Police Funding
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the responsibility for the sorry Answer which has just been repeated lies not at the door of officials, but at that of Ministers. The Government’s serious mistake came to light only because of work commissioned by individual police forces which had to pay to get access to data used by the Home Office in the new formula proposals because they are owned by a private company. The Home Office sent a letter dated 5 November to Devon and Cornwall Police acknowledging the error. When did Ministers first know about the statistical error referred to by the noble Lord just now? The funding formula changes are being delayed,
“to give more time to consider their impact”.
For how long, the Minister did not say, so perhaps he can confirm the situation.
So that there is full transparency in considering the impact of any changes, will the Government ensure that any data on which they are basing funding decisions from next year onwards is fully in the public domain, and will they agree to independent oversight of the review in which there is now a lack of confidence? On what basis will police funding be determined for 2016-17 and when will police forces know how much they have been allocated? Finally, will the Government reimburse the costs that forces have already incurred in arguing against and challenging what the Government now admit is an erroneous formula?
Lord Bates
My Lords, first, the responsibility lies with Ministers. I have repeated an apology, which as Minister in the Lords I make to this House, for the error. Ministerial responsibility is clear on that.
On the specifics, the letter was sent on 5 November to Devon and Cornwall Police and the first the Policing Minister knew of that was when it was drawn to his attention on Friday 6 November and the decision was taken today, on Monday. The proposal put forward to address this error is that the proposed introduction of the new formula, which was to come into effect in the new financial year—April 2016-17—will now be delayed. The initial plan is that it will be delayed for a year, but at this point we are talking about very soon after. We realise that we have shaken a lot of confidence in the process, and it is very important that we talk to police and crime commissioners, chief constables and others, to make sure that we get this absolutely right.
On the cost issue, that will be looked at as part of the overall review into how this happened, but more importantly, how we move forward with the system that will command the confidence of the police. On the question of when people will know, the comprehensive spending review will report in the Autumn Statement on 27 November, and traditionally the police grant is announced on about 17 December. The specific force allocations will be known on 17 December and the broad envelope will be known on 27 November.
On independent oversight, which is very important, my right honourable friend the Policing Minister has indicated that he will seek independent oversight of the statistical process and the input of data into the system, but again we are genuinely contrite about the error and want to make sure that we get it right.
Islam
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate raises a very important issue about education. I think that education is the cornerstone of all progressive societies. The Near Neighbours scheme, for example, run by the Church of England, is a great scheme which brings communities together, irrespective of faith and denomination, to ensure that good and sensible values—the prevailing values; we often talk about British values but ultimately they are the human values we all share—prevail in a modern, progressive Britain.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister made reference to a comment by the Prime Minister. Does the Minister accept that the Prime Minister made a comment about sections of the Muslim community quietly condoning extremism, and that that risks causing division and fuelling resentment which will be counterproductive to the Government’s recently published counter-extremism strategy, which quite rightly focuses on building cohesive communities?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure the noble Lord has read the strategy; its foreword is by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the one leading on this strategy of countering extremism. It is about bringing together people of all communities, of all faiths and none, to ensure that we can tackle extremism in all its ugly guises—whether it is those who seek to hijack a noble religion, as we currently find in the religion of Islam, or those who use race and religion to divide society. We must unite against all such extremism.
Aviation Security
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons. We certainly wish to associate ourselves with the condolences expressed in the Statement to the families of the 224 people who have lost their lives.
The Government have said that they still cannot be certain what caused the loss of the Russian MetroJet aircraft, but that they are reaching the view that a bomb on board is a significant possibility. That view is based on a review of all the information available to the Government, some of which cannot be disclosed. However, even without knowing the evidence, I am sure that the Government’s prompt decision to advise against all but essential travel by air to or from Sharm el-Sheikh airport, with the consequence that all UK-operated flights to and from the airport have been suspended, has been made on the basis of the need to ensure the safety of British citizens.
