Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 16 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this is a draft amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011. The order is an enabling power concerning charging for visa, immigration and nationality services. It enables the Home Office to specify applications, processes and services for which it intends to set a fee. Specific fee levels will be set out in separate legislation to be brought before this House shortly. For applications and services where we charge more than the administrative cost of delivery, the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to ask searching questions—and I am sure they will—about fee levels in that debate.
In accordance with our legal powers, this amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011 sets out new applications and services for which we intend a fee to be paid in future, and clarifies the powers under which some existing fees are set. First, the order enables us to expand our premium services. These are optional services, offered to customers who want faster processing or more convenience. It will allow premium service fees to be charged for all applications where the Home Office is able to offer such a service. It will also allow us to charge for services offered at locations other than Home Office premium service centres—for example, at business or university premises.
It will also bring fees for certain Border Force premium services within the immigration charging framework. As a result, these services may be charged to generate additional revenue, rather like other optional premium services provided by the Home Office. For example, it will enable fees to be charged for the registered traveller scheme, in operation as a pilot since September 2013, which will speed up the processing of frequent travellers from low-risk countries.
The order will also enable new fees to be introduced for the process of conducting a review of a refusal decision for certain applications. Such reviews are likely to form an increasingly important part of our service as a result of changes to the current appeals process being proposed under the Immigration Bill 2014. The Bill will reduce the range of immigration decisions that attract a right of appeal. However, applicants will be able to request a review of a decision to refuse leave. The order will allow a fee to be charged to those who request such a review. The fee will be refunded if it is decided that the initial decision was incorrect. The order is not seeking to predetermine the outcome of the Bill in any way; that will be resolved in separate debates.
We also wish to take this opportunity to make clarifications to the current fees order. First, we want to clarify the basis on which fees are charged for residence and registration documentation issued to European Economic Area nationals and their families. We also want to make clear that fees charged by our commercial partners overseas are within the scope of the charging regime. We recognise the benefits that managed legal migration can bring to the United Kingdom and seek to ensure that the fees for visa, immigration and nationality services demonstrate that the UK retains its position as an attractive destination to work, study or visit.
As I have said, the order provides the enabling powers to set fees and we will return to Parliament in due course to debate further regulations, under the affirmative procedure, specifying the fee levels that rely on the powers in Section 51 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and additional powers in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, as amended by Section 20 of the UK Borders Act 2007.
I believe noble Lords would want to ensure that the immigration system controls migration, commands public confidence, serves our economic interests and is paid for in a fair and sustainable manner. The order will ensure that we can continue to strike the right balance between the contribution made by taxpayers and by those who use and benefit most from the immigration and border services provided by the Home Office. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I know that we will be debating the Immigration Bill very shortly, but I should like to comment on this matter of fees and the premium services that are being offered—presumably to try to make it easier. Speaking as the founding chairman of the UK India Business Council, if there is one complaint about the United Kingdom and our relationship that I hear when I go back to India, as I do regularly, it is about visas. This is particularly true of students, and of the business community. We have serious problems in that the UK Border Agency, as it was, was not fit for purpose and has now been dismantled. Can the Minister confirm that the levying of fees is a caseworking function and falls within the remit of UK Visa and Immigration and not that of the UK Border Force?
Furthermore, it is quite clear when I come in and out of Heathrow in particular that it is very difficult; the queues are very long. We are not adequately resourced to cater for the passengers arriving in the UK. With this system, I presume that the Government are trying to make it easier for someone, by paying a premium fee first, to get a visa and then, once arrived, to get in quickly and escape the queues. Can the Minister confirm that? It is very off-putting, whether you are a tourist or a business traveller, to be confronted by those queues at Heathrow.
Quite apart from this, the Government—as I have said before—should surely be thinking about joining Schengen, which is much better value for money. It would encourage many more visitors to come. This government measure is a step in the right direction but it is completely avoidable if we join Schengen. That would hugely enhance the number of tourists and increase the number of business visitors. It would be much better value for money.
Next, from the point of view of students from abroad, Britain is a very expensive country to study in. They want to study in Britain—our higher education, along with that of the United States, is the best in the world—but both the fees and the cost of living in the UK are high. This has not helped countries such as India, for example, where the exchange rate has deteriorated rapidly and the rupee is now much weaker, making it even more expensive for Indian students. Having to pay an even higher fee for a premium service makes it that much more expensive for them to come to this country. The number of Indian students has dropped by 25%. Our economy desperately needs the income from foreign students—what they spend on fees and what they spend while they are here—which is estimated at possibly £14 billion a year. This is quite apart from the generation-long links that are built.
Moreover, while we are focusing on the fees, the Government are completely ignoring—again, we will address this in the Immigration Bill—the introduction of exit checks when people leave the country. It is very simple, with today’s technology, to scan every passport as people leave the country, whether they are EU or non-EU. Then we would know who has left the country and who has come into the country, which would also help to address the huge problem with illegal immigrants.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. It is helpful to have an opportunity here to discuss some of the detail that lies behind this. The more exciting event perhaps follows when the level of fees is discussed, but this is the framework against which we might discuss those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to queues at airports. Certainly from my own experience, while queues are still a feature, they are nowhere near as great a feature as they were. None the less, there will be people who wish to avoid any queueing and, for them, a premium service facilitates that. Part of the reason for fee-charging is to make sure that income generation is available to help resource UK Visa and Immigration, which is the body responsible for this aspect.
The noble Lord asked why we had not joined Schengen. This is a matter that frequently comes up in debate. Our view is that, while we can work as closely as we can with Schengen, we need to protect our own borders—that has been a policy decision under this Government and the previous Government—and we should continue to do that.
We take note of the level of student fees. We are well aware of the pressure that people wishing to come from India are under because of the fall in the purchasing power of the rupee. It is quite right to say that the number of students coming here from that country has fallen. We regret this, but this does not challenge our overall policy because student numbers from elsewhere in south-east Asia and China are up and, overall, the number of overseas students is increasing. I expect, and as the noble Lord rightly suggested, that this matter will feature in debate when the Immigration Bill arrives in this House. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has already advised me that he intends to raise it.
Exit checks are included in the Immigration Bill and will be debated as part of that. I think that it is well known that it is the Government’s intention to introduce e-Borders where possible.
I shall take up the noble Baroness’s invitation to write. I shall include the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in that and place in the Library a copy of anything that I am not able to answer on my feet here today. I hope that I have covered the majority of the issues that the noble Lord mentioned.
I should say that the cost of production of a UK visa is £136; the fee charged is £80. We are still a long way from recovering costs on student visas, for example. However, we are in a competitive market and we do not wish to have a fee level that discourages people from coming to study here.
I have a note on the contractors, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, chose to ask about. Overseas visa applicants can choose to take up a number of added-value premium services provided by processing partners on a commercial basis alongside their application. Many of these services have been offered on a small scale and developed over time. We plan to expand these services, so it would bring greater clarity and transparency to have fees. All these services are set out in the legislation. I think the noble Baroness was asking about the nature of the arrangements with contractors. It may be advantageous to write to her on that point.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I must clarify my question: I was probing further on the nature of the arrangements. Will any new services be undertaken by contractors that are currently undertaken not by contractors but by the Home Office?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have two principal contractors at the moment, VFS Global and CSC. These were retendered in 2013. From 2014, there will be two new contractors. VFS Global is reinstated but Teleperformance UK has been re-engaged. These were open-tender contracting arrangements. However, if the noble Baroness would like more information on them, I am prepared to write to her about the services they supply. I will make sure that that is done. I have some of the information here.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to make two points. He said that the number of overseas students has increased. However, if I may correct him, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement of 16 January, the number of non-EU students at UK universities fell by 1% last year—the first such decline ever recorded. In the Government’s defence, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if there had been consultation. My understanding is that targeted consultation took place.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My point was that it has not been published and we were not able to see it before the order came before us.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I will comment on the consultation after I have described the services. The services provided by the contractors are priority visa services, user-pay visa application centres, prime-time appointments, passport passback, mobile clinics and international contact centres, so there are a variety of things, all designed to facilitate people’s applications. What goes on under these headings is probably best put in the letter rather than my reading it all out.
I must correct myself. I said that the £80 fee is for a short-term study visa; it is actually £298 for the points-based system, but the comments that I made still apply.
The Government held a limited consultation on this. There had been a previous consultation, as my honourable friend Mark Harper announced yesterday. A full public consultation took place in 2009-10 on the whole business of charging and a more limited consultation was carried out. We received 78 responses, mainly from representative bodies. The document will be published. I will ensure that we write to the noble Baroness with details of the consultation and, indeed, the Government’s response to it as soon as it is available.
I say to the noble Lord that we do not want to bandy figures about but the Government’s intention is clear: we do not want to impede students coming to this country. Our figures show that sponsored visa applications for university students rose by 7% in the year ending September 2013. Genuine students are indeed welcome to the United Kingdom.
As I said, I may not have been able to cover all the ground. The noble Baroness mentioned firearms. One day I hope to shoot her fox on that particular issue, but not at this juncture, so I have to take her chiding in good heart. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write on the detailed questions I have been unable to answer.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the House will recall that, on the first day of Report, your Lordships agreed, by some margin, an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, which modified the test for the grant of an injunction under Part 1. That amendment, and the outcome of the debate, reflected an anxiety that the test provided for in the Bill on its introduction into your Lordships’ House was too vague and too broad and may, as a result, have led to inappropriate use by the police, local authorities and others.
I made it clear in that debate that the Government believed that such fears were unfounded. As I indicated, it was never the intention of the Government to introduce a power that would curtail freedom of expression or normal, everyday activities of the law-abiding majority. I do not believe that front-line professionals would have used the power in this way or that any court would have entertained an application for an injunction in those circumstances.
However, I am a pragmatic man. I fully recognise the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House on the issue. Having reflected on the debate on Report, the Government are content to retain the two-tiered approach provided for in the amendment agreed by the House at that stage. In particular, in the case of anti-social conduct committed away from a residential setting, we are content that the test for the grant of an injunction should be based on conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, “harassment, alarm or distress”.
Since Report, I have been able to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, our concerns that under his amendment the “nuisance or annoyance” test would apply to conduct only in a social housing context. Throughout the debates on the anti-social behaviour provisions in this Bill, the Opposition Front Bench have chided us on the grounds that certain provisions were not tenure-neutral. I think that that charge was at times a little unfair, but it had some validity and I do not want this Bill to return to the House of Commons with a provision, in its very first clause, which applies a different test to the victims of anti-social behaviour who live in social housing from that applied to the victims of such behaviour who own their own home or live in private rented accommodation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, acknowledged in our previous debate on this matter that anti-social behaviour in the housing context was of a different order. Victims cannot be expected to have the same degree of tolerance to anti-social behaviour where it takes place on their doorstep or in the immediate vicinity of their own home. It is simply not reasonable to expect the victims to move home in such circumstances in the same way as they could walk away from anti-social behaviour in a shopping centre or public park. The amendment passed on Report accepted this by retaining the “nuisance or annoyance” test for residents in social housing. Following discussions with the noble Lord, these government amendments extend that principle and protection to those who live in other housing settings.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have put their names to these amendments—I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern also sought to do so, but he was crowded out. It is an important feature of Amendment 2 that the power to apply for an injunction where the “nuisance or annoyance” test applies is restricted to social landlords, local authorities and the police. There was, and is, no question of rogue private landlords being able to exercise these powers.
As with the existing powers, the amendment will mean that social landlords can still apply for an injunction to address problems that directly or indirectly relate to their housing management functions. This will allow social landlords to protect their employees and neighbourhoods from anti-social behaviour as part of their housing management function. As I have said, the “harassment, alarm or distress” test will apply outside the housing context.
These amendments will provide for an injunction that puts victims first and gives front-line professionals a powerful tool to protect the public from anti-social behaviour while ensuring that there are proper safeguards to protect freedom of speech and assembly. I hope that the whole House will agree that this is an equitable outcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It may well be. I sometimes think that when we use acronyms, people have not got a clue what we are talking about. However, should it not be an injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour rather than an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have an answer to the noble Baroness’s question, which I know about because I asked the same question at one stage. The title of Part 1 of the Bill—a title covering the whole of Part 1—will be revised in advance of the Act being published, following Royal Assent. Apparently, this is quite customary. It is worth making it clear that the title of Part 1 does not represent the formal name for the injunction and that whatever name is chosen will not affect the meat and substance of what it seeks to do.
“Meaning of “anti-social behaviour”
(1) In this Part “anti-social behaviour” means—
(a) conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person,(b) conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or(c) conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.(2) Subsection (1)(b) applies only where the injunction under section 1 is applied for by—
(a) a housing provider,(b) a local authority, or(c) a chief officer of police.(3) In subsection (1)(c) “housing-related” means directly or indirectly relating to the housing management functions of—
(a) a housing provider, or(b) a local authority.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the housing management functions of a housing provider or a local authority include—
(a) functions conferred by or under an enactment;(b) the powers and duties of the housing provider or local authority as the holder of an estate or interest in housing accommodation.”
“Use of premises for child sex offences
(1) Schedule (Amendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) (amendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) has effect.
(2) For the purposes of sections 136BA and 136D(7A) of the Sexual Offences Act (inserted by that Schedule), it does not matter whether the offence or offences in question were committed before, or on or after, the date on which this section comes into force.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent crime and we are determined to tackle it in whatever form it takes. Grooming and child sexual exploitation happen in all areas of the country and can take many different forms. They are never acceptable, and we all need to work together to ensure that these sickening crimes no longer remain hidden. On day two of Report, I undertook to give sympathetic consideration to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, which sought to strengthen the powers available to the police to close premises used for child sexual exploitation. As I set out then, given the serious nature of these crimes, we believe that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 rather than the closure powers in this Bill, which relate to anti-social behaviour, is the most appropriate place to address this issue—a point that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made very well on Report.
We have now reviewed the existing powers in Part 2A of that Act in light of the debate on Report. The existing closure powers relate only to prostitution and child pornography offences. This means that the police cannot at present close premises where other sex offences against children have been or are likely to be committed. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this is not right.
