Crime: Historic Sex Abuse Allegations
Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Rosser
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I agree with the noble Lord on much of that. Sir Richard Henriques has agreed to conduct the independent review, as we said, and the key findings of it and the recommendations will be published later this year. However, I must make the point that it is a private report for the commissioner and will contain sensitive things, so the whole report will not necessarily be published.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Given the high-profile nature of the historic sex abuse allegations inquiries issue, and given the questions raised about the appropriateness and fairness of the actions taken and the interventions made by political figures and commentators, do the Government believe that this issue raises policy and strategic questions on which the Mayor of London or his deputy, as police and crime commissioner for the Met police, should have taken the lead; or do they still believe that this is merely an operational matter on which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner should make the key decisions on whether, and if so what, action should be taken?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a topical question, with the PCC elections coming up in May. The presumption of anonymity is a College of Policing guideline, and it expects that to be derogated from only when there are operational reasons for doing so; so that is a case for the chief officer of police, in the circumstances. The PCC holds the chief constable to account for the overall performance of the force, and the Mayor of London similarly holds the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to account. Paragraph 18 of the Policing Protocol Order 2011, which sets out the PCC’s roles and responsibilities, says that,
“the PCC must not fetter the operational independence of the police force and the Chief Constable who leads it”.
Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016
Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Rosser
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that the immigration health charge was introduced in April last year by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, with the aim of ensuring that temporary migrants make a fair and proportionate contribution to the NHS services available to them in a manner in line with their immigration status. The charge is paid by non-European Economic Area temporary migrants who apply for a visa for more than six months or who apply to extend their stay in the UK, and is set at a competitive level of £200 per annum and at a discounted rate of £150 per annum for students. The charge is refunded where an immigration application is refused, rejected or withdrawn.
The Government estimate that the charge could raise as much as £1.7 billion at present value over 10 years. This represents an important new source of income for the NHS, income that is shared between the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and spent as they see fit. The charge has already been shown to be highly successful, collecting more than £100 million in its first six months of operation for the NHS.
Those who pay the charge and who are subsequently granted entry clearance or leave to remain receive NHS care in the same way as a permanent resident, subject to the same clinical need and waiting times, as long as their leave is still valid. They pay only charges that a UK resident would also be expected to pay, such as dentistry and prescription charges in England. The exemptions to the charge are listed in Schedule 2 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 and include visitors and certain vulnerable groups. Also exempted are nationals of Australia and New Zealand, which leads us to the purpose of today’s debate.
The Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order removes the exemption from the charge for Australian and New Zealand nationals. It also reduces the amount of the charge for youth mobility scheme applicants from £200 to £150 per annum, in line with students. It also makes a minor and technical change that updates the reference in the 2015 order to the part of the Immigration Rules that relate to visitors. Australian and New Zealand nationals have benefited from a one-year exemption from the charge, and this order ensures that there will be equal treatment for all non-EEA nationals.
The UK, Australia and New Zealand all face the challenges of increasing healthcare costs and the management of migration flows. We regularly discuss these challenges with Australia and New Zealand, and have held consultations with them on the charge since 2013. The Secretary of State for Health confirmed our intention to introduce the charge with his Australian and New Zealand counterparts in December.
We greatly value our close relationships with Australia and New Zealand, and remain committed to strengthening the relations between our countries. For this reason we are retaining the reciprocal healthcare agreements for short-term migrants from Australia and New Zealand coming to the UK for a period of less than six months. These agreements provide that short-term migrants to the UK from Australia and New Zealand are entitled to some NHS treatment free of charge. In turn, this is broadly reciprocated when our citizens go there.
The application of the health charge to nationals of Australia and New Zealand is compatible with the terms of our reciprocal healthcare agreements, as these reciprocal agreements do not apply to the longer-term, temporary migrants who will fall within the scope of the charge.
I will also comment on the application of the health charge to Australian and New Zealand nationals. First, the health charge is set well below the true cost to the NHS of treating temporary migrants. For example, non-EEA temporary workers who are here for more than 12 months have a weighted average cost to the NHS of just over £800 per head per year.
Secondly, Australian and New Zealand migrants who come to the UK for a short stay, including tourists, will not pay the health charge. In 2014, nearly 70% of the total number of Australian and New Zealand nationals who came to the UK came as visitors. This group will continue to benefit from the reciprocal healthcare agreements we hold with these countries, which entitle them to free-of-charge NHS care for health conditions that arise during their stay and which require immediate or prompt attention.