The Statement referred to working with the airlines to put in place short-term measures, which could include different arrangements for handling luggage. It said that beyond that, the Government are working with the Egyptians and the airlines to put in place long-term sustainable measures to ensure that our flights remain safe. If the airlines and the Government have now concluded that there perhaps ought to be different arrangements for handling luggage, is it being said that the current arrangements for handling luggage and other security issues—at an airport in a country and an area of the world which, as has been known for some time, is not exactly the most secure one could find—are not as appropriate or secure as they should be?
The Statement says that the Government are working with the Egyptians to assess and, where necessary, to improve security at the airport. Are the Government able to say that they and our personnel involved have been and are receiving all the co-operation they need from the Egyptian authorities on this issue?
What about the security arrangements at other airports in Egypt? Are they being reassessed? Are the Government now also looking with the airlines concerned at the security arrangements at airports used by British citizens in all parts of the world where there are current security and stability issues? Will the Minister also say what kind of measures are being considered with the Egyptians and the airlines in the light of the reference in the Statement to putting in place,
“long-term sustainable measures to ensure our flights remain safe”?
What are those long-term sustainable measures?
The Statement says that the Government have not changed the threat level for the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh itself. How was the conclusion reached that there is no threat in the wider Sharm el-Sheikh resort, given that the Government have decided to advise against all but essential travel by air to and from the airport, and to suspend all flights to and from the UK?
The Statement says that the airline community is putting in place interim arrangements for getting British citizens home, who as I understand it total some 20,000. I take it that the reference in the Statement to the hope that flights will leave tomorrow relates to flights leaving Sharm el-Sheikh, rather than leaving to go to that airport. How long do the Government expect it will take to get back home all British citizens who wish to return as soon as possible from Sharm el-Sheikh, rather than stay until their scheduled return date? Do the Government have any target date by which they anticipate that flights from this country to Sharm el-Sheikh will resume?
Finally, will the Minister say what consular support the Government are providing to British citizens in the resort and elsewhere in Egypt? I note that the Minister said, “we also have” consular staff, rather than what is in the written Statement. Given that the Statement says “will also have” consular staff on the ground providing assistance—implying that they are not there at the moment—is consular assistance not yet in fact being provided? If it is, or is going to be, provided through moving staff from other locations in Egypt to Sharm el-Sheikh, will consular assistance still be available to British citizens in other parts of Egypt?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, we must all add our condolences to and sympathy for the families of those killed in this terrible accident. It is a salutary reminder of the perilous state of the world when terrorism strikes at a place so many British people know from their tourist experiences.
The Government have taken what we believe is correct, appropriate, swift and decisive action, because the safety of British citizens is paramount. However, looking at the precise wording of the Statement, I ask the Minister about the level of certainty of the security information. We understand that the security information cannot be made available to all of us here, and nor should it, but we are still interested in the fact that the level of certainty that this was due to a bomb on board is slightly less strong than I would have expected in the Minister’s Statement.
In looking at the long-term experience, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Clearly, for those 20,000 tourists currently waiting to come home from Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a great deal of hope that they will be able to come home very soon, but looking at the long-term issues, there is no certainty in the Minister’s Statement as to how long it will take for normal flights to resume. The Statement refers to “due course”. I am interested in what the Government believe the meaning of that phrase to be.
I, too, was surprised by the reference in the Statement to the threat level in the resort itself not being changed. That is very interesting information, and I would be pleased to hear further detail from the Minister as to why. The obvious concern of the families of tourists currently waiting in the airport and in their hotels in Sharm el-Sheikh is that, by leaving them there, they are in some danger. It is therefore important that they be reassured, if possible, that the level of threat has not changed. Will the Minister explain that in some detail?
On the general implications, as the noble Lord said, Egypt is far from the only trouble spot in the world. Many countries in that region are affected by the same forces. Will the Minister explain the routine processes applied by the Government and by airlines to ensure that security at airports across the world is up to standard? I ask this because those processes have clearly failed in this case. I would value further information on that.
Finally, will UK security specialists, on behalf of the Government or airlines, be located on Egyptian soil in the long term to deal with ongoing threats in that area?
Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons earlier today on the draft investigatory powers Bill, which the Government intend should receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 comes into effect at the end of next year. An important stage in the consideration of this Bill will be undertaken by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and its findings will, I am sure, be awaited with considerable interest.