Amendments 8 and 18 will ensure that the police are able to close premises associated with a much wider range of child sex offences. These include not just the specific child sex offences in Sections 5 to 13 of the 2003 Act and offences relating to indecent images of children under the Protection of Children Act 1978, but other offences where the victim is under 18, including rape and sexual assault. Given that these offences relate to some of the most vulnerable members of our society, the amendments would also modify the conditions relating to the use of the closure power to enable the police to close premises quickly in cases of urgency. The police will be able to issue a closure notice when they have reasonable grounds for believing that in the past three months the premises have been used for activities related to a specified child sex offence and, importantly, when the premises are likely to be used for such activities.
Clearly there should be safeguards to ensure that these powers are used in the right circumstances. That is why we will retain the existing safeguards in Part 2A of the 2003 Act, which are similar to the safeguards on the power to close premises due to anti-social behaviour in Part 4 of the Bill. Although an initial closure notice can be issued by the police, a court must decide whether to make a closure order within 48 hours of it taking effect. The police must also have regard to any guidance issued in relation to these powers. Furthermore, a closure notice cannot prevent a person who regularly resides on or owns the premises entering or remaining on them.
Lastly, the occupier of the premises, and any other person who has an interest in the premises, may contest a subsequent application to the court to make an order. This would mean, for example, that if the police received evidence on a Friday night that premises were to be used as a venue for abusing children that weekend, they could, in addition to their existing safeguarding powers and actions, temporarily close the premises. This could provide the police with a powerful tool to disrupt and tackle child sexual exploitation. These amendments will enhance the ability of the police to protect the public from sexual harm and will complement the steps that we have taken elsewhere in the Bill to strengthen the system of civil orders used to manage the risk of sexual offences, and to give the police additional powers to tackle child sexual exploitation taking place in hotels and similar establishments.
As I have made clear, this issue is an absolute priority for the Government, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on this issue. We are both determined to do all that we can to protect vulnerable members of our society from exploitation and abuse, and it is important that we provide the police with the powers and tools to tackle this issue. I therefore commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has cause to be grateful to my noble friend, and I am glad that the Government are taking powers to deal with this evil—and it is an evil. However, I express the hope—without anticipating tomorrow’s debate in any detail, because that would be wrong—that there is real consultation between government departments. If it is going to be more difficult, as it should be, for these evil people to do these terrible things in reality, as it were, some will be tempted into the virtual world where so many children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has pointed out, are at ever-increasing risk. We will be debating that tomorrow, but could the Minister give me an assurance that there will be conversations between him and Ministers in other departments to make sure that we have real co-ordination to attack the evil people who do these terrible things?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment very strongly. The Minister will remember that I introduced a debate to which he responded which covered a range of issues around child sexual abuse. Therefore, I know he is well aware of the range of attempts that these people will go through. “Evil” is an odd word to use because there are all sorts of corruptions to do with what has happened to those people. We have to remember that young people themselves sometimes are sexually abusing because of what is happening to them. The Minister saw that whole spectrum, and this is just one other step that can be taken to block those who intend to abuse children. I reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the use of the internet and virtual abuse. It will be on the increase if other avenues are closed down because we know this is an addiction—but not necessarily—with an evil outcome that we need to deal with in many ways. I thank the Minister for all his efforts.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
In response to the contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, I realise that this is not the whole story. It is not the end of the story, but it is a step along the way. It is a building block that was not previously in place; I hope that it will now be put in place. I reassure both speakers that my colleagues in government are linked up on this. When this amendment was drafted, it was subject to the usual write-around in government, which is the procedure that now applies to more or less all government decision-making. If it reassures noble Lords, I will make sure that this debate is drawn to the attention of my colleagues with particular responsibility in this area. I hope noble Lords will understand that what is particularly helpful about this amendment is that it arose from a police and crime commissioner writing to the shadow Minister here, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who raised it with me. It shows that the Government and Opposition facing difficult issues—not controversial issues, but issues that are difficult to handle—can work together to achieve something. I am grateful for the initiative that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, showed and for the support of the House in moving this amendment.
“( ) “Lacks capacity” means lacks capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
“( ) In relation to a victim who is incapable of consenting to marriage by reason of mental disorder, the offence under subsection (1) is capable of being committed by any conduct carried out for the purpose of causing the victim to enter into a marriage (whether or not the conduct amounts to violence, threats or any other form coercion).”
“Littering from vehicles
(1) The Environmental Protection Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 88 (fixed penalty notices for leaving litter) there is inserted—
“88A Littering from vehicles: civil penalty regime
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under which the keeper of a vehicle may be required to pay a fixed penalty to a litter authority where there is reason to believe that a littering offence in England has been committed in respect of the vehicle.
(2) A littering offence is committed in respect of a vehicle if an offence under section 87(1) occurs as a result of litter being thrown, dropped or otherwise deposited from the vehicle (whether or not by the vehicle’s keeper).
(3) Regulations under this section must make provision—
(a) setting the amount of fixed penalties or specifying how the amount is to be determined;(b) about the period within which fixed penalties must be paid;(c) for payment within that period of a fixed penalty imposed for a littering offence committed in respect of a vehicle to discharge any liability for conviction for the offence (whether on the part of the keeper or anybody else);(d) for a fixed penalty to be payable by the keeper of a vehicle only if a written notice is given to the keeper (“a penalty notice”);(e) about the persons authorised to give penalty notices;(f) about the procedure to be followed in giving penalty notices;(g) about the form and content of penalty notices;(h) conferring rights to make representations about, and to bring appeals against, penalty notices.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(e) may authorise a person to give a penalty notice for a littering offence committed in respect of a vehicle only if—
(a) the person is under a duty under section 89(1) in respect of the land where the offence is committed (and that person is a “litter authority” in relation to a fixed penalty payable under the regulations), or(b) the person is an authorised officer of a litter authority,and regulations under this section may include provision about the meaning of “authorised officer”.(5) Regulations under this section may include provision—
(a) for the enforcement of penalty notices (and such provision may in particular authorise an unpaid fixed penalty to be recovered summarily as a civil debt or as if payable under an order of a court if the court so orders);(b) about the application of sums paid under penalty notices (and such provision may in particular authorise sums paid to a litter authority to be applied for the purposes of such functions of the authority as the regulations may specify); (c) about the application of the regulations to keepers of vehicles in the public service of the Crown.(6) Regulations under this section may, in consequence of any provision contained in the regulations, amend—
(a) this Part, or(b) Part 2 of the London Local Authorities Act 2007.(7) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision corresponding or similar to any provision made by or under section 88;(b) make provision subject to exceptions;(c) include saving, transitional, transitory, supplementary or consequential provision.(8) Provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (7)(a) may include provision—
(a) conferring a discretion on a litter authority, subject to such constraints or limitations as the regulations may specify (whether or not of a corresponding or similar kind to those mentioned in section 97A(2));(b) creating an offence of the kind mentioned in section 88(8B) and (8C),but may not include provision conferring power on a person to make orders or regulations.(9) In this section—
“keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time when the littering offence in question occurs, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
“litter authority” has the meaning given in subsection (4)(a);
“registered keeper”, in relation to a registered vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered;
“registered vehicle” means a vehicle which is for the time being registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994;
“vehicle” means a mechanically-propelled vehicle or a vehicle designed or adapted for towing by a mechanically-propelled vehicle.”
(3) In section 161 (regulations, orders and directions), after subsection (2ZA) there is inserted—
“(2ZB) Subsection (2) does not apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 88A if the regulations—
(a) are the first set of regulations to be made under that section, or(b) include provision falling within subsection (3)(a) or (6) of that section.(2ZC) A statutory instrument to which subsection (2) does not apply by virtue of subsection (2ZB) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, with Amendments 15 and 16 we turn again to the subject of littering from vehicles. This is a matter which this House has discussed several times in recent months, and it is clear from those debates that the House is united in its displeasure at seeing litter along our roadsides, and at the thoughtless and uncaring behaviour of those inconsiderate individuals who left it there. By far the majority of those who have spoken on this issue have supported the proposal by my noble friend Lord Marlesford for councils to have the power to fine the registered keeper of a vehicle from which litter is seen to be thrown. Therefore, on Report I undertook to bring forward a government amendment to provide the Secretary of State with an order-making power to enable councils to do just that.
We know, of course, that it will not always have been the registered keeper—himself or herself—who threw the litter. For that reason, the power enables provision to be made for litter authorities to issue fixed penalties for littering from vehicles but does not impose any criminal liability on registered keepers. Provision could be made for an unpaid fixed penalty to be recovered as a civil debt. However, a registered keeper could not be prosecuted under Section 87 unless he or she were the actual offender, as is the case now.
As I said on Report, these powers are intended to make life easier for local authorities. It will therefore be important to ensure that we get the details of this scheme right, to be confident that they will work as intended and will meet local authorities’ needs in a way that the current regime of criminal sanctions for littering may not. For that reason, rather than rushing into detailed primary legislation in haste, Amendment 15 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations address important matters such as the size of the fine, the form and content of the penalty notice, exceptions to the keeper’s liability—for example, if the vehicle has been stolen—and matters relating to representations and appeals. These are all matters on which we will want to seek local authorities’ and others’ views before bringing forward draft regulations for approval by both Houses.
The power to issue these civil penalties will be conferred on the “litter authority” for the land where the offence is committed. In most cases, this will be the local authority, but on certain major roads the responsibility lies with the Highways Agency. This approach ensures that the Secretary of State will be able to confer these powers on those who need them most.
I should also like to draw your Lordships’ attention to subsection (6) of proposed new Section 88A, which provides the Secretary of State with a power to amend certain parts of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the London Local Authorities Act 2007 in consequence of any provision made under these regulations. This is to ensure that the interaction between the new regime of civil penalties and the existing regime is clear, and that there is no question of duplication or double jeopardy. My noble friend is to be commended for his persistence on this issue. All of us in this House share his views about the scourge of litter defacing our roads, towns and countryside. This new measure will enable us to give local authorities in England an additional power to tackle this anti-social behaviour. I beg to move.
ScheduleAmendments of Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 20031 Part 2A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (closure orders) is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 136A (meaning of specified prostitution offence etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) the words “section 47 of this Act or” are omitted;(b) in paragraph (b) the words “section 48 of this Act, or” are omitted;(c) in paragraph (c) the words “section 49 of this Act, or” are omitted;(d) in paragraph (d) the words “section 50 of this Act, or” are omitted.(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a) the words “section 48 of this Act, or” are omitted;(b) in paragraph (b) the words “section 49 of this Act, or” are omitted;(c) in paragraph (c) the words “section 50 of this Act, or” are omitted.(4) After that subsection there is inserted—
“(3A) The specified child sex offences are—
(a) an offence under any of the following sections of this Act—sections 5 to 13;sections 16 to 19;sections 25 and 26;sections 47 to 50;(b) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);(c) an offence under any of the following sections of this Act committed against a person under 18—sections 1 to 4;sections 30 to 41;section 59A;section 61;sections 66 and 67.”(5) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) the words “section 47 of this Act or” are omitted;(b) the words “subsection (1)(a) of that section or, as the case may be,” are omitted.(6) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
“(5A) Premises are being used for activities related to a specified child sex offence at any time when the premises are used—
(a) to commit the offence, or(b) for activities intended to arrange or facilitate the commission of the offence.” 3 In section 136B (power to authorise issue of closure notice), in the heading, for “notice” there is substituted “notice: prostitution or pornography offences”.
4 After that section there is inserted—
“136BA Power to authorise issue of closure notice: child sex offences in England and Wales
(1) A member of a police force not below the rank of superintendent (“the authorising officer”) may authorise the issue of a closure notice in respect of any premises in England and Wales if three conditions are met.
(2) The first condition is that the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(a) during the relevant period, the premises were used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences, or(b) the premises are likely to be used (unless a closure order is made) for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.(3) In subsection (2)(a), “the relevant period” means the period of 3 months ending with the day on which the officer is considering whether to authorise the issue of the notice.
(4) The second condition is that the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a closure order under section 136D is necessary to prevent the premises being used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.
(5) For the purposes of the second condition, it does not matter whether the officer believes that the offence or offences in question have been committed or that they will be committed (or will be committed unless a closure order is made).
(6) The third condition is that the officer is satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made—
(a) to consult the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated, and(b) to establish the identity of any person who resides on the premises or who has control of or responsibility for or an interest in the premises.(7) If the local authority has not been consulted when the notice is issued, it must be consulted as soon as possible afterwards.
(8) An authorisation under subsection (1) may be given orally or in writing, but if it is given orally the authorising officer must confirm it in writing as soon as it is practicable.
(9) The issue of a closure notice may be authorised whether or not a person has been convicted of any specified child sex offence that the authorising officer believes has been committed.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify premises or descriptions of premises to which this section does not apply.”
5 (1) Section 136C (contents and service of closure notice) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
(3) In subsection (3)(d), after “section 136B(7)(b)” there is inserted “or 136BA(6)(b)”.
6 (1) Section 136D (power to make a closure order) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), for “either subsection (6) or subsection (7) (or both)” there is substituted “at least one of subsections (6), (7) and (7A)”.
(3) After subsection (7) there is inserted—
“(7A) This subsection applies if—
(a) during the relevant period, the premises were used for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences, or(b) the premises are likely to be used (unless a closure order is made) for activities related to one or more specified child sex offences.”(4) In subsection (8), for “subsections (6) and (7)” there is substituted “subsections (6), (7) and (7A)(a)”.
(5) In subsection (9), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
(6) In subsection (10)(a), after “section 136B(7)(b)” there is inserted “or 136BA(6)(b)”.
(7) In subsection (12), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
7 In section 136H (applications for extension of closure order), in subsection (4), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
8 In section 136I (orders extending closure orders), in subsection (2), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
9 In section 136J (discharge of closure order), in subsection (3), for “prostitution or pornography offences” there is substituted “prostitution, pornography or child sex offences”.
10 In section 136O (compensation), in subsection (5)(a), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
11 (1) Section 136R (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “section 136B” there is inserted “or 136BA”.
(3) After subsection (14) there is inserted—
“(15) In the application of this Part to England and Wales, references to specified pornography offences are to be ignored.
“(16) “Specified child sex offence” means an offence listed in section 136A(3A).
(17) In the application of this Part to Northern Ireland, references to specified child sex offences and to section 136BA are to be ignored.””
