Immigration Staff: Recruitment
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I reject my noble friend’s assertions that there is deep corruption within the Home Office. On releasing names, my noble friend will know that the Home Office is legally not allowed to disclose this information. It will not, to ensure that it does not breach statutory and data protection obligations, and that is what I outline to him. Although the names of staff members are known in court, this is not necessarily the same as being in the public domain. The disclosure of names would have to satisfy a high threshold under the GDPR and Section 9 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which makes it an offence to disclose the facts of an offence in respect of a rehabilitated person.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In his 2018-19 annual report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration states that only half the inspector posts were filled in the last few months of 2018-19; significantly fewer inspection reports were published than in 2017-18; none of the seven published reports in 2018-19 was laid in Parliament by the Government within the eight weeks to which the then Home Secretary had committed in 2014; the Home Office’s focus on managing the fallout of the Windrush scandal and on preparing for Brexit appeared to affect its capacity for other business, including inspections; relationships between the inspectorate and the Home Office were generally poorer in 2018-19 than they had been in 2017-18; and during 2018-19, the chief inspector had just one meeting with the Home Secretary and two with the Immigration Minister. I have heard of an arm’s-length relationship, but that is ridiculous. This is an unacceptable and potentially dangerous state of affairs in a key part of our border control and immigration system. Will the Government accept full responsibility and provide an explanation as to why they have allowed this unsatisfactory state of affairs, highlighted by the chief inspector, to arise and say what they intend to do about it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions, one of which was about border staff. He will know that we have recruited almost all the 900 staff that we undertook to recruit in preparation for Brexit. I will write to him with a longer answer on the inspectorate because I do not have the details at my fingertips today.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft statutory instrument.
It is regrettable that, in 2016, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised the Government to include such a wide definition of third generation synthetic cannabinoids. Between 40,000 and 90,000 compounds captured by this wide definition were not synthetic cannabinoids and therefore were not intended to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In addition, it inhibited research by requiring researchers to obtain a Schedule 1 licence.
That highlights a series of issues with the Government’s approach to drug misuse. First, the ill-thought-through Psychoactive Substances Act, while making previously so-called legal highs illegal, did not make the possession of such substances an offence—only their manufacture, sale and supply, even though some of the substances are more dangerous than the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act that they were designed to replace.
Secondly, as a result, the ACMD still has to play catch-up with synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs, such as synthetic cannabinoids, which need to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act because they are so dangerous. To get ahead of the game, on the basis of what the Minister said and what is contained in the material published by the Home Office on the SI, the ACMD appears to have gone to the other extreme and banned swathes of innocuous substances.
Thirdly, these synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs were created only because the controlled drugs that they were designed to replace were illegal. For example, I know a doctor who has had to deal with a number of patients with serious psychiatric problems caused by these synthetic alternatives; they took the synthetic alternatives because they were legal at the time, but they would not have had psychiatric problems if they had stuck to the controlled drugs that the synthetic alternatives were designed to replace. My understanding is that the synthetic cannabinoid Spice, which the Minister mentioned, induces far more psychosis and is far more addictive than even the strongest form of cannabis, for example. Can the Minister confirm that?
Fourthly, this sort of mistake further undermines the credibility of the system of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Drugs are being classified primarily on the basis of politics rather than scientific evidence. For example, the previous Labour Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C on the basis of scientific evidence only for the same Labour Government, under a new Prime Minister, to reclassify it back to class B for political reasons. Some drugs, such as GHB or GBL, that cause a large number of deaths—particularly among gay men, including a former partner of mine—are in class C while MDMA or ecstasy, which cause far fewer deaths, are in class A. We do not oppose the correction of this mistake by means of this SI but we clearly state it again: drug misuse should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue; all the efforts of government and law enforcement should be focused on harm reduction, not criminalisation; and the Government need to expand their review of drug misuse to include law changes, including potentially legalising and regulating controlled drugs.
The Liberal Democrats are not the only ones saying this. Last week, a survey showed that twice as many people were in favour of the legalisation of cannabis than against it. Research published last week showed that fewer teenagers used cannabis when it was legalised in the United States. The debate on drug misuse is changing. We believe that it is time that the Government paid attention to that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of the draft order, which we do not oppose. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by narrowing the previous definition of synthetic cannabinoids, as the previous definition has had the effect of requiring compounds that are not of concern to be licensed as class B drugs.
