Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, this group of amendments indicates that the Government have accepted the view of this House, as expressed through the carrying of an amendment on Report, that when sentencing an offender for the offence of supplying or offering to supply a psychoactive substance, it should be regarded as a statutory aggravating factor if that offence took place on prison premises. The only change the Government have made is to replace the reference in the Lords amendment to “prison premises” with “custodial institution”, and we welcome the Government’s decision to accept the view of the House on this matter.

However, this group of amendments also provides for a new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution as opposed to the far more serious issue of supplying such substances, which is now already covered in the Bill. The new offence of possession will cover inmates, visitors and staff in prisons with, I think, the maximum penalty being two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Thus, the only new power the new offence would give is the ability further to punish inmates and others in a prison for possessing psychoactive substances for their own use, as opposed to supplying them to others. Since those who run our prisons already have powers to discipline and punish inmates for possessing controlled psychoactive substances, I ask the Minister this: where has the late pressure come from to create this new offence, since the Government did not previously think it should be provided for in the Bill? Has the pressure come from those running our prisons, or from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman or the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who have both certainly expressed concern about the impact of psychoactive substances but neither of whom, as far as I am aware, has called for a new offence of possession? What they have argued is that better and more effective detection mechanisms need to be in place to detect psychoactive substances in our prisons, along with more frequent drug testing.

Is not the reality that, for those who possess psychoactive substances in the confines of our prisons, where the bullying and violence associated with the existence of such substances has already been identified by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the need is to regard this primarily as a health issue and to focus on education with an appropriate drug education and awareness strategy? What are the Government actually doing to combat possession of new psychoactive substances for personal use through these means, which are surely likely to be more effective, if the resources are provided, than the new offence proposed in this group of amendments? Is that not the support that those who run our prisons really need to address this issue, along with the resources to provide effective detection mechanisms and more regular drug testing? Are not those the resources that this Government have so far been failing to provide, as, in my opinion, the Minister implicitly acknowledged in his opening comments? What is the Government’s estimate of the reduction in the personal use of psychoactive substances in our prisons that will result from the creation of this new offence, and on the basis of what information was that estimate made?

Finally, will this new possession offence in prison for inmates, visitors and staff also apply to poppers? I ask this in view of the support there has been, including from the Commons Home Affairs Committee, for adding poppers to the list of exemptions to the ban on psychoactive substances because of the potential consequences of such a ban in this case. In the light of the decision by the Home Secretary to refer the issue of poppers for further consideration by expert bodies, do we really want to create a new possession offence in respect of a substance which is popular in some sections of the gay community, has been used recreationally in Britain for more than 30 years and has not so far been banned by any Government, given the likelihood that within the next few months a decision could be made as a result of expert consideration that it should continue to not be banned?

Having said that, and having made my points, I want to make it clear that we certainly do not intend to oppose the Commons government amendments creating the new offence of possession, but we want answers to the points that I have raised.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the situation described by the Minister is very serious and seems to lead directly to issues of prison reform—drugs being one of the considerations—but one would want to look at far wider causes than how concerns about prison manifest themselves in this issue. I wondered what ingenuity might be applied to introduce the issue of poppers, since it would be quite difficult to provide an amendment to the government amendments to deal with that, so I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on finding a way to introduce the subject.

We, of course, will not oppose these amendments, but I must say that we will now have possession of a controlled drug being an offence, possession of a new psychoactive substance not being an offence, but possession of a new psychoactive substance in prison being an offence. In our view, that is too muddled but, of course, at earlier stages of this Bill we were calling for a widespread health-based review of all drugs laws, so I am sure that the Minister will not be entirely surprised that I make that comment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, in drafting this Bill, we have adopted a similar approach to that taken by the Republic of Ireland’s Criminal Justice (Psychoactive Substances) Act 2010; namely, setting out a broad definition of a psychoactive substance and then circumscribing it with a robust set of exemptions to narrow the Bill’s scope. The current list of exempted substances in Schedule 1 includes substances controlled through existing legislation, such as alcohol, tobacco and nicotine, medicinal products and controlled drugs, and substances where psychoactive effects are negligible, such as caffeine and foodstuffs.

I am delighted to see my noble friend Lady Chisholm of Owlpen in her place with me on the Front Bench. During the Bill’s passage through this House, my noble friend responded to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and agreed that we should look again at the drafting of the Bill with a view to strengthening the exemptions for medicinal products and research. As my noble friend Lady Chisholm made clear on Report in July, the Government have no intention through this Bill of fettering the discretion of clinicians to prescribe or direct the supply of substances which, in their clinical judgment, meet the needs of their patients. My noble friend also made it clear that we have no intention of constraining bona fide scientific research. This Government attach the highest priority to research and are committed to removing—or not putting in place—unnecessary regulatory barriers that impede that research in the UK.

During the summer, the Home Office worked closely with a range of public and private organisations to address both points, and I am confident that the new formulation put forward in these Commons amendments effectively responds to the issue and ensures that we have a robust list of exemptions.

Let me deal first with the definition of a medicinal product in Schedule 1 to the Bill. One concern put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was that the definition did not cover so-called “specials”; that is, products which are used in healthcare but have no marketing authorisation. These products have been manufactured or imported, to the order of a doctor and certain other medical practitioners, specifically for the treatment of individual patients to meet their special clinical need.

It is not our intention that medicinal products regulated under the framework provided for in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 should be caught by this Bill. In defining a medicinal product by reference to a product with certain types of marketing authorisation, we were, on reflection, not casting the net widely enough. Commons Amendment 41 properly aligns the Bill with the regulatory framework for medicines. The Home Office worked closely with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency during the summer to revise this exemption.

Following careful consideration, Commons Amendment 41 uses the definition of a “medicinal product” as defined in Regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. This would mean that any substance which falls within the following definition would be caught by the exemption and so would be outside the scope of the Bill:

“(a) any substance … presented as having properties of preventing or treating disease in human beings; or … (b) any substance … that may be used by or administered to human beings with a view to … (i) restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or … (ii) making a medical diagnosis.”.

The Human Medicines Regulations consolidate the law of the United Kingdom concerning medicinal products for human use, including their authorisation, manufacture, distribution, importation and sale. I can assure noble Lords that we are satisfied that this revised definition covers all medicinal products that are approved for use in the UK. This definition includes investigational medicinal products, homeopathic medicinal products and traditional herbal medicines. That being the case, we can dispense with paragraphs 3 to 5 of Schedule 1, and Commons Amendment 42 removes them accordingly.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will remain the body which regulates activity in relation to medicinal products, whether they are authorised or not, and these amendments and the Bill will not encroach on that. The MHRA is already called upon to determine whether a product meets the definition of a “medicinal product”. This will be an important role going forward to assist with ensuring that the exemption for medicinal products is relied on only in appropriate cases. Our approach will ensure that the regulatory frameworks for psychoactive substances and human medicines complement rather than overlap each other and ensure that the public are properly protected for medicinal and non-medicinal psychoactive substances.