“31 (1) Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (power of constable to require person acting in an anti-social manner to give name and address) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) the words “(within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)” are omitted.
(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
“(1A) In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” has the meaning given by section (Meaning of “anti-social behaviour”) of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section).””
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps I may at this juncture say a few words because not only is it customary but I wish to add something and hope that I am doing so at the right moment. It is an opportunity for us to place on record our thanks to noble Lords who have assisted in the passage of the Bill and to those who stand behind us and make it happen to our advantage.
The Bill has had a remarkably long journey and our debates have been liberally sprinkled with amendments. I am mindful of those early days in Committee when my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Greaves tabled a large number of amendments to the first part of the Bill, and I have to say that they were very much for the erudition of the House and the improvement of the Bill. I am grateful to them and my noble friend Lord Paddick, who also participated from those Benches.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is not in his place at present, and all Peers who participated from the Labour Benches. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is in his place. His contributions, particularly as a magistrate, were valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was, as always, a vigorous debater. I know that some of the measures were taken from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I am grateful to him, as I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the debates that she took. Today, we heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: EUC Reports
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, before I tackle the issues raised in this debate I extend my thanks to the European Union Committee of this House for its ongoing work in this matter. This Government are extremely grateful to the committee; we do not necessarily agree but we are grateful for the work that is being done. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the comments that she made about its work. The committee informs this House and the Government, and I am aware of the diligence with which it undertakes its work. We are aware of the role that Parliament has in scrutinising these matters and it should do so informed by the work of its committees, so I pay a genuine tribute to them all.
The committee’s initial report was helpful in informing the Government’s decision about the measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and I found its follow-up report to be particularly thought-provoking. Taken together, and it has been useful to be able to do that today, these two reports represent an extremely thorough analysis of a complex issue. The committee has produced a formidable body of work for the Government to consider.
On 23 July, I set out to the House my openness to debating the committee’s report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for making that possible by calling this debate today. I also thank him for his excellent work and insight into this matter as chairman of the sub-committee. The Government are appreciative of the committee’s continued scrutiny of these important matters and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Boswell and Lord Bowness, neither of whom are in their place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, for their chairmanship of the committees. These are sincere thanks, in which I join with the tribute paid to their work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd.
I hope that noble Lords will accept that some of the questions I have been asked are complex and difficult. I do not want to mislead the House in any of my responses and with the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I intend to write to him and to copy in all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and place a copy of that in the Library. This will enable me to deal with those matters which I am not necessarily able to deal with today. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that type of commentary, which we have had before when discussing these issues.
Scrutiny can be an iterative and long-running process, especially on a matter such as this. Some have argued that the Government have not made the case for exercising the opt-out. On that point, I think we have to agree to disagree. The case for exercising the opt-out has been clearly set out and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, set out in his opening speech, the House has already endorsed the Government’s decision. The House has also endorsed the Government’s decision to seek to rejoin the 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8671. I am pleased that the committee is persuaded by the evidence that the Government have set out to Parliament. I am also pleased that the committee has reopened its inquiry. Its views on the measures that we are not seeking to rejoin are welcomed and the Government have responded in full on those issues.
Before I turn to the points raised during the debate, I reiterate the Government’s commitment to holding another vote on the final package of measures that we will apply to rejoin.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the noble Lord, for whom I and everyone here have an immense respect, agree that the whole issue can be distilled into a single question: how is it sane and sensible and sincere for the Government to place in jeopardy 35 measures of considerable worth in the expectation of, at best, a minuscule advantage in respect of 95 other matters that are either wholly irrelevant, non-operative or in no way injurious to our interests? I respectfully suggest that that is the issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As the noble Lord knows, the Government are exercising an opt-out that was provided for by negotiations by a previous Government. Noble Lords will expect the Government to exercise their discretion in this matter and to seek the endorsement of Parliament, as they have done on this occasion. I make no apology to the noble Lord for the decision that this Government have made. It was a decision that was anticipated by the previous Government in their negotiations.
As I was saying, before I return to the points raised, I confirm that there will be another vote on the package of measures that we will apply to rejoin. It is important that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise this matter fully. I am very happy to commit myself to replying for the Government during that debate later this year.
I start by responding to some of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in his excellent speech. I could not agree with all that he was saying about the Government’s performance or decision-making or role, but he set out a number of important points that have helped to guide this debate and I am happy to reply to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Sharkey addressed the point of whether there are measures that are detrimental to the UK and the UK’s national interest. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked if this were the case. That is one way to assess these measures. However, is not the way in which the Government have assessed them. The Government have looked at how each measure contributes to public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure and whether there would be detrimental impact on such co-operation if pursued by other mechanisms. We have considered the impact that the measure has on civil rights and liberties. We believe that the 35 measures that we are seeking to rejoin meet these criteria.
The noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked why the Government have opted in to post-Lisbon measures if we have concerns about European Court of Justice jurisdiction. The Government consider that there is always a risk attached in terms of European Court of Justice jurisdiction. All Governments have faced this when we decide to participate in measures—pre-Lisbon or post-Lisbon. However, in certain cases, it will be in the national interest for the UK to participate in these measures, and the Government will accept that risk, given the wider benefits of the instruments in question.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord keeps on referring to the ECJ as a risk—as a cost, as it were. Is it not the case that it is also in many cases a reassurance and an asset? Over time, is it not the case that we have won far more cases before the ECJ than we have ever lost?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Of course, but I am just saying that there is an unpredictability about outcomes which all Governments have had to face, and it is a matter that Governments are entitled to weigh in the balance. However, I accept totally that the European Court of Justice also exists to protect things that we consider valuable, too.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the importance of co-operation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I wish one could persuade the Government not to treat the unpredictability of a court of law as a reason not to be subject to its jurisdiction. I hope that every court of law in this country is unpredictable. If it were predictable, we would not have the rule of law in this country.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
If I say that the noble Lord makes an academic point, I do not mean to dismiss it, but it is a point which is based on a theoretical view of jurisprudence. As a non-lawyer I would say that the law can have an unpredictability about it even in such well established legal proceedings as we have in this country. Indeed, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will agree with that analysis.
I was about to talk about our co-operation with the Republic of Ireland. I felt that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made an important point. That is why we have engaged constructively with the Northern Ireland Executive and David Ford throughout this process. That is why we continue to hold productive discussions about these matters at all levels.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, and my noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Bridgeman also raised the associated Europol measures. I should like to reiterate our support for Europol on its current terms and our intention to rejoin the main Europol measure. However, we do not believe that we need to rejoin the associated measures to do so. Many of the provisions in these measures are legal padding and duplicate the detailed provisions of the main measure. As a result, these measures have no material impact on UK participation or, for that matter, on any other state. They have no impact on our ability to co-operate with others through Europol.
The noble Lord, Hannay, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, also identified the probation order as one that we should seek to rejoin. The Government’s position on this measure is set out in full in the response to the committee’s report of 31 December. Only 12 member states have implemented this measure and, to the best of our knowledge, it has never been used. As a result, there is no clear understanding as to how this measure will work in practice and thus very little evidence on which to judge its effectiveness. That is why we are not seeking to rejoin this measure.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of the European Judicial Network. As the Government set out in the response to the committee’s report, we believe that Eurojust is more effective than the European Judicial Network at bringing people together and ensuring that the right tools such as joint investigating teams are employed. That is why we are seeking to rejoin Eurojust.
A number of noble Lords raised the racism and xenophobia measures. These have also not been joined or opted out of, and we are not seeking to rejoin. Noble Lords know that this is a highly sensitive area. However, we are clear that our efforts—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to our lead in these matters—to tackle racism and xenophobia do not depend on a measure that adds little practical value. The UK will continue to be bound by the International Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Government will continue to set a national direction and to work at local level with professionals, the voluntary sector and communities to deal with local issues and priorities.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the convention on driving disqualifications. Let me first address the point about ditching the benefits of working with 26 other member states. Currently, this measure only operates between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, so there are no benefits to ditch. However, there are benefits to the bilateral agreement with Ireland. This will allow us to address some of the weakness of the instrument as it currently exists, which we would otherwise be unable to do.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way a second time. In the light of what he says, would it not be sensible to extend the directive to include the continental countries? There is an enormous amount of motor traffic between us and them in both directions. As I said in my speech, if we want to protect people from disqualified drivers in Ireland, why do we not protect our people from disqualified drivers coming from the continent?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We will be free to do that in the future. I am just reporting the current situation to the House. We have the freedom to do what we will in the future. It is a question of whether we want to be bound by a directive which at the moment is actually not delivering what the noble Lord has suggested.
The noble Lord also asked for an update on our negotiations with the Commission to rejoin measures. I can confirm that these continue at the technical level, and there are a lot of technical discussions involved in these matters. We intend to update Parliament as appropriate, but we must be mindful that this is a negotiation, and thus we cannot prejudice our position in these negotiations. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Davies—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I would be grateful for a simple answer to a simple question. The Minister said that technical discussions had begun, and he did not wish to prejudice the position in negotiations. Have negotiations begun with the Commission and the Council, or have they not?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Exploratory talks have taken place and do so all the time. Formal negotiations have not started, and we need to be able to get some of the technical issues resolved before we enter into full negotiations. That is a reasonable position to take. Noble Lords would expect the Government to recognise their responsibility to the UK national interest in this respect. I hope that Parliament would understand the reasons why, at this point, the Government do not necessarily want to reveal the details of these negotiations. All I have said is that there will be opportunities, as these negotiations proceed, for reports to Parliament and for keeping Parliament and the citizens of this country informed about them.
There was a question about impact assessments, and I was going on to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, was particularly concerned about the impact assessments of the 95 measures the Government will not seek to rejoin. I can confirm that it is the Government’s intention to provide, in good time, ahead of the second vote, an impact assessment on the measures that the Government will rejoin. I can also confirm that the Government will discuss the timing and format of the second vote with the chairmen of the relevant committees. However, at this stage, as the noble Baroness will know, we do not intend to provide impact assessments for those measures that we will not be joining.
I was asked what the Government’s view is of the legal test of coherence in Protocol 36. The noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Corston, were both concerned about this. The Government consider that in a number of areas the case law of the European Court of Justice makes it very clear that coherence means “legally effective” and so takes us further than the test of practical operability, also in Protocol 36.
I conclude by referring to two speeches made by noble Lords sitting behind me. The first was by my noble friend Lord Jopling, who took the Government to task in a pretty straightforward manner. I assure him that I take my role in replying to the concerns of Parliament extremely seriously. I will do my best to ensure that the circumstances in which he found himself do not recur, but I can only do my best on that.
I have been handed a correction. The coherence test takes us no further, I am told. I apologise if I misread the messages from the Box but this one has come down in big block letters so that I can correct myself. I was seeking to reassure my noble friend about those matters.
I should also like to comment on the speech of my noble friend Lord Eccles. I felt that he placed the debates that we have in this House on our membership of the European Community in the context of our global life—the global existence of our country. It was an extremely valuable contribution and something which, when we deal with the detail of some of these matters, we should always bear in mind.
Perhaps I may say one further, rather personal, thing. I am committed to making a success of the dialogue between the Government and this House. Mention was made of tone and language. I make a plea to noble Lords: let us please try to keep this dialogue on a good basis. I will be as open as I can be with noble Lords and will seek, as best I can, to keep the committees informed, but it is a two-way street. I would hate to think that we ended up having adversarial debates on an issue which is so important to the future of this country. That is a personal plea on which I conclude my contribution to this debate. I will be writing to noble Lords and I thank all who have participated in what has been a very worthwhile evening.
Crime: Metal Theft Task Force
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will continue to support the metal theft task force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, no one doubts the success of the metal theft task force. The Government have provided funding from January 2012 to 31 March 2014. With a new licensing regime in place since October, we will take a view nearer the time as to how to take forward our efforts to tackle metal theft in the future.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is right to say that the metal theft task force has been successful. The British Transport Police, in particular, deserves a lot of credit for the work that it has done. This has resulted in a 44% reduction in metal theft-related crime in 2012-13 and, according to ACPO, has saved the national infrastructure £339 million, an incredibly good rate of return on the £5.5 million that the task force has cost so far. Does the Minister agree that, with the introduction of cashless transactions, which your Lordships added to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, and the passage of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, we are at last turning the tide against this awful crime? Would it not be extraordinarily short sighted to cut off the funding of the metal theft task force at the end of March and should we not be building on that success and not jeopardising it?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As I said, there is no doubt that the task force has been very successful and, together with the legislative change which this House assisted in bringing in, has made a great difference in the battle against metal theft. A judgment needs to be taken and the Government will consider this. The noble Lord might be interested to know that we received a letter on Tuesday from Paul Crowther, who is the ACPO leader on this matter.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lord, I associate myself very much with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, but the Scrap Metal Dealers Act to which he referred contained one major defect. Local authorities which license scrap metal dealing are not able to do it through their non-executive licensing functions but have to do it through their executive or cabinet, which is causing difficulties and problems. When will this be remedied?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I had not been aware that that was presenting a particular problem and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could advise me further on it. We do not want to create difficulties in the implementation of any legislation. The measures taken have been extremely effective in reducing metal theft and I am sure that the House will welcome that.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, the metal theft task force has been of inestimable value in checking the epidemic of lead theft from churches. Stripping of lead from church roofs has caused extensive rain damage to historic interiors. Will the Minister consult English Heritage, the Churches Conservation Trust and the cathedrals and church buildings division of the Archbishops’ Council as to how the destruction of our heritage can be combated and the work of the task force maintained?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very pleased to say that one of the effects of the task force and the legislation has been to add greater protection to our historic buildings. I have, myself, been on the roof of Northampton town hall—I did not jump; I climbed down—to see how encoding of the lead on the roof protects that metal. I think the right reverend Prelate will admit that ecclesiastical insurers are now looking at the premiums they have to charge as theft from churches has been greatly reduced. I am pleased to say that a gang of thieves in my own diocese of Lincoln was sentenced very heavily for the damage it had done.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that there are many reputable scrap metal dealers for whom the licensing system is so onerous as to be a restraint of trade? I am referring to a number of Gypsy and Traveller firms which make their living in this way. They have not found it easy to get licences and there is little sympathy in the town hall largely because of prejudice. How can the system be made more user-friendly?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We want to see the trade legitimised in every way and the licensing process is part and parcel of it. I am aware of the noble Baroness’s interest in the welfare of the Gypsy and Traveller community. We are talking to it about ways in which we can make sure that it is properly integrated into the legal framework we have created.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, as thieves stripped the signalling wire overnight recently on the line that I use, which meant that there were no trains for the whole of the following day, which caused immense inconvenience to everybody, particularly me, could the Minister maintain the momentum of this piece of work? It has done a great deal of good, but there is clearly more to be done.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have not eliminated metal theft and, indeed, the infrastructure damage involved in metal theft led to the British Transport Police being instrumental in meeting us and setting up the task force. The damage was considerable and it was not just the theft of the metal but the on-costs, as the noble Lord said.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, speaking as a vice-president of the National Churches Trust and the Lincolnshire Churches Trust, I must say how much we appreciate what my noble friend has done in this regard. However, we are all a little apprehensive about 31 March. It is crucial that we do not lose the momentum that has been sustained over the past year. I should be grateful if my noble friend could give us some reassurance on that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have given the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the assurance that we will consider it, and I think I can go no further than that.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, everyone will welcome the recent decline in this dangerous theft, which does such damage to local businesses and communities. The Minister will be aware that this crime is driven primarily by world commodity prices and all experience shows that thieves respond very quickly to changes in those commodity prices. Given the recent decline in world commodity prices, can the Minister give any assessment of how far this recent decline is due to that and how far it is due to the work of the metal theft task force?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot really comment on the noble Lord’s analysis of market conditions in the capitalist market that may underline this matter. The truth is that we were all aware that a lot of illegitimate traffic was going on throughout the supply line of this industry. The British Metals Recycling Association wanted to be a party to making this a proper legitimate framework for a proper industry. We have that framework now and I am sure that noble Lords will support all that is being done to ensure that that is what happens.