We have also had a number of different reports on this issue in the last few months including from, but by no means only from, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the review convened by the Royal United Services Institute. All three of those reports supported an overall review of the current legislative framework for the use of investigatory powers and the replacement of legislation such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
The Anderson report was commissioned on the basis of an opposition amendment when Parliament was asked to legislate very quickly to introduce the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. We argued then that it was the right time for a thorough review of the existing legal framework to be conducted as we, and others, no longer felt that the current arrangements were fit for purpose. Fast-developing technology and the growing threats we face internationally and domestically have left our fragmented laws behind and made the job of our police and security services, to whom we all owe a considerable debt of gratitude, harder.
We support the Government in their attempt to update the law in this important and sensitive area, particularly since the Statement appears to indicate that the Government have listened to at least some of the concerns that were expressed about the original proposed legislation put forward during the last Parliament. However, we hope that this Statement and the draft legislation does not prove to be a bit like some Budget speeches where it is only afterwards that some of the detail proves to put a rather less acceptable gloss on aspects of some of the changes and measures proposed.
Although it is becoming something of a cliché, the need is to secure the appropriate balance between the requirement to safeguard national security and the safety of our citizens, and the requirement to protect civil liberties and personal privacy, which is surely one of the hallmarks of a democracy compared to a dictatorship. The extent to which the proposals set out in the Statement, and in the draft legislation, achieve that difficult balance is clearly going to be the subject of much discussion during the consideration of the Bill. However, the Statement indicates stronger safeguards than were previously being proposed, including in the important area of judicial authorisation, and it appears as though in broad terms that difficult balance may be about right. We will examine carefully the detail of the Bill and where necessary seek to improve the safeguards to increase the all-important factor of public trust.
The proposals set out today do not of course relate just to national security. They also have relevance to preventing serious and abhorrent crimes and apprehending those who commit them, including murder, major fraud and child sexual exploitation. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the far-reaching powers of content interception will be used only for the most serious crimes, as applies under RIPA? The Statement indicated that the detailed web browsing of individuals will not be accessible, which we support, but will the Minister set out precisely what internet activity of an individual will be accessible without a warrant?
Clearly, vulnerability of information has gone up the agenda of public concern in light of the attack on TalkTalk. Since data retention and bulk storage were referred to in the Statement, what steps do the Government intend to take to ensure the security of bulk storage of data by public and private bodies?
The Statement referred to the change of approach on encryption from the possible ban previously mentioned by the Prime Minister, and reference was also made to communication providers and legal duties. Are the Government satisfied that they can make any such legal requirements stick against some of the largest and most popular online names, many of whom have headquarters overseas?
The Statement also referred to the protection of communications for parliamentarians. Will that protection also apply to people communicating with parliamentarians, whether on personal matters or on providing information? What protection arrangements will there be for sources of information used by journalists? The Statement said that, if it were proposed to intercept the communications of a parliamentarian, the Prime Minister would also be consulted. What in this context does “consult” mean? Does it mean that the Prime Minister would have to give his or her agreement?
The Statement also addressed the issue of authorisation, and set out a two-stage process which is clearly intended to address the twin points of accountability to Parliament on the one hand and sufficient independence from the political process on the other in order to build trust—an issue referred to by David Anderson QC in his report. What will be the powers of the judges involved in the authorisation of warrants process in view of the reference in the Statement to a warrant being “formally” approved by a judge, and will judges have to sign off warrants in all cases? Will the information made available to the judge in order to make his or her decision be the same as the information made available to the Home Secretary? Will the criteria against which the judge will make a decision be the same as the criteria against which the Home Secretary makes her decision, or will the judge have a different remit? Who, or what body, will appoint the judges who will be involved in the authorisation of warrants process? How long is it expected to take to go through the double-lock authorisation process outlined in the Statement, and what will happen if there is an emergency requiring immediate authorisation of a warrant?