Thirdly, and outside the terms of our reciprocal healthcare agreements, we do not charge Australian and New Zealand nationals for the use of any NHS primary care services such as GP or nurse consultations; nor do we charge for treatment in an accident and emergency department. The NHS also provides free-of-charge care to those with certain infectious diseases and, in England, to victims of certain types of violence.
Fourthly, and in recognition of the UK’s close and important links with Australia and New Zealand, we are reducing the amount of the health charge that applies to the youth mobility scheme from £200 to £150. The youth mobility scheme is a cultural exchange programme which allows young people aged 18 to 30 from participating countries and territories to experience life in the UK for up to two years. This is the category used by more than half of Australian and New Zealand nationals applying to come to the UK for more than six months, who would consequently be liable to pay the health charge. Young people of all nationalities eligible to enter the UK under the youth mobility scheme will benefit from this reduced health charge rate, not just those from Australia and New Zealand.
We place great value on the strong relationships that we have with Australia and New Zealand, but the UK, like New Zealand and Australia, faces the challenges of increasing healthcare costs and managing migration flows. It is therefore right that temporary migrants from these two countries should now contribute to the extensive and high-quality range of NHS services available to them, in line with temporary migrants from all other non-European Economic Area countries. We estimate that the changes set out in the order will result in additional income of £41 million for the NHS in present value over five years, in 2016-17 prices. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been fully consulted on the charge and I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the purpose of the order. I suppose that neither of us this evening will have to go through the experience of having to address a packed meeting of the Committee.
The Immigration Act 2014, as the noble Lord said, enabled the Secretary of State to provide by order for an immigration health charge to be applied to those seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK for a limited period. The charge was introduced in April last year through an order. This order now amends that order—the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015—by reducing from £200 to £150 the immigration health charge payable by youth mobility scheme applicants and it removes the exemption from the immigration health charge available to nationals of Australia and New Zealand. The changes are intended to take effect from early next month.
As the Minister said, the immigration health charge of £200 annually and £150 for students is payable by non-EEA nationals who enter the UK for more than six months in a temporary capacity or who apply to extend their stay in the UK. Those who pay the charge can access NHS services free of charge to the same extent as UK residents. Nationals from Australia and New Zealand were exempt from paying the charge pending further consideration of reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and it has now been agreed that the immigration health charge should be applied to nationals of Australia and New Zealand to bring them into line with other non-European Economic Area nationals. We will not oppose that amendment to the 2015 order, but I have a couple of points to raise.
First, can the Minister say whether these amendments will have any impact on present charges for healthcare paid, or not having to be paid, by UK citizens in Australia and New Zealand, and, if so, in what way? I raise this point in the context of the Government’s statement in the Commons debate on this order that the Department of Health has entered into discussion with Australia and New Zealand on the scope of reciprocal healthcare agreements.
The Minister referred to the fact that the £200 did not cover the NHS costs incurred in respect of those paying the charge. While we agree with the principle that people should make a fair contribution to the costs, we asked in the Commons debate what proportion of people paying the immigration health charge levy were in fact in work and making a contribution to the NHS through the taxes and national insurance that they pay. For people in this category, what is the net cost of their use of the NHS once their taxes and national insurance payments are taken into account? I do not think that the answer to that question is contained within the Explanatory Memorandum, although I say that with some hesitation, as I cannot say that I have necessarily understood all the figures in that document. That is not a criticism of it, by the way. It would be helpful if the Minister could, either now or subsequently, provide a response to the questions that I have raised.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for indicating his support, as did the Opposition in the other place a couple of days ago. I am also grateful for his questions. The noble Lord asked whether there were any new charges within the reciprocal arrangement as a result of the immigration health charge that has been brought in. The answer is no, to my knowledge. However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the reciprocal health charge is being reviewed partly as a result of this charge. It is not so much a direct causal link, but in negotiating and discussing the immigration health charge with the relevant two countries, it was decided that, in view of the fact that the reciprocal health charge is 30 years old, it would be suitable to look at it again. The Department of Health is currently doing that.