Following the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and of the second generation in 2013, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs first published advice in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids—a group of compounds commonly referred to, as the Minister said, as Spice and Mamba, which mimic the effects of cannabis. The ACMD recommended that these compounds be captured by way of a generic definition as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also recommended that the compounds be placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, meaning that they can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.
Following the ACMD’s recommendations, the changes came into effect on 14 December 2016 but, as has already been said, shortly after their implementation the ACMD and the Home Office were told by research bodies that the breadth of the definition meant that it captured a large number of research compounds, many of which were not synthetic cannabinoids. The effect of this was that research institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences when they should not have needed to do so.
The ACMD recognised that its advice that led to the 2016 changes had unintended consequences. As a result, it made a further recommendation in December 2017 to the effect that the scope of the generic definition be reduced. Accordingly, this order amends the generic definition of third-generation synthetic cannabinoids by replacing the term “univalent” with a defined number of substituents. This will apparently reduce the number of compounds unintentionally captured by the generic definition, estimated by industry at more than 40,000 substances, while retaining those that have not been found to cause harm. As the Minister said, the revised definition does not alter the position for class A drugs or the licensed medicines previously excluded.
When this order was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said,
“so that while those compounds that have been found to cause harm are captured by it, fewer compounds are unintentionally captured”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/19; col. 1263.]
In view of the Commons Minister’s words, how many compounds will still be unintentionally captured by the amended order that we are discussing now, and what level of inconvenience or difficulty will that continue to cause the research community in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector in respect of having to continue, where necessary, to apply for Schedule 1 licences? How cumbersome, time-consuming and time-delaying is the process of applying for Schedule 1 licences, the need for which this order is designed to reduce but apparently not eliminate, in respect of compounds “unintentionally captured” by the 2016 changes? Bearing in mind that the ACMD made its recommendation, which led to the Government making this draft order some 18 months ago, why has it taken as long as it has to reach this stage?
The ACMD’s 2014 recommendations did not come into effect until mid-December 2016. Again, what was the reason for the apparent delay of at least two years? If consultation took place during that lengthy period, did any individuals or organisations raise the problem about the breadth of the definition that the research community raised shortly after mid-December 2016? If not, why did the ACMD—or anyone else—not realise the problem that this order seeks to address before its recommendations were implemented? Did the changes that were brought into effect in mid-December 2016 properly reflect the ACMD’s recommendations of two years or more previously? If not, is that one reason why the problem of the breadth of the definition came to light only after the mid-December 2016 changes came into effect?
This draft order does not seek to address the issue of the use, or rather misuse, of drugs. The UK now has, I believe, the highest recorded level of mortality from drug misuse since records began. I hope that we will soon hear from the Government the different approaches, based on what would most effectively reduce harm, that they intend to consider and adopt in response to a drug situation that appears to be getting worse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that this is regrettable—I agree. It is never a good place to be in, having to amend legislation for this reason. He is right that research was taking far longer because of the application process. That is why we have the order today. He also made the point that psychiatric problems would not be as problematic as they are with synthetic versions. However, I have thought back to several examples that I am aware of, for example, skunk weed, which has caused psychiatric problems. He asked whether I could confirm that Spice is more addictive than non-synthetic cannabis. It is indeed stronger than some other drugs. That is why it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in line with the expert advice. The SI does not change the control of Spice.
He also made the point that drugs policy should be aimed at reduction. Of course, reduction of the use of drugs is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve, particularly—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The two probably go hand in hand—the harm of drugs and the use of them are quite parallel to each other—but I take the noble Lord’s point. He made a slightly different point and maybe I just took licence because I could respond in the way that I did. He also talked about the legalisation of cannabis. He knows that the Government do not intend at this point to legalise cannabis. In fact, the statutory instrument is not about the legalisation or otherwise of cannabis but, again, he took the opportunity to bring the issue up.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why it has taken so long to get here, given that the recommendation was made back in December 2017. The initial recommendation from the ACMD in December 2017 acted as interim advice, covering a range of proposed solutions for the Home Office to consider. Officials then liaised with the ACMD on the feasibility of the proposals and the ACMD made short-term recommendations amending the generic definition and longer-term recommendations. Following those recommendations, from spring 2018 the Home Office engaged in a targeted consultation with the research community on the proposals, which confirmed at the end of 2018 that it supported the short-term solution of amending the generic definition. Steps were then taken to make this legislative amendment. The unintentional capture did not come to light until after the introduction of the legislative changes in 2016. After receiving representations from the research community, the Home Office and the ACMD then acted.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many compounds will still be unintentionally caught by the MDA. The nature of a generic definition is such that it is not possible to specify an exact number of compounds. I will write to him with further detail once I have confirmed that point. We are continuing to work with the ACMD on longer-term solutions. With that—
Lord Rosser
I raised another issue. I am not suggesting that we should not pass this order, but how cumbersome and time-consuming is the process of applying for the Schedule 1 licences? Is it some great bureaucratic procedure or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think I made that point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is quite a procedural undertaking; hence it is good that this SI is before us today. My note from the Box just says that it varies from case to case depending on the complexity of the activity being licensed, and that clear guidance is given on the Home Office website on how to make licensing applications. However, there is a broader point: that to get a Schedule 1 licence is quite a serious matter.