One of the key themes of the report by David Anderson was that a core objective for the renewal of legislation concerning investigatory powers ought to be public trust from all sections of our community in the use of those powers by government agencies, since public consent to intrusive laws depends on people trusting the authorities to keep them safe and not to spy needlessly on them. That in turn, as David Anderson said in his report, requires knowledge, at least in outline, of what powers are liable to be used, and visible authorisation and oversight mechanisms in which the wider public can have confidence.
The Bill will go through its stages in the Commons before coming to this House. It is, of course, a matter for the other place to determine, but one can only express the hope that a Bill of this importance will have received full and proper consideration before it gets to this House, although I am sure there will be no lack of willingness in this place to make up for any deficiencies in that regard and to ensure that the powers being sought are necessary and proportionate in relation to the issues and potential dangers they are intended to combat and address.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place. Clearly, we would like to be reassured by the Home Secretary’s claim that the draft Bill is not a return to the draft Communications Data Bill 2012, which the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government quite rightly blocked, and from which this Government now appear to want to distance themselves.
There are some clear and very welcome changes proposed, including judicial authorisation of interception warrants and a promise not to interfere with encryption, but we must look very carefully at the detail of what is being proposed, particularly in relation to what the Home Secretary calls, “internet connection records”. Clearly, there has been a great deal of concern about communications service providers storing everyone’s web browsing history and handing over this information to the police and the security services. While the Home Secretary says that the proposed Bill would not allow that, I will probe very gently whether that is the case, so as to dispel concerns that this is just smoke and mirrors.
Intuitively, the Home Secretary must be right that if the police can use mobile phone data to find an abducted child, they should be able to do so if criminals are now using social media or communication apps instead of cellular data. Our concerns are: first, whether this is technically feasible; secondly, whether it is technically feasible without prohibitive costs to communications service providers; and, thirdly, whether it is possible without the risk of disproportionate intrusion into innocent people’s privacy, whether by the forces of good or by hackers such as those who breached TalkTalk’s security, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned.
Talking to experts, I was told that communications service providers would be unable to tell the police or the security services whether someone had used the internet to communicate, as opposed to just browsing, without storing content. This requires billions of pounds of hardware investment, and even then it may not be possible to tell the difference between browsing and communication. Determined suppliers of applications that enable people to communicate covertly could disguise internet communication as passive browsing, for example. Will the Minister say whether the Government know that it is technically possible for internet service providers to provide a record of the communications services a person has used without a record of every page they have accessed? What would be the cost to communications providers? Has a risk assessment been undertaken of the possibility that, having stored sensitive personal information, that information might be accessed unlawfully?
Finally, in 2005 the police, backed by the then Labour Government, asked for a power to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days—a power that the security services did not ask for and that Parliament, quite rightly, rejected. Will the Minister also confirm whether the requirement to store internet communication records has come from the police alone or from the police and the security services?
Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we should be proud that we have legislation to support asylum seekers who are likely otherwise to be destitute, so should we not be concerned if the reality of that support fails to achieve that? This House has always taken a measured, thoughtful and insightful perspective and has a particularly good track record of protecting children, who are a focus of this Motion.
In 2000, for “essential living needs”—the technical wording of the underlying primary legislation—support was set at 70% of income support plus accommodation and utility bills for asylum seekers, who are prevented from working and therefore dependent on handouts through what is often a lengthy application process. Last year, the High Court found that the Government’s assessment of the amount needed to avoid destitution was flawed and ordered a review. That review concluded that the rate for a single person without dependants was too low, so these regulations increase it for adults by 33p.
Crucially, a flat rate, at just under £37 a week, was introduced for each asylum seeker regardless of age. This change was to “simplify” the arrangements, which I suggest is a weasel word. The Government argued that families have been receiving,
“significantly more cash than is necessary to meet their essential living needs”,
because more is paid for children in a household. So now a single parent with one child receives £73.90, a reduction of £26 each week, and for a couple with two children the total has gone down by more than £30, from £178 to £147. The reductions for the main family groups range from £14 to £39 or in percentage terms from 12% to 26%. I acknowledge that accommodation and the payment of utility bills are also provided.