There are charges within the reciprocal health agreement. There are different charges for Australians and New Zealanders here as opposed to UK citizens in Australia and New Zealand. For example, Australia levies a health charge for certain categories of visa applicants, including older migrants applying to become permanent residents. Students are required to have health insurance while in Australia. There is a consultation fee for anyone in New Zealand accessing GP care. These things will be reviewed in the next few months. The Department of Health intends to work with both countries over the next year to clarify those terms.
The noble Lord also asked about the number of migrants who work here, pay taxes here and contribute to the NHS. He also asked, as did the Opposition spokesman in the other place, about the net cost to the NHS once those taxes are taken into account. I do not have the details to hand, but I will write to him with them. However, I point out that, of the Australians and New Zealanders who come here, 70% come as visitors, so the charge does not apply to them anyway. I can tell him that for Australians, in the year to September 2015—this is not the net figure but in terms of those working—22,333 visas were issued, of which 15,284 were work visas, tier 5 or tier 2, which is about 68%. For New Zealanders, it is roughly 69%. There were 8,104 visas issued, of which 5,606 were working visas. This includes the youth mobility scheme, which allows young people to work for up to two years. However, I will look at the figures in detail and write to him.
I think that I have covered most of the questions that the noble Lord asked, and I stress once again that we greatly value our relationships with Australia and New Zealand, which is one reason why we maintain the reciprocal healthcare arrangements. We have no intention of removing them. In fact, they will be the only ones left by the end of the year. On that basis, I commend the orders to the Committee.
Immigration Bill
Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Rosser(8 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, we could probably spend four hours going backwards and forwards on this obviously important subject, but it might be useful, given that we have a number of things to get through, to hear the views of the Front Benches.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I do not intend to speak at any great length. We support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Indeed, it is quite clear that not all Government MPs are opposed to taking unaccompanied children already in Europe, not least some of those who have been to the entry points in Greece and other parts of Europe and seen the situation for themselves. We also welcome the financial support the Government are providing to those in camps in Syria and neighbouring countries.
I think we are all agreed—everyone who has spoken is—that we should be taking some unaccompanied children; there might be an issue as to where we take them from. It is not clear, as has already been said, what the Government’s intentions are in this respect, certainly in relation to numbers. The Government, obviously, up to now are sticking to their line that they would be from within Syria and neighbouring countries, but I think I am right in saying that we have not been told how many. I suppose one answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Green, about the extent to which our taking 3,000 unaccompanied children who are already in Europe might act as an incentive for parents to send their children that way might be that it rather depends how many children the Government intend to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. Clearly if they intend to take quite considerable numbers, that might still be seen as the most favourable way of seeking admission, provided the criteria were met, into the United Kingdom. That, no doubt, is something that the Minister will comment on when he replies, perhaps giving an indication of how many unaccompanied children the Government expect to take from Syria and neighbouring countries. I ask again how the Government actually reached their initial figure of taking 20,000 people over five years. I am still not clear how they reached that. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on that as well as on the number of unaccompanied children the Government expect to be taking under the arrangements they have announced.
The reality is, as has already been said, that we have apparently considerable numbers of unaccompanied children already in Europe. I am certainly not confining my comments to Calais and Dunkirk. Indeed, the amendment refers to children,
“who are in European countries”.
It is not related simply to what may be happening in Calais and Dunkirk. My understanding, unless I have got the figure wrong, is that Europol recently said that more than 10,000 unaccompanied children registered after arriving in Europe over the past 18 months to two years have disappeared. It said that youngsters arriving in Europe alone are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. That, no doubt, is something on which the Minister will comment. Why are the Government refusing to take some unaccompanied children from within Europe—a specific figure is mentioned in the amendment? Where children have been identified as being unaccompanied, on their own and having come from a country ravaged by civil war, where hundreds of thousands have died and many have been brutally murdered, is it really still the Government’s policy to wash our hands of them as far as relocation to the United Kingdom is concerned because they landed cold, wet, scared and on their own on, for example, a Greek island rather than being in or near Syria? Up to now, that appears basically to be the Government’s stance.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I shall be brief if I can, because—if I can make a pitch wearing my Whip’s hat—we have six more groups of amendments to debate.
It may help if I speak first to government Amendment 239C, which I hope will be uncontroversial. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for his support on this amendment. This makes a minor change to extend the maritime powers in the Bill to Northern Ireland port police by altering the definition of “Northern Ireland constable” in new Section 28Q of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 to the Bill.
