Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my amendment would leave out Clause 80. The clause is consequential on a new clause from the Government that this House declined by a Division last week to add to the Bill. That new clause introduced the offence of “interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure”. What is now Clause 80 should surely not have been moved following that vote; it provides background detail for a power and a clause that do not exist. It starts off, for example, by saying:

“This section has effect for the purposes of section (Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure)”,


and goes on to define types of national infrastructure for the purpose of the Government’s new clause to which this House disagreed. My amendment would thus remove that non-operational clause from the Bill. I understand that the Government will not be opposing this necessary tidying-up amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for that. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to make the very simple point that even if the Government were not going to accept the amendment, the clause would be pretty nonsensical due to the very strange way in which it defines “national infrastructure”. It has a unique set of definitions that includes some things that would not normally be regarded as infrastructure and excludes other things that are critical to the nation and the way it operates.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who has explained that the amendment would remove Clause 80 from the Bill. It defines “key national infrastructure” for the purposes of the Government’s proposed offence of interfering with the operation or use of key national infrastructure. Of course, I was extremely disappointed that the House voted not to add this new offence to the Bill on Report. The proposed offence would help protect the British public from the misery that certain individuals targeting our key national infrastructure have been able to cause.

The Government fully defend the right to peaceful protest, but we stand behind the British public in protecting them from the serious disruption caused by some who think their right to protest trumps the rights of the public to go about their daily lives. That said, the fact remains that as your Lordships did not support the introduction of the new offence, we are not going to play games: what is now Clause 80 of the Bill is redundant, and, consequently, the Government will not oppose this amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 194 and to a further amendment in this group, Amendment 201SB. As far as Amendment 194 is concerned, as has been said, it provides that a police officer may not use a Taser or electroshock weapon during deployment on a psychiatric ward. The purpose of adding my name to this amendment is to raise concerns that have been expressed to us about what is, in effect, a police response to what one might have thought was a clinical emergency but which has the potential effect of appearing to criminalise highly vulnerable people. I accept, though, that there could be very exceptional circumstances where a police officer might have to use a Taser during deployment on a psychiatric ward.

In response to this debate, perhaps the Government could provide figures on the extent of the use of Tasers or other devices by the police on psychiatric wards over the last 12-month period for which figures are available, and on the varying extent to which the trusts concerned called in the police and why there are such variations. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, clearly has similar information to that which I have been given. I have been told that there are trusts which call in the police literally hundreds of times a year. It would be helpful if the Government could say in response whether they accept that that is true and why they think it happens. If the police are called in on frequent occasions, is the heart of the problem that results in them being called in in that way either inadequate numbers of staff on duty to cope with situations that arise, or is it due in any way to inadequate or insufficient training of staff?

The second amendment which I have in this group calls for a review of Tasers, including in places of custody, and the extent to which there is or is not a disproportionate use of Tasers against black and minority ethnic groups. Once again, this concern has been raised with us—hence the amendment—and it was highlighted following an incident which led to the death of a former well-known footballer. I simply ask: what procedures exist to ensure that there is transparency and scrutiny over the use of Tasers? What information is kept of the details of those against whom Tasers are deployed, including age, gender and ethnicity? What requirement is there for the use of Tasers to be reported immediately and to whom?

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have just seen the letter sent yesterday to Charles Walker MP from the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service on the use of Tasers in mental health settings. No doubt in her response the Minister will seek to place on record in Hansard the thrust of the terms of that letter and the circular that has been sent to police and crime commissioners, chief constables and the chairs of local mental health crisis care concordat partnerships in England. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will seek to respond to my questions insofar as they can, bearing in mind that the circular states that at present there are no reliable data on the frequency or scale of any Taser use in mental health settings.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the words expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dear. When I first saw this amendment I could see what it was trying to achieve: a laudable objective, based on the fact that many mental health units are incapable of dealing effectively with some of the patients they have on their wards, and that the police are called to deal with incidents in an unacceptable number of instances. Quite frankly, I suspect that whatever is going on in some of those mental health settings, they are not finding all the appropriate ways of dealing with and de-escalating violence which one would expect their specialist training to deliver. The number of times that the police are called is of concern.