Let me again stress that asylum seekers are precluded from working and that asylum support, to quote Mr Justice Popplewell in the judicial review to which I have referred,
“is not ‘temporary’ in a sense which justifies any meaningful distinction from the position of those on income support”,
save as regards the non-cash items.
Noble Lords will be concerned about the cost to the public purse of any rate higher than those provided by the regulations, but that cost cannot be significant. The Explanatory Note to the regulations states that no impact assessment has been prepared because no impact on the public, private or voluntary sector is foreseen.
I realise that some noble Lords may be concerned that a fatal Motion is inappropriate, given that these regulations deal with expenditure, but the thrust of my argument will be about how essential needs are assessed and whether the assessment meets the points raised by the judgment. Whatever one thinks about the reference to there being no impact on the voluntary sector, the statement from the Government that there is no impact on public expenditure seems to answer a constitutional concern very neatly.
These changes were introduced in March but were revoked on the insistence of the then Deputy Prime Minister. They were reintroduced just before the Summer Recess. I tabled this Motion after thinking about the impact of arriving in the UK with nothing but the clothes you stand up in, which are probably inadequate for our climate, probably in a fragile state of health, mentally and physically, not being allowed to work and living on sums which I am told are 60% below the poverty line.
Following the judgment, the Home Office reviewed its calculations, and I am very grateful to the Minister for sending me details of the basic clothing that has to be bought and the food, toiletries, travel costs and other basic items that the Home Office has considered. The sample weekly grocery bills included in the package, which are said to reflect the need to eat healthily, would stand some analysis. I do not have time to include all the material sent to me by organisations which work with asylum seekers, for which I thank them, but I am struck by Refugee Action’s research: 45% of respondents reported an inability to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. Concern about a lack of healthy food was very evident, as well as dietary, cultural and religious requirements, including halal meat, and parents forgoing meals in order that their children could eat. It is not the main part of my argument that with few clothes one needs adequate drying as well as washing facilities and, unless you shop frequently, incurring the cost of travel, a fridge.
The court highlighted that the Secretary of State had not included nappies, formula milk and other special requirements of very young children. The Home Office does acknowledge that babies and children have needs different from those of adults, but there is no assessment, only a rough and ready setting-off against the economies of scale one can achieve in a family. For instance, the sample grocery lists are designed for adults and adolescents. Children’s clothes do not feature. Non-prescription medicines for infants are not included. Colic and teething were the second things mentioned by one of my fellow Baronesses; the first was how fast children grow out of shoes and they, similarly, do not get a mention. Perhaps the Home Office was defeated, as I was, by trying to find a ballpark figure for how many nappies a baby gets through. Of course, it depends, but the number cannot be negligible and certainly is not nil. There is additional support of £3 to £5 a week for babies and children under three. It has not increased since 2003 but, in any event, as the court case showed, it is intended for nutrition. To quote the judgment again,
“nappies, baby clothes and shoes which need to be replaced regularly, baby wipes, creams, soap and shampoo suitable for babies, formula milk, bottles and teats”,
were,
“recognised as essential living needs for this group”,
that is, babies and children, but were,
“left out of account by the Secretary of State in setting the level of support for them”.
It may be my misreading, but I cannot identify these essential living needs for babies and young children in the assessment which underlies these regulations.
If simply existing within these constraints is so difficult, living a life in which a child can develop, learn and grow is close to impossible. Noble Lords will be familiar with the duty on Governments to safeguard and promote children’s welfare and with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which include a right to a standard of living adequate for physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development, as well as a right to play and rehabilitation. Toys and books are other items that do not feature in the Home Office calculations. While it may seem counterintuitive to older generations, access to the internet is an issue, as are the cost of transport to a library or to leisure and religious centres and school-related costs. I understand from the Children’s Society that as families now have to prioritise food above all else, social isolation is increasing.
I have focused on children, but I must add that adults in 2014 reported problems in buying clothes, toiletries, sanitary items, kitchen utensils and so on and in making the journeys that would have given them access to sources of information and advice and that they were forced to employ risky and unreliable survival strategies. These problems must continue following the 33p increase provided by the regulations.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these regulations to the special attention of the House on the grounds that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the policy and intended implementation. My noble friend Baroness Humphreys will, I hope, be able to speak to its report. I refer to a letter to the committee from the Minister for Immigration, who wrote that,
“any extra needs particular to children are comfortably offset by the economies available to a larger household”.