Lord Rosser
There is one other point—I say this as a complete lay man. It is fairly sobering to find that the ACMD made a recommendation—I understand that it consists of people who know what they are talking about—but we were apparently not able to appreciate that this difficulty would arise, and, because presumably there was some discussion and consultation, nobody outside the ACMD realised that it would arise. Is it not quite a sobering thought that such a mistake could have been made by not only the experienced body that is meant to advise on this but by those who were going to be affected by it? To me, as a lay person, that is quite worrying. Are the Government not worried that a mistake will be made again in some other sphere?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that any such amendment that we have to make based on SIs that we have put before this House, without the full information before us, is always a concern. However, we are talking about new compounds that need research. We are at the forefront of research and controls but that does not take away from the fact that the noble Lord is right—it is unfortunate when we have to amend secondary legislation like this.
Lord Rosser
I am not quite sure from what the Minister says whether the answer to the point I raised is that the problem could not have been envisaged at the time—that it came to light that new substances or compounds suddenly were affected. However, if I am not right in saying that, did the Government inquire of the ACMD why it had not realised that this would be a difficult? Did they get an explanation from it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that, but I thank him for raising that valid point.
Public Spaces Protection Orders
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord may be referring to the rough sleeping strategy and how the Home Office uses it. The Home Office is not looking to trick rough sleepers into providing their data to be used for enforcement purposes—a criticism that has been made against us. However, we have been working with local authorities and charities to design an information-sharing protocol that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals but also allows for the effective operation of the RSS.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
What is needed is not just to stop the inappropriate use of PSPOs but for the Government to change their policy and provide cash-strapped local authorities and other agencies with the resources to bring homelessness—which is not a crime—to an end for good, through personal support, assistance into employment and more genuinely low-cost housing, including social housing to rent. Reference has been made to the fact that the Home Office had to update its guidance at the end of 2017. This now states that PSPOs,
“should not be used to target people based solely on the fact that someone is homeless or rough sleeping”.
Why was this not included in the guidelines from day one? What effective check and redress is there, even now, to ensure that PSPOs are not continuing to be used inappropriately against those who are homeless or rough sleeping? The use in the updated guidelines of the word “solely”, which the Minister herself stressed, looks like a significant potential loophole.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will recognise that the reasons for rough sleeping are many and complex and the sole fact that someone is homeless is not, in itself, a reason to slap them with a PSPO. On housing, we are investing £9 billion in more affordable homes across the country and have delivered over 400,000 such homes since 2010.
Migrant Children: Welfare
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for securing this debate and, in so doing, drawing attention to the Project 17 report of February this year on children’s experiences of the hostile environment. I will confine my comments to the issue of the migrant children on whom the report concentrates, although I agree with the wider but highly relevant points made by other noble Lords in this debate, not least those made by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The title of the debate seeks the Government’s assessment of the report; no doubt that will come when the Government respond.
Project 17 works with migrant children whose families have no recourse to public funds, due to their parents’ immigration status. This means that their families are unable to claim the main welfare benefits or access social housing. Instead, due to their extremely adverse financial position—otherwise known as destitution—they have to seek further support under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Some families affected have a legal right to remain in the UK but nevertheless have a condition attached to their leave to remain, preventing them accessing public funds. Some families are seeking to establish and regularise their immigration status in the hostile immigration environment to which the title of the Project 17 report refers.
Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 places a duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children “in need” in their area. The Project 17 report indicates that just under 6,000 children from families with no recourse to public funds across England and Wales received Section 17 support—I think that was in 2012-13. The report goes on to say that children in such families grow up in exceptional poverty and are at risk of homelessness, exploitation and abuse. Continuing, the report states:
“The government’s commitment to creating a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants trumps its commitment to children’s rights, rendering the children in destitute migrant families ‘second class citizens’”.
With the arrival in office of the current Home Secretary, the Government sought to rebrand the openly declared and increasingly hostile environment policy of his two predecessors in that office. This report, however, indicates that rebranding a policy by giving it another name—a name which I imagine few apart from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, can now remember—alters nothing when attitudes and culture on immigration issues appear to have remained as they were under the two previous Home Secretaries.
Responsibility for supporting children living in families with no recourse to public funds rests with local authorities, which themselves have been subjected over the last 10 years to savage reductions in funding from central government. The result has been inevitable: local authorities have sought by one means or another, as they have in many other spheres of activity, to cut back on support for the children who we are discussing to match expenditure to their heavily and deliberately reduced income. The report states that the financial support provided to families under Section 17 is often well below asylum support rates under the Immigration and Asylum Act, which is the minimum that the Home Office views as required to avoid a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, and which case law suggests is the minimum a local authority is required to pay under Section 17. As a result, the report says that many families are unable to afford basic necessities such as enough food, clothing—including for school uniforms—and transport.
However, the impact goes further since the report points out that there can be an emotional impact on children in this position as they are left feeling socially isolated, distressed, ashamed and unsafe. This includes children who in a great many cases were born in this country and have spent their lives here; children who in a great many cases are British citizens; and children who are likely to become British before they reach adulthood. I certainly do not suggest that this has been a deliberate objective, but other government policies have also had an adverse impact on children and their future prospects in life. Two examples are the attack on the number, and level of service, of Sure Start centres by reducing the funding available to local authorities under the prolonged and still-continuing austerity programme of choice, not necessity, and the increased criminalisation of children as a result of the government-induced funding shortfall in children’s social care and the prolonged austerity programme of choice, which has led to a reduction of some 20,000 in the number of police officers.
The Government’s standard answer about services dependent on local authority funding is that it is up to local authorities to determine their priorities and that if they do not provide sufficient funds to adequately source a demand, that is entirely their responsibility and nothing whatever to do with central government. We will wait to see whether that is once again to be part of the Government’s response to this debate tonight. If it is, that is a thoroughly unprincipled response when coming from a Government who, over the last 10 years, have cut back heavily on the financial resources available to local authorities without comparably reducing their responsibilities. Indeed, on some matters local authorities have been given expanded or additional responsibilities. Local authorities are now in a situation where the funding they have been left with is just plain insufficient to enable them to deliver properly on all the priorities that they are still either required or expected to deliver, including the priority of the children who are the subject of the Project 17 report.
The report makes a number of recommendations directed at local authorities, which relate to how assessments should be made and determined; the level of financial support; the provision of information about how it is calculated; and the suitability and location of accommodation. The more telling recommendations, however, are directed at central government. These include: that local authorities should be sufficiently funded by central government to meet their duties under Section 17; that the Home Office should not apply the “no recourse to public funds” condition to individuals granted leave to remain on human rights grounds; that the Government’s 30-hours free childcare scheme should be made available to families with no recourse to public funds; and that legal aid should be reinstated for individuals applying for leave to remain on the basis of family or private life.
A number of challenges and questions have been raised with the Government in this debate on the impact of their policies on the issue we are discussing, which the Project 17 report highlighted. It is now for the Government to give their response to these challenges and questions, not least those raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. That government response could of course demolish, or largely demolish, much of the case made in the report, depending on the strength of the case that the Government present as their assessment of it. But if the government response does not do that, we need to ask ourselves whether what government policy has apparently done, according to the Project 17 report, and is doing to the children in question does or does not reflect the true British value of decency and the British sense of justice and fair play.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the Minister said, the College of Policing’s guidelines advise officers not to,
“name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”.