The two harbour police forces in Northern Ireland, the Belfast Harbour Police and Larne Harbour Police, were not initially included in the Bill as the categories of officers listed are modelled on the maritime powers in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, we have listened to points made by Northern Irish Members in another place and agree that a consistent approach should be taken across the UK with the enforcement of immigration control. Therefore, this amendment aligns the position of port police forces in Northern Ireland with those port police forces elsewhere in the UK which are already included in the Bill. It will be a matter for individual port police forces to consider whether they wish to use the powers or rely on the relevant territorial force—for example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Amendment 239BA would extend our penalties for misdirected passengers to general aviation sites, private landing strips and helipads. It is the Government’s intention to operate the misdirected flights penalties only at sites where there is a designated control zone to which arriving passengers must be directed for border checks by the Border Force. I shall come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made in a moment. Given the large number of general aviation sites, landing strips and helipads in the UK that do not have a permanent Border Force presence, this amendment is unnecessary and unworkable. It would place a disproportionate burden on those sites. Border Force officers attend such sites only when they need to check specific arrivals.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was saying about the potential loophole, I should quickly mention how border authorities handle general aviation flights. The Border Force and police take an intelligence-led approach to general aviation, which strikes a balance between securing our borders and best managing resources. Flights are risk-assessed in advance and, when appropriate, border authorities will physically examine crew, passengers and goods. There are in excess of 3,000 private air fields nationwide, and it would be unfeasible for the Border Force and police routinely to meet all arriving flights. It was noted by the independent inspection report published in January that the Border Force has made a number of significant recent interventions in the general aviation environment. I confirm that all those travelling via general aviation are subject to the same immigration and visa requirements as those using scheduled services. The noble Lord asks whether we are doing something about it. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 includes enabling provisions for a stronger legislative framework for advanced notification for general aviation. Regulations will bring greater clarity to what is needed from the sector but also provide for appropriate sanctions to enforce compliance by the small minority that do not provide advanced notification under the current arrangements.
Amendment 240 seeks to include provision for a statutory review of border security in the United Kingdom. The Border Force operates a control regime which is predicated on checking 100% of scheduled arrivals. Our collection of advanced passenger information from carriers enables us to identify known subjects of interest to law enforcement agencies before they travel, allowing us to intervene and direct airlines and ferry companies not to carry certain passengers so that they never even set foot in the UK. The Border Force adopts an intelligence-led approach in combination with its partners to identify and intercept contraband goods which have the potential to cause harm to the public. Our visa regime provides another vital way by which we are able to manage the threats from crime, terrorism, illegal migration, and espionage.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration regularly reviews Home Office immigration functions, including our management of border security. Most significantly, following the independent chief inspector’s critical review of the then UK Border Agency, Border Force was established as a separate law enforcement body. The Home Office also works with a range of other partners, including port operators, carriers and road hauliers. This allows us to review processes and security interventions to make border security work efficiently, and to work together to intercept threats while keeping the flow of law-abiding passengers and freight moving as smoothly as possible. I assure the Committee that the Government keep the UK’s border security arrangements under constant review and these arrangements are subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration—as I have said—and by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The reports and publications of both of these are laid before Parliament. On this basis, we do not consider there is any need to introduce a further statutory review process.
Lord Rosser
Are the Government satisfied with our border security arrangements at the moment?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Guidance) Regulations 2015
Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Rosser(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, this secondary legislation has been brought forward in respect of Part 5 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which is concerned with reducing the risk of people being drawn into terrorism. It relates specifically to the provisions in Section 26 of that Act, which place a statutory duty on specified authorities to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism when exercising their functions—also referred to as the Prevent duty.
I should inform the House that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has considered and cleared the instrument that we are debating today. I would like to place on record my appreciation of the forbearance shown by the chair and members of the committee in considering these instruments outside the normal timescales.
The Bill was debated by this House earlier this year, and the primary legislation was enacted on 12 February. During Parliament’s consideration of the legislation there was widespread recognition of the threat from terrorism and broad support for the measures contained within it. In order to help the House in its consideration of this statutory instrument, I will first briefly outline what the Government seek to achieve by it and why it is necessary for our consideration this afternoon.