However, when I saw the amendment I thought it was a silly—fatuous was the word that first came to mind—response to what was proposed. The point is that if there is a very serious incident and a major crime of violence is being committed, the police have to be called. It is then a question of what the most appropriate response is. A few months ago, a mental health nurse was murdered by a patient in a Croydon mental health unit. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, suggesting that it would have been inappropriate in the circumstances in which the police were called to that unit not to have found ways of restraining the patient concerned, given that it was necessary to deal with them? Then there was a mental health nursing assistant who was murdered by a patient in Gloucester in 2014, because the patient had returned from authorised leave with a 10-inch kitchen knife. These are serious incidents that require an appropriate and proportional response. What does the noble Baroness think should have been done in those incidents? The situation was that they had got out of hand in both instances and individuals died, presumably as a consequence of the mental health unit not being able to manage the incident. The effect of Amendment 194 would be that had there been a police officer equipped with a Taser in the immediate vicinity, he could not have discharged it. The noble Baroness may think that something other than a Taser should be used.

The argument about where Tasers sit in the spectrum of potential uses of force by the police is one which will no doubt continue. But although there have been instances where someone has died perhaps as a consequence of repeated Taser use, it is also the case that people have died because of the use of other forms of force. Hitting somebody across the side of the head with a baton is also potentially likely to cause death. Indeed, it may be better for the patient or individual concerned to be tasered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked grandly about the UN saying that these were weapons of torture. The UN definition of the term “torture” is:

“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official”.

I fail to see how that UN definition of torture could be applied to the circumstances we are talking about of an emergency in a mental health ward where the police have been called. I understand that the use of the word “torture” related to the particular way in which Tasers—I think we are supposed to call them conductive electric devices or something equally opaque—were issued in a particular unit of the Portuguese police force. I have no idea under what circumstances that particular unit of the Portuguese police force was planning to use Tasers, but I assume that the use of the word by the UN was very specific, bearing in mind its definition of torture.

If we pass this amendment, the only alternative when the police have been called because of a major incident—an assault, somebody at the risk of losing their life or somebody already having lost their life and a danger to others—when a Taser cannot be used would be the use of a real firearm, which would be likely to kill the individual concerned, or a baton, which can be just as damaging, particularly in restricted and difficult circumstances. I do not think that makes any sense at all.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Monday 25th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I echo the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, because I do not understand what this clause is about. Maybe it is my failure to read it properly, but this seems to be about a mechanism for challenging process. It is not an appeals process so it does not do what is says on the tin or in the Explanatory Notes. This is solely about the validity of orders. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is concerned about the Ramblers’ Association acting on behalf of ramblers who use a path. The association would only be able to challenge an order on the basis that the local authority did not have the power to make that order, or the particular variations, or that it had not complied with the process described elsewhere in this clause. I rather assumed that an appeal would be for somebody to look again at the principles going into that decision, not whether the process was followed correctly. This is not the clause described in the Explanatory Notes. It is something very different.

If it is the Government’s intention to create an appeal mechanism of some sort, this is not it. However, if the Government’s intention, irrespective of what is said in the Explanatory Notes, is to provide a mechanism for challenging the validity of the process, I do not understand why we have this one, given that all those cases would be amenable—as I understand it—to judicial review. It would be helpful if the Minister told us if this clause is meant to reflect what is said in the Explanatory Notes or what it says in the clause heading “Challenging the validity of orders”. If it is the latter, what is the point of having nicely bound Explanatory Notes that do not tell us the Government’s intentions?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords—

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of this group of amendments is to place a duty on the director-general of the National Crime Agency to notify police and crime commissioners before making a request to a chief constable to perform a task under Clause 5. Likewise, a similar duty is placed on a chief constable to notify the police and crime commissioner before making a request of the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task. The amendments also place a duty on the director-general to “make every reasonable effort” to notify the appropriate police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for that police and crime commissioner’s area.

