Police: Working Conditions

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I made clear the other day, security is ultimately a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, in the event of there being a major incident, it will obviously be the police who will take charge of operational matters at that stage.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Government’s approach to millionaires, which is a tax cut of 5p in the pound, is in stark contrast to their approach to the working conditions of our police, on whom we all depend and whose morale is at a low ebb, despite what the Minister said. Do the Government still intend to introduce the controversial Winsor recommendations on regional pay and cut starting salaries for the police? Will the Minister give an undertaking that, for the rest of this Parliament, the Government will not preside over compulsory redundancies among front-line police officers?

[Lord Henley]

I am not sure what the point behind the noble Lord’s first remark was, but I remind him that millionaires are probably paying higher rates of tax than at any point in the past 13 years—during a large number of which the party opposite was in government. On the second part of the noble Lord’s question, it would have helped if he had listened to my earlier answers, when I made it quite clear that the Winsor report was a very good basis for discussion. That is what we intend to do, because these matters have not been looked at for 30 years.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Thursday 12th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

That is correct.

[Lord Rosser]

And that will be for some or all of their routes. In the hope that it does not breach national security, can the Minister say a little more about the considerations that would determine whether an airline was going to be issued with an IS72 form?

Queries have already been raised about the length of time it will take to give authority, and I appreciate that that is dealt with in the documentation. But what is the maximum length of time it is expected to take for authority to be given one way or the other to an airline? And is one to assume that until that authority has been given or refused, the flight concerned cannot leave its point of departure for the UK?

Finally, I have one question about the fine of up to £10,000. How will the Secretary of State decide what level to impose? Will there be clear criteria laid down which all occupants of the Secretary of State’s position over the years will be required to adhere to? Or will it be an entirely subjective decision with the approach potentially varying from one Secretary of State for the Home Department to another?

[Lord Henley]

That is a very interesting question given the range of Home Secretaries under the previous Government. I will have to come back to it at the end of my remarks.

First were the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the purpose of the regulations. I can give him assurance that, although the risks are pretty small, it is all about security. As I said in opening, the objective is to enhance the protection of aircraft flying to the United Kingdom and to prevent certain individuals from arriving here and doing harm on board the aircraft or on arrival in the United Kingdom. The purpose is to prevent such individuals boarding aircraft to the United Kingdom in the first place, both for the protection of that airplane and of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Berkeley, asked about the process and how quickly the airlines would get a response. Our aim is to give a response to the airlines within 15 minutes, which is relatively easy with modern communications. Airlines are required as of now to submit passenger information no later than 30 minutes before departure. We encourage airlines to provide that earlier if they possibly can but we are offering an assurance that we will be able to respond within 15 minutes.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also had some concerns about the consultation. He cited the fact that there was one response from a member of the public. I am very grateful that at least one member of the public put their name forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, obviously we have certain advantages in that we are an island entire unto ourselves—I think I could probably quote a bit more from John of Gaunt’s death speech in “Richard II”. There are easier ways in and harder ways in. We will continue to look at all different routes and at what is possible—what we can and cannot do. Airlines are important. That is why we are doing this.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I could ask the Minister one more question in the light of the response he gave. I wonder whether I heard that correctly. He confirmed that it was the case that an IS72 would be issued to some carriers, which might apply to all or some of their routes. Did he go on to say—or did I mishear this?—that eventually it might be applied to all carriers? If that is the case, would it then become in effect a blanket requirement for every carrier flying people into the UK?

[Lord Henley]

Ultimately we envisage the IS72 being rolled out to all carriers—so yes, that is the case.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Functions of Returning Officers) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Thursday 12th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord on the matter of whether the Cabinet Office should do this or whether, if the Home Office does it, it will merely replicate what happens in other elections. I will look very carefully at what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Rosser]

I think that the Minister claimed that he had answered the questions that had been asked—and of course he did nothing of the sort. I asked him whether an equality assessment had been done and what the outcome was, or whether the Government had dared not do such an exercise. I got no answer to that question. I also asked him whether he would clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office meant when he said on 18 June that the Government,

“may consider a similar procedure for a general election, with an eye on overseas voters”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/12; col. 652.]

I asked the Minister if he could clarify whether that meant that the Government were considering a similar procedure for overseas voters in a general election, or for all voters in a general election.

I also asked the Minister what the cost would be of holding elections in November, compared to the cost of holding them at the same time as local elections. As I recall, I received no response. I also asked him if it was true that the Home Secretary, as was reported in the newspapers, had asked the Treasury for money to fund an advertising campaign to encourage stronger candidates to come forward. I do not think that I got an answer to that question either. I am not surprised. I always know when I am on to a good thing because the Minister stands up and announces that what I said was a “rant”. One always knows that this means one will get no answers to the questions one has asked or the points one has raised.

The Minister sought to argue that somehow we had opposed the police and crime commissioner elections on the grounds of cost. That is true; that was our ground for opposing it. However, the game has changed now. The Government have got their Bill through and we are going to hold the elections. What we are saying is that now that the decision has been made to hold the elections, we should do it properly—in the same way, for example, as the Bristol mayoral election. Doing it in this way, with its emphasis on a website, will make it much harder for many people to find out about the candidates and what they are saying. I do not share the Minister’s apparently complacent view that they will all phone the free telephone number to ask for a copy of the information on candidates to be sent to them.

[Lord Henley]

Oh dear. Possibly I described the noble Lord’s speech as a rant because most of his speeches are a rant, but let me answer just one or two of the points that he has made. We have already published the equality assessment and it is available on our website. I invite the noble Lord to have a look at it there. I also have a copy here. On the cost of having the elections in November rather than May, that figure has been out in the public domain for some time, as the noble Lord well knows, but I will repeat it: it is going to cost some £25 million more—so £75 million rather than £50 million—than if we could have had the election in May. I think that the noble Lord has some understanding of the reasons why it was delayed, because he may have been part of the opposition Home Office team that was dealing with the matters that caused some delays to the relevant Bill. He also asked about tailoring the website for overseas voters. Let us just get through the PCC elections; we are not considering general elections at the moment but we can look at that in the future.

I hope that I have now answered the noble Lord’s points, but if I have not, I will no doubt write to him in due course.

[Lord Rosser]

I asked whether it was true, as was claimed in the newspapers, that the Secretary of State had asked the Treasury for money to fund an advertising campaign to encourage stronger candidates to come forward.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not comment on what I read in the press; I leave it to the noble Lord to look at these matters.

[Lord Rosser]

And to draw his own conclusions.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, this is the first of a number of amendments that deal with a memorandum of understanding. I start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who makes attacks on the Home Office for being somewhat remiss in the slowness with which it produces things, particularly in relation to the framework document. As the noble Lord is aware, I have promised that we will have a draft or an outline of that framework document before we get to Report stage of the Crime and Courts Bill. Since that is unlikely to take place in this House before the end of October, we have a certain amount of time.

On the memorandum of understanding, as set out in the Bill, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord King on this. It is right that the memorandum of understanding should spell out the precise remit of the ISC in relation to bodies other than the agencies, because the memorandum of understanding can make provision at a level of detail that is not appropriate for primary legislation. This is particularly important because parts of government departments engaged in intelligence and security activities may well be engaged in other activities besides, which would not properly fall within the remit of the ISC.

Clearly, things change over time. Departments reorganise. The functions done by one department one year may be done by another the following year. The noble Lord will remember when his party was in Government, how frequently they changed the names and the functions of departments. I have completely lost track of the number of changes there were to departments. One of the things we did very firmly when we came back into office was not to change the names or functions of departments, except in the most marginal capacity.

I believe the intelligence world is no different to any other part of government. For example, as with the recent Levene report, we could find that future reorganisations of defence may change organisational boundaries that affect the MoD’s intelligence activities. A memorandum of understanding is a flexible document. It can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. It will enable the intention of the Government that the ISC should have oversight of substantively all of central government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and, more importantly, in the future should they change. The amendment seeks to limit that. For that reason I cannot offer any support to the amendment. I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for the reply. Of course, my amendment does not refer to any government department by name because it lifts the wording from paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which refers to,

“any part of a government department, or any part of Her Majesty’s forces, which is engaged in intelligence or security activities”.

From what the noble Lord has said, I am still not quite sure how extensive the areas will be that might be included in the memorandum of understanding that would not be included in the definition that I have given in this amendment, when that is also allied to Clause 2(1). So I am not sure I have had a very direct answer to that question.

Nor has the Minister addressed the fact that putting it in a memorandum of understanding means that it will not be subject to prior discussion as part of this Bill. It is a document that the ISC has to agree with the Prime Minister and, as I understand it, it will not have to be approved subsequently by Parliament. The more reliance that is put on that memorandum of understanding and the more information that is put in it, the less opportunity this House has to discuss the issue.

I would have thought that since the wording I used has been lifted from another part of his own Bill, the Minister might at least have accepted that that was worth considering because it would, at the very least, reduce the amount that had to be covered in the memorandum of understanding, and thus reduce the amount that could not be debated as part of this Bill and which would not require the approval of Parliament. There has been no offer from the Minister even to look at this issue from that aspect. It is just a straight dismissal of the terms of this amendment. I express my disappointment at the Minister’s reply—he could have been much more sympathetic and helpful—but I note his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, perhaps I may make one brief comment. I have already expressed our views about the memorandum of understanding and I think that in return I was told by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that I was being savage.

I just wish to pursue the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about other references in Clause 2 to the kind of content that will be included in the memorandum of understanding, which we will not get an opportunity to debate and which does not have to be approved by Parliament. Clause 2(3) says:

“The ISC may, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), consider any particular operational matter but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest, and … the consideration of the matter is consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

One has to bear in mind that this is not a document that we will be able to debate and discuss and it will not need to be approved by Parliament unless the Minister is going to move on this amendment. What are these principles that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding which we are not going to be told about when discussing the Bill and which we are not going to be allowed to discuss?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who is great on drafting. She has picked out another word—envisaged—which she has not come across in legislation before. We will add that to “ongoing”. I suspect that, like her, I am probably an old fogey on these matters. These matters are new to drafting but develop in the way that they do. We will consult the draftsman on whether he is happy with “envisaged” or whether some other word could do it.

It would probably be helpful if I first explain the purpose of the memorandum. We believe that it will be an important document in the relationship between the ISC and the Government. It will define the precise extent of the ISC’s oversight of parts of the intelligence community other than the agencies. It will set principles or other criteria that must be met before the ISC can consider particular operational matters. It will describe the arrangements by which the agencies and other intelligence bodies will supply information to the ISC. We expect that it will also cover matters such as: the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular operational matter which the ISC might wish to consider is ongoing, current—or whatever word we particularly wish to use—and/or of significant national interest; a description of the arrangements by which the ISC will request and hold information, including the circumstances in which the ISC will be able to access primary source materials; a description of the role of investigative staff in the ISC’s work; and a description of the process for producing an ISC report. That is what we intend that it should cover. There will no doubt be other matters that will also need to be covered.

The memorandum of understanding in the Bill must be agreed between the Prime Minister and the ISC and it can be altered or replaced at any time by agreement. It is intended that the first memorandum of understanding will be agreed immediately on the coming into force of the relevant provisions. As I said, however, we hope that we can give some idea of what it is going to look like by the time we reach Report.

As is usual for a memorandum of understanding—this is not an unusual procedure—there is no parliamentary approval procedure. This was looked at by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and it was perfectly happy with this. While the memorandum of understanding itself will be an unclassified document which will be published and laid before Parliament, its precise terms are very likely to be shaped by matters which are sensitive in terms of national security and which therefore cannot be made public. In these circumstances, it is particularly appropriate that the memorandum of understanding can be concluded without the need for parliamentary approval.

Of course the terms of the memorandum of understanding must be agreed with the ISC. The Bill makes that clear—it is agreed between the Government and the ISC. The ISC, we must always remind ourselves, is a committee composed of parliamentarians—nine from both Houses. It could be eight members from this House and one from another, but it might be some other arrangement, as it is at the moment—seven from another place and two from this House. As a result of the changes that the Bill will bring about the committee will be appointed by and accountable to Parliament. In some ways, requiring these parliamentarians to seek the approval of the rest of Parliament is a restriction on the independence of the body. I think that it would be unusual for Parliament to have such control over the detailed way in which what amounts to a Select Committee—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is looking for—has decided to conduct its business.

We have not yet published the memorandum for the simple reason that the memorandum of understanding does not exist. We are starting the process of agreeing this document with the ISC and will do so in parallel with the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the names of my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Beecham are associated with Amendment 9 and we support the proposal that the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be remunerated in line with chairs of departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons. As has already been said clearly, the commitment required by future occupants of this post is likely to be extensive, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of the Bill is to strengthen oversight of the intelligence and security activities of the Government by extending the statutory remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee, as we know, will be drawn from Members of the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. It would seem appropriate to determine remuneration as part of the Bill, and to relate it to a not dissimilar position in one of the Houses of Parliament from which the membership of the committee is to be drawn.

A departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons has a different but not widely dissimilar role to that of the Intelligence and Security Committee under the Bill. The chair of a departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons also takes on a considerable additional level of commitment and responsibility. There are a number of such posts and they are not held by Ministers of the Crown. The officeholders, like the Select Committees themselves, are drawn from Back-Benchers, as would be the case with the Intelligence and Security Committee and the chair of that committee. It would therefore seem that the chair of a departmental Select Committee in the House of Commons is the appropriate benchmark, as provided for in Amendment 9, which we support.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we can deal with these amendments fairly briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, described them as a simple point of equity. On that basis, I hope the debate has been—or will be—listened to in due course by IPSA in the case of the Commons and, in the case of Members of this House, the House Committee, because in the end decisions have to be made by those appropriate committees. It is not really a matter for legislation.

To underline that, I remind the Committee that Commons Members’ pay is entirely a matter for IPSA and it makes decisions in accordance with resolutions of the House. The relevant resolutions make no provision for additional financial support for ordinary members of Select Committees so it would be a matter only for the chairmen of committees. I will get to the question about the chairman of this committee later. IPSA may determine that MPs who hold a position or office specified in a resolution of the House of Commons should receive a higher salary than ordinary Members. IPSA will have no say as to which positions are on the list—that is obviously a matter for Parliament; once it has decided on that list, it will be for IPSA to set the rate. Again, it is for IPSA to listen to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I wish to talk about Amendments 5 and 7 in particular. Amendment 5, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said, lays down what happens if a person nominated for membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee is not then appointed by the House of Parliament from which they are drawn. The amendment lays down that in this situation,

“the Prime Minister shall nominate an alternative person”.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that the purpose of the procedure in the Bill for nominating and appointing members of the committee,

“is to ensure that the Government retains some control over those eligible to access”,

highly sensitive information.

