is not necessary because the IPC can always make suggestions about changes to the Act or how it is applied, but in their Amendment 192 the Government have added to the list of non-exclusive items in this clause, and that very amendment suggests to us that it would be appropriate to add our words. The operational purposes are a step removed from the judicial commissioners’ functions, so I do not think that our amendment is out of place. Amendment 192A is consequential.

With regard to Amendment 192B, David Anderson, at paragraph 2.26(g) of his report, wrote:

“The operation of current bulk interception powers is subject to the audit of IOCCO, including its technical inspectorate, and will in future be audited by the IPC. The 2015 ISC Report recommended that the oversight body be given express authority to review the selection of bearers, the application of simple selectors and initial search criteria, and the complex searches which determine which communications are read. That authority is (I am assured by the Home Office) inherent in clauses 205 and 211 of the Bill”.

In a footnote he referred to the Clause 205(5) duty on the IPC to,

“keep under review the operation of safeguards to protect privacy”.

Clause 205 is a general oversight clause. Clause 211 applies to the judicial commissioner in a particular case.

I baulked at the task of trying to deal with the terms “bearers”, “simple selectors”, “initial search criteria” and “complex searches”, so I have opted for a more straightforward amendment to get on record, I hope, the assurance to which Mr Anderson refers—that the authority to review these matters is inherent in Clauses 205 and 211— together with an explanation as to the application of the authority raised by the ISC. I am fairly certain that I have provided this explanation to officials. I hope that the Minister is aware of this and that his briefing covers it—he is looking puzzled—because I sent it to the officials last week. If not, he will perhaps wish to come back to it after today.

Amendment 192 is about the definition of a “relevant person” for the purposes of the judicial commissioner’s powers under the clause. The clause includes “any member of a public authority”. However, given the definitions in other legislation, “a public authority” is not fully defined. My background, as is that of our new Home Office Ministers, is in local government. Therefore, when I hear the term “elected member”, it suggests an elected member, not the authority itself. The authorities listed in Schedule 4 suggest that the schedule is talking about the authorities, not members of authorities. So when a “relevant person” has to disclose documents, provide assistance and so on, who are we talking about? Who is a board member of, say, HMRC or a government department? I do not know and the amendment seeks to understand that term.

Amendment 194G is concerned with the commissioners keeping the performance of the board under review. The TAB annual report stated:

“At the next review the Terms of Reference should be expanded to include sponsor’s obligations, based on Cabinet Office guidance. This should include the requirement to review the performance of the TAB annually, although the scope to carry out such a review will be limited unless and until its main advisory function is called upon”.

The amendment seeks to add that comment to the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Perhaps I might raise a couple of points: one on an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and another on government Amendment 192, to which I assume the Minister will be speaking in his response.

The noble Baroness referred to paragraph 2.26(g) of the Anderson report. Without going through the whole issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to David Anderson’s sentence at the end of that paragraph, which states:

“That authority is (I am assured by the Home Office) inherent in clauses 205 and 211 of the Bill”.

I, too, would be grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord repeat that the authority is inherent in Clauses 205 and 211, as David Anderson asked, so that it is very clearly on the record. If the Minister will do that, it will save having to pursue the matter at a later stage.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

216: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of immigration detention
(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which subsection (1) of section 32 comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission a report on detention under the following powers—
(a) paragraph 16(1), (1A) or (2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971,(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act,(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the process for, and detail of, introducing a statutory maximum limit on the length of time an individual can be detained under the relevant provision;(b) how to reduce the number of people detained under the relevant provision;(c) how to minimise the length of time an individual is detained under the relevant provision;(d) the effectiveness of detention in meeting the Secretary of State’s objectives; and(e) the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.(3) The report under subsection (1) must be prepared and published by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) The panel appointed under subsection (3) must be independently chaired.
(5) On completion of the report, the Chair of the panel must send it to the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of receiving the review.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Our Amendment 216 in the form of a new clause provides for an independently chaired report on immigration detention, including, among a number of other issues, looking at introducing a statutory limit on time in detention.

Detention takes place in what are called immigration removal centres. They are, as the name implies, intended for short-term stays. That, though, is not how they are always used now. The use of detention has expanded rapidly over the last two decades. In 1993, 250 detention places were available in the United Kingdom. At the beginning of last year, the figure had reached just over 3,900. The number of people starting detention in the year to June 2015 was just over 32,000—up 10% on the previous year. Yet Home Office policy is that detention should be used sparingly.