He also referred to economies of scale being part of the approach to support for destitute asylum seekers in Sweden, Germany and France. However, the evidence from the Home Office itself in the case last year, quoted in the judgment of the court, was that,
“other EU systems are not directly comparable because EU law allows for a wide variation in practice”.
Having had access to the explanatory material, I am even more concerned about the simplistic setting-off of items essential for babies and children on the basis of economies of scale.
Finally, I am glad to note that when the Home Office undertakes its next review, it will be holding discussions with organisations working in this area. Given the knowledge that they have and the expertise among academics and others, I urge the fullest consultation, not information by another name. The support is designed to avoid destitution. Does it do so? These regulations clearly do not avoid misery. Some noble Lords might consider a third fatal Motion in two days to be a surfeit of opportunities to express our views, but as a citizen, as well as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I am very concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled a regret Motion in this debate. Although I do not want to repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I do wish to make some comments.
As we know, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, support is provided to asylum seekers who have made a claim for asylum, in the form of accommodation and/or cash. The Government first laid regulations introducing a flat rate of support for all asylum seekers of £36.95, regardless of age, in March this year. They reversed those regulations some two weeks later, on the final day of the last Session, as a result of what the then Government described as “reflection”. On 16 July, the Government laid the regulations again; and once again, they provided for changes in the amount of money that could be paid weekly to asylum seekers, and introduced a flat rate for all asylum seekers, regardless of age, of £36.95 per week.
Previously, children under 16 and asylum-seeking families received £53.96 per week, so the reduction represents a cut of—in round figures—about 30%. Yet it has been estimated that bringing up a child in Britain costs an additional £89 per week for the first child of a couple, and an additional £81 for a second child, excluding housing and childcare. Research by Refugee Action shows that 40% of people on asylum support interviewed said they could not afford to feed themselves or their children. Rates of support for asylum-seeking families have effectively been frozen since 2011. Given that asylum seekers are able to work only in exceptional circumstances, the reduction imposed by these regulations can hardly be said to be aimed at removing welfare dependency.
Lord Bates
I am happy to do that. We should constantly be listening, and I know that officials have engaged with people in those situations and are constantly listening to what they are finding and what hardships people are going through and looking at new data which have been made available to them. This is constantly under review; in fact, there is a structured requirement for us to undertake a review on an annual basis. If other organisations have evidence, then let them bring it forward, but noble Lords should bear in mind that we have produced our own evidence in quite considerable detail that shows to our satisfaction, as Ministers, that we are complying with that judgment set out before us. That is the reason why the changes have been made, and why I am asking the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to consider not moving their Motions.
Lord Rosser
The Minister referred to a review in 2016. When in 2016 will that review be completed?
Lord Bates
There is not a fixed time. The normal time for changing benefits, or for a review to happen, is at the end of the financial year. That could not happen this year for reasons set out by the noble Baroness at the beginning of the debate, and also because of the general election. However, the time that we would be looking at those numbers would be at about the end of the financial year, which would be March 2016. We would certainly welcome evidence and data that could be made available before then, either in the early months of 2016 or by Christmas. That could inform our assessment.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I am certainly very happy to look into that further, if that is the case. Additional guidance has now been provided to Border Force enforcement officers to spot children coming into the country unaccompanied, or, for that matter, leaving the country. This is something that we need to look at very carefully. I will look into it and get back to her.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, last Monday, the Minister said that he believed that “imminently, if not already” a question relating to the compliance of supply chains under the Act in respect of its modern slavery conditions was being inserted into the cross-government procurement policy. Could the Minister now say definitely what the position is in this regard? Could he say whether the Government will produce regular statements, in line with the requirements for the private sector, on the steps they have taken to ensure that their own business and supply chains are slavery-free, and, if so, will it be a cross-government statement or will there be separate departmental statements?