We had a debate on this issue in Committee when an amendment was moved referring to the director-general consulting the police and crime commissioner responsible for the policing of an area. The amendments today refer to notifying the police and crime commissioner. Without wanting to repeat everything that was said in Committee, one has to go over the argument again to some extent. A police and crime commissioner for a police area has a statutory duty to secure the maintenance of the police force for their area, to ensure that the police force is efficient and effective and to hold the chief constable to account for a wide range of duties and responsibilities, including the effectiveness and efficiency of the chief constable’s arrangements for co-operating with other persons in the exercise of the chief constable’s function. The police and crime commissioner will also be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan, which is required by law to set out a number of matters including the policing of the police area which the chief officer of police is to provide. However, it currently appears to be possible, under the terms of the Bill, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to come to an agreement with the chief officer of a UK police force for that chief officer to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance in relation to resources or impact, on behalf of the director-general or, alternatively, for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance on behalf of the chief officer of a UK police force without any apparent duty in either case even to tell the elected police and crime commissioner, despite the significant statutory responsibilities the police and crime commissioner has in relation to their police force.

If the director-general of the National Crime Agency was requesting the chief officer of a UK police force to carry out a task which could well have an impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the police force in question or on their ability to deliver or adhere to the police and crime plan, one would have thought that it was a matter on which the director-general of the National Crime Agency should be required at least to notify the police and crime commissioner. Likewise, if the chief officer of a UK police force found it necessary to request the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task on behalf of or in support of that police force, there should be a duty on the chief officer first to notify—that is what the amendment now calls for—the police and crime commissioner who, after all, might want to satisfy himself or herself that this was not a task that their own police force should be competent and capable of performing and that the request to the director-general was not, in reality, seeking to cover up a weakness in the performance of their police force.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the Government’s response was that we were putting forward amendments that would put at risk the operational independence of chief constables. We said at the time that that seemed a bit rich. Bearing in mind that our amendments state “has first notified”, it would be stretching it a bit if the Minister were to tell us again that we are putting at risk operational independence. Clearly, if directions are being issued to a chief constable by the director-general of the National Crime Agency they could well, under the terms of the Bill, be of a magnitude, size and scope that could call into question the ability of that chief constable to adhere to or deliver the plans and strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner.

It was also said in Committee that if the director-general of the National Crime Agency had to consult the police and crime commissioner that would cause delay and it might be an emergency. We have sought to address that issue, unlikely though it would be to arise, by once again referring in the amendment to the director-general having to make “every reasonable effort” to notify the police and crime commissioner before issuing a direction to the chief constable for their particular area.

I hope that the Minister’s response will be more helpful than the one we received in Committee. In the wording of the Bill there are no parameters laid down which means that, on the key issue of the director-general of the NCA being able to come to either a voluntary arrangement with or, if he feels it necessary, give a direction to a chief constable, this could be of unlimited scope and have a very considerable impact on the ability of that chief constable to deliver the strategic objectives of the police and crime commissioner for the area. That there is no requirement at all for the director-general even first to notify the police and crime commissioner could, indeed, have an effect on the ability to deliver, for a period of time, effective policing in that area. That is the purpose of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a more sympathetic response than the one we received in Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have been trying to work out how this Bill was prepared and I can only assume that there was collective amnesia in the part of the Home Office that was preparing it about their other major piece of legislation, which created police and crime commissioners. The mentions of police and crime commissioners in this Bill are few and far between. Had it not been so vigorously resisted by the Minister in Committee, I would have assumed that it was a simple drafting error not to include that the police and crime commissioner should be informed or, better still, consulted—although today’s amendment possibly moves us away from that—about a possible direction or requirement for the use of resources in their area.

Has the Home Office really thought about the practical politics that will arise and the consequences that may flow from failing to put this very simple provision into the Bill? Put yourself into the position of someone who has been elected earlier this month to the position of police and crime commissioner. They sit there with all the majesty of their electoral mandate: many of them have had as much as 4% of the electorate in their areas voting for them, so they know that they have the people behind them. It is clear that they have a substantial, legislative obligation on behalf of the communities they represent, whether it is the 4% or all 100% of them, to hold the chief constable to account for the use of policing resources in that area. That is what the legislation that we spent so many happy hours debating a year or so back was all about. Yet here is a provision in the Bill which enables the director-general of the National Crime Agency to require the use, either by direction or agreement, of police forces in their area.