Many might feel that the use of the words “some control” in the Explanatory Notes rather understates the position from the government perspective. This amendment does at least make it clear that the relevant House of Parliament is not obliged to accept the Prime Minister’s nominee and that the Prime Minister cannot simply keep resubmitting the same name, or do nothing, but has to nominate an alternative person.

Amendment 7, to which the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, has already referred, is, certainly at this stage, rather more a probing amendment in the light of the enhanced role that the committee will have and the need for it to be seen as clearly separate from the Executive. It provides, as has already been said, for the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee to be not only a member of the ISC, chosen by its members, but a member of the ISC from the opposition party. The Public Accounts Committee, for example, is chaired by a senior opposition MP.

It must surely be important that the Intelligence and Security Committee, bearing in mind its strength and oversight of the Government’s intelligence and security activities, and its role in this sensitive and potentially controversial area, is an all-party committee that is not only not open to pressure from government or the intelligence and security agencies in the work it undertakes but perceived as being not open to such pressure.

The Prime Minister has, under the terms of this Bill, considerable influence over the appointments to the committee. He or she is required to consult, not reach agreement with, the leader of the Opposition on nominations, and the two Houses of Parliament can only decline to accept a nomination and cannot appoint someone of their own choosing. Neither does the Intelligence and Security Committee have unchallenged powers to require information from the intelligence and security agencies, even though the members of the committee will all have been nominated through the Prime Minister, as the Secretary of State can veto the giving of information to the committee.

If the chair of the committee were to be not only a nominee of the Prime Minister but from the same party as the Prime Minister and from the same party as the Secretary of State, who could veto the use by the committee in carrying out its statutory oversight remit of the use of its power to require information from the intelligence and security agencies, that might well lead to a perception, no doubt unfairly, that the leadership of the committee and its most influential member was a little too close to the Government of the day, particularly bearing in mind that the objective of the Bill, as explained in paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes is to provide,

“for strengthened oversight of the intelligence and security activities of the Government”.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have four amendments in front of us, all slightly different but all covering appointments to the committee. I will deal with them in turn. Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that if someone is turned down by Parliament the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination. This is something with which the Government entirely agree. However, the amendment is not necessary as it will be achieved by the current drafting of the Bill. If, under the appointments process in the Bill, the Prime Minister’s nominees are rejected by either House, the Prime Minister will have to make another nomination or nominations after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. This is clear from the fact that the Bill requires the ISC to consist of nine members so if one is turned down another would have to be found. I hope that deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lothian, who asked what would happen in such cases. Where we differ is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, insists that an alternative person should have to be nominated and we would like to keep the flexibility because there are occasions where it is possible for the Prime Minister to be able to renominate. It might be that one reached some sort of impasse in due course but it should be possible on occasions to renominate and that renomination might be rejected. Whatever happens, as the Bill is drafted, a ninth person would have to be put forward.

Turning to Amendment 6 from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, he suggests that it should no longer be necessary to consult the Prime Minister. He said that he would never have been appointed if it had been left purely to my noble friend Lady Thatcher if she had been in opposition. Obviously, if we accepted the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and removed the necessity to consult the Leader of the Opposition, there would be even less likelihood that he would be appointed, because my noble friend—or Mrs Thatcher, as she then was—would have made the decision entirely by herself, without consulting the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that it will be important in retaining cross-party support, just as it was when the original 1994 Act went through, requiring that the committee should be appointed by the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. For that reason, the Prime Minister should continue to consult the Leader of the Opposition before he nominates any such person.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley is not here but I will take the opportunity to move his amendment, if only to hear the Minister’s reply. This amendment seems to address some of the concerns covered in the previous group, but relates to international rail services and the problem of delays to passengers on the Eurostar services caused by new immigration controls. It also sets out how that might be addressed. The amendment contains a number of proposals and appears to suggest a policy of facilitating and welcoming visitors rather than treating everyone in perhaps a less than friendly manner as a result of some of the delays which I understand occur on the Eurostar services at both Brussels and St Pancras. The amendment also refers to the monitoring of waiting times to process incoming passengers at fixed control points. It also talks about processing passengers on international train services between the nearest stations served on each side of the border.

I believe rather than know that there have been meetings between my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the Minister in which the issue of processing passengers on the train—which is perhaps a rather unfortunate phrase—might have been raised. The amendment also raises that issue. We are now part of an expanding high-speed rail network with the introduction of new routes using the Channel Tunnel and the prospect of new operators entering the field.

I think that I am right in asserting that there are significant issues with delays, certainly with Brussels-to-London traffic, which I think are caused in part by double passport checks on passengers at both Brussels and St Pancras, where, I am told, delays can be over an hour. If that statement is right—and I am sure that the Minister will correct me if it is not—it could be damaging to our image as a country and to our economy as it would have an adverse effect on tourism and on the UK as a base for new and expanding businesses.

I am absolutely sure that my noble friend Lord Berkeley would have had a great deal more to say, and that he would have said it an awful lot more effectively than I have, but if I am right in saying that the Minister has had meetings with him, I hope that the Minister will also be able to say where we are on the issue. Perhaps he could also say whether the issue of processing passengers on the train was raised with a view to eliminating some of the delays that are currently occurring. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I will be relatively brief on this. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that I have discussed this with his noble friend Lord Berkeley. I also welcome him back to this Bill from his travails on the Civil Aviation Bill. This amendment is, in effect, about the remit of the chief inspector. I think that I can give the noble Lord an assurance that this is all largely dealt with by Section 48 of the UK Borders Act 2007. I have a copy of Section 48 and could go through it in some detail but I do not think that the noble Lord or the rest of the Committee would welcome that. I will just say that the remit of the chief inspector is adequately dealt with in that and he can cover all those matters.

As the noble Lord said, I have had a meeting with his noble friend Lord Berkeley at which we discussed a number of issues, particularly the so-called Lille loophole; the problems coming into St Pancras, problems that we are aware are likely to get much worse when other services, such as the German trains, start coming in, just because of the physical layout of St Pancras; and how we deal with that. We also discussed—again, this is very important—the possibility of using immigration officers on the train to deal with the particular problems that the noble Lord quite rightly highlighted. That is something that we will have to look at for the future, beyond 2015, which is when Deutsche Bahn is likely to start bringing trains in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as has been said, the amendment removes the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has explained the reasoning behind the amendment. We will need to be satisfied as to its justification, the evidence advanced as to why it is needed and the extent to which that evidence reveals a problem that can only really be addressed by a change to the legislation. We will also want to be satisfied that removing “insulting” will not mean that people using such words or behaviour cannot be prosecuted when there is every justification and reason for doing so.

The consultation on this issue closed in January. The Government have not, as far as I am aware, published the replies to that consultation or their own response. Despite this, the Deputy Prime Minister, presumably in his official capacity, has apparently made comments supportive of the approach in the amendment. Bearing that in mind, and the distinguished noble Lords whose names adorn the amendment, I suspect that the Government, at worst, are not going to reject its intentions.

For our part, we will listen to whatever points the Minister has to make, as well as the points made by noble Lords in the debate, to which we will want to pay regard. We also want to consider the replies to the consultation when they are published, along with the Government’s response, before coming to a firm conclusion.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I hope that I can be relatively brief in responding to the speech of my noble friend in moving the amendment, and the remarks that other noble Lords have made. My noble friend need not apologise for the fact that he was a member of the Government and was a signatory to the Public Order Act 1986, which included the word “insulting”. As the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has reminded us, “insulting” goes back to the Public Order Act 1936, introduced by the then National Liberal Home Secretary, Sir John Simon. That was very much borne out of the fascist marches of the 1930s. Section 5 of that Act referred to any,

“person who, in a public place or at a public meeting, uses threatening, abusive or insulting words”.

That is much the same as the 1986 Act which my noble friend now feels embarrassed about having signed up to.

To take the history lessons back a bit further, I take my noble friend back to the Metropolitan Act of 1839. That was under a Whig Government—the forebears of the Liberal Democrats—who, again, introduced the word “insulting”, but which applied only in London and not in other parts of the country. I make this point to say that this has been going on for some time.

Similarly, I apologise to my noble friend for the fact that our consultation ended in January and we have not responded within the appropriate three months; however, it did cover a number of other issues. Obviously, it is now six months since that consultation ended. As has been made clear by a number of noble Lords who spoke, we had some 2,500 responses to that consultation and we want to consider them carefully. It is clear that there are a number of different and passionately held views on the subject. Given the complexity of the issues raised, we in the Home Office, as Ministers and officials, are still considering the balance of all those representations. So, I say to the Committee—and to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—that I am not in a position today to set out the Government’s position on the amendment.

This is a timely debate, which will help to inform the Government’s further deliberations. I would have been grateful if it could have happened at a time when more noble Lords were here in Committee. Although I appreciate that the names on the amendment of those who support it come from different parts of the House and they all seemed to be on the same side, there are strong believers in other views. We have heard a number of cases indicating the weakness of having “insulting” in the provision. Different noble Lords have cited a number of different cases.

We also have to accept that freedom of expression is never an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with other competing rights. It was made quite clear in the case of Percy and the DPP that Section 5 is proportionate and contains that necessary balance between the right of freedom of expression and the right of others to go about their business without being harassed, alarmed or distressed.

I do not want to go into details at this stage because we are debating this at too late an hour with too empty a Chamber. All that I am saying is that we have had a consultation. That has ended and we have had 2,500 responses. Those need to be considered carefully and all of us need in time to take a view. I hope that all noble Lords will accept that there are arguments on both sides, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put it. Those need to be considered very carefully. I am pretty sure that I can say to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney that we are likely to come back to this issue at a later stage in the Bill.

As I have said on other occasions, we have some considerable time before we get to Report. That might make it easier to come to that considered view. I hope at that point we will be able to put forward the Government’s considered view to the House. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will, on this occasion, feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal with both amendments relatively briefly. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the list of the NCA’s strategic partners currently includes, as he said,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

We have used those terms because local policing bodies include not only the PCCs but two others—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London, which acts as the police authority for the City of London police area. For that reason, the noble Lord’s amendment is completely unnecessary in that the provision achieves everything he seeks. Having said that, I accept what he says about the necessity of discussing all these matters with the people he was concerned about. Just to put him at ease, the term “local policing bodies” covers them all.

I turn now to my noble friend’s amendment, Amendment 68. I think she said that there was a time when a fiction was maintained that the intelligence and security agencies did not exist. We now acknowledge that they do exist and we accept that the functions and responsibilities of these agencies go much wider than purely crime reduction and criminal intelligence. They have a limited statutory function in relation to serious crime because that is not their primary focus and they are therefore not included in the list of partners that the Home Secretary or the director-general must consult—it is the word “must” that I stress to my noble friend on this occasion—when setting strategic priorities in drawing up annual plans. However, I can give her an assurance that the security and intelligence agencies will have an important relationship with the NCA. Provisions in the Bill allow the Home Secretary and the director-general to consult them when it is appropriate to do so. What we think is not appropriate is the use of the word “must” here, and that is why we have not included the agencies in the list set out in the interpretation clause, Clause 16.

I hope that that explanation is sufficient for my noble friend, and that the explanation I gave with regard to Amendment 67 is sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his reply and for confirming that the reference to local policing bodies includes a police and crime commissioner. I think he also said that the provision has been written in this way—namely with a reference to local policing bodies—because, as well as a police and crime commissioner, it also includes the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. That rather begs the question of why earlier in the clause, where a “policing body” is also defined, it states that it means a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London. When we look down the same page to the “strategic partners”, why does the clause not make it equally clear by simply repeating that they include a police and crime commissioner, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and the Common Council of the City of London, instead of describing them as “local policing bodies”? Alternatively, if the phrase “local policing body” is satisfactory, why in the reference earlier on the page to “policing body” does it not simply say, instead of setting out the first three categories, “local policing bodies”?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am not a parliamentary draftsman—I do not think that I ever will be, and I am simple in terms of my understanding of the law. But even I, and I dare say the noble Lord, can probably grasp this one little point. If he looks up to line 4 on page 14 he will see that the meaning of “policing body” is set out in paragraphs (a) to (c):

“(a) a police and crime commissioner;

“(b) the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”

“(c) the Common Council of the City of London as police authority for the City of London police area”.

Later the meanings under “strategic partners” are set out, with paragraph (c) stating,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

The local policing bodies go back to “policing body” at that point. It does not take much understanding of drafting—I appreciate that I am not a draftsman—to understand that what is included in the first bit, “policing body”, must be included under “strategic partners”.

[Lord Rosser]

The only comment I would make in response to the noble Lord—like him, I have no great wish to prolong this matter—is that since the first reference is to “policing body” and the second is to “local policing bodies”, one might be entitled to ask, what is the difference between the two? Is there a subtle difference or not? Why is it not simply described again as “policing bodies” when it comes to the definition under “strategic partners”?

[Lord Henley]

I think that the noble Lord is protesting too much, but I will consult those who advise me on drafting matters and ask them whether they can give me a good explanation. I think that “policing bodies” must include “local policing bodies”, so there is no problem. The noble Lord is looking for conspiracies here, I suspect, but there is no conspiracy—it is straightforward, I can assure him of that. We are including the PCCs and the other two that I mentioned.

[Lord Rosser]

I assure the noble Lord that I do not think that there is a conspiracy. He has made it clear what the reference to local policing bodies covers and that is now in Hansard for the record. I do not believe in any conspiracy theory. However, I would certainly be interested to know, if he would write to me, why it is described as “policing body” in one place, with a definition, while a bit further down—under strategic partners—rather than repeating it as “policing body”, it says “local policing body”. One might wonder, why the difference? The Minister has said that he will look at it and write to me and I am extremely grateful for that. No, I do not believe there is a conspiracy, because the Minister has made it clear that police and crime commissioners are included in the reference to local policing bodies. This amendment sought to ensure that that was the case and in the light of the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am always happy to look at further amendments to amendments. Similarly, I am happy to think that one of the things I could do in the long summer months when the Olympics are on is read some of the noble Lord’s speeches on police and crime commissioners. Those will no doubt provide me with a great deal of pleasure and possibly put me to sleep. They will be great speeches and I will read them just as I will listen to the noble Lord.