In the last Parliament, an all-party group looked at immigration detention. We are unusual in this country in having no limit on administrative detention for immigration purposes. The recommendation of the all-party group calling for the introduction of limits on indefinite immigration detention was endorsed by the House of Commons last September. Included in the evidence heard by the all-party group, which had parliamentarians from both Houses, and in which opposition members were in a minority, was a case of a young man who had been raped, tortured and trafficked before arriving in this country. He had been detained for three years in an immigration removal centre. The inquiry also heard evidence which reflected reported incidents of deaths and of allegations of sexual assault in immigration removal centres.

Home Office-stated aims are that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, those who have been tortured should not be detained, and that detention should be for the shortest possible time. There is clear evidence that these aims are not always achieved. The all-party group inquiry into immigration detention heard evidence that detention was worse than being in prison, since people in prison do at least know when they will be getting out. People in prison have also been convicted of an offence, unless they are on remand awaiting trial. For people in immigration detention, the uncertainty can be hard to take. Their life is in limbo. They are not told a great deal—or, indeed, perhaps anything—about how long they will have to stay, and they do not know whether they will be deported.

There is, I agree, little sympathy for people in immigration detention, which is precisely why the present situation goes on and on. The view, expressed to me again in a conversation two days ago—last Saturday, is that those coming to this country are doing it only for the benefits they can obtain and for the use of our National Health Service. Unfortunately, too many of those in a position, and with the power, to influence public opinion on this issue choose to use their position and power to reinforce, rather than refute, that impression.

The all-party inquiry heard from medical people with knowledge in this field that the sense of being in limbo in immigration detention, and the hopelessness and despair it generates, leads to deteriorating mental health. One such witness said that those who are detained for more than 30 days have a significantly higher level of mental health problems. In the first three quarters of 2014, 37% of those detained were detained for longer than 28 days, even though 28 days reflects best practice in other countries. Home Office guidance provides for detention to be used only as a genuine last resort to effect removal.

The inquiry also heard from a person with knowledge as a team leader at the prisons inspectorate that lack of any time limit encourages poor casework and ineffective procedures. The evidence this person gave was that a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that the prisons inspectorate had considered were the result of inefficient casework rather than because it was inappropriate for people to be released.

Despite these places being called immigration removal centres, most people who leave detention do so for reasons other than being removed from the United Kingdom. According to government statistics, more than half the detainees are released back into this country. The system would therefore appear not only potentially damaging for those involved but expensive and a poor use of resources, since detaining someone costs £36,000 a year, with the overall cost being, as I understand it, just over £164 million—or some 165 times the figure the Government used in this House the other week to justify the new offence of illegal working because of the greater opportunity it was considered it would provide to secure more money under the Proceeds of Crime Act—namely, just under £1 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Indeed, and the sentence before the one which I quoted referred to a system,

“both … more protective of the welfare of vulnerable people and”,

delivering,

“better value for the taxpayer”.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I do not intend to say a great deal but, first, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate and for the views that have been expressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I believe that I did observe that we accept the broad thrust of his recommendations. At this stage, we have not determined which of the 64 individual recommendations we will implement. I cannot see that as surprising in the time available.

[Lord Rosser]

That comes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made about this legislation in relation to an inquiry that has just taken place. In my opening contribution, I commented that a statement that we are accepting the broad thrust of the recommendations is as long as a piece of string. Perhaps I can test the Minister on that. Recommendation 62 states:

“I recommend the Home Office give further consideration to ways of strengthening the legal safeguards against excessive length of detention”.

Is that one that the Government intend to accept? I am only asking about one recommendation out of 64. The Minister shakes his head. That makes my point.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With great respect, one could ask about one out of 64,000. It is not a question of which one but of addressing all of them in due course and in the context not necessarily of primary legislation but of the need for further guidance. The noble Lord has underlined the potential need for further guidance in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Well, I do not think the question was answered. Has the Minister any news about that? I appreciate that we are taking a long time on this, but the size and substance of the issue justifies it.

[Lord Rosser]

The reason for asking about recommendation 62 was that the Minister sought to tell us there was not a problem because people could apply for bail. But recommendation 62 is based on Mr Shaw looking at the situation with regard to bail. It is in the light of having looked at it that he said:

“I recommend that the Home Office give further consideration to ways of strengthening the legal safeguards against excessive length of detention”.