I can conceive of circumstances in which police and crime commissioners have been elected having said very clearly that their prime focus is going to be on local crime concerns in their particular patch and that they want “zero tolerance”—a number of them did in fact say in their manifestos and websites that they wanted zero tolerance of crime on the streets of their particular area. However, they are suddenly told—or they find out, perhaps because their chief constables tell them, they read it in the newspapers or hear some gossip—that a substantial proportion of the local resources that they thought were going to be devoted to keeping street crime and burglary down in the areas of their mandate is being diverted to some, no doubt very important, serious crime operation. You are likely to then get precisely the sort of row about operational policing that we have said we do not wish to see between police and crime commissioners and chief constables, because police and crime commissioners will suddenly discover that the resources that they thought were being devoted to dealing with crime in their patch are being diverted to another—no doubt very worthy and important—area.

The very simple, practical and political—with a small “p”—way of doing this is to have an obligation on the director-general to at least inform, if not consult, the police and crime commissioner. That might perhaps ensure that, because they hear it first from the National Crime Agency—the people who are making the request—they have an understanding of it. That is much more likely to be acceptable to a police and crime commissioner than their hearing about it from some other source. I wonder why the Home Office, having devoted so much energy, effort and even money into having police and crime commissioners elected, has then excluded them from this part of the Bill. Unless my noble friend’s amendment is passed, you are going to have a situation in which you almost encourage conflict and a reaction from police and crime commissioners saying, “I do not wish the see the resources of my police force area being diverted for those national or other purposes”. You will have created a conflict, because the police and crime commissioner does not have the right to be informed by the National Crime Agency of what is being done.

Maybe the Minister will tell us in a couple of minutes that his expectation is that the chief constable will explain it to the police and crime commissioner. It looks as though that may well be what is in the Minister’s brief. Of course there will be discussion and dialogue, but the common courtesy of the director-general of the National Crime Agency going to the police and crime commissioner to say, “I am about to make this request”, or, “I am asking your chief constable for this”, and, “These are the reasons”, will smooth the passage and make this work better. I cannot understand why, for the sake of a simple telephone call or e-mail, this has been omitted from the legislation. The reality is that it would not delay things, but would make them less liable to create conflict between the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable who has accepted the request from the National Crime Agency director-general, with the police and crime commissioner grandstanding about how he or she is fighting for the people of his or her area and about not having police services diverted to other functions because those services are there for the people of his or her community.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would delete the requirement on the director-general of the National Crime Agency to seek the consent of the Secretary of State before issuing a direction to the chief constable of the British Transport Police, as set out in Clause 5(9). There does not seem to be, in Clause 5, a similar requirement for the director-general to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to a direction to perform a task that is given to the chief officer of an England and Wales police force, as opposed to the chief constable of the British Transport Police.

Schedule 3(8) provides for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to direct, among others, a chief officer of an England and Wales police force, and the chief constable of the British Transport Police, to provide specified assistance to the National Crime Agency, subject to the appropriate consent being given to the direction—meaning that of the Secretary of State in relation to the chief officer of a police force. However, Schedule 3 appears to remain silent on whether the consent of the Secretary of State is required for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to give a direction to provide specified assistance to the chief constable of the British Transport Police—unless of course the chief constable of the British Transport Police is included within the reference to a “chief officer of” a “police force”.

I accept that we may not have correctly understood the wording in the parts of the Bill to which I have just referred. I am sure that if we have not, the Minister will point that out. However, if we have understood it correctly, can the Minister explain the significance or otherwise of the necessity for the director-general of the NCA to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to give a direction only to the chief constable of the British Transport Police appearing in Clause 5, when that clause also deals with directions being given to the chief officer of an England and Wales police force; and the significance or otherwise of the necessity for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to give a direction only to a chief officer of an England and Wales police force appearing in Schedule 3, when that schedule also deals with directions being given to the chief constable of the British Transport Police?