Yesterday, in the debate on the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, two noble Lords referred to the desirability for a judge or a court to have to approve the release by the police of the name of an individual arrested or suspected of a crime but not charged, as opposed to that approval being given, as now, by a chief officer following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. I am not quite sure of the Government’s position on this point. Do they believe that the present College of Policing guidelines satisfactorily address the issue of anonymity until charged for those arrested or suspected of any offence, or are they now seriously considering whether the decision to name an individual not yet charged should be judicial, rather than for the police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps it would be helpful if I went over what I said yesterday. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice guidance on relationships with the media makes it clear that suspects’ names should be released to the media prior to charge only in exceptional circumstances if there is a legitimate policing purpose to doing so—for example, where there is a threat to the public or for the prevention and detection of crime. This approach recognises that there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those arrested, particularly if they are never charged. The noble Lord asks whether we support this approach. Yes, we do; as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we have every evidence that the police are sticking to that guidance.
Knife Crime
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on securing this debate. His opening speech was as thoughtful and comprehensive as one expected it would be. Judging by the number of briefings we have all received, the debate and its subject matter has attracted a lot of interest, particularly among those organisations directly involved in seeking through various means and approaches to counteract the driving forces behind knife crime and to reduce its incidence.
The Library briefing for this debate refers to recent ONS statistics, which indicate that in the year to December 2018 the police recorded 44,443 offences involving a knife or sharp instrument—a volume rise of 6% on the previous year and the continuation of a four-year rising trend. Possession offences of an article with a blade or point also rose last year by 20% to just under 21,000, in line with increases seen over the last five years. Ministry of Justice figures on cautions and convictions for knife and offensive weapon offences reflect the increases in the police figures, as do NHS figures for admissions for “assault by a sharp object”.
The ONS figures show that urban areas have generally seen the highest rates of knife crime over recent years, with young people increasingly involved as both perpetrators and victims. In the year to March 2018, the number of homicide victims aged 16 to 24 increased by 45% compared to the previous year, with the number of homicides committed by those aged under 18 rising by 77% between 2016 and 2018. The figures would have been even higher were it not for medical advancements, which have led to significant improvements in survival rates from stabbings. The number of under-16s admitted to hospital due to knife attacks has also increased by 93% since 2012, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned.
The driving forces behind knife crime are numerous and have to be looked at in their totality if the issues we now face are to be addressed. A review in one London borough of 60 serious cases of youth violence has apparently shown that in nearly all cases, if not all, the young person involved was outside mainstream education. Further common factors were the absence of the mother, for one reason or another, and the lack in most cases of a trusted adult, whether from within the family or outside it. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned other factors, including living with a background of domestic violence, divorce, parental mental health issues, alcohol issues, a parent being in prison and parents having to work excessive hours just to make ends meet, all resulting in emotional neglect. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others also referred to the impact of drugs and county lines, and the attraction to the dangers of gangs of many young people.
There is also the question of school exclusions: some schools make temporary or permanent exclusions that run into three figures a year; others make only a handful or even none at all. That suggests that very different approaches are being adopted, and it is difficult to believe that frequent exclusions—permanent exclusions have increased by over 50% in the last three years—help to address the driving factors behind knife crime. Indeed, they appear to be a contributory factor. Why, apparently, can some schools largely avoid exclusions without this leading to disruption of classes for other children, while others cannot? Roughly half of exclusions are of children with special needs, and one must question whether enough is being done in many of these cases, through interventions, to endeavour to keep such young people in mainstream schools.
Another potential issue is the effectiveness or otherwise of pupil referral units, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It appears that a third of local authorities do not even have any places left in their units. Do the Government have any information on the quality and effectiveness of pupil referral units? Are we in a situation where many are good, but still too many are not delivering for the most vulnerable young people who are the most likely to end up committing offences? Pupil referral units tend to finish earlier than mainstream schools, so the young people concerned are likely to be on the streets for longer. My understanding is that the evidence shows that knife offences peak after school and in the time before parents come home from work, after which the number goes down again. If that is the case, surely something can be done to address this reality and its impact on the incidence of knife offences.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans confirmed that the Church of England is looking at whether more can be done to keep churches open during these hours after school, so that they can be a form of safe haven for young people who feel vulnerable and at risk, and have no trusted adult available to turn to during these seemingly crucial hours. Churches and other places of worship can have their doors open during hours when they currently are not only if sufficient suitable people are able to make themselves available in the place of worship to offer comfort and assurance. That may be easier said than done in many instances, but such an initiative can only be welcomed as positive action, as opposed to mere words, to address the problem we are discussing.
Much has already been said about the public health approach, meaning active co-ordinated interventions to reduce and stop the violence and prevent its future spread, and changing attitudes and mindsets to prevent it starting up again. My noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton referred to the approach adopted in Glasgow and its considerable favourable impact, which has led to people from the south hot-footing it north to find out how it has been achieved.