Modern Slavery
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are taking decisive action to stamp out the appalling crime of modern slavery. We have published a draft Modern Slavery Bill which will consolidate and strengthen existing legislation to ensure that modern slave drivers face the full force of the law. In the spring we will also be publishing a comprehensive action plan setting out further measures to tackle this terrible crime.
Baroness Cox (CB)
I thank the Minister for his encouraging response. The Government’s proposed Bill is so urgently needed given that 27 million people are suffering slavery worldwide, and in the UK last year, more than 1,000 people were referred to authorities as potential victims of trafficking. These are just the tip of an iceberg of hidden suffering. Does the Minister therefore agree that the current 45-day reflection period of support for victims of trafficking is insufficient, leaving vulnerable survivors excluded from support and unable to give testimony that might facilitate prosecutions? Could he therefore indicate the Government’s proposals for improving aftercare for these victims?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I should emphasise that potential victims of human trafficking identified through the national referral mechanism are given a minimum of 45 days tailored support, and this can be extended if the individual needs ongoing support due to the level of trauma they have experienced. Specialist support works with victims from day 1 to ensure that an appropriate reintegration strategy is in place post those 45 days. The scope of the national referral mechanism review, which is ongoing, will focus on identification of and support for victims, and is currently being finalised.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, in the final drafting of the new Bill, will the Government remember the most vulnerable groups, including domestic workers from overseas? Will they reintroduce the overseas domestic worker visa as a protection against trafficking and exploitation? Will they also study the report on trafficking in London by a Conservative Member of the GLA, Mr Andrew Boff?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I know Mr Boff, so I am grateful for that suggestion from the noble Lord. As he will know, because we have discussed this matter on occasions, we changed the rule to return the route to its original purpose: a temporary visa to allow domestic workers to accompany their existing overseas employers on a short-term visit to the UK. The previous approach allowed employers, including UK citizens, to bring domestic workers into the UK for longer periods. This potentially encouraged abuse. I have met the noble Lord, as he will confirm, but I have also met Kalayaan, which advocates change in this area, to discuss this issue, and I will continue to be ready to meet them.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, about four out of 10 victims of trafficking are children. An operation carried out jointly by the police and the UK Border Force found that about one-third of the unaccompanied children coming into Heathrow were deemed to be at risk. When are the Government going to start collecting data on the number of unaccompanied children who come through our ports each year so that we can tackle this heinous crime?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I know of the noble Baroness’s interest in this matter. We have data on unaccompanied young people seeking asylum. There were 1,125 who came in on that basis. We do not record data on young unaccompanied children who are not seeking asylum. Immigration officials will take action under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to identify and protect any unaccompanied child who is at risk. That section requires them to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, there remains a serious issue of slavery in the business supply chain that affects much of what we buy. Will the Minister pursue a business-friendly model to eradicate that slavery, perhaps on the basis of the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010, because a few simple reporting requirements may be more effective than simply extending the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very interested in the right reverend Prelate’s suggestion. As my experience before I came here was very much involved in the supply chain, I know how important it can be to have companies interested and integrated in good practice at every level. This is an area where we are looking to work with the supply chain to drive out slavery in supply at cropping and processing levels in food cases, and in the manufacturing industry.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee on the Children and Families Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, proposed that a guardian should be appointed for child victims of human trafficking, whether for sex or slavery. The Government rejected that. Will the Minister explain why, and will the Government reflect on their decision and look again at whether there should be guardians for child victims of human trafficking?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness is right; the child guardian idea does not form part of the Modern Slavery Bill at present, but we are examining it. The Security Minister, my colleague James Brokenshire, will also meet the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council, which were co-authors of the independent review of practical care arrangements for trafficked children, to discuss their findings. We want to make sure that the arrangements we set in place, both through legislation and the corresponding action plan, really do tackle this problem.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, who is in charge of all this? Is it Frank Field? Is it Anthony Steen? Or is it a Minister in the Home Office?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, ultimately, Parliament is in charge, but, in terms of initiating the programme, the Home Office is introducing the legislation. I hope that, in due course, I will be able to introduce the legislation here. At the moment there is a draft Bill that is being subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by a parliamentary committee, chaired by Mr Frank Field.
Public Order: Busking and Live Music
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the new anti-social behaviour powers are designed to protect the activities of the law-abiding majority. The Government are certainly not seeking to restrict reasonable behaviour and activity, and we do not believe that these powers do. Live music and street entertainment play an important role in community life and can generate a positive atmosphere that is enjoyed by all. As a result, these reforms are completely consistent with our policies on busking and live music.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome that statement from my noble friend but there appears to be a considerable difference between the approach of the DCMS and that of the Home Office to busking. The DCMS has been enthusiastic about deregulating live music. The Home Office, by contrast, is enthusiastic about its new public spaces protection order, which creates new dispersal powers and which could be used disproportionately and pre-emptively by local authorities, if the existing behaviour of some London borough councils such as Camden is typical, by contrast to that of the mayor and the GLA. Can my noble friend confirm that the statutory guidance to be issued to local authorities will ensure that these powers are exercised with proper consideration of the balance between freedom of expression and respect for private and family life, and will also point out the considerable existing body of nuisance and noise-abatement powers which local authorities already have to hand? Should we not be encouraging rather than discouraging busking, which is such an important part of our urban culture?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can certainly give my noble friend the assurance that the guidance will achieve what he and the Government wish to see from it. I do not think that there is a difference across government on this issue. We believe that the tests and safeguards set out in the new anti-social behaviour powers will ensure that they will be used only where reasonable. Where behaviour is having a positive effect on a community, and I see busking as having that effect, it would not meet the tests for the new powers. Instead, the powers are directed against the anti-social minority who give street performers a bad name; I might illustrate them as being aggressive beggars and drunken louts.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does not the Minister think that Part V of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which specifically targets busking as being effectively a potential criminal activity and which has allowed Camden Council to impose its draconian policy, should be repealed?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not intend to comment on the Camden case because it is subject to judicial review, as the noble Earl will understand. However, perhaps I can convey to the House the sentiments of the Mayor of London, who clearly believes that busking is an important part of street life in London. He is keen to encourage street entertainment and live music, not least because of the positive aspect it brings to the life of the city. As I have made clear, the Government believe that live music and street entertainment can play an important part in community life. The Government support the mayor’s position.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s responses and I think that the intention of the legislation is clear, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is on to something about the guidance. We all know that overzealous implementation of legislation can cause problems. Will the Minister respond to the noble Lord’s specific point about making things clear in guidance? When looking at the public spaces protection order, will he also consider guidance for community protection notices and dispersal powers because, with this whole new architecture of arrangements for dealing with anti-social behaviour in the Bill, guidance will be important to ensure that we do not have overzealous implementation?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope I gave my noble friend a positive response to his request. The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. Busking can brighten our lives; local action is necessary only to curb any excesses. I think that noble Lords will understand that that can occur. It is not about top-down government; it is about local authorities using the powers available to them. The guidance will certainly make clear the Government’s position on busking and street entertainment.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, local authorities and private landowners take different approaches to busking, which can mean that licences are required in some places but not in others. Will my noble friend work closely with local government to clarify the current laws that apply to busking in different areas? I declare an interest as an occasional busker.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We have a diversity of talent in this House, and occasionally we have to draw on it. My noble friend makes a very important point: the Government have a role in helping local government to use and interpret its powers properly. The noble Baroness referred in her question to the same issue: making it clear what is considered to be sensible use of powers is a responsibility that the Government can usefully carry out.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may have heard of an historic music venue in Manchester called Night & Day which, as a result of one complaint, is in danger of being closed down, which would mean that that opportunity for music would be lost. Is not the Minister right when he says that in these cases a proportionate approach should be considered?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes. My noble friend who asked the original Question introduced the Live Music Act. I pay tribute to him for securing that Private Member’s Bill through this House. It is designed to ease the licensing burden on popular venues. However, we have to allow local democracy to work and people should be entitled, if they find activity to be disruptive, to make that point and have it established whether or not it is disruptive. I cannot comment at all on the detail of the Night & Day case. I have never been to the place myself; I have obviously missed out in my sheltered life. None the less, I will listen with interest to the outcome.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
I am not sure that the noble Earl and I should be having too lengthy a dialogue on this matter. I am not sure whether I got a very clear answer from him as to whether he accepted that what the Government are proposing may well put in jeopardy a very successful initiative, which over a period of years has had a very positive impact on the level of burglaries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, with this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has brought back the issue of the important role that design has to play in preventing crime and anti-social behaviour. It is important to stress that the Government recognise the importance of design in crime prevention. Nothing in the current proposals is designed to weaken that. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, will accept that.
Before I respond in detail to the noble Lord’s amendment, I should like to emphasise that the housing standards review, which is the project under consultation at the moment and at the centre of the noble Lord’s concerns, was not initiated to cut standards irrespective of impact or to agree to a lowest common denominator approach. I cannot emphasise that enough. Its clear objective was to review a number of the voluntary standards—there are a number of voluntary standards—most frequently called up by local authorities. The aim was to identify opportunities for simplification, clarification and, if appropriate, those standards that are so important that they justify inclusion in a possible national standard or building regulations, which is a situation that may not always exist at present.
We are entirely supportive of the police continuing to advise local planning authorities on the layout of new development. We are all, I think, also in agreement that it is important to ensure that the police can continue to contribute their intelligence on crime to the development and implementation of standards. There will be no diminution of the role of the police in that respect. The new clause that the noble Lord proposes would place a mandatory duty on a body representing chief officers of police to publish guidelines on designing out crime that local planning authorities may then require builders to follow as a condition of granting planning permission.
As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government have spent considerable time tidying up the policing landscape to create a set of bodies with a clearly defined purpose. The Association of Chief Police Officers fulfilled an important role as the professional voice of the police service for many years, but as policing is changing, so too must ACPO. Many former functions of ACPO have transferred to the College of Policing and, in the light of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners’ review of ACPO, there will be further consideration of the future delivery of some additional national functions. I am not persuaded that it would be right to pre-empt those considerations by designating a new or existing body, as the noble Lord is proposing today.
Many different expert groups have a role to play in the design, building and construction of the places where we live and work. Although I recognise that the noble Lord’s intention is to ensure that guidelines are drawn up in an open and transparent way in discussion with experts, I believe it should be left to the police and others to decide on the most appropriate groups to consult according to subject area. As a matter of good design, technical building standards and standards for the design and layout of the wider built environment are often considered together. That is indeed the approach taken by Secured by Design. However, in regulatory terms, the former are the domain of building regulations while the latter are matters for planning. Of course, the role of planning and building regulations needs to be understood in the broader context of crime overall, and on that matter I should like to offer some points of clarification.
When last we discussed these matters, the noble Lord set out a range of figures to exemplify the importance of security standards in new homes. While I have no wish to extend the debate unnecessarily as these figures have become a matter of public record, I think it is only right that we ensure that they are placed in context. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that if appropriate measures were installed some 700,000 burglaries could be prevented each year saving nearly £2 billion. According to the latest crime survey estimates, not only is this more than the total number of burglaries in England and Wales in 2012-13, it reflects burglaries in both old and new housing. The housing standards review sets out standards only for new development, not existing homes. Furthermore, the housing standards review does not propose stopping bodies such as Secured by Design bringing their own standards to the market for developers to use on a voluntary basis.
In relation to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, local authorities are currently able to impose requirements on new development in relation to security, including adopting the principles of standards such as Secured by Design. Such standards may be delivered as a condition of planning permission, provided that the condition is necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in other respects—in other words, fitting the considerations that planning permission requires.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for their support for this amendment. It is also heartening to hear that neighbourhood watch schemes around the country believe that this approach is the right one. I am also aware that quite a number of senior local authority figures of all parties have expressed support for the principle.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support for the principles behind this. Quite properly, she said that Secured by Design guidelines include such issues as defensible space, lighting, sightlines and so on and she asked about the focus on locks. The reason for the focus on locks and such practical, physical measures in the course of this debate is that that is the area where the DCLG consultation, which includes the building regulations, is designed to weaken the autonomy of local authorities to decide what they think are the most appropriate standards in their areas. This is the reverse of being top-down; it is the Government who are imposing these changes top-down and preventing individual local authorities making their choices.