Why is the necessity for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to seek the consent of the Secretary of State to the giving of a direction to both a chief officer of an England and Wales police force, and the chief constable of the British Transport Police, not dealt with in the same place in the Bill, whether at Clause 5 or Schedule 3, instead of being split, as appears to be the case at present? I accept that Clause 5 and Schedule 3 may address different circumstances, hence the difference in wording. Such a distinction between Clause 5 and Schedule 3 does seem to be drawn in Part 5 of Schedule 3, addressing the issue of payments. No doubt the Minister will clarify the position in his reply.

Amendment 39 would remove the requirement for the consent of the Secretary of State to be given. The Minister’s response to these amendments may address some of the points we wish to raise under Amendment 39.

Finally, as we are dealing with the issue of directions being given by the director-general, the Minister said at Second Reading that the Bill provides that the director-general should, in exceptional circumstances, be able to direct police forces in England and Wales. Can he tell us where in the Bill it states, “in exceptional circumstances”?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, readying himself to answer on this amendment. Perhaps he can answer my simple question. We listened to the protestations of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the amendments that we just considered were completely unworkable because of the use of the word “must”, and that there would be circumstances in which urgent matters and urgent operational needs had to be dealt with. Why do we now find a clause in the schedule which says that before you can get the British Transport Police to do anything, the prior approval of the Secretary of State has to be obtained?

When the noble Earl reads his note, perhaps he could also say whether a fine distinction is being drawn between a direction and a request? If so, perhaps he could also tell us what is the status of the British Transport Police Authority. Does it have no say in the matter? Is it simply for the Secretary of State? I assume that we are here talking about the Secretary of State for Transport, although I understand that there is always a fiction in our legislative process whereby Secretaries of State are indivisible. I assume that, before a direction can be given, the Secretary of State for Transport must be found, diverted from whatever consideration she or he might be giving to high-speed rail, airports or whatever, and told that there is an urgent operational direction needed by the British Transport Police. How is that really meant to work?

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for introducing the subject of child trafficking into the Committee today. One reason why it is so important that we look at what should or should not be written into the Bill about child trafficking, human trafficking, child exploitation and so on is the concern that there will be, from those who are concerned with these issues, that somehow these matters will get lost in the new National Crime Agency. I recall the concern expressed when SOCA was set up about what was to happen to the high-tech crime unit. It appeared to disappear completely. Because that unit had disappeared into the new agency, it was not apparent to those who had been working with it whether those activities were still continuing as time went on. There is a very real concern that some of these issues about child exploitation, human trafficking and so on may disappear or not be given the same priority.

Part of that comes back to what I suspect may not be included in this much vaunted framework document, which is: what governance and external-facing relationships is the National Crime Agency going to have? CEOP, for example, has a highly regarded partnership structure that relates to other organisations which are active in the field. It relates to those technology companies and to all sorts of organisations which need to work with it to help deal with child online exploitation. The danger is that unless we are told explicitly that these activities will carry on and that those relationships with external agencies will continue, some of them will disappear. There is a real fear about some of these activities and relationships as far as CEOP is concerned, which is why we are seeing amendments such as the one before us that are trying to pin down what the responsibilities will be on issues such as trafficking and child exploitation. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance that these issues will be dealt with explicitly in the framework document, so that we can be reassured that the National Crime Agency will continue to have robust external relationships on this range of issues.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has long championed the issue of child victims of human trafficking, having had, I believe, a Private Member’s Bill in the last Session and an amendment to the Protection of Freedoms Bill to introduce a system of guardians for child victims who enter the system. His amendments today, however, relate to including in the NCA’s statutory functions a duty to fulfil the requirements of the EU directive on human trafficking. They also provide that the functions of the National Crime Agency would include the functions of the UK Human Trafficking Centre and of CEOP. We support this group of amendments as a means of strengthening the requirement on the Government to implement the directive fully and of providing clear roles and responsibilities for the NCA on trafficking, including child trafficking, since there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, as the noble Lord and others have said.