Having dealt with the changes to the list of exempted substances, I now turn to exempted activities. Commons Amendment 11 provides that it would not be an offence under the Bill for a person to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, import or export, or possess in a custodian institution a psychoactive substance if, in the circumstances in which it is carried by that person, the activity is an exempted activity. Commons Amendment 43 then sets out the list of exempted activities. These fall into two categories. The first exempts legitimate activities of healthcare professionals, while the second covers research. I will explain both in turn.

The exemption for healthcare-related activities will cover healthcare professionals acting in the course of their profession, and ensures that the Bill will not fetter their discretion as clinicians. At the moment a healthcare professional is free to prescribe or direct the supply of any psychoactive substance that is not a medicinal product as defined by the Human Medicines Regulations if, in their clinical judgment, this is in the best interests of the patient. While we do not have specific examples of such substances in mind, we wish to ensure that the Bill does not fetter clinicians’ freedom in this regard.

Commons Amendment 11 will ensure that, either now or in the future, a healthcare professional will not be hindered in offering treatment which in their clinical judgment is right for their patient. There are separate rules, in particular in relation to controlled drugs, which govern which substances a healthcare practitioner can and cannot prescribe which are unaffected by this exemption.

We have defined a “health care professional” using the existing definition in Regulation 8 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. This definition includes a doctor, dentist, pharmacist, nurse and midwife among others. The exemption also extends to people who supply substances to patients in accordance with a prescription issued by a healthcare professional, or at their direction.

Turning to research, while the inclusion of investigational medicinal products in Schedule 1 signalled our intention to exempt research activity, the Government recognise that the exemption fell short of what was required and, as such, failed to cover all research which could be caught by the Bill. I am grateful to the Academy of Medical Sciences and to noble Lords for raising this issue. The Home Office has reconsidered this issue and, after consulting the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Health, the Health Research Authority, the Government Office for Science, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the devolved Administrations, we have identified a revised approach.

Given that a wide range of bodies might undertake relevant research, our approach has been to frame the exemption around research which has received appropriate ethical approval from an ethics review body. We understand that all research which will be caught by the Bill should receive such approval. We have discussed this approach with the Academy of Medical Sciences and others in the research community, who are content with our approach.

All research that is approved by one of the Health Research Authority’s research ethics committees will be exempted and, as the Health Research Authority’s remit covers health and social care research, we expect that this will be a major mechanism for the exemption of research. We acknowledge the possibility of research in fields other than health and social care and, for that reason, the exemption will also cover all research approved by: an ethics committee constituted by a government department; an NHS body; a research institute, including universities; or a charity which is concerned with advancing health or saving lives.

These mechanisms for ethical approval are already in place and the Government believe that any research involving the consumption of a psychoactive substance by a human should be considered by an ethics committee, not least to give due regard to the safety of the research’s participants. From our discussions with the research community over the summer, we have not been able to identify any example of in-scope research which has not been considered by an ethics body, so this exemption should not create any additional bureaucracy for the research community, nor require bona fide researchers to do anything they do not already do. We are just conscious not to create a loophole which allows head shops and others to undertake so-called research to facilitate the supply of these substances. It is worth putting on record again that a considerable amount of scientific research falls outside the scope of the Bill in any case. Only research involving the consumption of a psychoactive substance by a person would be caught.

Commons Amendment 11 includes a power to add to or vary the list of exempted activities in the new schedule inserted by Commons Amendment 43. This regulation-making power effectively replaces that in Clause 10, so Commons Amendment 12 omits that clause. Commons Amendments 2 to 4, 7, 8, 13, 29, 30 and 38 are all consequential on Commons Amendments 11 and 43.

I was asked about poppers. The Government recognise that representations have been made to the effect that poppers have a beneficial health and relationship effect. In consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—the MHRA—the Home Office will therefore consider, following the enactment of the Bill and before the Summer Recess, whether there is evidence to support these claims and, if so, whether it is sufficient to justify exempting the alkyl nitrites group, or individual substances in that group. Clause 3 enables the Home Secretary, by regulations—after statutory consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and subject to the affirmative procedure—to add to the list of exempted substances in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Finally, I thank all those in the medical and research community, as well as those in government departments and this House, who assisted us over the summer in drafting these amendments. I now believe that we have a strong exemption list which meets the guiding principle. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the noble Lord for his very full and thorough explanation of the purpose and intention of this group of amendments. As the Minister has said, the intention of this group is to address concerns expressed by ourselves and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, during the Bill’s passage in this House, that healthcare activities and scientific medical research relating to new psychoactive substances were not adequately protected in the Bill. The amendments insert a new clause and schedule to provide for exemptions to the offences under Clauses 4 to 8 of the Bill and the new possession offence which has just been discussed. As the Minister said, these exemptions are for activities carried out by healthcare professionals and for approved scientific research activity. The Government’s amendments also confer on the Secretary of State the power, through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, to add to or vary any activity described in the schedule to the Bill which has now been inserted by the Commons.

The Minister has referred to the position of those bodies and institutions directly affected by this Commons amendment. I think the Minister has already said this, but I would be grateful if he would confirm that those bodies and institutions are satisfied that the amendments that have been carried in the Commons, and which we are considering at the moment, meet the concerns that they have expressed.

Finally, in relation to poppers, I understand that a decision is likely to be made fairly soon. I think the suggestion was that conclusions might be reached by the summer. Are we then in a situation where poppers might be banned under the terms of the Bill, only to be—if I may use the expression—unbanned in the summer? Or are we in a situation where the terms of the Bill in relation to the new psychoactive substances will not come into force until a conclusion has been reached in respect of poppers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

In response, I say first to my noble friend Lord Hayward, who has been a welcome addition to this House since his arrival, that when we were considering the Bill during its earlier stages in this House, the problem we were trying to identify was that once these new psychoactive substances were named, I or someone else, such as my noble friend Lady Chisholm, would come before your Lordships’ House with secondary legislation seeking to ban a particular chemical composition. Then it would be slightly tweaked by one or two molecules and reappear the next week as something else, and all the time people would be put at risk. That was the mischief that the whole thrust of this legislation was about. In the Conservative Party manifesto at the last election, we also made it clear that we would institute a blanket ban.

Forgive me for going through the points raised almost in reverse order, but my noble friend Lord Hayward asked whether we are going to ban and then unban. That is to prejudge the outcome of the consultation and review. The review may say that it is something that should be taken off the list; it may say that it should remain on the list. That is for it to do, so we do not know what the outcome will be. As we do not know that, we cannot prejudge it by putting it into this primary legislation. But because of this legislation we have a secondary legislation option whereby, if that decision is taken as a result of the consultation, we can act quickly to address it.