What the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, does with his amendments is a matter for him. I was responding to the specific amendments that were put before me. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, can add his name, if he wishes, to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, might bring forward in due course.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this has certainly been an interesting debate. It seems to have created a certain amount of disagreement and passion. I think I heard the Minister say that my amendments would call into question the operational independence of chief constables. I find that rather odd coming from the government Front Bench since the reason for our opposition to police and crime commissioners in the first place was that that was one of the things that it would cause, so to have it thrown at us that we are putting forward amendments that would put at risk the operational independence of chief constables frankly seems a bit rich.

As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, it is not clear whether the Government’s principal argument is the use of the word “must” in the amendments. The Minister has said that if there had to be consultation with the police and crime commissioner, that would cause delay, and it might be an emergency. However, am I not right in saying that if the director-general approached a chief constable for a voluntary agreement and could not get it, the director-general would then have to go to the Secretary of State to get a direction authorised? Future amendments will tease out whether that is the case, but if it is, that would certainly cause a delay, which is apparently of concern to the Minister.

If there were provision for consultation with the police and crime commissioner, it might help the situation—although I do not think that this has occurred to the Minister—in that the police and crime commissioner might step in if there was any doubt or difficulty over the chief constable coming to a voluntary arrangement with the director-general.

I mentioned that there could be reasons why the police and crime commissioner might want to know, or why there should at least be a requirement for the police and crime commissioner to be consulted, if the chief constable wanted the director-general of the National Crime Agency to perform a task on their behalf, because there could be a difference of view with the police and crime commissioner about whether it was a matter that their own police force should be competent to deal with or whether it was helping to cover up a failing in their own police force. I notice that the Minister declined to address that point.

My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey pointed out that if the difficulty is the use of “must”, one could produce wording that made it clear that if there were difficulties over time constraints, that requirement would not be there. I got the impression that when my noble friend put that point directly to him, the Minister rather backed off from the argument that there might not be time to consult a police and crime commissioner.

The whole basis of the Government’s approach appears to be as it was during consideration of the 2011 Bill, now an Act: that is, a belief that there is some clear guideline distinguishing what is operational—which in the Government’s view is the responsibility of the chief constable—and the powers of the police and crime commissioner. I am afraid that we did not think during the passage of the Bill, nor do so now, that this clear guideline, which it is obvious the Minister still believes in, exists. There will be grey areas as to whether a matter is solely operational or whether it impinges on the police and crime commissioner’s responsibilities, which are fairly wide-ranging. They include issuing a police and crime plan, which is required by law, to set out a number of matters relating to the policing of the area which the chief officer of police is to provide, and a duty to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the chief constable’s arrangements.

I also made the point, picked up on by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, that the tasks that the director-general might require or ask a chief constable to perform are of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance in relation to resources or impact. I note that the Minister did not seek to assure us in his response that these tasks would be minor and would not have an impact on resources. I therefore assume that the point that I made is valid: that these are tasks of unspecified magnitude, scope or significance in relation to resources or impact. To believe that a chief constable could come to an arrangement with the director-general to perform a task that had a significant impact on resources without any consultation with his or her own police and crime commissioner being required in the Bill seems, as my noble friend said, to denigrate the position and authority of a police and crime commissioner.

I have made the points that I wish to make to the Minister. I hope that, despite his response, he will reflect further on our debate and ask himself whether it is really impossible to write into the Bill a provision that there must be—or if he does not agree to “must”, that there will in normal circumstances be—consultation with the police and crime commissioner. If he was prepared to consider that, the Government would save themselves potential difficulties in the relationships between a police and crime commissioner, the director-general of the National Crime Agency and chief constables.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, it is in something of a state of shock that I stand here. I thank the Minister for his response and for accepting Amendment 57. He has set out his reasons for not thinking that Amendment 58 is appropriate and, as I understand it, has effectively said that Amendment 56 is actually addressed to other parts of the Bill and the 2002 Act. In the light of the Minister’s response, I take it that I am meant to agree the withdrawal of Amendments 56 and 58 and that Amendment 57 has been accepted.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord withdraws Amendment 56 and then moves Amendment 57.

[Lord Rosser]

I withdraw Amendment 56 and move Amendment 57.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, Clause 2 modifies National Crime Agency functions. It enables the Secretary of State by order to make provision about National Crime Agency counterterrorism functions and, in particular, to make provision conferring, removing or otherwise modifying such functions. It also provides for such changes to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which is referred to in Schedule 16. This is an important issue about who should be responsible for counterterrorism activity, which the Metropolitan Police is currently involved in. That organisation has considerable expertise in this field. There would have to be a strong case to move such responsibilities away from the Metropolitan Police or, indeed, to move them away from the National Crime Agency if such responsibilities rested with that body.

The Government clearly recognise that this is a sensitive issue because, having decided to make changes to National Crime Agency counterterrorism functions by order, they have proposed that the super-affirmative procedure should apply. The super-affirmative procedure is a less comprehensive procedure than primary legislation. Changes in the responsibility for counterterrorism and changes to the structure for meeting that threat should not be easily or quickly made without the full and proper consideration that can be given by Parliament through primary legislation. Primary legislation enables a change in the law to be considered in detail and amended through consideration in Committee and on Report. The Government cannot stop that happening under current practice and procedures but, under the super-affirmative procedure, that will not be the case, as even the more limited procedure for considering government proposals in paragraph 4 of Schedule 16 will not apply if the Government are able to use their effective majority in each House to approve their draft order without even going through the procedure in that paragraph.

We are talking about an issue of substance and concern: where responsibility for counterterrorism should lie. It should not be dealt with by the Government by order, super-affirmative or otherwise; it should be open to the normal and full parliamentary procedure for approving, amending and making changes in statutory arrangements—namely, through primary legislation after full debate, with the Government being compelled to accept the Bill if and as amended by Parliament.

This matter has been considered by two committees. I imagine that until today the Minister was probably not unhappy with the situation, since the committee report that we then had in front of us was that of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Its view was:

“The idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to a Parliamentary procedure is well established”.

However, this is not just about adding to a statutory body’s function; it is also potentially about taking it away from another body, in this case the Metropolitan Police. Nor is this any function; it is the counterterrorism function, on which the lives and security of the people of this nation depend.

We have now seen the report of the Constitution Committee, which has taken a rather different line. It refers to the fact that Clause 2 concerns the possible future extension of the National Crime Agency’s remit into counterterrorism and points out that currently the counterterrorism command of the Metropolitan Police has the lead national role in counterterrorism policing. The committee goes on to point out that Clause 2 would give the Secretary of State an enabling power,

“to ‘make provision conferring, removing, or otherwise modifying’ NCA counter-terrorism functions”.

If that was applied,

“the Home Office would be in a position to have the option of assigning or transferring relevant functions to the new agency”.

The Constitution Committee has described the enabling power in Clause 2 as,

“an order-making power of the ‘Henry VIII’ type, so empowering the minister to ‘amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment’”.

Those words are found in Clause 2(4), where the Bill states:

“An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment”.

It is indeed a wide-ranging power. The Constitution Committee comments on the proposal in respect of the super-affirmative procedure and says:

“The fact remains that the ordinary legislative processes of amendment and debate, and with it much of the substance of the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber, would be circumvented. Clause 2 raises the fundamental constitutional issue of the proper relationship between parliamentary and executive lawmaking”.

The committee says that its approach to Henry VIII clauses,

“is based on the constitutional principle that it is for Parliament to amend or repeal primary legislation. The use of powers allowing amendment or repeal of primary legislation by ministerial order is therefore to be avoided, except in narrowly-defined circumstances. A departure from the constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided. For assessing a proposal in a bill that new Henry VIII powers be conferred, the Committee has adopted a two-fold test”.

That test is:

“Whether Ministers should have the power to change the statute book for the specific purposes provided for in the Bill, and, if so, whether there are adequate procedural safeguards”.

The committee goes on to say:

“We are not persuaded that clause 2 passes the first test. The subject-matter of the proposed order-making powers—the allocation of functions and attendant responsibilities and accountabilities of counter-terrorism policing—is of great importance and public interest. The House will wish to consider whether the constitutionally appropriate vehicle is primary legislation”.

We agree with the views of the Constitution Committee, which was not persuaded that Ministers should have the power to change the statute book for the specific purposes provided for in this Bill in respect of the allocation of functions and attendant responsibilities and of the accountabilities of counterterrorism policy. We are opposed to the question that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I hope that I can respond to the noble Lord’s points. I agree with him that this is an important issue, which we need to take very seriously. The noble Lord raised two questions: should counterterrorism move to the agency and, if so, how? They are two distinct questions and we want to consider them in due course. I will consider them in that manner. He also feels that it is a matter on which there should be a full debate in Parliament, relating to the second question: “If so, how?”. I have to say that this is possibly not the best example of such a debate. As the noble Lord made those expressions immediately after dinner, perhaps he felt some embarrassment over what an empty House we have as we discuss what I, like him, consider a very important issue to which I hope we will do justice. We might have to come back to it at a later stage because of its importance.

As the noble Lord knows, the functions of the NCA have been drafted in fairly broad terms to ensure that it is able to tackle all the crimes in which organised crime groups are involved. However, it will also be important for the agency to be able to react quickly to any changes in the threat picture. In particular, careful consideration has been given to how best to future-proof—an expression I do not particularly like, but it is quite useful here—the National Crime Agency for a potential role in counterterrorism. The Government have been clear that there will be no wholesale review of the current counterterrorism policing structures in England and Wales until after the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the proper establishment of the NCA. It is only then that it will be right to look at how counterterrorism policing is co-ordinated across England and Wales and to decide where it is appropriate for national responsibility to sit. Such a review should sensibly consider whether the National Crime Agency might play a role and, if so, what it might be.

I think that the Home Affairs Select Committee agrees with us. In its September report, New Landscape of Policing, it said:

“We agree with the Government that responsibility for counter-terrorism should remain with the Metropolitan Police until after the Olympics, not least because the National Crime Agency will not be fully functional until the end of December 2013”.

It went on:

“However, we recommend that, after the Olympics, the Home Office consider”—

I am very grateful that it used the word “consider”—

“making counter-terrorism a separate command of the National Crime Agency: there should be full co-operation and interaction between the different commands”.

I give an assurance that any decision that we make will be made after that time and will be considered very carefully. It is not a decision that we need to make at this stage.

I move on to the order-making power, which looks very drastic. It is a Henry VIII clause. I remember being introduced to Henry VIII clauses by my noble kinsman Lord Russell, since deceased, who was the first to spot their increasing use by the previous Government—it was a long time ago—when we were trying to expand the use of these things gradually. They should rightly always be looked at with very great care by all Members of both Houses of Parliament. It is quite right that Parliament should do these things in the proper way.

Clause 2 provides an order-making power so that the Secretary of State can confer, remove or otherwise modify the functions of the NCA in relation to counterterrorism. The order-making power is limited to changing the functions of the NCA. The noble Lord again got very worried about Clause 2(4), which states:

“An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment”.

Most simple lawyers, such as me or, possibly, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would immediately assume that that meant anything in the world, that we could do what we wanted and that this was a wonderful thing. I am advised by those who are much greater than me and are not just simple lawyers that, if you read the clause in full, subsection (4) does not give that power. Because this has to be taken as a whole, the power is confined to counterterrorism functions and it is only on those that the Secretary of State could act. Having said all that, I accept that it is important to address these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends and to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for explaining what was behind their amendments—Amendments 26 and 65 from my noble friends and Amendment 66 form the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Obviously, each is approaching this in a slightly different manner. The noble Lord’s party exempted SOCA when it was in government and brought it in. It wants to continue that exemption but do not want exemption for the other bodies that are coming in. I will deal with that in due course but—as always, using that word “balance”—it is a situation where we have to get these things right, and we have considered it very carefully.

I also want to make it quite clear to the noble Lord that we have a commitment—and the commitment is clear on the face of the Bill—that, as with SOCA, the NCA’s strategic priorities, annual plan and annual report will be published and will even go beyond that. We provide in Clause 6 that the director-general must,

“make arrangements for publishing information about the exercise of NCA functions and other matters relating to the NCA”.

We want to make it clear that we want to be open.

We considered very carefully whether the agency should also be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. As I have just made clear, we are all aware that SOCA is exempt from that and was exempt from it when it was created back in 2005. We concluded that it was right to maintain the status quo. To apply the Freedom of Information Act, as these amendments from my noble friends set out to do, would jeopardise the NCA’s operational effectiveness and ultimately result in lower levels of protection for the public. Like SOCA, the NCA will handle large volumes of operationally sensitive information, including intelligence material, which could have a detrimental impact on national security if released. Naturally, the Freedom of Information Act exemptions would apply to much of this material so that it could be protected from release, even if the agency were subject to FOI, but two key risks would remain.

First, the National Crime Agency will depend on the absolute confidence of its partners so that they share all the information they can with the agency. That is what will give the agency its superior natural intelligence picture, which in turn will enable it to pursue and catch the criminals who are the threat. If those partners believe that sensitive information held by the agency could be subject to public release, they are likely to be more reluctant to share that information with the NCA in the first place.

Secondly, intelligence shows that organised criminals are increasingly sophisticated in their methods and seek to exploit any avenues possible to further their criminal activity. There is the danger that they would be likely to use the Freedom of Information Act to acquire information about the NCA’s operational tactics, disrupt its operations and evade detection. While the exemptions might again apply to some of this information, that might not always be the case. This is obviously also a concern for the private sector. Organised criminal gangs could identify and then target vulnerabilities in private sector companies working with the NCA.

In short, the National Crime Agency’s operational effectiveness could, we believe, be materially weakened by application of the Freedom of Information Act, and it would be quite wrong to apply such a handicap to the new agency. I have to make that quite clear—and I suspect that the Opposition, in their attitude to SOCA and the Act that created it back in 2005, are in agreement on a large part of it. As I said, it would be wrong to place such a handicap on it. We are committed to ensuring that there is no loss of public transparency as a result of this decision, but we expect the agency to publish more information than its predecessors because of the open, proactive publication that it aims to adopt.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seeks in his Amendment 66 to preserve the status quo by applying this exemption only to the functions of the agency that are being transferred from SOCA. There will clearly be precursor units joining the National Crime Agency, as I think he made clear, from the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Metropolitan Police, which are currently subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This amendment would provide that, in respect of those functions, FOI continued to apply.