I have to say that I was puzzled by the Minister’s assurance that planning law does allow these things to be included in planning approvals. My understanding, as a local authority member for 26 years, is that planning approvals may include advice but only certain things can be included as mandatory as part of planning approvals. This would not be permitted under planning law to be one of those mandatory guidelines.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, seemed to think that this was some back-door way of giving statutory status to a bunch of senior police officers. I have to say that I do not think that is the purpose of it. The formulation,
“The Secretary of State shall designate a body representative of”,
is quite widely used in legislation to permit, without recognising a particular body, the use of a body which is broadly representative as being able to put forward a view. It is a standard approach. He also seemed concerned that the list of the organisations that should be consulted, given in proposed new subsection (3), was not sufficient. I would be happy to accept that it would be possible to amend it further to include that.
The Minister seems to be encouraging me to bring the amendment forward again in a slightly different form. If he is saying that the amendment would be acceptable if, instead of referring to,
“a body representative of chief officers of police”,
it said, “the College of Policing”, I am quite happy to bring this forward on another occasion. Is that what he is suggesting?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is not what I am suggesting. I just pointed out to noble Lords what the noble Lord’s amendment said.
Lord Harris of Haringey
In that case, the points about the College of Policing were clearly rather academic.
The purpose of this amendment is to give local authorities the flexibility to set higher design standards, if that is what they want to do. The Minister has said that nothing the Government are doing is intended to weaken the security standards and that the housing standards review was not intended to bring about the lowest common denominator, but that is what it is doing, in practice. He talked about supporting the police in advising on a layout of a development, but this is not just about the layout of a development—it is about the security measures physically built into the development, which I do not believe can be part of a planning approval at present.
The Minister told us at length about the importance of tidying up the policing landscape, but that, frankly, is irrelevant. There will still be chief officers of police, unless there is some hidden agenda for the Government.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we had the opportunity to consider the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Relevant Sources) Order 2013, which the Minister sent round after the previous debate and is now in force, as I understand it. Any of us could have prayed against it.
We need to understand as a House that we are not at the point in the development of this—“work” seems to be the wrong term—matter that one might think from looking at the amendment. That is not to say that I do not have sympathy with the amendment. One of the times when I was most shocked at work since becoming a Member of your Lordships’ House was on hearing recordings of the testimonies of women, and their families, who have been affected by activities under CHISRS. I remember the family of one woman saying, “We treated this man as our prospective son-in-law; we welcomed him into our family”. It was very moving.
That causes me to say that what matters more than anything—although I do not know how you deal with it other than by putting formal technical oversight in place—is a change in practice and culture. The police need to take that matter on board but you cannot write that into legislation in that way.
The 12-month period for approval before review is required seems on the long side and I look forward to the Minister explaining it to the House. As I say, we should have questioned some time ago—I am as much at fault as anyone—why 12 months was chosen, rather than six months or even three months.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a worthwhile debate, although we have discussed this matter before. As the noble Lords know, the statutory instrument has come into effect, so we are in a different regulatory regime from the one we were in when we discussed this in Committee. In no way do the Government endorse activities to which the attention of the House has been drawn in the speeches of noble Lords. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. I agree that covert techniques are sometimes necessary to protect the public from harm or to prevent or detect crime. I think all noble Lords will accept that. These techniques need, however, to be closely supervised and constantly reassessed to ensure that they are justified.
Undercover deployments are authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. RIPA provides a strong set of safeguards. As I said in Committee, we have recently brought forward secondary legislation, further enhancing this oversight of undercover deployments by law enforcement agencies. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Relevant Sources) Order 2013 came into effect on 1 January 2014.
I was a little concerned that, in our debate last time, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, might not have been aware of this order, so, following the debate in Committee, I wrote on 21 December 2013 to draw it to his attention and to that of the noble Baroness. As a negative instrument, there was the normal opportunity for the Opposition or any noble Lord to pray against the order, perhaps on the ground that its provisions fell short of what was needed. Unfortunately, however, it is a matter of record that no such step was taken. The order, which has now been in force for some three weeks, provides a number of additional safeguards to ensure that the technique is used only when it is just to do so. I will give some examples of what I mean.
First, law enforcement agencies must notify the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, all retired senior judges, of all undercover deployment by law enforcement officers. Secondly, an authorisation can be renewed beyond 12 months only with the prior approval of a surveillance commissioner, who, I remind your Lordships, is someone who has held senior judicial office. It may be that the original deployment is not authorised for 12 months. Thereafter, if it is to be renewed at 12 months, a surveillance commissioner will be required to pre-approve all renewals for long-term deployments every 12 months.
In addition, we have increased the rank of authorising officer. Deployments of undercover law enforcement officers now need to be authorised at assistant chief constable level or equivalent. Any deployments lasting longer than 12 months will be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent as well as by a surveillance commissioner. The seniority of those who are now required to authorise these deployments is an indication of how seriously the Government take proper oversight of undercover law enforcement activity. I hope I can reassure my noble friend Lady Hamwee that all authorisations are notified to the commissioners at the outset. They monitor the cases during their normal inspections. Each case is approved specifically after that 12-month interval. It reflects the existing legislation and implements the HMIC recommendation to increase oversight of long-term deployments. As I have said, deployments can be for shorter terms, but they still have to be notified to surveillance commissioners.
We believe that the new arrangements will create a regime that contains considerable safeguards while not hampering operational effectiveness. We should allow them to bed down and be given a chance to prove themselves. We will of course keep them under review. Given these recent changes, I do not believe that this amendment, well intentioned as it is, is required. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister did not think I would pass up this opportunity. This is an interesting amendment. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blair, say that the Minister was going to resist the amendment, because when I read it, especially after our previous debate, I assumed, possibly wrongly, that it reflected what the Minister had said in previous debates and therefore set out the position for clarity in the Bill. Clearly, nobody in your Lordships’ House has criticised in any way the possibility of a police officer from overseas, suitably qualified, becoming a chief constable or the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. That is not at issue.
What is at issue is that they should be subject to the same conditions and rules as any member of the UK police force. I am surprised if the Minister does not think that there should be an explanation or guarantee of some form of appropriate security vetting, in the same place as the Bill says that a police officer from an approved overseas police force can be appointed. The change is being made in the Bill; I would have thought, therefore, that any qualification to that change should also be made in the Bill.
I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance on this, and will take it away and come back at Third Reading with something that is appropriate and addresses the concerns that have been expressed. I do not think that it is unreasonable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made a very strong point about public confidence. It serves public confidence well to understand that if a police officer comes from overseas, particularly in the role of commissioner, which is a counterterrorism role unlike any other chief constable role in the entire country, they will be subject to the same kind and level of vetting as any police officer taking the job from within the UK.
I hope that there has been some misunderstanding or error in the report that the Minister intends to resist the amendment. He has his piece of paper there; I hope it does not say that. I hope he will want to think again and come back. I think that he will have got a sense from your Lordships’ House that there is widespread support for what seems to be a very moderate clarification, and I hope that he can accept it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I see this as an area of principle. I somewhat regret that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, addressed the issue ad hominem; I think that that was a little unnecessary. The Government take this matter seriously—and take his amendment seriously, too. As I said when responding to similar concerns in Committee, I agree that it is essential that those who are appointed as police officers undergo vetting appropriate to the role they are undertaking. I reinforce that view today. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reflecting on that debate and, in constructing his new amendment, taking the arguments I presented into consideration.
However, while vetting is vital, I do not believe that primary legislation is the place to set out the level of vetting. It is not the place where the level of vetting should be determined. Nor do I see the case for singling out just one chief officer post—namely that of Metropolitan Police Commissioner. As I said in Committee, no Home Secretary—also an appointee of Her Majesty—would make an appointment to the post of Metropolitan Police Commissioner that would put national security at risk. Furthermore, naming,
“developed (or equivalent) security vetting”,
as the requisite standard in primary legislation could be a hostage to fortune. Were the name or criteria for this type of vetting to change, this requirement could become outdated.
However, I have listened very carefully to the arguments that the noble Lord put forward, and there may be some merit in setting out vetting requirements in regulations. It is right for the College of Policing, as the body that sets the standards for policing, to take the lead role in considering whether to propose such regulations. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 111 makes statutory provision for its formal role in the preparation or approval of regulations. I will undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the college.
The noble Lord also highlighted the possibility that in a few years’ time we could find that all the chief officer equivalent posts in the Metropolitan Police, and indeed in other forces, could be filled by persons who have previously never served as a police officer in the UK. I have to say that such a possibility is, at best, theoretical, and I think that the noble Lord would admit that. Under the existing law, it could already be the case that every officer from commander through to deputy commissioner could be a person with no previous policing experience in the UK. That was not the case when the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was commissioner and, in practice, I see no possibility whatever of that happening in future.
We simply do not need legislation to preclude such a possibility. It has never been a legal requirement for the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or for deputy or assistant chief constables in other forces in England and Wales to have been a constable in the UK or a British national. As I indicated, these are not really matters for primary legislation; they are matters that the College of Policing may wish to advise on as matters for regulations—or they are matters that can be stipulated when a particular appointment is advertised. We remain of the view that an amendment to the Police Act 1996 is not required and, accordingly, I cannot undertake to bring forward a Third Reading amendment.
It will be for the Home Secretary to make decisions on the eligibility of applicants for appointment as Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and for the commissioner and chief constables in every other force to decide in relation to other senior posts. It is right that the Home Secretary and police chiefs should be trusted to decide who is best qualified and most appropriate to fill those roles. I cannot undertake to bring forward a Third Reading amendment on this issue, as I said.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, will accept that the issues he has raised are not new. They would have arisen whether or not Clause 128 was in this Bill. He is right to raise these matters, but questions about the appropriate vetting of senior officers and about the relevant previous experience of such officers on appointment should not be a matter for primary legislation. However, I will draw this debate to the attention of the College of Policing. It may be that the college will come forward with regulations in future. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I hope that the Minister did not think that I was being ad hominem about him as I certainly was not. In the circumstances of the Minister deciding to bring this to the attention of the College of Policing and asking it to consider what level of vetting should be required for the post of commissioner—if that is what he is saying—I shall, in a moment, ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I suggest to the Minister that the idea that a person could be appointed to a senior police position who has never previously been a police officer is pretty difficult to contemplate. I was never suggesting that all 35 would be like that as I cannot imagine anybody doing that. However, just the possibility that somebody who has never previously been a police officer could be appointed deputy chief constable seems to be a pretty odd state of affairs. Perhaps the Minister and I could talk about that outside the Chamber just to see whether that is not also something about which we could ask him specifically to ask the College of Policing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I rise briefly, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he raised this issue in Committee and at Second Reading. He is wise not to rely on the Private Member’s Bill route at present, since we have a number of Fridays when we are discussing just one Bill, which crowds out every other Bill that noble Lords wish to bring forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about “Better not, Minister”, or “Better, Minister”. I think that the phrase in the “Yes Minister” series—which I heard myself as a Minister—was, “That’s very courageous, Minister”, which, from civil servants, is not praise. I hope that the Minister has not had to be too courageous in accepting the principle behind this amendment.
I want to raise a couple of thoughts, because this is a big issue. The cost to councils is enormous. I come from a generation that came home from school or from shopping with our hands stuffed full of any litter we had had during the day. Sadly, that is not always the case now. Sometimes the methods used are not entirely appropriate, although the problem has to be dealt with.
I have one concern. As I understand it, the Minister will bring forward an order-making power at Third Reading, but I take the comments from noble Lords opposite that we need assurance that the order will not be delayed and will be fairly swift. We all know how long orders can take. Given that they are unamendable—though they have to be consulted on—it should not take too long. If the Minister can give assurances or any guidelines on the timescale in which he expects to bring the order forward, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I am delighted with the news that the Minister accepts the principle of this amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I have sat listening to noble Lords’ expectations thinking, “No pressure, then”, so I hope that I do not disappoint noble Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward his amendment. All noble Lords share his concern about littering; indeed, as all who have spoken in this debate have said, it is anti-social, causes a nuisance, is an eyesore for the communities in which we live and can cause harm to the environment and, potentially, other road users. It is unacceptable behaviour and should be treated as such.
My noble friend describes his amendment as a simple measure to “fix” a problem. I have not heard the words quoted by my noble friend Lord Deben—“Better not, Minister”—in all my time, albeit brief, in ministerial office, although he of course had a longer time in office and perhaps had to deal with slightly more weighty matters than I have. When my colleagues who work with me on this Bill talk to me, they demand not “courage” or sensitivity to other considerations that they do not believe to be justified; I find them remarkably supportive and they have been very supportive on this measure.
Lord Crickhowell
In the light of what my noble friend said about the devolved Governments, will he undertake to draw the attention of those Administrations to what has been said in this debate and the action that the Government are now taking so that there is some hope that similar action will effectively be taken in the devolved countries?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I recognise the fact that my noble friend lives outside England, so he has an interest in making sure that those of us in this country do not all drive across the border—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is even more pertinent to the issue he raises. I will, indeed, draw to the attention of the devolved authorities what we propose when Parliament has approved the Third Reading amendment that we are tabling.
I shall conclude by saying that I and my ministerial colleagues share my noble friend’s abhorrence of roadside litter and his deep distaste at the behaviour of those who carelessly discard things from their vehicle. We have already discussed at length the kind of problems that can arise if the law on this subject is difficult to interpret or enforce. I am sure that my noble friend agrees that we need to ensure that we get the legal detail right. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and allow us to bring forward an alternative that will meet all our aspirations.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am obviously extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I am well aware that it involved the political elite of the country in coming to this conclusion, and I much appreciate the fact that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is also in support and, indeed, my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary was involved. The answer is that it is wonderful that we are about to make a great step forward. As to where it applies, I will happily buy England only so as not to delay it and, indeed, perhaps it could become a minor or major issue on the future of Scotland. They can discuss what part they will play. In the light of what my noble friend so graciously and kindly said, I have pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important part of the UK’s counterterrorism strategy. The amendments to that schedule in the Bill were made in line with our ongoing commitment to ensure that respect for individual freedoms is balanced against reducing the threat of terrorism to the public here and to British interests overseas. We understand, even from our recent debates, that there remain aspects where we could go further in reforming the operation of the powers in Schedule 7. Let me set out the basis for the Government’s amendments in this group and I will then respond to the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Avebury when winding up the debate.