Let me deal with some of the other points which were raised. First, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to confirm whether various medical groups and research groups had been consulted. Yes, they have, and they have been immensely helpful. I know that many in your Lordships’ House who spoke in Committee and on Report were speaking precisely to that point about the potential danger that this posed to legitimate medical research. I think they would welcome the fact that we have made it explicit in the Bill that these exemptions are there for research.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her advance notice of the question on charities. The charity we are talking about would of course be a registered charity, and it would have to be one concerned with the advancing of health and saving lives. One hopes that the ability of someone to set up a “charitable body” which then started dispensing might be restricted, in the same way as restricting research to that approved by an ethics committee was the correct way forward. I can confirm that the Academy of Medical Sciences and other research communities were consulted on this. Also in response to the noble Baroness, cannabis is a controlled drug so it is outside the scope of the Bill, as controlled drugs are specifically exempt. The regulations that govern research in relation to cannabis are under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is unchanged.

I may have answered the other points that were raised —no, there was a specific one on the term “individual”. The definition of the ethics body in new paragraph 4(b) does not exclude clinical trials of cohorts of people, as it refers to “individuals”—plural—not to an individual. It is important that medical charities such as Cancer Research are able to benefit from this exemption. We do not believe that the exemption for charities risks opening any loopholes. Section 1 of the Charities Act 2011 defines a charity as,

“an institution … established for charitable purposes only”.

Section 2(1)(b) of the Act states that the charitable purposes must be in the public interest. Head shops are unlikely to be considered as acting in the public interest—on the contrary, we would argue—so could not benefit from this exemption. I hope that that has been helpful in addressing some of the points raised.

[Lord Rosser]

The situation with poppers is that they are not banned at the moment, but they will be when the Bill comes into effect and becomes an Act. I accept what the Minister says about the wording being “could” not “will”, but they could then be unbanned in the summer, as I think the Government have said that they expect their consideration by experts will be concluded by the Summer Recess. Is that a particularly satisfactory situation? If I am correct, something that is not banned at the moment may end up being banned for a few months and then unbanned.

[Lord Bates]

In a sense, my argument is about what alternative we have to this. The moment for putting something through now, in primary legislation, has passed. We have to allow this to take its course. Our concession was to say that we would undertake a review in consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Following the enactment of the Bill, and before the Summer Recess, we will consider whether there is evidence to support these claims. There is a question mark there and we believe that that research and consultation need to happen before we take any further action at this stage.

I see that the cavalry has arrived; I am, as ever, grateful my noble friend Lady Chisholm. To add to the list of exemptions requires the Home Secretary only to make regulations subject to affirmative procedure. To remove from the original list of exemptions would require further primary legislation. I think I have already said this, so I rest my case at that point and beg to move Amendments 2 to 4 in my name.

Overseas Domestic Workers Visa

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

We are trying a pilot on this in west African countries, which is not necessarily proving conclusive either way. Very importantly, we have instituted that a model contract should be in place governing the terms and conditions of employment, working hours, what holidays these workers would get and what rights they have when they are in the United Kingdom. That model contract must be in place before the visa is granted. It is also very important that people reporting abuse report it to the authorities here in the UK, so that if a person who has been guilty of abuse then applies for a further overseas domestic workers visa, that information will be known to the authorities.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As the Minister will know, the Conservative Minister in the Commons said before the election that the intention was that whoever was in government would implement the recommendations of the James Ewins review. Yet last Wednesday in this House, the Government said that while they took Mr Ewins’ recommendations extremely seriously, the arguments are “finely balanced”. Is the reality not that the Government are seriously considering the option of not implementing his recommendations and, if not, what did the Government mean in saying last Wednesday that the arguments are finely balanced?

[Lord Bates]

When Karen Bradley mentioned this issue before the last election, I think that she prefaced those remarks by saying that no one can actually bind future Governments. The point here is that the purpose of the inquiry is to inform the debate and discussion within government, but government must reserve the right to look at the findings of the report and reach their own judgment. I would have thought that would be quite in keeping with the standards set by the Inquiries Act. I have said that we agree with the broad thrust. However, if someone goes through the national referral mechanism and the Salvation Army, they get access to accommodation, legal aid and translation services; more importantly, we also get the right to find out who the perpetrator of the crime is, to ensure that they can be appropriately dealt with. I would have thought we could all agree with that.

Child Refugees

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place. We welcome the comments by the Government that they are looking again at the issue of child refugees in Europe. However, are the Government giving serious consideration to the call from NGOs such as Save the Children, and also from my noble friend Lord Dubs and other noble Lords in an amendment to the Immigration Bill to be debated next week, that the UK should offer refuge to 3,000 unaccompanied children in addition to the 20,000 Syrian refugees they have already committed to help? Are the Government also considering taking some of the 26,000 unaccompanied children who are in Europe today, and not just those from camps adjacent to Syria. The thought of any child genuinely alone in a foreign country without the basic necessities of life including protection and comfort, is completely unacceptable, particularly when they are vulnerable to trafficking, prostitution and other forms of abuse, and in some cases also face the prospect of simply disappearing completely. Finally, some of those children genuinely alone will have family here. Are the Government considering doing more to allow reunification of families?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, apologies for confusing the procedure on Statements with Urgent Questions. I will deal with points in the reverse order to which they were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, the criteria for family reunion are set out in the Dublin regulations. They are currently under a period of review, but we will certainly honour the family reunion commitments under the existing Dublin arrangements. Regarding trafficking and the dangers, we are absolutely confident, in terms of the current Dublin regime, that all children—all adults, for that matter—arriving into the European Union should be identified with biometric passes at that point and recorded as such with as much data as are available. Once the data are there, at least that person is correctly identified. We have been providing support through the European Asylum Support Office in those regions to ensure that that recording of children and adults is going ahead.

I should say that the figure of 26,000 is an estimate of the number actually coming in to the European Union; the numbers are not held in one place. The Prime Minister is deeply concerned about that. This time last year, we had a couple of hundred coming in under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme. The Prime Minister announced that that was to increase to 20,000, and we brought in 1,000 before Christmas, 50% of whom were children. So we are not unmoved by that plea, but UNICEF and the UNHCR have seriously warned about the interests of the child being best served when they remain with wider family networks in the region, as that offers the best prospect for their safety and well-being once, as we hope, the conflict there is resolved.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Home Secretary. The inquiry report confirms that the Russian state at its highest level sanctioned the killing of a citizen on the streets of our capital city in an unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism. We accept that time must be taken to digest the findings of the report and consider our response.

Before I proceed further, I express our appreciation to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team, without whose painstaking work the truth would never have been uncovered and known. I extend our thanks to the Metropolitan Police Service for what the report calls “an exemplary investigation”, and to the Litvinenko family’s legal team, who, as I understand it, supported them on a pro bono basis.

We express our sympathy to Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, who have fought so courageously to make this day a reality. While the findings of this report raise international and diplomatic issues, this was first and foremost a family tragedy. Has the Home Secretary met, or does she intend to meet, Marina and Anatoly to discuss this report, its findings and the British Government’s response?

We welcome what the Home Secretary has said today in the Statement about Interpol notices and European arrest warrants, along with her announcement about asset freezes. Will she also directly approach all EU, NATO and Commonwealth allies, asking for immediate co-operation on extradition in respect of those named in the report as having poisoned Mr Litvinenko? Since there may be other individuals facing similar dangers, has a review been undertaken of the level of security provided to Mr Litvinenko by the relevant British services to see whether any lessons can be learned for the future?