I recognise the motivation behind the noble Lord’s amendment, and I am sure that he is sincere in it—I hope that he is just probing on these matters—but I am afraid that applying the Freedom of Information Act to some parts of the agency but not to others would simply not be a workable option. I do not want to make remarks about curate’s eggs, but this is one of those occasions when the curate’s egg principle really would work. You cannot have an egg that is only partially edible, and I have a sneaking feeling that what the noble Lord seeks on this occasion is the same.

The NCA is being designed as an integrated whole to ensure a free flow of information and intelligence between the central intelligence hub and all parts of the agency. This is essential so that it can effectively map, analyse and task action against serious, organised and complex crime. It would defeat the purpose of this integrated approach and seriously weaken the agency’s effectiveness—

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

Can I just complete the sentence before I give way to the noble Lord? It would weaken the agency’s effectiveness if we had to cordon off individual parts of the agency that were subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

[Lord Rosser]

In the light of what the Minister has said, is it the Government’s case that all other agencies or bodies are either completely covered by or completely exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and that one does not find in any other organisation or agency that some of the activities are covered by the Act and some are exempt?

[Lord Henley]

Without notice, I do not think that I can answer that question, but I will certainly look at it. The point that I was trying to make is that the noble Lord is trying to make something rather peculiar here: SOCA is completely exempt and is coming into the NCA, but other bodies that are not exempt are also coming in and they are then all one whole. In effect, he has created something that, when I mentioned the curate’s egg, I probably got exactly right. You cannot do it in a curate’s egg way because the whole egg will be bad once one part of it is bad. That is why we want to do it our way.

Obviously some bodies could be exempt, but on this occasion we think that it is right to create the new agency, as I am sure noble Lords opposite would have done if they were creating a new national crime agency to build on SOCA, just as they did with SOCA itself. It is for those reasons that we would like to preserve the exemption for SOCA for the new agency, and we think that what the noble Lord is suggesting is illogical or worse, and certainly not the right way to go about it. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment and that the noble Lord will consider carefully what I have said, particularly in the light of, as my noble friend and others might remember, the debates on the Bill that created SOCA back in 2005.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord McColl and Lady Doocey for bringing forward their amendments and for highlighting just what we are dealing with in bringing to the attention of the House the appalling crime of trafficking, particularly the trafficking of children. I underline the points made by my noble friend Lord McColl during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act. In saying so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are still awaiting the report from the Children’s Commissioner. The timing of that will have to be a matter for the commissioner herself, and I cannot give him any further assurance about timing at this stage.

I also thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her references; I think she was the first contributor to refer to the all-party group. I got rather confused as she referred first of all to a committee and then to something else, and I finally worked out that she meant the report from the all-party group, which came out only today—or was it a bit earlier? In due course there will have to be a response to that, and I very much hope that colleagues in the Department for Education with primary responsibility will lead on that.

I thank all noble Lords who referred to the work of CEOP in this field. I have visited that agency since becoming a Minister in the Home Office, and I am sure that other noble Lords have done so and know just what an effective job it does and how well it can do it. Again, I assure my noble friends and other noble Lords, as my noble friend Lord McNally did when he wound up the Second Reading of the Bill, that we believe that the NCA will have a key role to play in building on the existing arrangements for dealing with trafficking, using its enhanced intelligence capabilities and co-ordination functions to target both organised criminal gangs involved in perpetrating these crimes and others, wherever they are.

It is my job today to deal with the specific amendments, beginning with Amendments 3A and 3B moved by my noble friend Lord McColl, that deal with the functions of the National Crime Agency in Clause 1. I am satisfied that the functions set out in Clause 1—we must also refer to Clause 8—are sufficiently broad to encompass human trafficking. The important point that we need to deal with is whether we need a specific reference in the Bill to human trafficking, particularly in the light of what is available in Clause 8. I remind noble Lords that there are specific references in Clause 8(1) and (2) to Sections 11 and 28 of the Children Act, which make clear that the agency has to discharge its functions in a way that has regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We need to discuss whether we need to bring in my noble friend’s amendments or whether we have taken a sufficiently broad approach to the agency’s functions.

The broad nature of the functions is also critical to ensuring that the agency has the flexibility necessary to respond to the changing threat in future. One needs to be wary of taking an overprescriptive approach to the listing of specific crime types, as this amendment starts to do, which might undermine the approach that we have taken to the functions as set out in Clause 1. Amendment 3A then seeks to go further and add to the agency’s functions by placing on it a specific responsibility for ensuring that the UK meets its obligations under the human trafficking directive, to which I think my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Neill, referred. As I hope I made clear on earlier occasions—during, I think, the debates on the Protection of Freedoms Act—we are satisfied that we will meet the requirements and be compliant with that directive. Her Majesty’s Government have had discussions with the Commission about that matter.

I do not consider it appropriate for the agency to have the responsibility for ensuring that wider obligations are met. The agency should be combating human trafficking, not checking that other organisations—which there will be, on this occasion—are meeting their obligations. However, my noble friend is right to highlight the important obligations. Once again, although I am not persuaded of the need to add to the agency’s functions in this way, I do not wish to diminish the importance that the Government place on that directive or the obligations that it places on the United Kingdom.

Amendment 3B seeks to ensure that the functions of the United Kingdom Human Trafficking Centre and CEOP are included within the functions of the National Crime Agency. My noble friend set out the important role that these bodies have in tackling human trafficking. I repeat what other noble Lords have said, just as I said at the beginning, in underlining the valuable work that they do in this area. I categorically assure my noble friend that CEOP and the Human Trafficking Centre, both currently part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, will continue their important work as part of the National Crime Agency in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It deletes paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 which states:

“For the purposes of the discharge of NCA functions which relate to organised crime or serious crime, an NCA officer may, in particular, carry on activities in relation to any kind of crime (whether or not serious or organised)”.

These words are similar, but not the same, as those relating to SOCA in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Could the Minister explain the significance of the changed wording? On the face of it, the power in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 could be very wide ranging, particularly in the changed world of the new and more powerful National Crime Agency, with the director-general able to direct chief officers of other forces to perform tasks, and in the world of elected PCCs. It would be helpful if the Minister could put on the record how the Government intend that power to be used by the new agency, and in what sort of circumstances and on what kind of occasions.

The functions of the National Crime Agency are set out in Clause 1 of the Bill and refer to combating organised crime and serious crime. Equally, there are references in that clause to combating,

“any other kind of crime”,

and combating,

“crime (or a particular kind of crime, such as organised crime or serious crime)”.

This indicates that the role of the more powerful and influential NCA could be wider than just organised and serious crime. Paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 suggests that the power of the NCA and its officers in relation to any kind of crime relates only to occasions when they come across such other crimes when they are involved in dealing with organised and serious crime. If that is the case, no doubt that will be the thrust of what the Minister will say when he responds. However, this clearly could be something of a grey area which presumably could mean National Crime Agency officers becoming involved in dealing with the kind of crime that might be a matter for other police forces rather than the National Crime Agency.

Who, then, will make the decision on whether a National Crime Agency officer should carry on activities in relation to another kind of crime when it is neither serious nor organised? Will it be for individual NCA officers on the spot to decide or the director-general of the NCA? Will the director-general decide but require the consent of the Secretary of State, or will it be a matter that can be undertaken only by NCA officers when there is prior agreement between the chief officer of the police force that would normally deal with such a crime and the director-general of the National Crime Agency?

There is a possibility that this particular provision in Schedule 1, allied to the provisions of Clause 1, could be used by the director-general of the new, more powerful and influential National Crime Agency to seek to extend his or her wings and influence. The director-general could take the view that a range of other crimes could,

“relate to organised crime or serious crime”,

and be addressed by the National Crime Agency and thus could and should involve National Crime Agency officers. It might well be that the Minister may say that this will not happen, but what is to stop it happening under this Bill? Bear in mind that the director-general of the new National Crime Agency has wider powers and responsibilities, including stronger powers of direction than have previously applied in relation to chief constables of other forces.

There is potential for friction between the National Crime Agency and police forces in England and Wales, particularly with elected police and crime commissioners on the scene, unless some very clear guidelines are provided on the kind of circumstances in which the powers of the National Crime Agency to become involved in dealing with any kind of crime, in addition to organised crime and serious crime, can and should be used. I hope that the Minister will be able to set out how the Government see this power in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 being exercised by the new, more powerful and influential National Crime Agency and its officers under the terms of this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining what lay behind his probing amendment. I hope that I will be able to set out what paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 is about. It makes it clear that the National Crime Agency can undertake the widest possible operational activity to maximise its impact on serious and organised crime. Clause 1 sets out clear expectations for the range of operational activity that it will be necessary for the agency to be able to undertake. Paragraph 5 goes further, making it clear that the agency can undertake operational activity,

“in relation to any kind of crime (whether or not serious or organised)”,

if it will ultimately deliver its crime reduction function. This includes disruption activity.

We are clear that the agency needs to be focused on national crime threats. That is why the crime reduction function has been drafted in the way that it has. This is not about interfering in local policing or taking over the work of individual police forces. Rather, the National Crime Agency will work with and support the work of local policing and police forces nationally to tackle crime that warrants a response beyond the boundaries of a local police force. It is also not about broadening the remit of the agency, but strengthening the ability of the police to respond to the serious and organised crime threats that face every community in the United Kingdom every day.

Criminal gangs have networks that can span from street-corner drug-dealing to the international importation of drugs and firearms. Therefore, it is important that the agency is able to take action against such gangs and other serious criminals along the whole spectrum of crime across which they can operate, from that very local level up to national and international levels. This amendment would therefore significantly curtail the effectiveness of the operational activity that the agency could undertake. It is right that the agency’s efforts should be concentrated on serious and organised crime, but the Committee will recognise that sometimes the most effective way of disrupting a crime network is to tackle the lower-level, seemingly less serious crime to have the greatest impact and stop the crime group operating. For example, an agency officer may want to use their powers to arrest a suspect for a possession-of-drugs offence to disrupt a much larger operation that involves a number of people in the supply of illicit drugs.

In all cases, the activity of the agency should be directed towards its core role of protecting the public from serious and organised crime. That is already written into paragraph 5. Where an agency officer is tackling crime that is not serious or organised, it must be to deliver the agency’s function of tackling serious and organised crime.

Finally, I point out to the noble Lord that there is a very similar provision in Section 5(3) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The previous Administration accepted the need for such a provision. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment but I hope that the noble Lord will see that it is unnecessary and, in effect, a replication of what was there before. With those assurances and that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which has clarified the Government’s intentions behind the wording “any kind of crime”. I referred to the fact that there is similar wording relating to SOCA in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I commented that it was not the same wording as appears in the Bill and asked the noble Lord to explain the significance of the change, which he has not done. Maybe the wording has been changed for a good reason but at the moment I am not clear as to what that is.

I am not entirely surprised by the Minister’s response. I understand his point that, in addressing serious and organised crime, there may come a need or a necessity to address other kinds of crime in the course of those investigations. In moving the amendment and asking those questions, I was simply pointing out that it depends on the extent to which this power is used and how it is used. Although I posed the question, I am still not clear as to what the Government’s intentions are in respect of who will decide whether the powers in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 1 should be used. I asked whether it would be the NCA officer on the ground, the director-general or the director-general with the clearance of the Secretary of State, or whether it would be a matter for agreement between the director-general and the chief constable of another force. I have not had a specific response to that point either. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

[Lord Henley]

I will intervene if the noble Lord will give way. On his point about the comparison between the 2005 Act and the Bill, I will look carefully at what he said. I do not have the wording of the 2005 Act in front of me and it does not stick firmly in my head. However, I am sure that there are very wise words in the Act. Our intention was to replicate what was there. If there are differences in the wording, there is no intention to do anything different. The intention was to achieve the same object. It might be worth my looking again at the precise wording of the 2005 Act and what we have here and writing to the noble Lord, just to make it clear that our intention and that of the draftsman—remember that over seven years the style of drafting will change—was to achieve the same things. Is the noble Lord happy to accept a letter from me on that matter?

[Lord Rosser]

Yes, I would certainly accept a letter. I do not wish to imply that there are major differences in the wording but it is not precisely the same. However, if the intention is that it should mean the same, that is fine. If the Minister could write to me, saying that, it would clear up the matter. In the light of the Minister’s reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Proceeds of Crime: EUC Report

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, as always, I welcome the opportunity to debate the draft directive. I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his introduction, particularly for his explanation of the process, for his explanation of the Ashton undertaking and how we are supposed to take these things forward. It is obviously right that the Government should listen to the expertise that we have in this House and on the European Union Committee. On that basis, I welcome the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, the former chairman of that committee; the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, whom I can no longer call my noble friend now that he has taken over that job; and all those who offer their expertise, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The Government will certainly bear all that in mind before making their decision on whether to opt in or out.

At this point I must offer an apology to the House as, at this stage, the Government have not made a decision as to which way we should go. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made clear, if we want to opt in at an early stage, we must do so before 15 June. A decision will certainly be made before then. However, it is always possible that we could opt in after final decisions have been taken and the whole adoption stage has been completed, when we have seen what has been agreed. There are very difficult decisions to be made. I hope I will be able to explain exactly why we have not yet made a decision and give some thought to our reasoning behind the different options before us.

Before I do so, I will say a little about the timing of this debate and the debate in another place, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I know that the noble Lord is immensely experienced and has been in this House for a number of years. However, he obviously does not realise that things operate on a very different basis between the two Houses in this particular matter. In line with the Ashton undertaking, the appropriate time for this debate to take place was a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as chairman of the sub-committee, to negotiate with the usual channels. It was agreed some weeks ago—before we prorogued, I think—that it would take place around now. Quite rightly, it went ahead. Even though the Government have not come to their final decision, it would not have been right for me or anyone else to go to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to suggest that it should be put off to a later date, purely because we had not made a decision.

The debate in another place is on a government Motion, which is completely different. It would not be right for the Government to table a Motion before they have made up their mind. However, as the noble Lord is probably aware, the Government will make up their mind before 15 June. We will have that debate and another place will have a debate—I give that assurance—before 15 June.