In March, guidance was approved by this House for all specified authorities captured by the duty. It included guidance for higher and further education institutions, but not on the specific issue of external speakers and events. Accordingly, the Prevent duty came into force on 1 July this year, with the exception of the higher and further education sectors.
Your Lordships will recall that at the time of the duty’s parliamentary debate, it was agreed that it would not be commenced for these sectors until that remaining guidance had been published, and that it would be for the next Government to take this forward in the next Session. The purpose of the regulations contained in this statutory instrument is to do this. The guidance under consideration today sets out the detail of what the duty will mean in practice for higher and further education institutions and explains the steps that should be taken to ensure compliance. It includes the original guidance for these sectors from the document previously published in March, with an additional section on speakers and events. I can assure your Lordships that the original guidance text remains unchanged from that which was previously approved by Parliament, except that the regulations will bring into effect revisions so as to remove the text that has been superseded by this new guidance. As with the earlier guidance, there are also two versions before us: one for authorities in England and Wales, and a separate one for authorities in Scotland.
Let me turn to why these regulations are so important. To start, I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate why the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act and the Prevent duty were introduced earlier this year. The emergence of ISIL, and the number of people—including vulnerable young people—who have travelled to Syria and Iraq, present a heightened threat to our national security. The intelligence agencies tell us that the threat is now worse than at any time since 9/11. The director-general of the Security Service told us this morning that the UK is facing the largest number of terror plots in almost 40 years, and that six attempts at terrorism have been thwarted in the last 12 months. The threat is serious and it is growing. The threat has changed and so must our response.
As part of that response, we must continue to combat the underlying ideology that feeds, supports and sanctions terrorism, and prevent people being drawn on to that path. The Prevent duty is about protecting people from the poisonous and pernicious influence of extremist ideas that are used to legitimise terrorism, making sure key bodies across the country play their part and work in partnership to do this. The regulations before us today are crucial to ensuring that the duty can be implemented effectively. They will mean that higher and further education institutions play their part in tackling this important issue. Partnership working is a key theme for all specified authorities throughout the statutory guidance. The duty needs to be in force for all authorities for these partnerships to work successfully.
Universities and colleges were made subject to the duty in recognition of the very real risk of radicalisation in those institutions. Young people continue to make a disproportionately high number of those arrested in this country for terrorist-related offences. Radicalisation on campus can be facilitated through events held by extremist speakers, while radicalised students can act as a focal point for further radicalisation through personal contact with fellow students and through social media activity. It is therefore imperative that universities and colleges start to implement the duty as soon as is possible.
Finally, I take this opportunity to set out the steps that the previous Government and this Government have taken to ensure that this guidance is suitable and workable for institutions. Noble Lords will recall that during previous debates on this matter concerns were raised in both Houses as to how the duty would be implemented in higher and further education institutions, particularly where there are existing requirements on these bodies relating to freedom of speech and academic freedom.
I emphasise that the issue of how universities and colleges balance the Prevent duty with the need to secure freedom of speech and to have regard to the importance of academic freedom is, in the Government’s view, extremely important. Indeed, on account of this and the strength of the views expressed in this House, the previous Government amended the legislation to ensure that institutions pay particular regard to the importance of academic freedom and freedom of speech when complying with the Prevent duty. Since then, we have worked with the sector and across government to ensure that the guidance on speakers and events is right, including reflecting comments received as part of the formal public consultation that took place on the draft guidance during the passage of the Bill.
It is now the Government’s belief that the revisions to the guidance and the amendments to the Act address the concerns that have been raised by Parliament and the sectors about this duty. We must now get on with ensuring that our colleges and universities are as safe as possible from the risk of radicalisation.
These regulations are needed to implement effectively the Prevent duty across England, Wales and Scotland, which will ultimately help the Government and law enforcement agencies to keep the country safe from terrorism. I therefore commend the instrument to the House and beg to move that it is approved.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose and objectives of these regulations, which we support in principle. I was somewhat interested to read a press story this morning stating that the Home Office was concerned that Peers could reject the regulations. I only wish that somebody had told me that. Had I known that, I would have prepared a rather different speech from the one I have. If the newspaper report is anywhere near accurate, perhaps someone might explain to the Home Office that the revolution does not normally come during last business on a Thursday afternoon before a three-week recess.