No individuals commit crimes of this type alone, and today’s report confirms that there is a network of people who have known about and facilitated this crime. I understand that Mrs Litvinenko has prepared a list of names to be submitted to the Government, of those who have aided and abetted the perpetrators against whom, she believes, sanctions should be taken. That could include the freezing of UK assets, property and travel restrictions. Will the Minister give an in-principle commitment today to look seriously at that list and those requests?

The Statement indicates that there will be new diplomatic pressure, which we welcome, but given what we know about the way the Russian state operates, do the Government believe there is a case for a wide-ranging review of the nature and extent of our diplomatic, political, economic and cultural relations with Russia?

On diplomacy, do the Government consider that there is a case for recalling the ambassador for consultation and for making any changes to the Russian embassy in London? Given the proven Federal Security Service involvement, are the Government considering expelling FSB officers from Britain? Has the Prime Minister ever raised this case directly with Vladimir Putin, and will he be seeking an urgent conversation with him about the findings of this report?

On cultural collaboration, given what this report reveals about the Russian Government and their links to organised crime, on top of what we already know about corruption within FIFA, do the Government feel that there is a growing case to reconsider our approach to the forthcoming 2018 World Cup and to engage other countries in that discussion?

On the economy, are the Government satisfied that current EU sanctions against Russia are adequate, and is there a case to strengthen them?

We ask these questions not because we have come to a conclusion but because we believe they are the kind of questions this country needs to debate in the light of today’s findings. While the Home Secretary ordered this review, I believe I am right in saying that she originally declined to do so, citing international issues. Will it be considerations of diplomacy or justice that influence the Government’s response?

Finally, will the Government commit to coming back to update Parliament on whatever final package of measures and steps they intend to take in the light of this report and its disturbing findings? The family deserve nothing less than that after their courageous fight. Alexander Litvinenko’s last words to his son Anatoly, who was then 12 years old, were, “Defend Britain to your last drop because it saved your family”. He believed in Britain and its traditions of justice and fairness and of standing up to the mighty and for what is right, and we must now make sure that we find the courage to show his son and the world that his father’s faith in us was not misplaced.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minster for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary. The death of Mr Litvinenko, although it happened almost 10 years ago, is shocking and tragic, and we hope Marina Litvinenko and her son can find some solace in the findings of this report.

There are fundamental issues at stake here. Sir Robert Owen cites as the motivation for the murder of Mr Litvinenko his criticism of the Russian domestic security service and of the Russian President, Mr Putin, and his association with other Russian dissidents. He concluded that Mr Litvinenko may have been consigned to a slow death from radiation to “send a message”. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are fundamental human rights, and we cannot allow foreign Governments to murder people in this country, let alone a British citizen, for expressing such views or for associating with critics of a particular regime. Such an act cannot be left without serious consequences for Russia.

We acknowledge with gratitude the role of the security and intelligence services and the police in keeping us safe, and we accept the Home Secretary’s assertion that some of the work the security and intelligence services carry out in combating the threat from hostile states must remain secret. We also acknowledge the constant struggle the police and the security services face in trying to keep abreast of developments in technology. Any increase in investigatory powers must none the less be necessary and proportionate and must not unnecessarily undermine the right to free speech and the right to private and family life.

Will the Minster explain how the conclusions of this report have come as such a surprise to the Government that it is only this morning that the Home Secretary has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking her to consider whether further action should be taken? It is the Government who should already have taken action in freezing the assets and banning the travel of all those linked to this murder. I accept that a head of state cannot be subjected to a travel ban, but there is no reason why the Government cannot signal their intention to impose one as soon as Mr Putin leaves office.

Why are the Government limiting themselves to expressing their “profound displeasure” at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers? Why are they not expressing their outrage that state-sponsored murder by Russia to silence its critics has been carried out on British soil? The Government’s response is late, lame and lamentable.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

133: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
All overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, one in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, within the group. I intend to be relatively brief because I imagine that a number of others may wish to speak in this debate.

The amendment to which I wish to speak seeks to reverse the 2012 visa changes for overseas domestic workers by allowing them to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of 12 months,

“as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds”.

It would also provide for overseas domestic workers to be entitled to a temporary visa, permitting them to live in this country for the purposes of seeking alternative employment when there is evidence that they have been a victim of modern slavery.

A similar amendment was pursued during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill, when the Government declined to go down the proposed road as they were having an independent review undertaken of the overseas domestic worker visa, including those for diplomatic overseas domestic workers. That independent review by James Ewins was, I believe, presented to the Home Secretary on 6 November last year and published on 17 December, when the Commons Minister said that the Government’s response would be announced in due course.

In his review, Mr Ewins considered as his fundamental question,

“whether the current arrangements for the overseas domestic workers visa are sufficient to protect overseas domestic workers from abuse of their fundamental rights while they are working in the UK, which includes protecting them from abuse that amounts to modern slavery and human trafficking”.

His review concludes that,

“the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.

In the light of this finding, he recommends in his review as the minimum required to address the problem which he has identified that,

“all overseas domestic workers be granted the right to change employer … and apply for annual extensions, provided they are in work as domestic workers in a private home … that such extensions do not need to be indefinite, and that overseas domestic workers should not have a right to apply for settlement in the UK in order to be adequately protected”,

and that,

“after extensions totalling up to 2 ½ years, overseas domestic workers are required to leave the UK”,

with this extension being, as I said, the minimum required to give effective protection to those overseas domestic workers who are being abused in the UK.

Mr Ewins also stated in his review that the rights that he is proposing should be granted to all overseas domestic workers, with no different treatment between,

“seriously abused, mildly abused and non-abused workers”,

and that,

“overseas domestic workers must be given a real opportunity to receive information, advice and support concerning their rights while at work in the UK”,

if the essential changes that he has proposed to the terms of the visa are to be of practical help to such workers. He also comments that implementation of his recommendations,

“will provide data, information and intelligence which will enable the police, Immigration Enforcement or the proposed Director of Labour Market Enforcement, to take intelligence-led steps to investigate and pursue those who abuse overseas domestic workers with criminal, civil or immigration sanctions”.

There are many other important recommendations and points in Mr Ewins’s review to which I have not referred.

During debate on the then Modern Slavery Bill about the overseas domestic worker visa issue and the Government’s decision to have an independent review, the Minister in the Commons said that the Government looked forward to the recommendations of the review. She went on to say that while she could not commit a future Government, the intention was that whoever was in government would “implement the review’s recommendations”.