[Lord Rosser]

I think I understand the procedures. Will the Minister just confirm whether it is true that the debate in the other place was scheduled to take place tomorrow and that it has been put back?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my understanding is that a debate was to take place tomorrow. It was put back because the Government have not come to a final decision. There is nothing wrong with that. The Government want to make the right decision. All that I make clear to the noble Lord, who obviously does not understand these procedures, is that we will have done so before 15 June. That is our timeline. I give the noble Lord that assurance. The noble Lord seems to imply that there is some sort of conspiracy here. The Government want to get it right and must put down a Motion for the debate. Procedures in this House are different, which is why we do things differently. The noble Lord should have understood that.

I want to explain relatively briefly what our thinking is and not which way we are going—as I have said, a decision has not yet been made—but the pros and cons of the different options before us. I want to make it quite clear to the House that we believe that asset recovery is a very important weapon in our efforts to tackle organised crime. We believe that the proceeds of crime are not only a central motivation for organised criminals but that they also fund further criminality. Freezing and confiscating criminal finances hurts organised criminals and protects the public.

The United Kingdom has advanced legislation in this area, as other noble Lords have alluded to, and we have had real operational success. In 2010-11, United Kingdom law enforcement agencies froze or recovered more than £1 billion worth of criminal assets. The amount of assets recovered has increased year-on-year since the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 was passed. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson made clear, the United Kingdom is recognised as a leader in this field. We still want to do more, particularly on international asset recovery, as we made clear in our organised crime strategy in July 2011. In 2008, it was estimated that some £560 million of UK criminal assets was held abroad. Improved international co-operation is a necessary step towards recovering that money. That is why we welcome the aims of this directive. It is right that we seek, as leaders in this field, to drive up standards throughout the European Union and to find better ways of working together with our EU partners. To this end the directive covers confiscation following a criminal conviction, extended confiscation, third-party confiscation, non-conviction-based confiscation, and powers to freeze assets.

We must, of course, consider carefully the contents of the draft directive. The Government’s analysis is in progress. Our recommendation on the opt-in decision will be communicated to the parliamentary scrutiny committees at the first opportunity. The United Kingdom already has all of the powers envisaged by the directive in our Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In almost all areas we exceed the minimum standards established by the directive. There are, however, areas where changes to domestic legislation might be necessary were the final version of the directive to include the same provisions as this draft.

Some aspects of the directive’s provisions on non-conviction-based confiscation, extended confiscation, and freezing without a court order do not sit easily with our domestic regime. Without prejudice to the Government’s final position, it should be noted that the directive as drafted appears to pose a risk to our domestic non-conviction-based confiscation regime. Our non-conviction-based confiscation powers are civil law measures—they allow prosecution agencies to take action against property that they think has been acquired through unlawful activity. The action is not taken against an individual and no criminal conviction is necessary. It is a particularly useful tool for tackling the high-level, organised criminals against whom it is difficult to achieve a criminal conviction. In 2011-12, some £20 million worth of criminal assets were recovered using non-conviction-based confiscation powers.

Due to its criminal law basis, the directive risks placing non-conviction-based confiscation measures in the UK onto a criminal law footing, opening new avenues of legal challenge to our powers. If criminal law procedural protections and a criminal law standard of proof were introduced, our domestic regime could be severely weakened and our law enforcement agencies would find it harder to disrupt the workings of some of the most dangerous organised criminals.

The Government are considering whether the best approach is to opt in to the directive and attempt to negotiate out those aspects that conflict with our domestic regime; or whether the conflict in some areas is sufficiently serious that not opting in at this stage is the better approach. While the directive does not offer direct benefit to the United Kingdom’s domestic regime, tougher legislation and more effective action elsewhere in the EU will help tackle those cross-border criminals who cause harm in the UK, as the European Union Committee said in its report, and for that we are grateful. We believe that it is vital that we get the detail right and we must consider the effect of the directive on our domestic regime and its likely operational impact.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, wanted to know whether we would press for mutual recognition to be included in the directive from both conviction and non-conviction-based confiscation. We would like to see effective mutual recognition arrangements for both conviction and non conviction-based confiscation. This aim would be better achieved through separate instruments. The directive is a minimum standards directive; obviously, we will continue to work with our partners to seek further new mutual recognition instruments from the Commission.

None the less, it is certainly our intention to play an active part in the negotiations on this directive, irrespective of whether we opt in or not at the outset: that is, before 15 June, the date to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. The United Kingdom’s internationally recognised experience and expertise in asset recovery will help us to achieve an influential position in negotiations. The directive offers us a valuable opportunity to raise the standard of asset recovery legislation in the EU, enhance our co-operation with member states, and increase our powers to recover criminal assets held overseas. I repeat the fact that the expert views of the EU sub-committee will play a very important part in the Government’s thinking as they decide whether to opt into this directive. For that I am very grateful, and again we will take note of everything that has been said.

Police: Misconduct and Corruption

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I welcome what the Met has done. I think it is something that other police forces should consider doing, but that is a matter for them to consider. As I said in response to the original Question and the first supplementary, I believe that complaints should be dealt with in the manner that they are; that is initially by the police and then, in more serious cases, by the IPCC. I do not see a case for the Home Secretary intervening.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, in the light of the Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, and knowing that police commissioners will be elected, when will it be appropriate for an elected police commissioner to intervene directly in matters of police discipline and incidents of police corruption?

[Lord Henley]

Despite the fact that the noble Lord was involved in the passage of the Bill, he has not quite understood the role of police and crime commissioners. I think he might go back to the passage of that Bill and have a look at it. As I have made clear, the right to complain about what the police are doing and to make inquiries will remain as it was under the 2002 Act, as passed by the previous Government.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, under the Bill, it will be possible for people who have not been subject to the barring arrangements to work regularly with children or be in regular contact with children. Such a situation could arise if individuals concerned were being supervised by someone else. Employers in this situation will not be prohibited from requesting CRB checks on individuals who apply for “unregulated posts”, but they will not be legally required to do so after the Bill is passed. However, crucially, employers will no longer be able to see the “barred status” of an individual for posts which fall outside regulated activity.

It will be not be possible to ascertain whether the Independent Safeguarding Authority has ever made a judgment that the individual in question should be barred. Instead, it will be left to the organisation or body concerned to seek any information in the Criminal Records Bureau check and make its own judgment, but it will be unable to find out what conclusions the Independent Safeguarding Authority may have come to despite the fact that one would expect it to have some expertise in this area.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority collates and assesses information from a wide range of sources in order to come to a decision on whether an individual should be barred from working in regulated activity. Enhanced CRB checks, on the other hand, disclose only information held by the police and do not take into account the wider pool of evidence. Yet, as has already been said in the debate, roughly 20 per cent of the people on the barred list have never been in contact with the police and the evidence that has led to their being barred has come directly from employers and other sources. Surely, the objective should be to ensure that if one organisation or authority is aware that an individual has a record of abuse of others of whatever age, another authority or organisation engaging that person, either as an employee or a paid volunteer in work with vulnerable people, should not do so in ignorance of that individual’s previous record of abuse, including any assessments that have been made.

It has already been said that serious and potentially serious sexual offenders are all too often very good at covering their tracks and their activities. The Government have maintained that adults who have been “barred” by the Independent Safeguarding Authority from regulated work with children should be allowed to work under “supervision” with children. They have, unfortunately, not yet listened to children’s charities, voluntary organisations, schools and parents who tell them that however close the supervision it cannot prevent bonds of trust being formed between adult and child that could be exploited outside the supervised context and environment.

It is all very well wanting to reduce regulation on those who work regularly with children and have close contact with them, but we need to take care that it does not unnecessarily put at risk someone else’s safety or, in extreme cases, their life. I do not regard that comment as a cheap shot but as a realistic attempt to address the question of balance and proportion in considering this very serious issue.

The Government say that they are committed to giving organisations more responsibility to determine the appropriateness of checks for different roles. Therefore, surely they should not deny organisations which wish to benefit from the expert judgment of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and the full extent of information held by it from doing so if they consider it appropriate. If the Government are determined to remove obligations to check many thousands of individuals, they must at least allow employers and organisations using the services of adults to work regularly and in close contact with children, in whatever settings, to apply independently not only for enhanced CRB checks but also for the “barred status” of individuals and to recommend this as good practice.

We support the amendments, including that to which the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, has put his name. That amendment addresses the issues to which I and many others have referred in this debate and places an additional requirement on the Government to recommend in guidance the routine checking of non-regulated individuals as best practice, which takes us closer to an appropriate position on ensuring the safety of our children.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Harris, for introducing their amendments. As always, I am grateful, too, to all those who have spoken in this debate, though at times it felt not like a debate on the amendment but more like a Second Reading debate on the general principles. I should remind the House that we are at Third Reading. I make that point because we have gone way beyond day-to-day supervision, which is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and way beyond children, which is the matter of the substantive amendment. We have got on to such things as vulnerable adults, which is another matter and not relevant to what we are discussing today. I want to discuss the particular amendments, of which there only two, Amendments 4 and 5, and respond to them in due course.

I start with the simpler amendment, from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because I think that he received very little support for it other than from his Front Bench—I am not even sure that he supported his own amendment, because he pointed out the inadequacies of it. The amendment would require anyone in a school supervising a volunteer who looks after children to monitor communication between that volunteer and the children. It specifies types of communication they must monitor, including sign language. As I think the noble Lord accepts, it is too prescriptive. We have more faith in the common sense and good judgment of managers in schools than seems to be implied by the amendment.

No doubt the noble Lord will make up his own mind about what to do with the amendment. He has had very powerful support from his noble friend Lord Rosser, but I am not sure that he has had it from others. Therefore, at this stage, the important thing to do would be to move on and deal with the substantive amendment in this group of two, which is that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. If the House wanted to come to a conclusion on these two amendments, I would hope that it would come to a conclusion on that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and not that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I make that purely as an introductory point.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, seeks four things; first, that enhanced criminal record certificates be available where someone is working regularly and closely with children; secondly, that the Government issue guidance on what “regular and close” means; thirdly, that the guidance will recommend it as best practice to obtain an enhanced certificate; and, fourthly, that those certificates contain information about a person’s barred status, which could also be obtained by a direct barred-list check. I shall deal with those four points in that order. I hope that the House will listen to me carefully and remember that it is with those four things that we are dealing and not wider aspects in relation to the CRB and so on.

On that first point, I am happy to confirm that all those people who work regularly and closely with children will remain eligible for enhanced criminal record certificates. People who remain within regulated activity will be eligible for them for that reason alone. People no longer within regulated activity will remain eligible for them, as I have confirmed before and can do so again. In view of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it is not necessary to place that provision in the Bill.

On the second issue, that the Government should produce guidance on what regular and close contact means, we are already meeting the substance of this proposal. Clause 77 already commits the Government to publishing statutory guidance on the meaning of day-to-day supervision. We must be careful to avoid introducing two sets of statutory guidance about similar subjects, which would create confusion and lead to unnecessary additional burdens on businesses and voluntary organisations. Therefore, while we cannot meet the form of the noble Lord’s proposal in this area, I believe that we are already meeting the substance.

Thirdly, the amendment states that the Government should recommend that obtaining enhanced criminal record certificates is best practice for those who work closely and regularly with children. Again, here I can offer some reassurance to the noble Lord and others who have spoken. I can confirm that the statutory guidance on supervision, which we are already committed to introducing, will recommend that it is good practice to obtain an enhanced criminal record certificate when employees or volunteers are new or unknown to the organisation or if checks are needed for new posts or staff moves. Where existing employees are concerned, I hope that the House would agree that it is properly a matter for employers and voluntary organisations to judge whether periodic checks are helpful or whether to use the new updating service which helps make these criminal records more portable.

The final proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, is that employers should be able to discover whether those of their employees who work, or will be working, regularly and closely with children are barred from working with children, either via an enhanced criminal record certificate or via a direct barred-list check. Barring information will be available in relation to posts within regulated activity and a few compelling exceptions such as those applying to foster or adopt a child, but the Government cannot agree to release barring information in other circumstances.

At this juncture, it might be worth going back to the review of the vetting and barring scheme which we published a little over a year ago. The context of the review was to achieve a better balance between public protection and civil liberties: to achieve a system which is, to use a word which Ministers have much deployed during debates on the Bill in this place and another place, proportionate. The protection of vulnerable groups, including children, is paramount. That is why the review concluded that a central barring scheme should be maintained.

However, there are other important principles which need to be balanced with this, not least the civil liberties of individuals, and that is why these measures are included within the Bill. Those viewpoints have received somewhat less airing—I am grateful that some have—in this House but they are very real and widespread. It is not proportionate for barred people to have their barred status communicated to employers when it is not relevant. It is relevant in the case of a post falling within regulated activity because the person is prohibited from working in that role and the prospective employer must know that. Otherwise, it is not proportionate to pass on that information because bars relate only to regulated activity. Passing on barring information would tell employers that a person is barred from another area of work. However, despite that, many employers will not engage someone if they see the word “barred” even if the bar is not relevant to that role. To introduce this change would be greatly to expand the number of people subject to barred-list checks and it would undermine our efforts to reduce the scope of regulated activity and to make the barring arrangements more proportionate.

However, I can offer the noble Lord some reassurance in this area. While we do not think it right to communicate that someone is barred in these cases, it can be useful to pass on the information which led to the bar. This is more valuable information for an employer. In most cases this will be visible on an enhanced certificate anyway, not just in the four-fifths of bars which follow automatically from a criminal conviction or caution but in many of the one-fifth of bars which derive from other information. As I have said before, we will encourage regulated activity providers to report information to the police where appropriate, as well as to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

I can offer one further measure. Section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act allows the Independent Safeguarding Authority to provide any information to the police, which could include the information which led to a bar. While the existing purposes for which this information can be passed to the police do not include the purposes of disclosing information on an enhanced criminal record certificate, Clause 77(3) of the Bill allows the Secretary of State to prescribe new purposes. I can confirm that we will include a new purpose for providing information for disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates. We will introduce this alongside the new definition of regulated activity. This will allow the ISA or the Disclosure and Barring Service to give to the police information which led to a bar and, if the police judge it relevant to the post applied for, the police may disclose it on an enhanced certificate. This is a better solution than telling an employer that someone is not barred. Indeed, providing the information that led to a bar will be of far more benefit to a prospective employer than simply providing the word “barred”, allowing the employer to make an informed choice.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said on Report:

“I would like to think that we could say quite simply that all organisations employing adults, whether paid or unpaid, to work regularly with children, in whatever setting, should be able to carry out enhanced CRB checks, and that should be recommended by the department as good practice”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 798.]