The Home Office has itself acknowledged that some 32% of child victims went missing from care between 2005 and 2009, with many being abducted back by their traffickers. The guardians system, which was the subject of the amendment tabled to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, is advocated by UNICEF and leading children’s charities as a means of ensuring continuity of care and continuous oversight of trafficked children who have been taken into care by the state. At the Report stage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, as I recollect it, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, did not move his amendment, which would have placed a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce the guardians system for child victims of human trafficking, because of assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, gave that the Government would commission a report by the Children’s Commissioner into ways to improve retention of child victims in care.

As has been said, this is a particularly topical issue as the Children’s Minister has accepted that the system is failing in preventing children in care going missing, as revealed in the report published today by the All-Party Group on Runaway and Missing Children and Adults, to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already referred. Its report stated that vulnerable young people are being systematically let down. The Children’s Minister has, I believe, promised urgent action to address the problems that have been identified. It seems that there are big discrepancies between police and Department for Education figures, as has already been said. The DfE last year said that 930 children went missing, whereas the police estimate that 10,000 children in care went missing. We need accurate and reliable figures, since going missing is regarded as a key indicator that children are open to the risk of abuse. Indeed, one of the main reasons that the all-party group felt led to children running away was that 46% of children in children’s homes were placed away from their home town.

Considering today’s report by the all-party group and statement by the Children’s Minister that children are being “systematically let down” by the care system in failing to prevent them going missing, are the Government going to introduce a system of guardians or legal advocates for child victims of human trafficking, who are among the most vulnerable children in our care? The Government declined to accept the amendment to introduce guardians for child victims of human trafficking at Report on the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is now of course an Act. Instead, they said that they would commission a report from the Children’s Commissioner to investigate measures to mitigate the number of trafficked children who go missing from care. When will the Children’s Commissioner actually report, and what steps are the Government intending to take in the mean time to protect these children and reduce the substantial number who go missing from care?

There is also the question of how this Bill and its provisions will help to address the situation that many of your Lordships have so eloquently identified already in this debate. Under this Bill, the National Crime Agency absorbs the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Can the Minister spell out how the Government believe that this will improve the situation? How will CEOP retain its own identity and operational independence and what assurances can the Government give that its integration into the National Crime Agency will not adversely affect its ability to protect children or to continue its multiagency approach, which might be put at risk if the National Crime Agency were seen as primarily a policing organisation? Which areas will CEOP continue to lead on in future in relation to trafficked and missing children and will there, as has already been asked, be any split of related functions in this area within the National Crime Agency that might lead to some cases falling between two stools, or rather between two agencies or organisations?

I repeat that we support these amendments and I very much hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to address the many points that have been raised.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendments in this group remove the distinction that the Bill makes between supervised and unsupervised work with children in regulated activities. The Bill would restrict the definition of roles that fall under “regulated activity” and would mean that employers would not be required to do CRB checks for many employees working with, and in close proximity to, children.

Furthermore, employers would not be able to access information on whether that individual had been barred from working with children and vulnerable adults. I note the further safeguards that the Government have introduced following Committee, which amend the definition of “supervised” as specifically that which is reasonable for the protection of the children concerned. That is a step forward and clarifies that organisations and employers in regulated activity are under a statutory duty to provide adequate supervision for the safety of those children. However, without the ability to access information as to whether an individual had been barred from working with children, it is not clear how the Government expect organisations to discharge such a responsibility adequately. They appear, in effect, to be placing the burden of responsibility wholly on to organisations for the protection of children while denying them access to key information.

Perhaps more seriously, the Government’s proposed amendment to the definition of supervision fails to recognise the serious issue of secondary access, which has been raised by numerous children’s charities and voluntary organisations. Many cases of child abuse do not occur in a place of regulated activity such as a school or sports club but in other unregulated, unsupervised places, as a result of the trust they forge with both the child and the parent through their position of authority and as a result of the assumption that that individual has been adequately vetted by the organisation. The case of Barry Bennell demonstrates just how such relationships can develop over many years, outside the supervision of a regulated activity. That individual received a long jail sentence for the serial abuse of young boys over a period of years when he was a scout for north-west and midlands junior football teams. He gained secondary access to players through his position and invited the boys to stay with him at his home or took them on tours to various places where he sexually abused them.