I do not wish to go over the ground again on the arguments in favour of the terms of the amendment I am moving, as they were spelled out during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act. Since then, the recommendations from the independent review which the Government set up have been published and, in essence, they confirm the validity of the concerns expressed during the passage of that Act, including on the tie to an individual employer. I invite the Minister to say what the Government’s response is to the recommendations in the independent review and what actions they now intend to take, since we need to resolve the issues surrounding the overseas domestic worker visa as part of our consideration of the terms of this Bill. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I will certainly give an undertaking to go away and reflect on the point that the noble Lord makes. I understand what he is saying. I am conscious that we met with Kalayaan on many occasions in the course of the Modern Slavery Act. It does very valuable work on this and its position is very clear regarding what it wishes to do. More particularly, I was hoping we could outline in a bit more detail than perhaps is possible at this stage where the Government’s mind is on this, and genuinely enter into a discussion about the best way forward.

As to whether it would be appropriate that the authors of the report should be there, I hear very much what the noble Lord says. That may be useful, but he will understand that in the nature of the way that government works, I have, as it were, secured a certain amount of leeway from my colleagues in the course of responding to your Lordships’ concerns, and it would be courteous of me to go back to them and seek their approval for that suggestion. I shall give an undertaking to do just that.

[Lord Rosser]

Before I respond to the suggestion that the Minister has made, I take it from what he has said that the Government do not actually accept the key part of Mr Ewins’s recommendation, which was that,

“the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.

I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government do not actually accept that fundamental part of his recommendations.

[Lord Bates]

Were it the case that we did not accept that there was any correlation with the visa tie, we would of course not have made the change that we did in the Modern Slavery Act to say that when people enter the national referral mechanism, and there are reasonable and conclusive grounds, they will have the ability to change employers. I do not think it is possible to draw from that that it is something we are not prepared to move on; we have already moved some way on that in previous legislation.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that response. I also sense from his comments that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Mr Hyland, is also not necessarily fully supportive of the recommendations of Mr Ewins. I thought I had picked up the comment that he thought there might be as much mileage from taking other action as from loosening the tie, which is the key part of Mr Ewins’ recommendation.

[Lord Bates]

The anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Hyland, is independent, and thoroughly and robustly defends his independence. I would simply quote a remark that he made: he felt that a system, which may be included as part of James Ewins’s recommendations, of checks and periodic meetings to ensure that people were aware of their rights and to check on their safety may have more effect in providing a safeguard of the position.

[Lord Rosser]

I think there will be a degree of disappointment at the response we have had from the Minister today, although I appreciate the offer that he has made, along with the reply that he has given and the detail that he has gone into in order to explain the Government’s position. I also appreciate the contributions that we have had to the debate.

Bearing in mind that the Minister has offered to have the meeting between Home Office officials, himself and interested Peers—as I understand it, I think he said that he would consider whether Mr Ewins might also be there—and that the Government have said they will bring forward proposals in response to the Ewins report on Report of the Bill, I certainly have no intention of declining the offer that he has made. I thank him for making that offer and for giving the detailed explanation of where the Government now stand, and I can only sincerely express the hope that we are able to get to the point where the proposals that the Government bring forward on Report meet the wishes of the House and of those who have been campaigning so hard on this issue.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) The primary purpose of the Director is to secure the enforcement of labour market legislation, as defined in section 3(3) of this Act.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Before I start, may I say that I certainly do not wish to comment adversely if the Minister got a little confused as to where he was in his notes, if only because I am pretty confident that that is going to happen to me on probably more than one occasion through the passage of the Bill. It is nice to know that I am already in good company.

As we pointed out at Second Reading, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say:

“The purpose of the Bill is to tackle illegal immigration by making it harder to live and work illegally in the UK … The intention behind the Bill is that without access to work, illegal migrants will depart voluntarily, but where they do not, the Bill contains other measures to support enforced removals”.

Those two sentences are not tucked away at the back of the Explanatory Notes, almost as an afterthought, but are in the second of two short paragraphs at the very beginning of the Notes that constitute the first section, “Overview of the Bill”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

But within the budgets set by the two departments, as we have just heard. I do not think that anyone is arguing against efficiency, but those budgets are being spent, I assume, to their maximum now. So it is a discussion that will go on.

With regard to the point about the regulations and the possibility of extending the scope of the director’s work, the Minister mentioned parliamentary oversight. Of course, that is a very current issue, because oversight only goes so far. Indeed, one might say that it is “sight” but not “change”, because we cannot do anything about secondary legislation.

I want to comment on the points that have been made about trends and the work, other than that to which the noble Lord and I have pointed, on the protection of workers. I realise that the way in which I have worded my amendment was perhaps not the most felicitous. I did in my speech mention things such as monitoring and trends, and I meant that in a very wide sense. I understand, for instance, that the GLA—this is a very important part of its work—has been extremely successful in its relationship with employers and runs a liaison group with employers and agents in the sectors in which it currently works. One might take any survey with a pinch of salt, but a 93% approval rating—I think I have got that right—from employers in their view of their own regulator strikes me as being pretty high, and I for one certainly do not dismiss the points that have been made by the two noble Lords on the other side.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief in responding, with just one or two points to make. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said in response but, frankly, I think that we are making a meal out of not being willing, as far as the Government are concerned, to put the primary purpose of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in the Bill. I certainly do not accept any argument that it would somehow restrict the functions of that particular post.

I appreciate what the Minister has had to say about his willingness to send a letter relating to resources, and I am sure that that will be extremely helpful. It is certainly my intention to come back to the issue of resources in a later group of amendments.

On the issue of the involvement or otherwise of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in the immigration system, the Minister repeated the part of his letter that I also referred to: that the new director’s role did not cover immigration control and that nowhere in this Bill is the director given the purpose or power to do that, and if he or she did they would be acting outside their statutory powers. This is a genuine question and not a challenge, but if the Minister is going to send a letter on resources, will he consider adding to it an indication of which clauses of the Bill would preclude the director from being involved in any aspect of immigration enforcement and control? I ask that partly in the context of Clause 2, which states that

“A labour market enforcement strategy … is a document which … deals with such other matters as the Director considers appropriate”.

What happens if the director considers that a strategy relating in part to some involvement in the immigration process is appropriate? Is he entitled under that particular subsection to get so involved? It would be extremely helpful if in his letter the Minister would address that point. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendments in this group, which set out the Government’s proposals for the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. We also have an amendment in this group calling for the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the existing, highly successful and effective Gangmasters Licensing Authority, with a view to extending its remit to enforce labour standards and protection wherever it is believed abuse and exploitation of workers may be taking place.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as the Minister has said, has already expressed its views, through the use of an exclamation mark, on the number of last-minute amendments the Government have submitted. In its speedily produced report on those amendments—for which we are, I am sure, all very grateful—the committee made a number of recommendations relating to the latest tranche of government amendments. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the Government intend to adopt those latest recommendations and will therefore be bringing forward appropriate amendments as necessary. It would be very helpful to know what the Government’s position is on that point.

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority, as has already been said, was set up in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay tragedy in 2004, when 23 Chinese cockle pickers drowned while working there. In the past two years, the GLA has prevented the exploitation of over 5,000 workers. The question that has to be asked, in the light of the changes proposed by the Government and the setting up of a new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, is whether these changes will address the problem of labour exploitation and abuse across the board, or will the effect be to extend across a broader front a watered-down and less effective version of the current Gangmasters Licensing Authority? If that is the case, this would do little to help eradicate labour exploitation or abuse or, equally significantly, do little to encourage those being abused to come forward.