I have made it clear to the House that we are committed to delivering on both these points. Indeed, I hope noble Lords will agree that I have gone further in undertaking to provide for the police to include the reasons for a barring decision on an enhanced certificate where such information is relevant to the post in question, but only where it is. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, will agree that I have satisfied the points that he raised on Report and will agree not to move his amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have cashless in the LASPO Bill and I hope that it will deal with this problem.

We have to consider the other important points that need to be dealt with. One of those—and, again, this is why I am interested in how the Opposition voted on the previous amendment—is whether the powers of entry are adequate and what powers of entry need to be given to the police. We can look at these matters, first, in the LASPO Bill and consider further regulation in due course.

I welcome the support of the Front Bench opposite for further action in this area. Obviously, there is more that we can do. I do not think that this is the right way of going forward at this stage because, as I said, we want to bring forward amendments in the LASPO Bill on Report. I can give an assurance that as soon as possible thereafter, by whatever legislative means is appropriate, we will bring forward the further amendments that need to be made, particularly to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister asked me where my figure on the cost of metal theft, at £1 billion a year, came from. I would not say that the figure necessarily came from the most authoritative of sources, but it appeared in a fairly prominent newspaper article last December.

[Lord Henley]

Is the noble Lord prepared to mention which newspaper he relies on?

[Lord Rosser]

I am trying to remember which one it was. As the Minister has asked me which one it was, I intend to tell him. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that it was the London Evening Standard.

It is clear that the current level of metal thefts has caused a considerable increase in the cost of security arrangements. It is already costing businesses, organisations and local authorities money and we need action. This amendment, along with the amendment from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester which is to be considered on Thursday, provides for action now—action which we badly need against this serious, organised and growing crime. As my amendment goes further than the Government appear to be contemplating in respect of police powers of entry and closure of dealerships—powers that are needed now—I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said in his concluding remarks and we will certainly look at whether any such biometric information should ever be made available outside school. He makes a perfectly valid point on that. Perhaps I might answer some of the points that have been made in the course of this debate, then move my own amendments. It will be open to noble Lords to consider what to do with their own amendments that have been grouped with this later on.

I start with the question of language, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised in Amendment 23. The amendment says that information provided by schools and colleges to parents and children on their rights under these provisions must be in a language capable of being readily understood by the parent and child. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, this is true of all information that is provided to parents, whether illiterate or not, and it is something that schools always have to take into account when trying to get to their parents. As I indicated in our deliberations in Committee, the Bill provides that parental consent must be informed and freely given. Schools and colleges should take steps to ensure that parents receive full information about the processing of their child’s biometric information.

I can give an assurance that the Department for Education will issue advice to schools on the provisions in this chapter of the Bill. That advice will include a template consent form for schools to use if they wish. As well as providing information about the type of biometric information to be taken and how it will be used, the advice and the template will refer to the right of parents and pupils to refuse or withdraw their consent and the duty on schools to provide alternative arrangements for those pupils whose information cannot be processed. We will encourage schools to follow the template that we have put forward.

With the aid of this advice, I hope that my noble friend will agree that we can trust schools and colleges to provide appropriate information in the appropriate manner to provide parents and pupils with the right information without the need for an express legal requirement of the kind set out in her amendment.

I turn to my noble friend’s Amendments 20 and 21, which are amendments to government Amendment 19 and seek to ensure that children will also be notified of the processing and of their right to object. We do not consider that an express statutory provision to this effect is necessary, as schools and parents should be trusted to inform children in an age-appropriate manner of what is being proposed, and to ascertain if the child has any concerns about the processing. The proposed government advice will highlight to schools the child’s right to object, and will recommend that parents are made aware of that advice.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I was worried that his arguments were oversuspicious and, at some points, over-Jesuitical. He seemed to think that there was a hidden agenda, and at times I suspect that there was an element of him protesting too much in his objections to what we do. Having said that, I have a degree of sympathy for the arguments that he put forward.

The Government believe that, regardless of their age, all children should have the right to say no to the processing of his or her biometric information, even if that is an uninformed objection from a relatively small child. No child of any age should be coerced, physically or otherwise, to give his or her biometric information. We believe that it would be wrong to ignore the wishes and feelings of even a primary-aged child in this important matter.

[Lord Rosser]

If that is the Government’s view for a child of primary school age, is it also their view that if that child wishes their biometric information to be processed and their parents do not, the child’s view should likewise prevail?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I was going to come to that point. The two scenarios are different. This is why I thought that at times his arguments were positively Jesuitical, with one parent pushing one way, one pushing the other and the child possibly going down a third route, if there could be a third route. Why should one or the other prevail? We think it is right that if the parents say, “No, we do not want that”, that should be final. That is why we have tabled the amendments. Even if one parent objects, that should be it. However, because we believe that these things are important, we also feel that, even if the parents want the provision, it is right that the child can opt out, even if he or she is making an uninformed decision. There is a very big distinction between the two matters. That is why I was worried about the arguments that the noble Lord was putting forward. I believe there is little to be gained in overruling the child’s wishes and I am not aware of any specific evidence that—

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Thursday 15th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment is a response to calls from both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to clarify the law in respect of the illegal interception of voicemail messages. The amendment seeks to clarify the definition of interception in the context of Section 1 of RIPA to mean that those who access the voicemail of individuals without their knowledge or consent will be liable to prosecution, even if the intended recipient has already accessed the messages.

In his evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on 24 March this year, the then acting Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John Yates, stated that the reason he had initially advised the committee in September 2010 that only 10 to 12 victims could have cases brought for them in relation to alleged phone hacking was the,

“very prescriptive definition of Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act”,

which deals with the illegal interception of voicemail messages. Of course, we now know that there are potentially thousands of cases where voicemail messages have been accessed and listened to without authorisation. However, to prove the offence of interception under the section, Mr Yates maintained that the prosecution had to show that a voicemail message had been intercepted prior to it being listened to by the intended recipient. In response to the evidence given by Mr Yates, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in April of this year to clarify the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service on this issue. He told the committee that in 2006 in relation to the investigation of, I think, Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire, the CPS initially advised the Met that:

“The offences under Section 1 of RIPA would, as far as I can see, only relate to such messages that had not been previously accessed by the recipient. However, this area is very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this”.

Furthermore, the DPP stated that the view of the CPS at the time was that it regarded the question of whether or not the unauthorised accessing of a voicemail message after the recipient has collected the message is a RIPA offence as a difficult legal issue which had not been tested or authoritatively determined; that there were tenable arguments either way; that the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 2002 of NTL Group Limited versus Ipswich Crown Court pointed to a narrow view; and that it approached the prosecution on the basis that if the issue of interpretation arose, it could be preferable to proceed on a narrow interpretation, thereby avoiding the necessity of having a contested trial.

The letter from the DPP in April noted the following points. First, no concluded or definitive view was ever reached, and from the outset the head of the CPS special crime division indicated that the interpretation is,

“very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this”.

Secondly, that,

“the prosecution was never required to, nor did it, articulate a definitive view of the law … in the case of Messers Goodman and Mulcaire”.

Thirdly, in his view,

“the legal advice given by the CPS to the Metropolitan Police on the interpretation of the relevant offences did not limit the scope and extent of the criminal investigation”.

That final point is based on the advice given by the CPS to the Met that the case could have been prosecuted under other offences, including the Computer Misuse Act. However, the Met was apparently reluctant to bring a prosecution under that Act. It has been suggested that that was for tactical reasons, but I do not know whether that was the case. Whatever the situation may be, it does not detract from the need to clarify the law on arguably the most relevant offence under RIPA. We believe that a clarification in the law is needed to make it clear that an offence of illegal interception of voicemail messages applies regardless of whether that message has been listened to by the intended recipient. Our amendment would provide that clarification and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to provide such clarification. I beg to move.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord, rightly, is looking for a degree of clarification, as suggested in his amendment. I do not think that we need clarification, and it might be helpful if I set out the case.

First, let me be clear that phone tapping or hacking is illegal. As the noble Lord made clear in his opening remarks, it remains illegal—I want to emphasise this—even if the intended recipient has access to that communication. I am aware of some of the concerns and the point was addressed directly by the DPP in the written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October last year. He stated that his advice to the police and the CPS would be to assume that,

“an offence may be committed if a communication is intercepted or looked into after it has been accessed by the intended recipient and for so long as the system in question is used to store the communication in a manner which enables the (intended) recipient to have subsequent, or even repeated, access to it”.

The recent Home Affairs Select Committee report, following its inquiry into unauthorised tapping or hacking of mobile communications, signified the particular importance of Section 2(7) of RIPA and that not enough attention had been paid to its significance. The committee did not recommend that Section 2(7) be amended. As Members of the Committee will be aware, we also have the Leveson inquiry, which is looking at a number of issues related to phone hacking. The first part of the inquiry, which is already under way, is focusing on the role and conduct of the press. The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers and the way in which management failures have allowed it to happen. The original police investigation and its failings, the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and the implications of all this for relations between police and the press will also be considered as part of the second part of that inquiry.

As the noble Lord will be aware, there are a number of other inquiries and investigations in hand and the police investigation into allegations of phone hacking continues, which I referred to in the Chamber only the other day in answering a Question. We believe it to be most appropriate, which I think the noble Lord would accept, to await the outcome of these various inquiries to know just what has happened, and so on, and to examine the conclusions before considering any changes to the law in this area. Further, we consider that the meaning of Section 2(7) is clear and that there are sufficient penalties in place to deal with offences of unauthorised interception. I refer the noble Lord back to the advice of the DPP to the CPS prosecutors. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that deals with his points and that it is probably best to wait for the outcome of all those reports before he, we or anyone goes further.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am not as convinced as he is that the present legislation is entirely clear because the events to which I referred would suggest that in certain fairly key quarters there appears to be some confusion over the current position. I do not mean confusion as far as the Minister is concerned, but I did refer to the police and the evidence that had been given. I am not entirely surprised that the Minister made reference to inquiries currently being undertaken. If I can take it from what he said, which I am sure I can, if those inquiries suggest that there is any lack of clarity in the present legal position, or even if the inquiry does not think there is a lack of clarity but nevertheless it would be helpful if the wording in the legislation were firmed up so that no one else could be in any doubt, that is the road that the Government will go down to end any confusion there might be on anyone’s part. On the basis that the Minister agrees that that will be the Government’s response—

[Lord Henley]

I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to intervene to confirm that that is exactly the case. Obviously, we are awaiting the results of those inquiries, and it would be wrong for us to jump before that. Whatever they recommend will be something that the Government will have to consider with great care.

[Lord Rosser]

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Justice: Evidence

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is not for me to pronounce on the problems that the group is having. As my noble friend knows from his distinguished service on this group, the membership has changed not once but twice over the last year or so. There are difficult issues to be addressed. I know that it came forward with one model, and there were problems with that, but I think my noble friend will accept that trying to get the right balance, to which I referred in my first Answer, between advantage, costs and risks is a very great challenge and one that we want that group to get right.

[Lord Rosser]

I am not clear from the Minister’s answer whether the Government have a view on this issue or not. In light of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the ECHR decision to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred, do the Government take the view that there appears to be no insurmountable obstacle in principle to the use of intercept evidence, or are our intelligence services still voicing significant concerns on this issue?

[Lord Henley]

There are obviously significant concerns about using intercept as evidence. It can be very useful as intelligence, but using it as evidence can create significant problems. We want to address those problems and make sure that we have got it right before we allow intercept to be used as evidence. That is why the previous Government set up the review under Sir John Chilcot and why we are continuing to look at the work that it is doing and looking forward to its report in due course.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested that I should not talk about feed-in tariffs and solar panels, and I am tempted to follow her suggestion on that. I used to speak a great deal on those issues in my previous job, but I do not often do so now that I am in the Home Office. I am not sure that they are quite relevant to this debate. Possibly we ought to have a new award for relevance in amendments—we could call it the Lord Rosser award for relevance—and I could congratulate the noble Lord on winning the award on this occasion for bringing in feed-in tariffs and solar panels.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sorry if the Minister could not understand the point, but I quoted from one of the leading providers of this technology in schools who said that there had not been proper consultation or clear thinking about the consequences of the new policy. My point was that that lack of proper consultation or clear thinking about the consequences of a new policy seems to have become a feature of this Government, because that is precisely what happened with the new feed-in tariffs. I am sorry if the Minister cannot understand the relationship between the two.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as regards consultation, we consult till the cows come home in this department and every other department, and I am distinctly happy about the amount of consultation that has taken place on this issue. We will move on now from feed-in tariffs and solar panels and get on to the gist of the amendment.

My noble friend Lord Lucas is obviously not completely convinced that there is a need for parental consent at all, but accepts that he could be persuaded as long as, as I understand him, it is not overburdensome. That point is probably behind the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, did ask in passing for confirmation of the figures he used, and I can confirm, if I heard them correctly, that he is broadly right. Our figures are that some 30 per cent of secondary schools and some 5 per cent of primary schools are making some use of biometric systems for dealing with matters which, again one ought to stress, are largely related to access to school dinners, libraries and that sort of thing—so not major matters that affect them in other ways.

My noble friend obviously needs a degree of persuading about these matters. It is probably best if I go through the amendments in the appropriate order. I will deal with them in an order that I will take rather than as they are set out, but possibly I will leave Amendment 85, the first of my noble friend’s amendments, which even he described as being garbled; it is possibly best if I say little about that. I think my noble friend will understand why I take these a little out of order. I will start with Amendment 88.

Amendment 88 would have three consequences. First, it would obviously narrow the definition of who is a parent for the purposes of these provisions. Secondly, it would change the scope of the requirement for consent in that only one parent will need to consent. Thirdly, it seeks to introduce legal protection for schools and colleges where a child’s biometric information is processed beyond the control of that school or college. I will begin by addressing the first and third effects of that amendment.

For the purposes of these clauses, a parent means the child’s mother, father or any other individual who has parental responsibility for the child. Where it is not possible to obtain consent from any such persons, the parent is the person who cares for the child, unless the child is accommodated by a local authority or some voluntary organisation, in which case consent will be needed from that authority. My noble friend’s amendments obviously narrow this definition to include only individuals with parental responsibility. This would mean that, where there is no individual with parental responsibility who is able to consent, a school or college would be able to process a child’s biometric information without any person providing consent. I am sure that is not my noble friend’s intention, and he would probably want to adjust his amendment if he comes back to it—and I see my noble friend nod. The Government believe that all children, whatever their care arrangements, deserve the same level of protection in relation to the use of their personal information by a school or college. That is why we believe it is right that the definition of a parent goes wider than that suggested by my noble friend. Again I see my noble friend nod, and if he wants to come back to that he will no doubt amend his amendment.