Lord Bates
There is an interdepartmental ministerial group on modern slavery, which meets and publishes quarterly reports—it published one just last week on its work on supply chains. The Home Office as it should, is ensuring that we lead by example across government in respect of supply chains. Of course, that question is going to be there in the checklist. It is there in a lot of cases already in departments, where they have obligations under human rights legislation to ensure that they check the status of people who are in their supply chain. We will continue to monitor that, and we will certainly continue to report on it.
Police: Funding Formula
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
No, absolutely it is not, but I certainly join the noble Lord’s tribute to Lancashire police constabulary. It has been judged “Outstanding”, it has produced an incredible performance, it has reduced crime by another 3% this year, and it has managed to increase its reserves by a further 30%.
The formula to which the noble Lord refers went out to consultation. The predecessor arrangements were widely criticised by all chief constables and police and crime commissioners. They wanted something simpler, more transparent and easier to understand and more stable for the future. Invariably, when you consult on something such as that, there will be winners and losers. Lancashire is making representations to Mike Penning—the consultation is open until 30 October —and I know that he is meeting Members of Parliament from Lancashire tomorrow. In the event that that decision stands, there would be transitional arrangements to dampen the effect of any changes in Lancashire.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, given the increase of almost 18% in hate crime, which the Government themselves describe as “deeply worrying”, and the Home Secretary’s statement in the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy, published yesterday, that:
“We will disrupt all those who seek to spread hate and we will prosecute all those who break the law”,
what contribution do the Government think will be made to stemming and reversing that rising trend by their intended significant further cuts in police numbers—a question on which the Counter-Extremism Strategy document is strangely silent?
Lord Bates
My Lords, we published the Counter-Extremism Strategy yesterday and we will come forward with the counterextremism Bill. Part of the work that has been going on is to encourage people to come forward and report hate crimes when we see them in our community. They had been decreasing for a long period and then we saw a sharp increase. That is something to which we need to respond, and we will, in the legislation and in the strategy we have announced.
Taxi and Private Car Hire Market
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very timely debate that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has secured, particularly given the uncertainty that now seems to exist in the taxi and private car hire market in light of the development and expansion of Uber and the recent High Court ruling that the Uber app is legal, and Uber cars are not considered to use meters.
As has been said, Transport for London has announced a public consultation on new regulations on Uber. It has said that it welcomes the legal clarity of the court ruling and that it will continue to gauge public opinion on potential changes to private hire regulations. It says that those have not been comprehensively updated for almost two decades and now need to take account of recent developments and to ensure they are fit for the future.
The Mayor of London is calling on the Government to bring forward primary legislation to give TfL the power to cap minicab numbers, the number of private hire drivers having risen substantially over the past six years, as had already been said, with the rate of applications now reaching 600 per week.
Uber, though, is not confined to London, as far as the UK is concerned; it says that it has a presence in 11 major UK cities, so this is not simply a London issue. The court ruling underlines the need to get taxis and private hire vehicle regulation right. The Government need to bring forward statutory measures to ensure that, when someone contacts a taxi or a private hire vehicle firm, they can have confidence that the firm is reputable, the price is fair, and that their safety and security are paramount.
There surely needs to be a level playing field, which no longer appears to be the case. That is felt particularly acutely within the London black cab taxi trade, which feels that its specific right to ply for hire is under threat and that the demanding standards to which it is still expected to conform, not least in the interests of passenger safety, are not being applied to competing newer operators in particular. No doubt the Minister will tell us what the Government’s position is on Uber and whether they see any need to review the relevant taxi and private hire vehicle regulations—and, if they do, with relation to addressing what issues.
The development of Uber is normally considered as representing a challenge to existing regulated taxi services. However, do the Government see its impact as stretching further than that and having consequences for the level of use of the bus and rail services in our conurbations or on the use or frequency of use of private cars, or impacting on traffic congestion or air quality? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point.