Amendments 93F and 93G, which relate to England and Wales and to Scotland respectively, clarify how the right to consult a solicitor as soon as reasonably practicable, privately and at any time, may be exercised by a person detained under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. These amendments make clear that a detained person who exercises the right to consult a solicitor may not be questioned until they have consulted a solicitor or no longer wish to do so. This is an important clarification and will put beyond doubt that examining officers must not question a detained person who has requested to consult a solicitor.
In the distinct context of a person detained at a port, an airport or an international rail station, consultation with a solicitor will ordinarily be by telephone, video call, text message or e-mail. The amendments provide that an examining officer may question a detained person who wishes to consult a solicitor if the officer reasonably believes that postponing the questioning would be likely to prejudice determination of whether the detained person appears to be a person concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That is unlikely, other than in circumstances where a detained person insists on speaking with a particular solicitor who remains unavailable set against the statutory time limit for conducting the examination.
The amendments also clarify that a detained person is entitled to consult a solicitor in person. This is an entitlement, not an absolute right. Where a person is detained at a port, an airport or an international rail station there may not be suitable facilities available for a personal consultation. These places are not police stations. If a detained person wishes to consult a solicitor in person, the examining officer will have to have regard to the facilities available for a private consultation and the time it will take for a solicitor to arrive at the port and to access the secure area where the person is detained. Where escort officers are available, and without detracting from the policing of the port, the examining officer may decide to transfer the detained person to a police station to facilitate a consultation in person, although that will extend the duration of the person’s detention.
Similar provision is made to allow an examining officer to question a detained person who asks to consult a solicitor in person. This might occur where the detained person insists on speaking in person with a particular solicitor and the time it would take for the solicitor to arrive at the port or the police station would consume a substantial portion of the limited time available for the examination. In that instance the officer may require the consultation to take place by telephone.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we have two reasons. First if the noble reads my comments in Committee, he will see that we gave further information on that. Secondly, we take the view as outlined by David Anderson in his report, and we think that was a reasonable position to take.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, have all made very valuable speeches on this issue, addressing the fundamental principle of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 through their amendments: when a person may be detained and when their personal electronic devices may be examined.
I preface my remarks by noting that we continue to await the judgment of the High Court in the judicial review proceedings brought by Mr David Miranda, following his examination under Schedule 7 in August last year. Although the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, who has been referred to several times in the debate, has made some recommendations in relation to Schedule 7, we will not have the benefit of his report on the detention of Mr Miranda and any further recommendations he may make until after the judgment is handed down. Consequently, the debate on Schedule 7 will continue beyond our proceedings today and beyond this Bill. I am certain that we will return to these matters in detail in the future. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for agreeing to this approach and I commit to keeping her informed of the Government’s approach to the issue.
Let me address the amendments before the House. I begin with Amendment 93B, which provides that a person “may not be detained” for examination,
“unless the examining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect”,
that the person is concerned with,
“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
The powers in Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act are for the purpose of determining whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. This is an examination of whether they appear to be. As I explained in Committee, examinations are not simply about the police talking to people they know, or already suspect, are involved in terrorism. They are about talking to people travelling to and from places where terrorist activity is taking place or emerging, to determine whether those individuals appear to be involved in terrorism—whether that is because they are or have been involved, will become involved or are at risk, either knowingly or unknowingly, of becoming involved.
The Government maintain the view that introducing a reasonable suspicion test for the exercise of powers under Schedule 7, both to detain individuals and to search electronic devices, would undermine the capability of the police to determine whether individuals passing through ports, airports and international rail stations appear to be involved in terrorism. That view is shared, as some noble Lords have commented, by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who explained to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
“My exposure at a variety of ports to the operational constraints under which ports officers operate inclines me, on balance, towards rejecting the reasonable suspicion standard as a condition for detention”.
Mr Anderson highlights:
“Terrorists pose risks on a different scale to most other criminals: they have shown themselves capable of causing death and destruction on a massive scale”.
He adds:
“Active terrorists are not numerous, and not easily identified as such”,
and that a port environment suspicion may be,
“harder to substantiate objectively in the absence of specific intelligence”.
Those are important words, setting the background to the Government’s consideration of these matters.
I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that, “the concerns which underpin” the independent reviewer’s,
“rejection of a reasonable suspicion standard are entirely justifiable concerns”.
For his part, the independent reviewer has recommended that detention be permitted only, and continue only, when an officer is satisfied that there are grounds for suspecting that the person appears to be concerned with terrorism. In Mr Anderson’s view, this represents,
“the maximum safeguards consistent with the continued productive operation of these vital powers”.
There have been two or three references to the discriminatory effect of these powers on ethnicity. Perhaps I should tackle this one. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said, if the powers are operated properly, the ethnic breakdown of those examined will correspond not with the ethnic breakdown of the general population or the travelling population, but with the ethnic breakdown of those involved with terrorism. I believe we have to accept that.
The Government welcome the debate to find an appropriate threshold for the exercise of powers to detain individuals, and to make and retain a copy of electronic data under Schedule 7. However, in the specific context of port and border controls to determine whether individuals appear to be concerned with terrorism, reasonable grounds for suspicion is not an appropriate threshold. Ensuring an appropriate threshold that is clear in its meaning and provides an effective safeguard in its distinct context is a matter the Government continue to reconsider. We shall reflect further on the recommendation that the independent reviewer has made. However I am not persuaded that it would be right to introduce a test of reasonable suspicion, as Amendment 93B seeks to do.
The effect of Amendments 93A, 93C and 93D would be to restrict the duty of a person being questioned under Schedule 7 to disclose anything in relation to data stored on a personal electronic device unless they are detained. They also restrict the power of an examining officer to search things in relation to data stored on personal electronic devices unless the person being questioned is detained. I have tried to reassure my noble friend Lord Avebury that the power to search for and examine property, including personal electronic devices, is an essential part of the Schedule 7 powers. The independent reviewer observed—I make no apology for quoting him again—that,
“the Schedule 7 evidence which has assisted in the conviction of terrorists … consists of physical possessions or the contents of mobile phones, laptops and pen drives”.
These amendments are intended to complement Amendment 93B and to require reasonable grounds for suspicion to delay a person and consequently to examine their personal electronic devices. I have set out the Government’s position on the reasonable suspicion threshold.
The independent reviewer has recommended that the power under new paragraph 11A to Schedule 7—to make and retain copies of data from personal electronic devices—be exercised only if a senior officer is satisfied that there are grounds for suspecting that the person is concerned with terrorism. As with the threshold for detention, the Government are considering additional safeguards for examination of personal electronic data. We shall reflect further on this, both on the independent reviewer’s recommendation and alternative enhanced safeguards—for example, to provide for a review officer to approve any decision to examine data.
“( ) In paragraph 1(5) (definition of examining officer) for “paragraph” there is substituted “Schedule”.
( ) In paragraph 2(2)(d), the words “(within the meaning of that Schedule)” are omitted.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, exceptionally, with the leave of the House, it might help if I speak at this early stage in the proceedings. I will explain the background to some of the discussions and reinforce the words of my noble friend Lord Deben in proposing his amendments. I will also set out the Government’s approach to the matter.
Following the debate in Committee, I met my noble friend Lord Deben, the Metropolitan Police, Westminster City Council, the Royal Parks and the receiver general of Westminster Abbey to discuss how we might more effectively address noise issues in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. The meeting confirmed the view I expressed in Committee, when we debated my noble friend’s amendments the first time, that there are already sufficient powers, including within existing Westminster City Council and Royal Parks byelaws, for the police, Westminster Council and the Royal Parks to deal with noise issues around the Palace of Westminster. From the Government’s perspective, the issue is not so much an absence powers, but the effective enforcement of the powers that are currently available.
It is true that there are some differences between the provisions that apply to Parliament Square under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and those that apply to the area we are talking about here. For example, unlike the provisions of the 2011 Act, there is currently no pre-authorisation requirement for the use of amplified noise equipment in areas other than those covered by the Royal Parks Regulation. In addition, the offence under the 2011 Act attracts a higher maximum penalty of a £5,000 fine, compared with the Westminster City Council byelaws where the maximum fine is £500 and the Royal Parks byelaws where it is £200 or £1,000 depending on the offence. Your Lordships may take the view that a single set of harmonised controls in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster might assist the enforcement agencies to deal with noise disruptions more effectively. However, the need for effective enforcement would remain.
Home Office officials and I would like to pay tribute to the public order team working on this issue. Home Office officials have worked with the Metropolitan Police, Westminster City Council and the Royal Parks to develop a robust enforcement plan for the current legislation. A joint protocol has been developed to deal with noise-related nuisance in the vicinity of Parliament. The key features of this protocol are that it sets out a clear process for dealing with noise issues around the Palace of Westminster; provides a single, adequately resourced contact number for complaints, which will be followed up; sets out a process for the police and Westminster City Council to liaise with protest organisers in advance and inform them of the legal position as regards the use of amplified noise equipment and their responsibilities; and sets out an agreed process for the police and Westminster City Council to work together to deal with noise issues arising from planned potential disruptive demonstrations. The enforcement agencies have also produced leaflets to ensure that people are aware of the legal position and their responsibility to minimise noise to allow others to carry on their normal business without serious disruption.
Earlier today, I met Deputy Assistant Commissioner de Brunner and Commander Dave Martin from the Metropolitan Police. They have assured me that the Palace of Westminster police will provide active support to Members of the House in dealing with noise issues. They have also assured me that the joint agency enforcement plan should effectively deal with noise issues in the vicinity of the House. We have agreed to review the situation in two months’ time to evaluate how the new enforcement plan is working.
As I have indicated, whatever the legislation in place, the key is effective enforcement. Noble Lords may consider that that objective would be better served by the adoption of these amendments. As for the Government, we have concluded that this is properly a matter for the House to determine and as such, if it came to a vote the Government will neither support nor oppose the amendments. My noble friend Lord Deben has made his case and no doubt others will want to contribute to this debate but, for once, I will not seek to be persuading noble Lords one way or the other.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for the way in which he introduced this debate and to the Minister for those comments and his response. My colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle has added his name to this amendment, thereby expressing the concern of these Benches, in particular with regard to the work and worship at Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s parish church. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle is unable to be with us today. However, it is a particular delight to welcome the very reverend Dean of Westminster, as he exercises his constitutional right to sit on the steps of the Throne of this House.
The Abbey has suffered, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was saying, as a result of what is often quite unintentional disturbance of its worship, and its role as a place of prayer and the worship of God. It is important to affirm absolutely both the right of protest, with the human rights which are involved in being able to protest, and, at the same time, the right and duty of the Abbey to maintain its pattern of prayer to God, particularly in view of the way in which it stands for the spiritual nature and concerns of this nation, and of our monarch and the Royal Family. Our daily prayers here with your Lordships stress particularly the needs of this realm and of the monarch. Westminster Abbey is a unique testimony to prayer for those needs, and there is a need at this point to ensure that the Abbey is able to fulfil that particular task which it has in the life of both the church and the nation. I support the amendment and am grateful to the Minister for his generous words about it.
Lord Rosser
The Minister has reminded us that when a very similar amendment was considered in Committee he, as the Minister, said that the issue was how the existing by-laws were enforced rather than that the existing powers were inadequate. It was in that context that he proposed holding the meeting to which he referred, and which has now been held. It would be of some interest if the Minister were in a position to tell us, in the light of that meeting, why on the face of it Westminster City Council and the police were not able to enforce the powers that he said were already there and were adequate to deal with the situation that we are addressing.
Presumably, Westminster City Council must have had something to say on that, as did the police, since they were present at the meeting which the Minister held. He said in Committee that he needed to satisfy himself that the existing provisions were not being enforced by the council and the police, so it would be helpful to know what those two bodies had to say when they were asked why the existing provisions were not being enforced.
I appreciate that the Minister has said that there are different penalties. He referred to penalties of £5,000 against the £500, I think, under the powers for Westminster City Council, and to differences over no pre-notification for noise. That does not fully explain why the existing by-laws were apparently not being enforced. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on that.
Since the Minister said that it is his intention to leave it to the House, I would make just one other point. The Minister said in Committee—I use his own words—that we need to be,
“very careful about taking any action that may impact disproportionately on people’s right to protest and their freedom of speech”.—[Official Report, 25/11/13; col. 1215.]
How is the Minister satisfied that we are being careful about not taking any such action, since I assume that that matter will have been discussed at the meeting which was held and to which he referred?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his general support for the steps that we have taken to try to resolve this issue. As I said, it is a matter for the House. The interests of those demonstrating are, I believe, best served by the facility of pre-booking a demonstration based on availability, which this protocol will provide for. It is not essential and there is no attempt to say that this will be the only way in which people can demonstrate. There is no imposition on people demonstrating, other than that they obey the requirements of the by-laws in respect of the noise made through amplified sound. This provision is made explicit by my noble friend Lord Deben’s amendment. Throughout, the right to demonstrate and to assemble has been seen as a key feature of what we consider to be proper here at this end of Parliament, as it is in respect of Parliament Square.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked why the enforcement of noise by-laws has not been effective. The one thing which came out of our first, extremely productive, general meeting with everybody present was that people were in effect operating in their own little silos. If I explain that responsibility for the George V statue and the paved area in front of it lies with Westminster City Council while responsibility for the green part beyond it lies with the Royal Parks, your Lordships might understand that co-ordinating action was also difficult.
It was quite clear, too, that the police did not realise that one of the most frustrating elements was that those police serving the Palace’s interests were not engaged in any enforcement of noise requirements in respect of the area that we are talking about. The police recognised that while they had had a strong focus on provisions in Parliament Square, this area had not been considered by them to be an important priority.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was able through tabling his amendment at Committee to bring this to the attention not only of this House but also of the police and other authorities. As a result of that, the protocol, which I am certainly reassured will be an effective mechanism, provides an opportunity for safeguarding democratic rights and, at the same time, ensuring that enforcement can in fact occur. So I hope the noble Lord is satisfied.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, in her tributes to the security industry and to the Security Industry Authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, brings expertise of this industry, but she also brings enthusiasm for its development, and I pay tribute to her for that.
As I said when we debated this issue in Committee, the Government are committed to reforming how the private security industry is regulated. In the future, the Security Industry Authority will regulate businesses undertaking prescribed activities before they are able to work in the security sector. This is an important measure as it will provide the SIA with a more efficient and effective means for regulating the security sector, improving standards and, most importantly, providing better tools for combating organised and serious criminal behaviour at corporate level.