According to the Association of Labour Providers, which conducts a survey of Gangmasters Licensing Authority licence holders once every two years, this year—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said earlier—93% of licence holders said they were in favour of licensing, 73% perceived the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to be doing a good job and 67% deemed the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to have contributed to a significantly or slightly improved level-playing field. The point about regulation and achieving a level playing field is important because, as the chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee told the Public Bill Committee in the Commons,

“It takes away the cowboys … and the people who do the undercutting”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 20/10/15; col. 20.]

The proposed new or revamped authority, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, will have the power to enforce the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and relevant parts of the Modern Slavery Act of last year across the entire labour market. It will also engage in criminal investigation and enforcement. The setting up of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, as the changed name suggests, will also lead to a move towards what the Government are describing as,

“a more flexible approach to licensing”.

Before putting forward their proposals on the proposed Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Government conducted a consultation on tackling exploitation in the labour market. In the part of the questionnaire on licensing, the Government asked respondents to say whether they agreed that the Government,

“should introduce a more flexible approach to licensing, based on a risk assessment, judged on a sector by sector basis and agreed by Ministers and Parliament”.

Since, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already pointed out, almost twice as many respondents answered no to that question as answered yes, it looks, frankly, as though the Government had already made up their minds on the issue of flexible licensing before the consultation started. Otherwise, what was the point of the consultation when almost twice as many respondents answered no to that particular question?

Unscrupulous gangmasters can of course also be flexible and simply move to a sector where the proposed flexibility of the licensing arrangements may enable them to carry on their exploitation and abuse in the labour market. What firm assurances can the Government give that this would not happen under a “flexible approach” to licensing? Can the Minister give an assurance that flexible licensing does not mean a reduction in licensing? I suspect that he cannot give such an assurance. If it means a reduction, that could threaten efforts in the Modern Slavery Act to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation and to reduce cases of modern slavery. Will the Minister also confirm that there will be no shift away from licensing towards voluntary schemes? Witnesses before the Bill Committee in the Commons were clear that the enforcement of labour standards across the board is the only way to level the playing field.

The issue raised most frequently by respondents to the consultation related to resources, and comments have already been made on this issue. Having sufficient resources attached to ensure that the new authority had the ability to match its mission was a recurring theme, and overall respondents were clear that any reforms would need to be sufficiently resourced and enforced. No doubt this clear response was in part conditioned by the fact that labour inspection authorities have seen steep declines in their budgets over the past five years, including a cut of more than 20% to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Not only will the GLA, in its changed role, see its remit extended to the whole labour market but it will receive new criminal powers of investigation and enforcement that could require significant resources which, if not provided, could then distract from core licensing and monitoring functions.

However, although this was the most frequently raised issue in the consultation, the Government failed to address it in any meaningful way in their response. Instead, there is a suggestion that the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will help to pool resources between labour inspection authorities. Given the existing budgets on which they operate, though, such pooling could not ensure that the proposed increase in workload was adequately funded. I ask the Minister to tell us, either now or well before Report, in the letter that he earlier undertook to send on resources, what the Government’s estimate is of the resources that will be needed by the new bodies that they are creating under the Bill, including, importantly, the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, to undertake the role and remit that they are being given in future under the terms of the Bill—a role and remit that, in many cases, are extended over those that currently apply. Presumably, the Government do not set up new statutory bodies or organisations with defined roles and powers without having a view on the resources that will be needed to enable the remit to be carried out, and the powers given to be effectively applied and enforced.

We have also expressed concerns, in the discussions on previous amendments, about the relationship between labour standards enforcement authorities and the immigration authorities. There is a reference in one of the Government’s new clauses to the new Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority having a working relationship with immigration officials and,

“any other person prescribed or of a prescribed description”,

over requests for assistance. Since there is evidence that, the greater the overlap between labour inspection and immigration control, the less likely victims of exploitation are to come forward for identification, could the Minister spell out in some detail what the parameters will be of the working relationship, set out in the Bill, with immigration officials and others undefined, to which I have referred?

The Bill’s provisions also bind officers from, now, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, in future, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the provisions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has already expressed her reservations about that. Why do the Government believe—I ask this despite the previous explanation that the Minister gave—that this is necessary, as opposed to requiring the GLA, and, in future, the GLAA, to have regard to the director’s strategy? What difficulty do the Government see arising if the primary functions and overall strategy of the GLA and GLAA are set by their own board after having regard to the director’s strategy? What is it that the Director of Labour Market Enforcement could conceivably require the GLA to do that that body might not want to do, and thus appear to justify the Government’s proposal that it will be bound by the provisions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s strategy? I hope that the Minister will respond in some detail on that point.

I hope that I am not abusing my ability to speak on this group, but I also invite the Minister to respond, under this group or in the letter that he earlier undertook to send, to a question that I asked in an earlier group about the protections given under the Bill to workers irrespective of immigration status, and what role the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the agencies that he or she will oversee, including the new GLAA, will play in addressing labour exploitation and abuse in the workplaces of those who do not have the required immigration status to be in this country.

As always, I will listen with interest to the response of the Minister, who I hope will be able to reply, either now or prior to Report, to the points made in response to the Government’s proposals, including the latest batch of amendments following their consultation on labour market exploitation.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, I am a refugee from the employment relations world and the language of immigration is not familiar to me. I know that the Minister himself has a lot of personal experience of employment relations so I hope he will understand that, in supporting my noble friend’s amendment, I have real concerns about why these issues have come up under an Immigration Bill at all. Obviously, I must not be self-indulgent and make a Second Reading speech at this stage, but I echo what has been said that, if this is associated with immigration matters then reporting by vulnerable workers will be even less likely, and that is a matter of some concern.

My other concern is that vulnerable workers can also be British-born. We have heard a lot about how some adults with special needs have been housed in tin shacks and exploited horribly. When I produced a report for the previous Labour Government on construction fatalities, I identified that there were also vulnerable groups of workers who were British-born: the very young, who would not necessarily challenge the authority of their employer, and—how shall I put it?—the quite mature, who were perhaps reaching the end of their working life in construction and thought that they knew rather more about it than they actually did, or perhaps were not familiar with a piece of machinery. So I would regret it if this were seen entirely as an issue of immigrant and migrant labour. Because of where it has appeared in the legislation, there is a danger that that could happen.

I take some comfort from the fact that the consultation exercise was shared between the Home Office and BIS. I look for an assurance from the Minister that BIS will have a very full role to play so that the employment relations aspect of all this—the labour market issues as I know them—rather than immigration issues, will be fully taken into consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

On the strategy of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, was making, it is important to remember that such abuse can be investigated across any sector, so it is not restricted to the traditional areas in which the Gangmasters Licensing Authority operated. It can look at labour abuse wherever it is found, including in construction. Again, I would have thought that that would be broadly welcomed.