So I would have thought that the Minister, having referred to the very issue that prompted recommendation 62, might have a view on what the Government’s response was to it. But clearly there is silence from the Government on that particular score.

I do not know whether the Minister intends to respond to the question about the Home Office internal review. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said that he raised the question and has not had a response to it. Is there an internal Home Office review going on? I am obviously not going to get an answer, so it looks like a secret review.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There could well be a secret review, but in so far as there is an ongoing review, we will write to the noble Lord about its progress. However, I have mentioned the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised, about the short-term holding facility rules and the review of those rules. I indicated that we were going to consult on those draft rules in the light of the Shaw report.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the purpose of the Home Office internal review to decide whether to accept any or all of the Shaw report recommendations, or is it on another issue?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

There is an internal review, and I have already indicated that we will set out the position in writing.

[Lord Rosser]

That is a very interesting reply; the Minister is not prepared to tell me what the purpose of the review is. That is a fair comment, because he could have stood up and told me. I asked him the question and he has not answered it. I will just leave it in this context. We detain people who are not criminals for an unknown period of time as an administrative or executive decision and not as a judicial one at any meaningful stage. The message that has come over from the debate so far, in the absence of anything very specific from the Government, is that the Government find that situation entirely satisfactory. A number of noble Lords in the Committee this evening do not find that situation satisfactory. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 216 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Again, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for highlighting this point. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the requirement that non-visitor migrants of specified nationalities register with the police, and then lay before both Houses a report on that review. In our submission, such a review and report is not necessary.

The noble Baroness correctly identified that there is a police registration scheme. The provision is set out in Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971. The requirements to register with the police are specified in the Immigration Rules. The requirement to register with the police is normally placed on a migrant who is aged 16 or over, from a non-EU country and who is given leave for longer than six months. The requirement is to register within seven days of obtaining qualifying leave to enter or remain. There are a number of exceptions where the requirement will not usually apply, including ministers of religion, people exercising access rights to a child resident in the UK, and those granted refugee status.

The requirement to register with the police is not onerous. In the Metropolitan Police area, where there is the highest concentration of migrants required to register, there is a designated office in Borough. For all other police force areas, the individual should register at the nearest police registration office. As the noble Baroness noted, there is a registration fee, currently £34, which reflects the administration costs of the police registration certificate.

The noble Baroness mentioned an occasion when students were reported to have had to queue. In October 2012, some long queues of migrants, mainly students, were seeking to register at the London Overseas Visitors Records Office. OVRO made changes to its process following that incident, including providing pre-booked timeslots for migrants required to register, and I am advised that there has been no recurrence of those queues. Universities are also given the option of collating the relevant paperwork from their students who are required to register and delivering it to the OVRO in bulk. The police continue to work and engage with those involved to manage peak flows in registrations and to minimise any inconvenience from that. I accept that there was an occasion in 2012 when there were delays, but that has not repeated itself.

The information required for registration is all information that will be held by the individual, including personal details, a current photograph, passport details, address in the United Kingdom, their last place of residence outside the UK, and details of their employment and/or place of study. This information is then on record for the police and other law enforcement to access, as necessary, in order to maintain security.

The various requirements for those seeking to stay and live in the UK, as set out in the Immigration Rules, are periodically under review to ensure that they strike the right balance between immigration control and security in the UK. I believe that this current approach is proportionate, particularly in the current state of heightened security concerns, and it is unnecessary for there to be a statutory requirement for a formal review to be conducted and a report laid before both Houses. In light of these points, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

How many people should have registered under this arrangement in 2014, or any other year that the Minister is aware of, and how many did register? What is the penalty for not registering and how many people have been penalised for not registering?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his three questions and I will write in response to provide the detail, which I do not have immediately to hand at this moment. I hope that was not a surprise to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

It was not, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response.

[Baroness Hamwee]

When the Minister writes, will he explain what he described to me to be functions of UK Visas and Immigration—if I have its current title correct? It sounded as though a degree of duplication is required on the part of the police. One would have thought that the visa implications of all the administration, particularly around students, would have been taken care of without having to go to a central point to register. I agree that the amendment is not necessary, because it does not require an amendment for the Government to undertake a review. However, on the Minister’s comment that the arrangements are not onerous, I wonder why it was so specifically raised with us by Universities UK, which will no doubt read the comments and give us its response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.