Revising and re-revising the definition of supervision through guidelines and amendments is not enough and will not stop men like that from gaining the trust of children and their parents by working without any checks in close and sustained contact with children. I know the Government are determined to remove what they regard as unnecessary regulation, but regulation is often about protecting and safeguarding people—often vulnerable people—from the potentially careless, irresponsible or criminal acts of others. The Government should think hard about the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the potential consequences of the exemption of supervised workers and volunteers, which means that not all those working in regular contact with children and vulnerable adults are regulated.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

It is unfortunate that we are debating these amendments at this time of night in a fairly sparse Chamber. I fear that in a few years time people will look back on this debate and say, “Why did Parliament not do more? Why was Parliament so happy to allow those changes to go through without further checks and cautions?”. I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for his amendments. He is quite right to say that a balance has to be struck and that no system will necessarily protect all children against abuse and against predators. However, the omission that is being created by this Bill is enormous. It is saying that if a volunteer, or someone working with children, is subject to supervision, they do not have to be checked at all. The reality is that parents send their child to a school or a club because they assume that it is a safe place. They assume, therefore, that the people who will be in contact with their child at that school, that club or that activity are also safe. I suspect that unless they pore over the details of our debate, which I am sure is not the case, they will assume that all those people are being checked against these registers and lists. Of course they will not be. They are volunteers or they are under the day-to-day supervision that is envisaged.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Harris of Haringey

Thursday 9th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I hesitated before speaking because I intend to be very brief and I was of the view that I would probably finish before everybody had managed to leave the Chamber if I started straight away.

Police authorities currently are covered by the Standards Board for England, but this will not be the case with the new police and crime panels provided for in the Bill. The amendment provides for guidance to continue to be given by the Standards Board for England in relation to the conduct of chief commissioners, members and co-opted members of police and crime panels and the police commissions in England and Wales, and also on the matter of the qualifications and experience that monitoring officers should possess. The current legislation states:

“In exercising its functions the Standards Board for England must have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of relevant authorities in England. … The Standards Board for England … may issue guidance to relevant authorities in England and police authorities in Wales on matters relating to the conduct of members and co-opted members of such authorities”.

If the situation is that while police authorities are currently covered by the Standards Board for England but that this will not be the case for the new police and crime panels—indeed, I understand that it is the Government’s intention to abolish the Standards Board—the purpose of this amendment is to ask what the Government intend to do in future in relation, for example, to the new police and crime panels. Is it intended to replicate the functions currently carried out by the Standards Board as far as, for example, the new police and crime panels are concerned and, if so, by which individual, body or organisation? One would have thought that since one of the key functions of the Standards Board for England is to have regard to the need to promote and maintain high standards of conduct, that would be even more important in relation to the new bodies and organisations that will be established under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill that we are discussing. One finds it difficult to believe that the Government do not intend to provide some sort of substitute for the Standards Board for England, if it is their intention to abolish it, and that they do not intend to ensure that similar guidance is not going to be issued in future in order to maintain high standards of conduct in relation to, among other bodies, the police and crime panels. The purpose of this amendment is to seek to ascertain from the Government what their intentions are in this regard. I beg to move.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I rise first to speak in support of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. To some extent, we touched on these matters at an earlier stage. The absence of a standards regime for these new bodies which are going to be responsible for the oversight of the police service in England and Wales is really rather extraordinary. In the previous day in Committee, I gave an example of the sorts of things that could happen where having a robust standards regime would be a better solution than one that says that, if these individuals step over the line and actually break the law, they can be investigated by the police—for whom they have a direct responsibility, of course, which raises some interesting questions—and, if necessary, prosecuted. A standards regime that is going to protect the integrity of those individuals and provide assurance to the public that they are acting properly and appropriately is clearly important. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government envisage that this will be dealt with.