The Government’s proposals have received strong industry support. Indeed, they have been supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Smith, this evening. While significant parts of the reforms can be delivered through secondary legislation, other aspects require primary legislation. The secondary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, and the remaining proposals will be further refined once that work has been completed.
While I agree with the noble Baroness’s desire to see reform in this area, I do not believe that the amendment she has proposed for debate this evening takes the right approach. The scope of this proposed business regulation would be significantly narrower than either of the current provisions which would be removed by her amendment. This would reduce protection of the public by preventing the regulation of security provided in the private sector and would also remove the potential to extend to businesses providing their own in-house security eligibility for membership of the successful approved contractor scheme, which has around 760 member businesses.
The new business regulation regime that we are developing is designed around the use of Section 17 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, which was amended by Section 43 of the Policing and Crime Act 2010. Amendment 94 would remove Section 43 of the 2010 Act and, in so doing, prevent the introduction of business regulation as currently envisaged. It is not our intention to undo the work that has been done to date, including during the noble Baroness’s tenure as chair of the SIA, and therefore we intend to retain the ability to establish a mandatory business approval scheme under Section 17.
It is not desirable to have a narrower scheme focused only on those private security firms delivering under contract to the public sector, because the private sector clients of such companies have just as much need for the protection which the Government’s proposals would afford. In addition, the existing individual licensing regime does not exclude the private sector, and it is our intention to reduce burdens and costs on those individuals through the introduction of business regulation across the industry.
The amendment would also insert a new Section 22A into the Private Security Industry Act. As the noble Baroness has explained, the intention is to enable the sharing of information for any purpose connected with the Act. While I agree with the intention of enabling information sharing, this must be considered as part of the overall reforms we are taking forward to ensure any provisions achieve this intention. So while I have some sympathy with this element of the amendment, I do not believe that this is the right way to go about it.
In conclusion, while I fully share the noble Baroness’s desire to make progress with the reforms to the security industry regulatory regime, I hope that, on reflection, she will agree that her scheme is not the most appropriate way forward—it is only a partial scheme—and that, accordingly, she will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. The first point I want to make is that, clearly, the Minister and those of us who are arguing for this are not divided on the end. We share the same goals; we are divided on the means to achieve those goals. The thing that has worried me particularly is the speed, or rather the lack of speed, with which the Government are moving forward on this. We have waited since 2010; we are now into 2014. This was all supposed to have been completed, I remind the Minister, by the end of 2013. I remember that he gave a pledge that it would all be completed by the end of 2013. We are now in January 2014 and the Minister is still using phrases such as, “as soon as possible”, “once completed” and “we aim to do this”. He has to acknowledge that the speed has been somewhat less than he would have liked. We know where the problems lie but it is this lack of speed that motivated me to put the focus on moving with urgency. What is actually happening is that, because of the slowness and what appears to be lack of action by the Government, we are losing the support of the industry.
The Minister will be aware that industry leaders are becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of progress. Their concern is that if this is introduced through secondary legislation the situation could even be worse for companies than it is at present, because of the difficulty of enforcement under secondary legislation. I am concerned not to lose the support of the industry. It is so unusual to have nearly all the leaders of a big industry such as the private security industry united in wanting business licensing of companies that I do not want to lose that momentum. That is one reason I have brought forward a series of amendments to try to focus attention on this issue, and to explain why the industry is so concerned about it and why we need business licensing. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said and in the light of that, all we can do is wait. If he is not prepared to bring something back at the next stage, all I can do is hope that the primary legislation to which he referred will be with us sooner rather than later. On that note. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I confirm that the process is a written one—the noble Baroness asked that specific question.
Perhaps it is best if I start with the government amendments in this group, which would insert two new clauses into the Bill. First, Amendment 94DG implements an optional provision in the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition—the ECE—which the Government intend to ratify shortly. The ECE governs extradition between the UK and members of the Council of Europe—other than EU member states—plus Israel, South Africa and the Republic of Korea. This provision concerns the issue of speciality, which is the bar on a person being proceeded against for offences committed prior to extradition other than those listed in the extradition request.
Among other things, the Fourth Additional Protocol provides an optional mechanism whereby states can restrict the personal freedom of a person while a request to waive the rule of speciality is being considered by the state that originally extradited the person. This is not something that is currently catered for in Sections 150 and 151A of the Extradition Act 2003, which deal with the speciality rule in these cases. Accordingly, Amendment 94DG makes the appropriate changes to the 2003 Act. A person may only be detained under this new provision where both states have made the relevant declaration under the ECE and that declaration is still in force, and certain specified conditions, as set out in the new clause, are met.
Perhaps I may elaborate on that point. Those conditions are as follows. First, the Home Secretary requests the state that extradited the person to waive the speciality rule. Such requests are predicated on the prosecuting authorities being satisfied that there is a case to answer and that prosecution for other offences would be in the public interest. Secondly, the requested state must be notified by the Secretary of State that she would wish the person to be detained while they consider the request to waive specialty. Thirdly, the requested state must explicitly acknowledge the notification. If the requested state objects to the detention request then that person may not be detained; or if detained, must be released. Finally, and assuming these criteria are met, any application to detain the person will be made by the prosecuting authorities to the courts in line with general criminal law procedures. The new provision allows for detention in these circumstances for a maximum period of 90 days.
We believe there will be only rare cases which fall into this category. However, in those rare cases, the ability of the prosecuting authorities to apply for the person to be remanded in custody could be crucial to safeguarding the public and effecting a successful prosecution.
Amendment 94DH replaces Section 142(2A) of the 2003 Act. Section 142 deals with the issue of European arrest warrants in the UK; that is, in cases where the UK is requesting the extradition of a person from another member state. In the case of people who have already been convicted of an offence and whose extradition is requested in order to be sentenced or to serve a sentence, one of the conditions for the issue of an EAW by a UK judge is that the person is “unlawfully at large”. In a recent case a judge refused to issue an EAW in respect of a person who was in prison in another member state on the basis that the person could not be said to be “unlawfully at large”. Following that, we have decided to amend the 2003 Act to make clear that it is no barrier to the issue of an EAW that the person is in prison in the requested state. Amendment 94DH will achieve that.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Let me preface my comments on the detail of his amendments by reiterating that we welcome the constructive approach he has taken to the extradition provisions in the Bill, and I am pleased to say that there is a great deal of common ground between us. As my noble friend explained, Amendments 94DA to 94DF would remove the appeal filter introduced by Clause 148.
A key finding of Sir Scott Baker’s review of our extradition arrangements was that the success rate of appeals was extremely low—less than 13% in 2010. In other words, the court system is burdened by unmeritorious appeals which delay hearings for all appellants. The purpose of the appeal filter is to address this problem by making appeals subject to permission from the High Court. I understand the points that my noble friend makes, but I must stress again, as I did in Committee, that these provisions will not prevent anyone applying for permission to appeal. Once an application has been made, the High Court will decide which cases should proceed to a hearing. Each application will be considered by a High Court judge.
Finally, I wish to make two further comments with regard to two of the other extradition clauses in the Bill. The first relates to Clause 144. That clause inserts a new Section 12A into the 2003 Act which provides a bar to extradition in EAW cases—cases where the issuing state has not taken a decision to charge and a decision to try the person. I want to make clear that the purpose of and intention behind this clause is to ensure that the case is sufficiently well advanced in the issuing country. We want to ensure that ordinary mutual legal assistance arrangements are used fully and properly. It is not our intention that a parochial approach to this clause should be taken. As the Court of Appeal has said, the Extradition Act 2003 should be interpreted in a cosmopolitan sense and be mindful of the stages of criminal procedure in other member states which do not use the common law. It is important that there is a clear intention to bring the case to trial. An EAW must, after all, be issued only for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, as Article 1 of the framework decision makes very clear. We want an EAW to be used only for its proper purpose.
Comments have been made about the timescale for appeals. Clause 148 sets out that the High Court must not refuse to entertain an application for leave to appeal by the requested person solely because it has been submitted outside the normal time period if the person did everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be. That is an important provision. It is also important to note that the seven and 14-day period relates to the notification of the intention to seek leave to appeal. I appreciate the concern that this is an insufficient period. However, it is also important to be clear that the onus should be on the person to ensure that as much as possible of the detail of why they believe they should not be extradited should be before the court as soon as possible. This would surely improve their chances of having the case discharged at an early stage by the district judge.
I would also like to clarify what the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims said in the Commons Committee on 16 July last year in relation to dual criminality and Clause 152. He spoke about how this provision would work in practice in relation to an example about the offence of Holocaust denial. I want to ensure that there is absolute clarity on this point. Where an EAW was received for Holocaust denial allegedly committed in the UK, extradition would be barred for that conduct because it is not an offence here. However, extradition would be granted for such conduct committed in the issuing state, provided that the conduct is punishable in the issuing state with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of three years, or a greater punishment, and of course that none of the bars in the Act apply so as to prevent extradition.
The noble Baroness asked a number of questions and I hope that I have answered some of them. Perhaps I may say particularly that the changes we are making will give people greater protections and improve the overall operation of the EAW, but that they will not impact on the number of unmeritorious appeals. It will be a matter for the courts how they operate the filter and decide whether to grant or refuse admission. On the impact of the NCA filter—proportionality—while the filter will leave the number of low-level cases that the courts will have to consider, we cannot say how it will impact on the number of cases that the court will consider. This will be dependent on the number of requests made by a state. I hope that I have been able to persuade my noble friend that our approach on extradition appeals is the right one and he should not press his amendments. As for the government amendments, I commend them to the House.
“Extradition to the United Kingdom to be sentenced or to serve a sentence
In section 142 of the Extradition Act 2003 (issue of Part 3 warrant), for subsection (2A) there is substituted—“(2A) The condition is that—
(a) the person has been convicted of an extradition offence by a court in the United Kingdom,(b) his extradition is sought for the purpose of his being sentenced for the offence or of his serving a sentence of imprisonment or another form of detention imposed in respect of the offence, and(c) either a domestic warrant has been issued in respect of the person or the person may be arrested without a warrant.””
Syrian Refugees
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, in response to an Urgent Notice Question in the House of Commons earlier today, my honourable friend Mr Mark Harper, the Minister, responded as follows:
“More than half the Syrian population of 9.3 million is in need of humanitarian assistance, and 2.3 million have been displaced from Syria into neighbouring countries. This is a crisis of international proportions and needs a commensurate response from the international community. The Government are proud to be playing their full part in that response and share the view of the UN Secretary-General that the priorities must be to, “assist the Syrian parties in ending the violence and achieving a comprehensive agreement for a political settlement”, and ending the suffering of the Syrian people.
No one should underestimate the difficulties ahead, but we are determined to strive for a peaceful settlement through the Geneva II process which starts later this week and is working towards the establishment of a Transitional Governing Body for Syria. We continue to believe that the best way to address the suffering of the Syrian people should be to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced people in partnership with neighbouring countries and UNHCR. Prior to last week the Government had provided £500 million for the Syrian relief effort already, of which £480 million has been allocated to partners in Syria and the region. It has already helped over 1 million people, for example almost 320,000 people are being provided with food assistance each month in Syria and neighbouring countries and over 244,000 people in Syria have been offered medical consultations. The Government are continually pressing for better access and protection for humanitarian convoys inside Syria so that aid can get to the millions in need inside the country. This represents the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis.
We are leading the way in helping Syrians suffering from the humanitarian crisis. We contribute in several ways: as the second largest donor helping refugees in the region behind the United States of America and through consideration of Syrian asylum claims under our normal rules. In the year to September we recognised over 1,100 Syrian nationals as refugees. We are very aware that some, including the UNHCR, would like to see a more proactive programme of resettlement of refugees currently hosted by countries neighbouring Syria.
We have considered the options carefully and respect the views of those countries that favour a resettlement programme, but we maintain the view that our top priority should continue to be to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced people in the region in partnership with neighbouring countries, UNHCR and other UN and non-governmental partners. Most of those displaced want to return home as soon as it is safe to do so and protection in the region helps to afford them that hope.
Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, our priority must be to help neighbouring countries provide sustainable protection in the region. Accordingly, this should be our focus rather than resettlement or providing humanitarian admission to displaced Syrians, initiatives which provide only very limited relief to the neighbouring countries and can only have a token impact on the huge and increasing volume of refugee numbers.
The UK can be proud of its contribution so far but there is still much to do. Last week the Secretary of State for International Development pledged a further £100 million in aid.
I recognise that this is a highly emotive issue and one that continues to require real action through high levels of international co-operation, both in the region and more widely. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those in need and this Government are committed to continuing to play their full part in the international response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria”.
That concludes the Statement.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I have made clear by repeating the Answer from my colleague Mark Harper that the Government’s policy is focused on providing aid where the problem exists—that is, within the camps and with displaced persons in the region. We are providing financial support and our aid programme is designed to help the most vulnerable, both in Syria and in neighbouring countries. For example, we are supporting the UNICEF programme providing psycho-social support, services and protection for some 15,000 of the most vulnerable children.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the only way to resolve this humanitarian catastrophe is to wish the political process that we are about to embark on success? Unless we conclude with that, it will be just a drop in the ocean.
As to asylum and the 1,100 people that the Minister mentioned—who were also mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister a few days ago—will he tell the House whether Syrian students who might be resident at universities in the United Kingdom will be granted asylum, should they so apply, and whether family reunion policies would apply to them if they were successful?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we have already in existence an immigration concession policy which we introduced in October 2012 for Syrian nationals who are already legally present in the UK. The concession was due to expire on 15 March 2013 but, given the continued instability in Syria, it was extended for a further year and is now due to expire on 28 February 2014. We are currently considering options to extend this concession further. We have not sent anyone who is in this country back to Syria.