As the Minister said, the regulations were discussed in the other place last week. I shall make a few points in the light of the Government’s response to that brief debate, which ended in a ministerial crescendo, with references to Hegel and Edmund Burke. That must have had the committee on the edge of their seats at 3.45 pm on a Thursday. My first point relates to what was said in the other place and is on paragraph 19 of the guidance, which was queried by Universities UK, which felt that it needed to be changed. The Minister himself raised that point. He said that it was consistent with the Prevent duty and strategy, but that the Government would look at it closely again. If that has not already been done, will the Minister say how the outcome of that further look will be communicated?
The Government also said in that debate that if there was any significant revision to the guidance, it would, “in the spirit we have enjoyed today”, be brought back to Parliament. Does that mean that in the Government’s view there is no requirement under the Act to bring back any revision of the guidance to each House of Parliament for approval, and that doing so is dependent on the attitude and willingness of the Government of the day?
I accept that I may not be referring to the relevant section in the Act, in which case I am sure the Minister will no doubt put me right, but Section 29(5) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 states:
“Guidance … takes effect on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by regulations made by statutory instrument … A statutory instrument containing regulations under this subsection may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House”.
Subsection (7) of that same section then confirms that subsection (5), to which I have just referred, has,
“effect in relation to any revised guidance”.
So clarification of the Government’s position on that point, in the light of the Commons Minister’s statement, would be extremely welcome so that it can be placed on the record.
The Minister in the Commons was also asked how he would monitor the use of the documents we are considering, how he would ensure that they served their purpose, and whether he would come back to Parliament to report on how they had been used. In response, the Commons Minister said that he did not think that enough work had been done on the issue of monitoring and reviewing, and that there was a need for close evaluation. He also went on to say that he thought there had been insufficient oversight of Prevent, and that he wanted to see what could be done on that score as well. When do the Government expect to conclude their consideration of these particularly important issues referred to by the Commons Minister, and how will they communicate the outcome of that further consideration?
This point about reviewing and monitoring is one on which the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has expressed a view because in his latest annual report, published today, he says that he has previously recommended that the Prevent programme should be reviewed by independent people with a range of expertise. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that recommendation is being considered as part as the Commons Minister’s consideration of monitoring and reviewing arrangements, which he indicated he would be undertaking.
The independent reviewer also goes on to say in his latest report that his own contacts indicate that while good work is undoubtedly done under Prevent, it is also the focus of considerably more resentment among Muslims than either the criminally focused prohibitions or the executive orders. He goes on to refer to the broad reach of Prevent in terms of both the number and age group of persons that it touches and its capacity to target the expression of non-violent views which may be associated with religious and cultural norms. David Anderson also refers to submissions made to him by the Muslim Council of Britain, on which he makes clear he cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the cases raised, but does make the general comment that any state activity which seeks to monitor the expression of opinions, however well intentioned, is liable to be perceived as directed to not just the risk of terrorism but to culturally specific activities from which any possible link to future violence is indirect and even tenuous. I raise these points made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation because they are relevant to a discussion on the Prevent duty guidance, and indicate quite clearly that concerns about what could happen are legitimate and evidence-based.
A great deal is going to depend on how all the guidance is actually applied, and not just that which we are considering today, including what action is actually taken if a decision is reached that guidance is being ignored. The guidance on further education institutions points out that encouragement of terrorism and inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation are both criminal offences. It then says that institutions should not provide a platform for these offences to be committed, before saying that if views being expressed, or likely to be expressed by a particular speaker, constitute extremist views, the event should not be allowed to proceed except where institutions are entirely convinced that such risk can be fully mitigated without cancellation of the event. Inevitably, interpretation of that guidance is going to be subjective. I hope the Minister agrees that if the guidance we are considering is applied and enforced in a cack-handed way, there is a danger that it will create more problems than it is intended to resolve.
Communications Data
Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Rosser(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the simple answer is that I do not know, but I will find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
What do the Government find so difficult about supporting the recommendation by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation that warrants for interception should be judicially authorised, but where the warrant is required in the interests of a national security purpose that relates to the defence of the UK or foreign policy, the Secretary of State should have the power to so certify—with the judicial consideration being able to depart from that certificate only on the basis of the principles applicable in judicial review? That is a test for which there are already parallels in national security legislation.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, however skilfully he does it, the noble Lord will not get me to say what is in the draft Bill. It would be wrong of me to do it as a government Whip in the House of Lords and, secondly, I do not actually know.