The Library briefing tells us that, as part of the #KnifeFree campaign, the Home Office has worked with schools and the PSHE Association to provide new material on knife crime ahead of the 2019 summer holidays. At the beginning of this month, I understand, 20,000 PSHE teachers received new lesson plans to help,
“further equip them to challenge myths and communicate to their pupils the realities of carrying a knife”.
Significantly, in the light of the Government presiding over a rundown in Sure Start centres over the past 10 years, the lessons are for children aged between 11 and 16. These lessons are no doubt also part of the Government’s serious violence strategy, but what are the specific short and long-term aims of the strategy? What are the specific goals it intends to achieve? Against what criteria will its impact, or lack of impact, be assessed?
In a debate in the Commons on knife crime on 24 January, the Minister there said:
“Nationally, we have Operation Sceptre, where every single police force in the country has a week of action of tackling knife crime in a way that is appropriate for their local area”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/19; col. 257WH.]
That sounds fine, but what is happening to tackle knife crime in the other 51 weeks of the year? Why does Operation Sceptre, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred, not operate every week of the year if it is effective? Is it lack of resources? This is the problem the Government have not yet addressed. It is about resources—resources to enable the public health approach to be meaningful and the necessary action to continue, and not just be undertaken for a limited period, following which the resources dry up and the problems promptly start to resurface.
The Home Secretary has now accepted that we need to put back the approximately 20,000 police officers cut since 2010. Neighbourhood policing has been decimated and, with it, a vital link between local communities and the police, which not only delivered increased trust in the police in local communities but, as a result, provided much-needed knowledge and intelligence to counteract crime and, more significantly, prevent it happening in the first place.
The Government have also presided over a rundown in our youth services over the past 10 years, through its squeeze on local authority finances. Youth services provide valuable support for potentially vulnerable young people, as well as a source of constructive activity off the streets. I am involved with a football league with 82 clubs in London and the south-east. Most of our clubs run teams for all the younger age groups. I do not think their contribution, through volunteers, to the well-being and development of young people is recognised as fully as it should be by the Government or sometimes by the relevant local authority. Our education system has faced real financial pressure as a result of insufficient government funding since 2010, which restricts the support that can be offered to more vulnerable students, as well as making the teaching proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, unlikely at present.
The Conservative Party leadership campaign has led to a mini-blizzard of additional spending pledges in areas such as defence and tax cuts for the better off. As I said, the Home Secretary has now, in effect, admitted that cutting police numbers by some 20,000 was a mistake, since he has advocated reinstating them. We have not, however, heard any pledges from the main candidates to provide the substantial co-ordinated resources and activity needed to address for good, and not just in a piecemeal way, the problems we are addressing today. The Government have to move on from poring over spreadsheets in the Treasury to cut, cut and cut again, and recognise the reality that excessive short-term savings eventually lead to even more excessive long-term costs, both financial and, even more damagingly, social and human, as today’s debate has highlighted.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Specified Scottish Authority and Barred Lists) Order 2019
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the explanation of the purpose and content of this draft order, to which we are not opposed. Having said that, I hope that the Minister feels more confident than I do that she fully understands it. Much of what I want to say is taken unashamedly from the recent report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and also, in part, from the wording of the Explanatory Memorandum. I will also raise a couple of points in the light of what was said when the draft order was considered in the Commons.
The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 sets out the arrangements under which the Disclosure and Barring Service may bar individuals from certain roles which involve working with children or vulnerable people in England and Wales. It also includes provisions setting out the relationship between the barred lists maintained under devolved legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 74 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 amended the 2006 Act to place restrictions on duplication with the Scotland and Northern Ireland barred lists. The purpose of this order, as I understand it, is to implement that statutory restriction with regard to Scotland, so that the barring lists of England, Wales and Scotland do not duplicate each other. The restrictions on duplication under the 2012 Act apparently arise from concerns that double barring might create a further burden on individuals who wish to challenge their inclusion on the barred list, as they would need to pursue separate appeal and review processes in each jurisdiction. Duplication also gives rise to the potential that, if an individual’s challenge was successful in one jurisdiction but not another, he or she would remain barred across the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked why, given that the restriction on duplication was introduced in 2012, it was only now being implemented. The answer from the Home Office was that responsibility for the Disclosure and Barring Service was changed to the Home Office following the passage of the 2012 Act, and the delay in bringing the measure forward was an oversight. What changes in processes or procedures have now been put in place to prevent what appears to be a seven-year oversight happening again in the Home Office? It does not inspire confidence in governance arrangements, which one would have thought might have been of some concern to the Home Office board—assuming that body still exists.