[Lord Rosser]

Is it the Government’s position that the resources currently available to the existing authorities will be sufficient to cover the apparently extended role and remit under this Bill of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the GLAA, which, as the Minister has said, will now exercise its function across a much wider front? Do the Government think that the kind of sums the Minister says are being spent at the moment will be sufficient to cover what appears to be a considerably enhanced role for this authority in future?

[Lord Bates]

As I said, they are 25% higher than this time last year in terms of overall labour market enforcement. Are we saying that that is sufficient? No, because what we are focusing on is the strategy. A very important role of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will be to advise the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on what resources are necessary to tackle labour market abuse and exploitation. That is what we are doing, but once we have an overall strategy that says where the focus should be, we would be confident in identifying where the gaps are. We would have more confidence in claims made for increases in resources at that point than perhaps might have existed when we were looking at them in isolation. Again, I would have thought that that would be welcomed.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly asked if we would look at the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Of course we will. We take all the committees of this House extremely seriously. I would say in our defence—as has been used in defence against us—that the report is dated last Friday, 15 January, and it is now Monday.

[Lord Rosser]

I hope the noble Lord will accept that it is dated Friday of last week because the Government were so late in producing their significant tranche of amendments.

[Lord Bates]

Touché. I get that point. The point I am trying to make is a very serious one: that the Government will of course listen to and pay very careful regard to the recommendations of a committee of your Lordships’ House. I will have more to say on that by the time we get to the relevant section on Report.

Will our reforms make it easier for rogue gangmasters to operate without fear of detection? Absolutely not. Our reforms will ensure that the GLAA has tough new enforcement powers to tackle criminals in any labour sector, not just those that are licensed. Importantly, the number of licences granted for 2014-15 was 82, with 27 refusals and 23 revocations, out of a total of 954 licences in existence. That shows that it is something more than a box-ticking exercise: that genuine work is being done by the GLA in assessing the quality of those licences, and we want that to continue.

I have touched on reviews—perhaps not to the entire satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—but I will come back to that issue and set out the position in a letter. The licensing rules contain detailed provisions on a variety of matters, such as what information should be provided by a licence holder to a worker before they start—for example, shellfish-gathering rules on tide, accommodation, record keeping and sector- specific provisions. This follows a model set out in Section 7 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 which allows the Security Industry Authority to set its licensing criteria by publishing a document without any parliamentary procedure but with the approval of the Secretary of State.

I come to the point made on PACE powers—that there is no mention of the new labour market enforcement order offence in the proposed new Section 114B of PACE. Amendment 55, which introduces the new clause “Investigative functions”, provides that the enforcing authorities can use the investigative powers they already have for the relevant trigger offence to be investigated in any breaches in LME orders. This means that where the GLAA has PACE powers for the trigger offence, it can use those powers to investigate a breach. I am immediately conscious, as I read that out, that that does not answer the particular point. Staff designated to exercise police-style powers will be subject to the relevant PACE codes and to Independent Police Complaints Commission supervision. As I say, I am conscious that that does not answer the specific question my noble friend asked, and I will undertake to write to him and to other noble Lords whom I have not had the opportunity to respond to in the time available. I hope, with those reassurances, that noble Lords and Baronesses will feel able to withdraw their amendment.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

63: Clause 8, page 5, line 6, at end insert “, without reasonable excuse,”

[Lord Rosser]

At Second Reading we expressed support for measures to toughen the penalties against employers who exploit employees. However, we expressed our concern about the provisions in the Bill in respect of those who work without leave to remain or beyond the restrictions of their visa, and which classify wages earnt in such employment as proceeds of crime. For employees in this situation the Bill creates a new criminal offence that is strict and without any defence, since it is committed if the individual employed does not have the right immigration status, and could result in a sentence of up to a year in prison.

No defence is set out in Clause 8. Our position is that there should not be such an offence for employees, but we also have an amendment in this group that would provide a defence of “reasonable excuse”. That amendment will provide the Government with an opportunity to clarify whether there is any defence to this new offence and, if they consider that there could be circumstances in which the offence would not be committed by an employee who did not have the right immigration status, to say why they have not included that, or provided for that situation, in the Bill.

What would be the position, for example, of people who were working in the belief that they had the right immigration status to do so—perhaps because they were sponsored by the employer—and then it emerged that they had committed this new offence because, without their knowing it, their employer had not completed all the necessary arrangements for sponsorship? Is the employee guilty of committing the new criminal offence, thus becoming a criminal? Unless there was a defence under the Modern Slavery Act—that certainly would not be the case in the situation I have outlined—Clause 8 would appear to say yes. Is that fair, just and proportionate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

It is the same argument as before: whether the same test applies to people who are here legally—in one form—but are exceeding or abusing the terms by which they are in the UK. The noble Baroness may be saying that if that provision contained the phrase “without reasonable excuse”, it should be read across. But there is no ability to say that you can be prosecuted for the proceeds of crime unless you have a reasonable excuse. It is therefore consistent to apply the same test to somebody who is here illegally as to somebody who is here legally but exceeding the terms of their permission to be here.

[Lord Rosser]

Before I respond to the Minister, I thought he said earlier that he would be reflecting on certain aspects ahead of Report. I wonder whether he would mind repeating what issues he will reflect on before Report.

[Lord Bates]

The short answer is, of course, that I reflect on all the comments made by noble Lords ahead of Report. I have nothing specific in mind, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord came back with a further question.

[Lord Rosser]

Is the Minister agreeing to reflect on the points made in the debate this evening and to come back with a response, negative or positive, before Report? Is that what he is agreeing to do, without any specific commitment?

[Lord Bates]

The new offence will serve as an important deterrent. I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord’s concerns. Although I am of the opinion that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the offence is used appropriately and that victims of modern slavery are protected, I said that I would reflect on that point very carefully, listen to the debate and come back with further remarks on Report. The particular point was about whether the defences are sufficient for those who may have been the victims of modern-day slavery.

[Lord Rosser]

Do I understand that it will not cover the example that I referred to and which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just referred to? That is where an individual had effectively been told by their employer that they could be employed, but it was subsequently found out, for example, that the employer was not properly sponsoring them because for some reason or other they had not completed the necessary paperwork correctly, and therefore the individual found themselves in a situation where they were not entitled to work. That was, in essence, the point I was raising.

I appreciate it is probably unfair to expect the Minister to respond to that point now, but I get the impression from what he has said that the area he has agreed to reflect on is very limited. I would hope that he might be willing to say, without making any commitment, that he will reflect on the necessity of this whole issue relating to the offence of illegal working for employees. I accept that this is not the only argument that has been raised, but the principal argument is that the threat of action being taken will be used to deter vulnerable people who may be being exploited, to a greater or lesser degree, from coming forward to expose and report their abusers. That is the principal effect that this new offence is likely to have, and it is likely to be used in that way by unscrupulous employers. I do not think that the Minister has responded directly to that point and I simply urge him to reflect on what has been said on that particular issue—without, I accept, making any commitment—between now and Report.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to do that. If it would be helpful, I would also be very happy to meet with the noble Lord and other interested Peers, with the relevant officials, to talk through our experience on that, which is what has led us to the position that we have taken, and to hear what evidence they may wish to present to the contrary. I think both sides will find that very helpful ahead of Report.