The third element of this amendment seeks to provide protection for schools and colleges where a child’s data are processed outside of the control of the school or college. I know that my noble friend is concerned that these provisions should not apply when pupils access commercial websites or software systems that use face recognition to control access. I can give reassurance to my noble friend that the provisions in Clause 26 cover only the processing of biometric information that is carried out by, or on behalf of, the school or college.

Let me move on from Amendment 88 to the alternative approaches suggested by my noble friend in Amendments 85 and 87. It is also appropriate to consider here Amendments 86 and 89, from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which address a similar point and which I think my noble friend said he possibly preferred to his own. All those amendments seek to adopt a different approach to consent. At their most radical, they seek to replace the opt-in arrangement provided for in the Bill with an opt-out process. As a variant of this, they seek to provide for consent to be given by a single parent. Given the sensitive nature of the data involved, a positive decision should be made by both parents. This approach would afford them the opportunity to act on any concerns that they may have about the use of their child’s biometric information. In the vast majority of cases I would expect parents to discuss the issues between themselves and reach some agreement. As those of us who are parents will know, that is not always necessarily possible but, in the main, parents can reach that conclusion among themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I accept that there can be a problem with inertia. It is what one might refer to as the “cheque is in the post” syndrome. People say that they are doing things and they do not. I suspect that we have got it right, but I am more than happy to have a further look at this if the noble Lord thinks that there will be concern over that. But this is something that schools are already doing a great deal about in terms of consulting or talking to their parents, and it is something that schools are used to. But perhaps we could talk about that at some later stage or between now and another stage.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister has raised a number of issues, but could he confirm that under the Government’s proposals a child of five could say no, even though the parents had said yes, and it would be the view of the child of five that prevailed? If a 15 year-old agrees and one parent says no and one says yes, will the Government then seek to uphold the right of the 15 year-old? Also, he said that under my proposal the 15 year-old would be dragged kicking and screaming. Could he just confirm that school teachers are not allowed to use force against pupils, or has the government policy changed?

[Lord Henley]

Government policy has not changed, and the noble Lord will accept that the words I was using were metaphorical.

[Lord Rosser]

Careless.

[Lord Henley]

Careless words they may be, as the noble Lord is saying, but I will go on using them. The simple fact is that he was suggesting you would force a child to be registered. How is he suggesting that that could be done other than by dragging the child kicking and screaming? We think that it is right at any age. I think that it would be rather unusual for a child of five to say that he was not going to do something when his parents insisted that it should be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord has me there at the moment because I cannot assist him. We will be discussing further commissioners in due course. As regards the number that are registered, the noble Lord is ahead of me because he has seen that answered by one of my predecessors. I prefer to write to my noble friend about the details of his inquiry. Perhaps we can have further discussions between now and Report.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Minister said that his concern is about delay, and I will come back to that in a moment. If that is his concern, it does not explain why he does not accept Amendment 110, which relates to the private sector and those who may be covered by Clause 33(5)(k), since there is no intention at the moment of introducing it into these areas, and therefore it would be possible without causing a delay to agree to an inquiry there. I take it that in view of the fact that the Minister has not accepted it in relation to Amendment 110, it is a fundamental objection to an inquiry, not simply about delay, because Amendment 110 would not result in a delay.

[Lord Henley]

That is not the only aspect. There is also the cost. The noble Lord has not said who is going to pay for this inquiry.

[Lord Rosser]

If the Minister would care to tell me how much he thinks it is going to cost, perhaps we could discuss that issue and look at some of the other things that the Government are spending money on.

Our concern is that the code of practice—when it is drawn up, and we have not seen it yet—will act as a deterrent and prove to be something of an exercise in bureaucracy and additional cost. Additional cost is obviously an issue that is of considerable concern to the Minister. We do not sense that this Government look particularly favourably towards CCTV and that that may be one of the motives behind this proposal. We do not know, and the Minister has not told us, what the code will contain or what its impact will be on the use of CCTV. He has remained silent on that issue. The advantage of an inquiry is that it would show the extent or otherwise to which CCTV is being abused, and the Minister referred to that, so clearly he considers it an issue. It would also identify quite clearly the advantages and disadvantages of CCTV and what it has achieved, because some of us think that it has achieved a not inconsiderable amount. At least when the code was being drawn up, it would be drawn up against the background of a proper inquiry having taken place and looked at some of the allegations that are made. Therefore the code would be relevant and would address hard evidence instead of views or perceptions, and it would also make sure that the code would not in any way go over the top. That is why we are putting forward this proposal.

We note that the Minister has rejected it. He said that it was on grounds of cost as well as delay and had to agree that Amendment 110 would not cause any delay. Our argument is that when he draws up his code of practice, it may well lead to additional costs and a reduction of CCTV in areas where it would be beneficial for it to continue. However, we note what the Minister said. I will not pursue that matter any further at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention from my noble friend Lady Miller.

The measures in Clauses 37 and 38, together with the changes that we propose to make through secondary legislation, will deliver the coalition commitment to limit local authority use of RIPA—a commitment we made when the coalition came into being following the last election. The Bill also gives effect to the conclusions of the counter-terrorism review which was published in January. That review recommended two changes to the use of RIPA powers by local authorities.

First, these clauses will require that the exercise of RIPA powers by local authorities be subject to prior judicial approval. The second change, which will limit local authority use of directed surveillance to the investigation of offences which carry a maximum six-month sentence, will be implemented through secondary legislation made under RIPA. That will ensure that direct surveillance cannot be used to investigate relatively low-level matters, such as littering, dog fouling and schools enrolment, while still allowing it to be used against large-scale matters such as fly-tipping or waste-tipping, extensive criminal damage and serious or serial benefit fraud cases.

In response to representations received during the review, we have decided to make an exception to the seriousness threshold for offences relating to the underage sales of tobacco and alcohol. The investigation of those offences relies heavily on the use of directed surveillance and so in these circumstances the review concluded that it was appropriate to have a limited carve-out so that trading standards officers could continue to take effective action against businesses which seek to flout the law on age-related sales.

The conclusions of the counter-terrorism review were endorsed by my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who provided independent oversight of the conduct of the review. However, the amendment seeks a rather wider review of RIPA. I will say straightaway that, although the Government agree that it is essential that people’s privacy is protected from any unnecessary or disproportionate access by public bodies discharging their duties, this is precisely why RIPA was introduced, debated and passed by Parliament. And it is precisely why the way it is working is kept under constant review—not just by the Home Office but by the independent commissioners who report to the Prime Minister and publish annual reports which are laid before Parliament.

In bringing forward the current proposals to limit local authority use of RIPA, we are responding to public concern about a specific area in which the law operates. The measures are intended to restore confidence and ensure that any fears of future misuse are unfounded. But there is no well-founded indication that there is a need for much more fundamental reform of RIPA. Indeed, any regulatory regime would need to be built on precisely the same principles and contain the same human rights safeguards as RIPA is built on.

No one should be complacent about how our right to privacy is safeguarded. The measures before us come from one review and were endorsed by a public consultation. We need to get on and deliver them, but I put it to the noble Lord that another review before we have delivered the recommendations of the first would be premature and no doubt expensive—I do not know how many other reviews he will propose during the passage of the Bill. We will continue to monitor how the new arrangements are working in practice and adjust our approach if necessary. The developments will be reported on also by the independent RIPA commissioner, whose published reports, as the noble Lord will be aware, are laid before Parliament each year. We are confident that the measures in the Bill, together with the associated secondary legislation introducing the seriousness threshold, will prevent local authorities using RIPA in a way that undermines public confidence. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, in drawing up the amendment, which the Minister said was quite wide-ranging in relation to RIPA, we were seeking to address in particular that part of the Act relating to local authorities, since the coalition has made it—and the Minister has reaffirmed it—one of its objectives. It is stated in the impact assessment that the provision stems from perceptions that local authorities have misused powers rather than, apparently, hard evidence. Bearing in mind the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s view that expenditure of £250,000 will be incurred on something that is apparently regarded, certainly as far as local authorities’ use of the powers is concerned, as a perception, it did not seem unreasonable to suggest that there should be an investigation to get some hard evidence so that we might all be clear on precisely what problem we were seeking to address.

However, I have taken note of what the Minister has said. We will reflect further on the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I think that I can agree with the first point made by the noble Baroness entirely. As for the second point, that is what we have to get right, and that is why we are going to consult and produce the appropriate guidance. But that is not something that we can get down in the Bill.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I noticed the response that the Minister gave to the right reverend Prelate, and I think that the short answer is that the concerns expressed by the right reverend Prelate would be largely addressed through the acceptance of the amendments that we have tabled and that the Minister has declined to accept.

The Minister raised the issue of the appeal. Clearly, the Government’s intentions about appeals do not appear to meet the recommendations of the JCHR. He raised the query that, under the Government’s proposal, people could appeal when informed of the ruling or the decision and before the implementation. I should just make clear our stance, which we have taken throughout—that we want people automatically barred if they commit a serious offence and then to appeal if they feel that the decision to bar them has precluded them from taking up a particular position. We come at it from a different angle from that of the Minister.

There is clearly a considerable difference between us, and it came out in the first group of amendments that we discussed and again in this group. We will need to reflect on the response that the Minister has given before deciding whether to pursue the specific issue again on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I notice that the Minister said that he would continue discussions with his noble friend and sporting organisations. Does that mean that he does not intend to discuss it with ourselves on this side, even though we have tabled a very similar amendment?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord has taken offence because I accidently used the words “noble friends” and did not include the entire House. I said that I would write to everyone—I will certainly include the noble Lord in these discussions if he feels he is being left out. I made the point purely because it was my noble friend who brought the sporting organisations to see me, having made a request. I am not aware that the noble Lord came along with any sporting organisations—or, if he did, I did not notice them. But anyway, I will include him in this offer. I would be more than happy to see him.

[Lord Rosser]

The Minister knows that I was not there with any sporting organisations, but I have an amendment down, which I take it that the Minister is not terribly enthusiastic about, which is very similar to the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The Minister has made it clear that he is prepared to discuss the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so I am not quite sure why he originally intended to exclude ourselves.

Phone Hacking

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend is right when he quotes the figure of 5,795 people who the police have said may—I stress, may—have had their phones hacked. The police stressed that at this stage they cannot give a figure, which is why I gave the other figure of 1,800 people who the police have identified as potential victims, and the 600 with whom they have been in contact. I note what my noble friend said about setting up some independent body as a result of these matters. At this stage, I cannot possibly comment and we must await the outcome of the inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson. When that happens, I am sure that we will act.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, when giving evidence recently to your Lordships’ Communications Committee inquiry on the future of investigative journalism, the Culture Secretary, Mr Jeremy Hunt, said that newspapers are likely to come under the auspices of a new regulatory body that is,

“better at enforcing standards of accuracy”,

than the Press Complaints Commission. Can the Minister confirm that this is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it seems that with this group of amendments the noble Lord first wishes to, in effect, remove the independent biometrics commissioner and then, as we discussed earlier, extend the period of DNA retention automatically to six years for virtually all offences. Amendments 6, 9 and 10 would leave the decision entirely in the hands of the police. Obviously I can see the attraction of effectively automating the process to reduce the administrative burden placed on the police in those cases. However, the Government consider this to be completely outweighed by the additional protection given to the arrested person by the safeguard of the commissioner’s consideration. We considered this issue very carefully in drawing up our proposals.

We accept that it is appropriate in limited circumstances to retain material where a person has been arrested for a qualifying offence but not subsequently charged, and those circumstances are set out in new Section 63G(2) and (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which would be inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill. However, given that in such cases the charging standard has not been met, we believe that further safeguards are necessary, and the independent scrutiny of the commissioner provides that safeguard.

In support of his arguments, the noble Lord produced the case of Kensley Larrier, whose DNA, he claimed, was vital in getting him convicted of rape. My advice is that the DNA was not the key to his subsequent conviction for rape and on that occasion it was the complainant who took the police to the block of flats where he lived and described him in such detail that he could easily be identified. No doubt the noble Lord will say that that is just one example and will produce others, but it was not a very good example and it does not particularly support his case. Again, it is a question of finding the right balance.

I also remind your Lordships that the evidential charging standard is that there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”, which is defined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors as,

“an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law”,

that,

“is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged”.

Where the charging standard has not been met but the police believe there are valid reasons to retain the material, we believe that the process of applying to the commissioner, which we are determined to make as straightforward, simple and unbureaucratic as possible, provides an important safeguard.

As I have indicated, we believe that the police should be able to retain biometric material in limited circumstances. In this respect, therefore, the Bill goes beyond the Scottish system in allowing for the retention of material from persons who have been arrested but not charged, which is why we believe that there should be the safeguard that we have set out to form the biometric commissioner. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Second Reading in another place:

“We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person … the police will apply to the commissioner for retention. I believe that these rules give the police the tools they need without putting the DNA of a large number of innocent people on the database”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 207.]

For that reason, I cannot offer a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord in his Amendments 6, 9 and 10.

Amendment 13 would provide for a six-year retention period in the case of a person arrested for or charged with, but not convicted of, a minor offence. Clause 4 delivers another of the key protections of the Scottish model. Read with Clause 1 it provides for the destruction of the DNA profiles and fingerprints of anyone who has been arrested for or charged with a recordable offence that is not a qualifying offence but who is not subsequently convicted. The Government’s view is that not retaining that material taken from those arrested for or charged with a minor offence but not subsequently convicted strikes the right balance between public protection and individual freedoms.

The European Court of Human Rights was clear on this point. A key passage of the Marper judgment, the case to which we referred earlier and which this Bill implements, stated that it was struck by the indiscriminate nature of the power of retention then in force, and highlighted the fact that,

“material may be retained irrespective of the gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected”.

Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, takes a contrary view. He says that we should retain as much of this DNA material as possible for as long as possible. Some of his noble friends, such as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Soley, want ultimately to have everyone’s DNA on the register. The party opposite says that retaining someone’s DNA profile on a database is not much of an intrusion. It compared it to keeping a photograph and said that it is not much of an intrusion compared with the risk of even one rape or serious assault left unsolved. I do not accept that.