In its report on this draft order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that the Disclosure and Barring Service did not have the technical capability for the automatic exchange of information with Scotland. The committee went on to say that, while it had no information about the efficiency or effectiveness of the current cross-checking system, it did have concerns that it appeared to depend on the vigilance of officials who operate the lists. Could the Minister comment on that point from the committee about the current arrangements and the efficiency and effectiveness of the current cross-checking arrangements? Also, what assurances, backed up by hard evidence, can the Government now provide?
The Committee also reported that a new IT system is planned, to make such cross-checks automatically. It seems that the current IT contract has been terminated, but that there is an extension notice until January 2020 to ensure continuity of services while the procurement process transitions to new suppliers. The committee went on to say that the Home Office could not offer a clearer indication of when the capability to undertake automatic checking of Scotland's barred list would be in place.
Continuing, the committee suggested that the House might wish to seek assurances, which are what I am now asking from the Government, about what mitigation is in place to offset any risk that information about individuals on a barred list in one jurisdiction may inadvertently fail to be shared with another jurisdiction. Also, will the Government provide further information about when and how the new IT system will achieve compliance with the requirements of Section 74 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, to which I referred earlier?
During the debate on this order in the Commons, the shadow Minister expressed her concern that, if the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children is to be taken seriously—as I do not doubt for one moment that the Government do—we need to bear in mind that some cases of child abuse, trafficking and rape appear to be being dealt with by out-of-court disposal orders, which apparently means that they are omitted from DBS checks. The Minister in the Commons did not appear to respond to that point. Could the Minister now respond on behalf of the Government? Are there examples of such serious offences being dealt with by out-of-court disposal orders—and, if so, do the Government take the view that there is no potential danger in excluding them from DBS checks?
A further point was raised by a Conservative MP when this order was debated in the Commons. He drew attention to the fact that people posing a risk to children was an international problem and not simply a UK problem, and asked what progress had been made in the exchange of information with other countries. The same MP also asked about the length of time taken to get DBS clearance, and referred in particular to teachers who were new to a school, or newly qualified, because in the past it had led to such teachers not being able to take up their position. He asked for an assurance that the time taken to give clearance to essential public workers in particular was not an ongoing problem. The Minister in the Commons promptly gave that assurance, but gave no information on how long such clearance was now taking, and said that the list was,
“reducing at an acceptable rate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/19; col. 160.]
That is not the same as saying that clearance times are now deemed to be acceptable. Can the Minister provide information on how long DBS clearance is now taking? If it is above an acceptable time span, what is the target figure?
Finally, the Minister in the Commons said that she would be writing to Tim Loughton, the MP concerned, on the issue he had raised about exchange of information with other countries. I too am interested in that point, and I would be grateful if I could be sent a copy of the Commons Minister’s reply.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this order as achieving the necessary consistency between the two jurisdictions. Nobody doubts the value of the barring system in protecting vulnerable children from abuse in its various forms. The position in Scotland is accurately set out in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“Existing Scottish legislation does not require Disclosure Scotland to consider individuals for barring where the individual has already been considered by the DBS”,
in England or Wales,
“and the DBS has considered all relevant information. Nor does it require Disclosure Scotland to apply a bar in cases that are barred under England and Wales legislation”.
That sets out what in Scotland is the system to avoid duplication, and also to maintain consistency.
As I understand it, the aim of this order is to achieve the equal position in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a view to enabling the authorities on both sides of the border to work together better to protect children and vulnerable adults. I think that every noble Lord in this House would support the broad aims. I am not in a position to join with the noble Lord in the criticisms he made—I do not have that information. As far as I am concerned, the order deserves to be supported because it is achieving what everybody wished it to achieve: consistency to enable the authorities to work together.