[Lord Rosser]

In that case, I will not say any more other than to express my thanks to the Minister for agreeing to do that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Identity Documentation

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I add my thanks to those expressed already by so many others to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for securing this debate. It provided us with a real trip down memory lane to be reminded by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey of an early episode of “Fawlty Towers” and then to be fascinated by hearing about his favourite places.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, both Conservative and Labour Governments, and the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, have at differing times expressed an interest in, or introduced, identity cards. In May 1995, the Conservative Government published a Green Paper on identity cards. In 1996, the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place concluded in a report that the balance of advantage to the individual citizen and to the public as a whole was in favour of some form of voluntary identity card, subject to a number of provisos. The committee also stated that only a compulsory card, or one that carried details of immigration status, would have an impact on preventing illegal immigration. The Queen’s Speech of the 1996-97 parliamentary Session then included a commitment by the then Government to publish a draft Bill on the introduction of voluntary identity cards.

In 2004, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee published a report, following its own inquiry and the publication of a draft Bill by the then Government, which concluded that the Government had made a convincing case for proceeding with the introduction of identity cards. The committee said that the test should be whether the measures needed to install and operate an effective identity card system were proportionate to the benefits such a system would bring and to the problems to be tackled, and whether such a proposed system was the most effective way of achieving this goal. It also expressed the view that the scheme proposed by the then Government would represent a significant change in the relationship between the state and the individual—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who was opposed to going down the road advocated by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.

The Labour Government then passed the Identity Cards Act 2006, which created a framework for national identity cards in the UK and a national identity register. The rollout of compulsory ID cards for foreign nationals began in November 2008 and the rollout of the identity card to UK residents began on a voluntary basis in November 2009. The then Government argued that the Act would achieve less illegal migration and illegal working, enhance the UK’s capability to counter terrorism and serious and organised crime, reduce identity fraud and lead to more efficient and effective delivery of public services. That was not a view shared by the incoming 2010 Conservative-led coalition Government, who immediately passed an Identity Documents Act cancelling identity cards, which ceased to be a legal document for confirming a person’s identity in January 2011 and ceased to be a valid travel document. However, as has been said, the UK Border Agency continues to issue biometric residence permits to non-European Economic Area foreign nationals staying in the UK for more than six months to provide evidence of the holder’s immigration status in this country.

In his speech, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made his case for identity cards in his typically powerful and persuasive manner, and raised a number of points which require a full answer from the Government if this debate is to have any meaningful purpose and not simply turn out to be little better than a talking shop. On previous, very recent occasions when the issue of identity cards has been raised, both in this House and in the other place, the Government’s response has been that they considered money that would have been spent on identity cards had been and was being more usefully spent on better equipping security forces and better securing our borders.

There are two points on that. First, to suggest that we have improved and are improving control of our borders by using money not being spent on identity cards seems a rather doubtful claim from a Government who are nowhere near achieving their own declared objective of net migration in the tens of thousands, who apparently have large numbers of asylum seekers whose claims they have rejected still in this country without even knowing where they are, and who have no real idea how many people are in this country with no authority to be here.

The second point is that the Government appear to see identity cards as an inferior option to investing in other means of improving security and control rather than as potentially another complementary string to the bow. If that is the Government’s argument and I have not misrepresented it, they have to make their case, including by responding in detail to the specific and clear points made by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about the potential wide-ranging benefits of identity assurance and an identity database. As has been said, many other European countries have identity card systems in one form or another in which they appear to have confidence, so it is not some revolutionary, untested idea.

As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and others have said, we also live in a society where, in the light of technological developments, the amount already known about an individual, or which can relatively easily be found out about an individual, by both commercial and other organisations and the state is considerable and seems to expand by the year. As a result, the extent to which it can be claimed that an identity card system and an identity register represent some further unacceptable intrusion into privacy is one on which there are likely to be very different views.

In the House of Commons earlier this week, the Government were asked by both a Conservative and a Labour Member to reconsider the question of ID cards in the light of issues concerning immigration and the identification, detention and deportation of illegal immigrants, as well as the introduction of digital services, national security and the protection of UK citizens from terrorism. In his speech, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours laid emphasis on how he considered the benefits of identity assurance went way beyond those areas and into addressing the increasingly worrying area of identity fraud.

I have to say that this is a Government who are prone, on occasions, to making hasty decisions on security and border control issues. There was the issue of control orders, which the Government decided they could not countenance but then found they had to bring back in all but name. Then there was the Government’s determination to opt out of EU directives on justice and home affairs issues, only to find, when reason prevailed, that it was in the national interest to opt back in to the key matters. Perhaps this was when the Government finally appreciated that Europe and co-operation were not the causes of security issues and other problems, but rather the potential solutions to them.

Given this Government’s track record in this area of, on occasions, acting first and thinking second, the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours deserves not to be hastily dismissed as it has been on previous occasions. Instead, the case that my noble friend has made today deserves to be considered carefully in the light of the current situation—particularly in respect of increasing identity fraud, the need for identity assurance, the threat of terrorist activity and apparent levels of illegal immigration—and given an evidence-based response, irrespective of whether the Government decide they are going to change their approach or not.

I hope that that is what the Government’s line will be today: that, without any commitment to change their current stance, they will nevertheless set up a review of the advantages or otherwise of the introduction of an ID system giving identity insurance, including looking at the position in other countries that have such systems and the benefits or otherwise that those systems actually bring—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.

In today’s environment, all measures that might further enhance security and address other significant problems and issues, including identity fraud, merit careful and full consideration of their advantages and disadvantages so that decisions made on what measures it is in the interest of our nation and our citizens to adopt are clearly evidence-based.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

In the strict way in which the noble Lord poses the question, of course, the answer would be—

[Lord Rosser]

Yes.

Bus Services: Local Government Funding

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I did not see the programme. Part of my Sundays are taken up with my own “countryfile” responsibilities of helping my children build their country projects—in this case, however, it was a chocolate cake.

To get back to the question, the noble Lord is quite right to point out that there are challenges in funding. However, this is not about apportioning blame to one over the other; it is about ensuring that essential services are sustained, and the Government are moving forward on this. Indeed, yesterday, during the debate on the devolution Bill, I talked about the creation of STBs, which I intend will ensure that local decisions on transport are made by the people who know best.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, given the drop in fuel prices, what action have the Government taken to ensure that there is now a reduction in bus fares to reflect the reduced cost arising from that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As the noble Lord will be aware, one of the legislative proposals coming forward is the buses Bill, which will ensure again that local authorities are empowered—through the purposes of franchising, for example—to ensure better, sustainable fares and the sustaining of essential bus services. That will form part and parcel of the Bill.