On the question of reuniting refugees in the UK with their families, in line with our international obligations, family members of those granted refugee humanitarian protection status in the UK, including those from Syria, may apply for family reunion from outside the UK. However, we have no plans to allow Syrian nationals to enter the UK beyond the normal immigration channels at present.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, the current regime, with its undoubted failings, at least has protected religious freedom in Syria. Those who seek to replace it seem to have no qualms about persecuting Christians and other religious minorities. What steps does Her Majesty’s Government propose to take in order to protect those who will never be able to return to Syria while those who persecute them exercise authority in that country? How does Her Majesty’s Government propose to ensure that religious freedom is seen as something that is of the utmost priority in the coming talks in Geneva?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Lord rightly points to the need for a political solution because that is the long-term solution to all these difficulties. The catastrophic turn of events in Syria points to the need for finding a solution in which freedoms are established and people can enjoy freedom of expression and freedom of worship in ways that we would consider acceptable in this country. It can be achieved only through success at the conference, which I believe is on Wednesday. Let us wish the conference well.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that 1,100 people have been granted refugee status, but I think it would be useful to have further clarification. How many of those people were already in this country when they applied for asylum, and how many have very dangerously made their way to our shores and claimed asylum? It seems that with the latter situation we are enabling some of the most able who can travel to come to our shores to get refugee status and not some of the most vulnerable, who have been processed by the United Nations and who are desperately in need of refugee status, to gain that status. Can the Minister reassure us that, post Geneva II, there will be a reconsideration of the Government’s policy, particularly in relation to our taking orphans from these camps who have no basis to go back to Syria, whatever the political settlement may look like?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I make no commitments on the latter point, and I cannot give a breakdown of the location of the asylum seekers—the 1,100 Syrian nationals—who have been successful in their applications. I know that 1,566 Syrians applied for asylum in the year ending September 2013, the latest data we have. The UK is the largest recipient of asylum seekers from Syria behind Germany and Sweden.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Government are doing, but I do not see that it is an either/or situation. I have not heard a clear reason why the Minister is resisting the plea made by a number of voluntary organisations in an open letter to the Prime Minister and the point made by my noble friend. Surely we could be doing something to open our doors to some very vulnerable people.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, we are not doing nothing. We are trying to work as best we can with other agencies. For example, the Home Office operates two resettlement programmes in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The main resettlement programme is Gateway. In agreement with UNHCR, refugees are resettled from a small number of targeted locations. Since the first arrivals in 2004, the UK has resettled more than 5,500 refugees under this programme. The programme for each year is agreed in advance with ministers.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, the Syrian crisis is probably the most serious crisis that has confronted us for a very long time. Our allies around Syria—Turkey, Lebanon and other countries—are battling under the strain and beginning to break down under it. There is no doubt that the Government’s policy has been excellent in terms of financial aid and I give full credit to it, but I agree with the noble Baroness who has just spoken that the gesture of having some Syrian children and families here would be an example to the rest of the members of the United Nations. That example would come all the more from a country that has given moral leadership in terms of financial help. The Government need to take one more human step to show that they are willing to have a limited number of Syrian families in this country as an example to the rest of the European Union and the rest of the United Nations.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have got the sentiment of a number of the questions asked here this evening and I know that a number of noble Lords wish that the Government would go further. However, the Government have considered this matter very carefully and respect the views of those who favour a co-ordinated response. We maintain the view that our top priority should continue to be to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced people in the region, in partnership with the neighbouring countries, the UNHRC and other UN and non-governmental partners. That is the focus of our policy commitment. As I have said, £500 million has already been committed and another £100 million was announced only the other day. That is £600 million in total invested in that programme. That is something that this country should be proud of.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for tabling this amendment, not least because it provides your Lordships with an opportunity to consider the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870—not something that we do every day, or night. The Act prohibits British nationals from fighting in the armed forces of another state, against friendly states. The new clause would go further by creating a new offence of participation in armed conflict against any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty. My noble friend’s amendment raises an important and topical issue: that of people from the United Kingdom seeking to engage in combat abroad in so-called “theatres of jihad”, such as the civil war in Syria, to which my noble friend referred.
Although the issue of British nationals fighting abroad is not a new one, or one specific only to Syria, it is something that the Government take very seriously. Syria is now the number one destination for jihadists anywhere in the world, and there are currently thousands of foreign fighters in Syria, including a large number of Europeans. We judge that more than 200 UK-linked individuals have travelled to Syria to join the fighting. Of course, not all individuals who travel to Syria are extremists. Many simply want to support humanitarian efforts. However, those who do travel there are putting themselves and innocent Syrians in danger, and we know that a number of Europeans have already been killed in the conflict. Moreover, we know that some individuals travel to Syria—or other places such as Yemen or Somalia—to engage in fighting with terrorist groups.
The Government are working with the police and security services to disrupt travel by individuals of concern. Your Lordships will understand why I am unable to provide specific details of all of the actions that are being taken to this end—but rest assured, we support the use of the full range of available measures. In particular, where there is evidence that individuals are planning, promoting, funding, facilitating or participating in terrorist activities overseas—including terrorist fighting—the police and Crown Prosecution Service will look to prosecute them, before they go or on their return. A very wide range of offences already exists on the statute books to capture such activity, not least in the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, which provide extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to certain activities. Although my noble friend’s amendment seeks to add a further offence to the disruptive arsenal, I fear that this amendment, as drafted, entails a number of drawbacks that would undermine its effectiveness.
Firstly, the amendment recognises that, while the 1870 Act already deals with fighting for another state’s armed forces, many modern conflicts involve an array of non-state actors and irregular militias. However, like the 1870 Act, this amendment deals only with,
“armed conflict against a foreign state at peace with Her Majesty”.
Hard distinctions of war and peace made sense in 1870; Tolstoy’s masterpiece had been published just the year before. But the bases for modern conflicts are no longer so binary. The UK has not been in a declared condition of war since the defeat of the Axis forces in 1945. Today we are at peace with all states, at least in the classical sense of international law.
Secondly, the defence of notification to the proposed new offence has the potential to severely undermine the disruptive utility. Whether it was my noble friend’s intention I do not know, but the amendment as drafted gives the Secretary of State no additional power to prohibit a person who gives notice of their intention to fight overseas from going. A number of existing powers might be used to prevent such a person from travelling—and, of course, the Bill augments these by providing powers to seize passports cancelled on public interest grounds. But the amendment adds nothing to these powers. Indeed, the proposed offence bites only when a fighter who previously failed to notify returns to the UK. Anyone who does notify the Secretary of State would be completely free from the sanctions which this amendment seeks to put in place.
Thirdly, any offence that hinges on such a notification regime is likely to raise significant difficulties in enforcement. A committed jihadist is unlikely to inform the authorities of his travel plans for fear of disruption, either before or after the fact. Evidence that a person has engaged in fighting abroad would be extremely difficult to obtain, so the evidential difficulties in securing a prosecution may be no less than for the other relevant offences available.
Fourthly, although self-defence has a well understood meaning in relation to ordinary offences against the person, how it would apply in the context of overseas conflicts is unclear. Many jurisdictions have laws to deal with the use of defensive force in situations of immediate danger, and we expect British nationals to comply with local laws wherever they are. But the idea of participating in armed conflict as an act of self-defence is a difficult matter. We must take care not to legitimise the wrong-headed extremist narrative that paints so-called jihadists as fighting a war of self-defence on behalf of Muslims internationally.
Finally, the amendment proposes sentences for the new offence that could include forfeiture of a passport and deprivation of British citizenship. As noble Lords will recall from our discussion in Committee of what is now Clause 138, passports are issued under the royal prerogative. The Home Secretary already has the power to refuse or withdraw passports where she believes that a person’s activities—past, present or proposed—are so undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities is contrary to the public interest. The British Nationality Act gives the Home Secretary powers to deprive persons of their British citizenship when she is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good, provided that the person is not left stateless as a result. As such, these sentencing options would not be necessary.
I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for raising the issue of British nationals fighting overseas. I assure your Lordships that this is something that the Government take extremely seriously. Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have set out, I do not believe that the amendment would be the right way to proceed and I ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for having raised so many points so clearly and in such detail. I hope very much that there will be action under the present provisions of the law to ensure that, wherever possible, British citizens who have engaged in jihadism overseas, will be prosecuted on their return to this country—as he said that they already can be under the existing law. I hope very much that the removal of passports—and, if appropriate, of British citizenship—will take place.
This is a very serious subject. The evidence given by the security chiefs to Parliament was chilling. I had no idea what a serious situation we face, and I am delighted that the Government have stated that they are well aware of it and are dealing with it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I entirely agree with what lies behind these amendments but have one concern about them, with which the noble Lord may be able to help me. We heard in an earlier debate on the Bill that a number of police and crime commissioners are already dealing with anti-social behaviour as one of their objectives. I assume that, as they are doing that, they are able to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary to refer specifically to this Act, as it will be, in the second of the noble Lord’s amendments in this group.
Given that we already have a requirement under new subsection (1A) of the relevant Act for each of the responsible authorities to have regard to the police and crime objectives, I am not sure whether the proposed new subsection (1B) is necessary. We often hear that things are not necessary but it is helpful to be clear about them. However, my real concern is whether, by referring specifically to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, there might be a suggestion that it should have priority over other legislation which could be listed among the objectives. The relevant police reform Act, the obligations of the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime plans use wide and general terms. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, as it will become, will not be the only legislation to which all responsible authorities need to have regard, so I am concerned about knock-on effects outside what we are considering at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I understand the noble Lord’s eagerness to accept this, and it may have something to do with the hour, but, just occasionally, I have a few words to say on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I must admit that when I first looked at these amendments I had a slight concern about the role of the community safety partnerships and their responsibilities. My own CSP has seen a massive cut in its budget and its capacity to deal with some of the issues before it. But when resources are short, planning is most essential. It would be extremely useful to have the kind of co-ordination function that is laid out in the amendments.
I am sorry that the Minister laughed when my noble friend said how helpful he was trying to be. He has been accused of many things during the course of proceedings on the Bill. He was accused of being mischievous when he was trying to be helpful. He put on record that he is trying to be helpful now and there was hilarity from the Benches opposite, which I genuinely think is most unfair. This is the kind of amendment that sets in place how the objectives of the Bill can be achieved by those responsible for implementing it.
There are new powers in this Bill. It is important that all the partners understand their role and the expectations. I give one example. The noble Lord will recall that I proposed amendments in Committee on dispersal orders. One of the issues is that there is no longer a responsibility on the police to consult the local authority when issuing dispersal orders. The new orders that the Government are proposing are wider and can last longer than the ones in place at the moment. There is also no obligation to consult the local authority, but the guidance says—I cannot remember the exact phraseology—that there is the opportunity to discuss or that that is expected or is likely. Before any dispersal orders were issued, would it not be helpful if discussions took place within the community safety partnership about what the expectations would be when it came to the point of issuing one? It is fitting to have that kind of co-ordination, to know what the expectations and responsibilities are, to ensure that the legislation being put forward by the Government has an impact, that it does not disappear into the ether somewhere but can be worked on. I would expect that this is the very least that the Government would expect—to have this way of taking the new legislation into the existing framework.
I certainly accept my noble friend’s comments that he is seeking to be helpful. It is a very helpful amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to take that on board.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am quite prepared to accept that he has a helpful side to his nature. I am very grateful that he has presented these amendments. I sense the spirit in which he has tabled them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is always helpful. I am grateful for her contribution to this debate.
I will talk about the issue in general and then talk about how it happens specifically. This is about how police and local councils will use the powers running right through Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will deal with Amendment 90 first and then I will come on to Amendment 91. I have listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the amendment. Although I appreciate the helpful intent behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware, Sections 5 to 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already require local authorities and the police to co-operate with each other and other local agencies in formulating and implementing strategies to reduce crime and disorder. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right. The Government expect local authorities and the police to co-operate together. The formulation and implementation of those strategies would manifestly include a consideration of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the London Borough of Haringey’s current community safety strategy which identifies six outcomes, one of which is to:
“Prevent and reduce acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour”.
It is in implementing such strategies that it goes almost without saying that the responsible authorities will take full account of the new powers in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill, as well as existing less formal interventions, to tackle such behaviour.
As a result of our extensive consultation on the new powers with local authorities—the Bill has been drafted with local authority consultation as its backbone—as well as other agencies, I am confident that they are fully aware of the importance in ensuring that the use of the powers is underpinned by a coherent strategy and good partnership working. Indeed, local authorities have played a major role in shaping the new powers and would no doubt be keen to ensure that they work effectively in their areas. Moreover, along with their individual strategies and the Government’s statutory guidance, local authorities will issue their own guidance to front-line professionals on the use of the new powers and their approach to them. This is what they do with their existing powers and I see no reason why that practice would not continue.
I turn to Amendment 91. I will repeat the point that I made in Committee. The election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime, thereby giving them a greater say in how their local area is policed by these directly elected representatives. I admit that it will be a great day when I can get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to admit that the policy has achieved that objective—but that task is not beyond us.
Under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan for their local area and must consult with their chief constable in drawing up the plan. Such plans must include objectives for reducing crime and disorder. As I indicated in Committee, 30 of the police and crime commissioners have put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour as one of their key priorities in their plans. Another eight have put reducing the impact and keeping people safe from anti-social behaviour as one of their individual priorities; and the remaining three commissioners want to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. London’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 states that,
“tackling anti-social behaviour … or quality of life crime, is critical to addressing perceptions of disorder in a neighbourhood, and although MOPAC”—
the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—
“is setting no explicit targets for the police in this area, ASB is one of the three priorities for the London Crime Reduction Board, chaired by the Mayor”.
It is obvious that the successful implementation of this and other police and crime plans when it comes to tackling anti-social behaviour will necessarily involve an assessment of how the new powers in the Bill can be put to best use.
This was reflected by Sir Graham Bright, the Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner, who said about the Bill in October last year:
“Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims”.
Sir Graham went on to say:
“It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities”.
In short, the police, local authorities and other agencies recognise the importance of understanding how to use the new powers in the Bill effectively to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. The statutory guidance provided in the Bill will undoubtedly help them in this regard.
In practice, I believe that on this issue there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are at one in recognising the importance of partnership in working to tackle anti-social crime and anti-social behaviour, and of this being reflected in local crime and disorder strategies and police and crime plans. This is what the Government expect local authorities to do.
In implementing such plans, in so far as they relate to tackling anti-social behaviour, we would clearly expect the police, local authorities and other agencies to make effective use of the new powers in the Bill. While we seek the same outcome, I do not believe that these amendments are needed to achieve it. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.