Lord Rosser
The Minister has certainly answered my questions, for which I am grateful, but I want to pursue one issue—I do so seriously and not frivolously. The secondary legislation committee had asked why, given that the restriction on duplication was introduced in 2012, it was only now being implemented. The answer came back that it was an oversight. My question is simply this: was that because of a breakdown in processes and procedures, or was it just bad luck? Has this been looked into? Is the Home Office taking steps to make sure that such a thing cannot happen again?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What I do know is that it was originally brought in in 2009. I accept that the noble Lord would like more detail. I think that it is simply an omission, which we often correct in secondary legislation, but if there is anything further to add, I will get the information to him.
Homophobic Attacks
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Home Secretary, in his Conservative leadership campaign, pledged to put 20,000 more police officers back on the streets—a figure that is very similar to the reduction in the number of police officers since 2010. Previously the Government have sought to argue that the number of police officers does not affect the crime rate, and the Home Secretary, with his campaign pledge, has now managed the feat of going off-message on his own policy line. Does this mean that the Government now accept that the incidence of crime, including ugly homophobic attacks, is influenced by the number of police officers in post and not just by improved police recording, as the Minister has suggested, and that we are all now paying a price for the substantial cuts in police numbers since 2010?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think I have ever shied away from this issue at the Dispatch Box. In fact, I quoted my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in saying that the police had faced unprecedented demands in the last couple of years, particularly from terrorist crimes. He has now pledged over £1 billion to enable the police to recruit an additional 20,000 police officers. I do not think he has ever tried to deny that there have been unprecedented demands on the police.
Immigration and Asylum Applications
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not agree with the noble Lord that there is systematic failing. He will appreciate that many of these cases are complex and involve human rights considerations. I agree that we should focus on timeliness but the quality of decision-making, which the noble Lord also points out, is absolutely crucial. We have created a UKVI caseworking unit and caseworker lead; I hope that the quality of initial decision-making will improve—I do not doubt it—but I accept that the longer a decision-making or appeals process goes on, the greater the chance of more information coming to light or fresh appeals ensuing.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In a recent letter to me, the Minister said that, in 2017, 1,936 asylum applications were made on grounds of sexual orientation, with 423 grants of asylum, but 487 appeals were allowed—that is, there were more allowed appeals than the number of applications granted in that same year. I accept that, in some cases, more relevant information is provided by the applicant for the appeal than in the initial application. In what percentage of allowed appeals is that the decisive factor? What are the main reasons for appeals being allowed? Do staff who turned down the initial application get told if there has been a successful appeal and the reasons for it? Have any changes been made to asylum application practices in the light of reasons for allowed appeals, whether in guidance or advice to applicants or questions that should be asked by those assessing an application? I ask these questions since, surely, the Government are trying to maximise the number of correct decisions made on initial applications and minimise the number of allowed appeals. What are the answers to the questions I have posed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I know that the noble Lord will understand if I do not answer all five questions now. However, I will answer his question on more appeals being allowed than applications being granted as it is a hangover from a question he has asked before. That figure was slightly mystifying at the time. Many of the appeals that are heard are not necessarily from that given year; there may be a lag effect with applications from the previous year—hence, in any given year, more appeals may be allowed than applications granted. I will leave it there but perhaps talk to the noble Lord afterwards about his other questions.
Asylum Seekers
Lord Rosser Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Home Office understands the dangers faced by LGBT people, and our hate crime action plan, launched in 2016, acknowledged them. I know of the two cases that the noble Baroness is talking about, which are very disturbing indeed, so I reject any suggestion that we do not take vulnerabilities, particularly those related to hate crimes meted out on people because of their sexual orientation, very seriously.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It is my understanding—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that, in 2017, 1,900 applications were made on the grounds, in whole or in part, of sexual orientation. In that year, there were approximately 1,400 appeals, of which 487—nearly a third—were successful. The number of successful appeals was greater than the number of applications granted. I have two questions. First, of the 487 successful appeals involving sexual orientation, which were the top three countries, in terms of the number to which those who appealed successfully would have been returned had their appeals not been successful? Secondly, of those people whose asylum case applications were, in whole or in part, on sexual orientation grounds, were declined in 2017 and were then returned to their relevant country, how many have subsequently been the subject of persecution or discrimination in their relevant country, because of their sexual orientation? I assume the Government have some idea of the answer to both questions because, if they do not know the answer to the second, how do they know that asylum application declinatures have proved correct?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when determining asylum claims, the Government will take information from a variety of sources, including the FCO. I cannot answer all the noble Lord’s questions just now, but I can say that of the top five countries for sexual orientation-based asylum claims by volume, the largest by far was Pakistan.