We have argued consistently, both before the election and since, that the previous Government’s models went too far. We think that the Scottish model strikes a far better balance between the competing interests, as the Joint Committee concluded when it examined the previous Government’s proposals. As I made clear in the debate on the earlier amendment, I believe that a great many others support us on this issue.

As for the research conducted by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, the noble Lord should remember that its director later noted that it was incomplete and based on data to which it was not given direct access. In September 2009, Gloria Laycock, director at the institute, said of the research study:

“That was probably a mistake with hindsight. We should have just said ‘you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number’”.

I took that from a briefing provided by Liberty, for which I am most grateful. The noble Lord also might have looked at that and might have found it of some use in his arguments. We are trying to find the right balance and we believe that we have. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response. It throws into sharp contrast the fundamental difference of view between this side and the Government over the length of time that DNA samples should be retained, and the types of cases for which they should be retained. I do not think the Minister has sought to argue that retaining them for the longer period of time, which is what we are advocating, would not lead to more people who have committed serious offences being apprehended. He gets around replying to that argument simply by talking of a so-called balance. On this side we have made it clear that we are in favour of a balance that seeks to apprehend those who have committed serious offences and one that reduces the number of people who are likely to be the victims of serious crime.

However, there is obviously a fundamental difference on this view, which was expressed by the Minister during our discussion on the previous amendment. I will withdraw this amendment for the moment, but we will consider whether to bring back a similar amendment on Report.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief. Our own Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the TPIMs remain,

“an extraordinary departure from ordinary principles of criminal due process”.

It went on to recommend that the Bill should also,

“require annual renewal, and so ensure there is an annual opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate the continued necessity for such exceptional measures and the way in which they are working in practice”.

Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, also questioned whether it was constitutionally appropriate for the extraordinary executive powers involved in TPIMs to remain in being for a lengthy period of time. Whatever one’s views on the need for TPIMs, these are considerable and exceptional measures, and it is surely right and appropriate that Parliament should—as happens currently with control orders—continue to have the opportunity and the duty to decide each year whether the situation remains such that the measures in this Bill and the associated powers should continue in being or instead be allowed to expire.

The fact that debates on the Bill are taking place now does not affect the necessity and appropriateness of proper consideration each year by Parliament of whether the circumstances remain such that these powers, and the way in which they are used and operated, are still needed for a further period of time. It remains to be seen whether the Minister’s position has changed on this issue, but if the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, decides in the light of the Minister’s reply to test the opinion of the House, we should support his amendment.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for setting out his amendment and explaining it so carefully. I am also grateful that he set out the arguments I put forward both in Committee and at Second Reading. I will go through them again because I think that the House would like to hear them, and I might be able to persuade noble Lords of the merits of my position. I will not follow the second speaker in the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her strictures to her own former Front Bench about consistency. I will leave that as an internal family matter that they can sort out among themselves. Consistency is important on some occasions, but that is a matter for the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Rosser, to consider in due course.

It is important that I set out the Government’s views on why we think it is not necessary to go to an annual review, as opposed to the five-year review that we are proposing. I will set out the argument on three major grounds, more or less as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick did. First—that dread word—we believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance. It reflects the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that powers do not remain in force longer than is necessary. It also reflects the competence of Parliament to apply intense scrutiny to legislation—no one can say that this legislation has not had intense scrutiny, and it has not been emergency legislation as on previous occasions—and to arrive at a position that will not need to be reviewed annually. Each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this view in the context of the situation at the time and to take its own view. This is in line with the length of Parliaments provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Secondly, we believe that annual renewal is unnecessary. The Bill has been subject to full parliamentary scrutiny with the usual timetable allowing for a settled position to be reached. As I stressed earlier, by contrast the control order legislation had to be, necessarily, rushed through with very little opportunity for debate, although there was considerable debate in this House. That made annual renewal an appropriate safeguard for the 2005 Act. Admittedly it was a safeguard that was initially opposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded us—by the Government at the time, but it is one that is not necessary in respect of this Bill.

I stress that there are other significant forms of oversight and scrutiny. There will be the annual report by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation; there will be quarterly reports to Parliament by the Secretary of State—she must report quarterly on the exercise of these powers under the Act—and there will be the usual post-legislative scrutiny which requires a detailed memorandum on the operation of the Act to be submitted to the relevant departmental Select Committee and laid before Parliament. As we discussed when debating many of the earlier amendments and all earlier stages of the Bill, every individual TPIM notice will be carefully scrutinised by the courts.

Thirdly, I stress again—this point was raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others—that there are other means by which the Bill can be amended or repealed. There is an order-making power to repeal the TPIM powers, and if it becomes clear that the powers are no longer needed—we would all welcome that occasion if it should happen—it will be possible at any time during each five-year period for the Home Secretary to repeal the powers by order. If it becomes clear that the powers should be changed, the legislation can be amended by Parliament at any time in the usual way.

We do not, therefore, believe that an annual renewal is necessary. We think a five-year review of these matters strikes the right balance. I appreciate that other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have strong views on the matter and I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I hope—although I doubt very much—that what I have said might persuade him on this occasion to withdraw his amendment.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have three brief points to make, which will take me a little time, about why we do not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, we believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance—a word I have used on many occasions; secondly, I believe that annual renewal is unnecessary, and I shall return to that in more detail; and, thirdly, there are other means by which the Bill can be amended or repealed.

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulks for his comments reminding the House that the provisions that face us follow a very lengthy review of all our counterterrorism provisions by the Government, with the announcements earlier in the year and consideration of this Bill, in due course, in both Houses. This is very different from what happened with the 2005 Act. We believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance and reflects the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that the powers do not remain in force longer than necessary. It also reflects the competence of Parliament to apply intense scrutiny to legislation and to arrive at a position when it will not need to be reviewed annually. We are moving to a position where we hope that each Parliament will last five years, so each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this in the context of the situation at the time and take its own view. That is in line with the length of Parliaments, as I have said, provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Secondly, I believe that annual review is unnecessary. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, say that he was wasting his breath. He never wastes his breath in this House. I have been here for many years and I have listened to him with great devotion on many occasions. I do not always agree with him, but he is not wasting his breath. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is more optimistic and feels that an annual debate provides a better opportunity for these things, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, a copy of whose book Just Law—however you pronounce it—sits in my room in the Home Office to this day, and I will always have it there to be reminded about how I should go about my duties. However, I have to say that I do not agree with her, or with others, on this occasion about whether annual renewal is necessary.

The important thing is to distinguish the process we are going through on this occasion from the process we went through following the 2005 Act. This Bill will be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny with the usual timetable—we still have not completed it in this House—allowing for a settled position to be reached. In contrast, the 2005 legislation was, as the noble Lord will remember, rushed through with very little opportunity for debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded the House of her role in that. We believe that that makes annual renewal an appropriate safeguard for the 2005 Act, but one that we do not think is necessary for this Act.

My third point is that there are also other means by which the Bill can be amended or replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stressed that these powers seem to be permanent, but I ask him to look very carefully at Clause 21(2) which states that:

“The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument … repeal the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers”.

It is unusual to give the Secretary of State the power to repeal something, but that provision allows her, if she feels they are no longer necessary, at any stage to repeal and take away the powers that she has given herself. Again, I make this point in terms of how, if it becomes clear that the powers should be changed, the legislation can be amended by Parliament at any time in the usual way.

I appreciate that many noble Lords feel that an annual debate would be preferable to one every five years. It happens on other occasions. I think there is some financial Motion that we debate once a year under EU rules following some vote in this House, and I have noticed, and I think other noble Lords will have noticed, that the number of participants in that debate seems to decline each year as time goes past, so I wonder whether a debate every year is necessary, given the fact that this Bill has been given full coverage in both Houses.

I appreciate that others may feel differently but, at this stage, I think that what we are offering and have brought forward as a concession in another place—a debate once each Parliament—is appropriate and will be sufficient, given the other safeguards in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will feel that on this occasion he can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the contributions they have made based, I have to say, on considerably more experience and knowledge of the issues involved than I can claim to possess. Perhaps I should also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her determination on this point with the previous Government.

There is no disagreement that this amendment raises a key issue of real significance. It is about parliamentary oversight of extraordinary and exceptional executive powers which directly affect to a considerable degree the freedom and liberty of a small number of individuals whom the Secretary of State reasonably believes are or have been involved in terrorist activity. That oversight, involving human rights and civil liberties, cannot be properly exercised if done only once every five years. In reality, the Bill would be amended or dropped in the intervening years only if it were the Government, not Parliament, that wanted to change the legislation. That is surely a fact of life.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Lord Henley

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I said “open to challenge in the media”; I am not sure that is the same as being accountable to the media. On this issue we continue to hold a very different view from that expressed by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and my noble friend Lord Morgan.

I appreciate that one of the arguments is that the very system of control orders that we have provokes people who might otherwise have been only minded to commit acts of terrorism actually to do so. I am not aware of the evidence that supports that contention but I am aware that acts of terrorism were committed when there were no control orders in existence and that control orders, which have affected a limited number of people, seem to have been in effect during a period when we have been afforded a fair degree of protection from acts of terrorism, despite the threat level having been either severe or substantial.

I also appreciate that there are concerns over human rights. However, I understand that it is being held that control orders are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. As well as the rights of the individual, there are surely issues about the rights of innocent people to be protected from acts of terrorism. As the Minister said at Second Reading:

“It is clear that the current threat from terrorism remains serious and will not diminish in the foreseeable future. It is also clear that in this country there are, and will continue to be, a small number of people who pose a real and immediate terrorist threat but who cannot be successfully prosecuted or deported”.—[Official Report, 5/10/11; col. 1134.]

The current Secretary of State has been prepared to use control orders, including the relocation provision, and has received the clear backing of the courts.

We do not agree with much of this Bill, as we made clear at Second Reading. The Government have already made changes that weaken the current arrangements and risk having an adverse impact on the ability to protect the public from terrorism. We do not agree with these amendments that we are discussing, apart from the thrust of Amendments 42 and 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is why we have given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 9. We wait to see whether the Minister will accept any or all of the amendments, which in our view water down the current arrangements even further.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, this is a very big group of amendments before the Committee. I thank all noble Lords for their co-operation in agreeing that we should group together such a large number of amendments. However, I am afraid this means—I start with an apology—that I will have to answer this debate at some length because it is important to deal with the various points that have been raised.

The 20th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights came out at 11 o’clock today, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us. Obviously, the Government have not had time to consider it in detail. I will respond to a number of the points because the points it makes are similar to those put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his amendments, which have been supported by others. However, in due course—I hope that will be before we get to Report—the Government will want to make their formal response in the usual way. At this stage I will respond in part but noble Lords will understand that we are keen to give a fuller response in due course. I will endeavour to ensure that that appears before Report but I can give no guarantee at this stage.

I simply do not accept that the TPIM regime is outside the rule of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested. This Bill and its predecessor are and have been through the parliamentary process and are subject to review by the courts. To argue that this is beyond the rule of law is unfair and excessive. This large group—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which, as he said, are supported by the recent Joint Committee on Human Rights report, require the provision of information to the individual on whom the measures under the Bill are imposed, to enable that individual at the review hearing to give effective instructions to his or her representatives and to the special advocate about the allegations made against them.

In considering this issue, we are also considering national security. We are conscious of the need to protect people from further atrocities of the kind we have already seen in this country and elsewhere. We are talking about a small number of people whose activities are felt to pose a real threat to the public, but in respect of whom sufficient hard evidence cannot be put before a court in the public domain to enable a case to be made to the standard that has to be achieved for a successful prosecution.

We would not dissent from the provision of information to the individual, provided that it did not lead to the safety or security of any providers or sources of information being put at risk; provided that it did not mean that intelligence provided—perhaps from other countries—dried up, because that intelligence is provided only on the basis that it is not made public; and provided that the provision of the information did not jeopardise national security, including protection from acts of terrorism.

The chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:

“We maintain our view that the priority in the Bill should be investigation and not prevention”.

We certainly support the view that investigation is important and that, where possible, people should be charged and their case dealt with through the courts in the normal way. However, we do not support the view that the Bill should have prevention of acts of terrorism as an issue of lesser importance. We will want to be satisfied that the effect of the amendments would not be to veer in that direction. We await with interest to hear the Government's position, particularly in the light of the House of Lords judgment in AF.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked two questions: first, do we accept that the AF principle applies to TPIMs as well as to control orders? I can give him that assurance. It is set out in our Explanatory Notes that we believe that previous court judgments will be binding on TPIMs, as they were on control orders. I do not have the ability to cite cases as authoritatively as my noble friend Lord Carlile or the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, both of whom obviously eat them for breakfast, but my understanding is that they will continue to bind us.

The second question is: do we think that it is necessary to get it on the face of the Bill? I hope that I can explain to the noble Lord why I do not think that that is necessary. We share the desire of all noble Lords to ensure that TPIM proceedings are compatible with Article 6 and we believe that the provisions currently contained in the Bill achieve that. As we explained in our response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 19 July report—I think that today’s was its third report on this issue—the right to a fair trial of individuals subject to a TPIM notice is already fully protected by the provisions contained in the TPIM Bill and the application of existing case law, as appropriate, by the courts.

Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the Bill reflects the read down of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, effected by the 2007 judgment of the Law Lords in MB. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Law Lords read into that legislation, which obliged the courts to ensure the withholding of material from the individual where disclosure would be contrary to public interest, the words,

“except where to do so would be incompatible with the right of the controlled person to a fair trial”.

That has been reflected in the provision in paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 to the TPIM Bill, which provides that nothing in the rule-making power relating to closed proceedings or the rules of court made under it is to be read as requiring the court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6. The Law Lords in AF (No.3) confirmed the read down specified in MB and laid down what was required by Article 6 in the context of the stringent control orders before them. There is therefore already provision in the Bill which ensures that TPIM proceedings will be conducted compatibly with the individual’s Article 6 rights and, indeed, the Human Rights Act achieves the same effect.

That is all that I want to say at this stage to the noble Lord’s amendment. I appreciate that technically we are debating the amendment to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It might be more appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to comment on that. I hope that he will accept my explanation on why we do not think it is necessary to include his amendment. I hope that the assurances that I have given from the Dispatch Box will be sufficient. I hope that my noble friend and then the noble Lord will withdraw their amendments.