Last week we had a debate on shared spaces and the difficulties that they could create for blind and visually impaired people. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association also has concerns, as has been said, about assistance dog owners being refused access to taxis and private hire vehicles, and has provided a briefing on this point. The briefing states that of more than 1,100 assistance dog owners, 43.5% of survey respondents had been refused access to taxis and private hire vehicles in the past year, even though they are entitled by law to such access without discrimination. The briefing goes on to say that refusal of carriage is so common that assistance dog owners often do not report cases—two-thirds of assistance dog owners who had been refused access within the last year had not reported it. The briefing goes on to point out that, due to the nature of visual impairment, it can be difficult for a person with sight loss to identify the offending driver.
The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association says that local authorities are not required to make disability awareness training a requirement for licensing of taxis, although a Law Commission report has recommended it. The association is also calling for it to be made easier for assistance dog owners to report cases of access refusals and to increase the penalties for those committing such an offence.
In a recent Written Answer to a parliamentary Question in the Commons about what steps were being taken to address taxi refusals for assistance dog owners, the Government said:
“The Equality Act 2010 includes a legal requirement for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to carry assistance dogs and not to charge more for doing so”.
The Government went on to say in their written response:
“In addition to their ability to take appropriate action in the event that licensed drivers fail to comply with this duty, local licensing authorities can inform taxi and private hire drivers of all their responsibilities as licensed drivers”.
That Answer smacks of a Government declining to get involved in an issue of national application and significance, when the evidence available suggests that something is going seriously wrong. It also relates to one of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in opening this debate—namely, where does responsibility for regulation of the taxi and private hire market lie? Where does responsibility lie for ensuring that the regulations maintain their relevance by reflecting changing circumstances, and where does responsibility lie for ensuring effective monitoring and application of those regulations, whether it be in relation to the needs of disabled people, the suitability of operators, the reality or otherwise of fair competition, the quality of service provided or the implementation and maintenance of appropriate safety standards, including insurance?
In view of the apparent number of potential fingers in the taxi and private hire regulation pie, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the matters related to the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles for which the Government consider themselves responsible, and the matters for which they consider other bodies and parties responsible.
A briefing on the licensed taxi and private hire vehicle trade in London has also been provided by Addison Lee. It believes, rightly or wrongly, that regulation of the industry by Transport for London is resulting in unfair commercial advantage being given to new market entrants and it is calling on the Government to bring forward primary legislation to ensure, first, that all operators providing a taxi function are subject to national minimum standards and, secondly, to reflect recent changes in the market, including the business models of new and potential market entrants.
The Addison Lee briefing then addresses concerns it has regarding the Uber operating model, including in respect of insurance and tax arrangements, and concludes by saying that Uber London Limited is not a fit and proper person to hold a TfL operator’s licence and that the unfair commercial advantage that has been given to Uber has resulted, in its words, in the decay of traditional industries that have kept London moving for decades.
There was a report by the Law Commission in May 2014 on taxi and private hire services. That report, I think, said that there are more than 340 licensing areas across England and Wales, but that licensing officers have no cross-area enforcement powers and there are no common national standards. Matters such as whether drivers have disability awareness training or what types of criminal convictions should disqualify a person from working as a driver are left to local decision-making, resulting in a very variable national picture.
The report goes on to say that the piecemeal evolution of the regulation of taxi and private hire services has resulted in a complex and fragmented licensing system with the relationship between taxi and private hire services not clearly defined and with the balance struck between national and local rules lacking an overarching rationale resulting in duplication, inconsistencies and considerable, difficulties in cross-area or border enforcements. Continuing, the report comments that mobile phones and the internet have revolutionised the taxi and private hire trades, yet regulation has failed to keep pace.
In a report dated March 2015 on the implementation of the Law Commission proposals, the Government accept that the law that governs how the taxi and private hire trades operate is old, inconsistent and struggling to deal with internet-driven changes in passenger behaviour. The Government then refer to three taxi and private hire measures that were included in the Deregulation Bill, one of which was dropped when its implications for passenger safety were pointed out. The Government go on to claim that these measures can be regarded as the first steps on a longer path of reform which will be continued in the event that a dedicated taxi Bill is brought forward.
That, frankly, is not good enough, since it is little more than government-speak for saying that nothing of any significance is going to happen for a considerable period of time. The rate of change in the taxi and private hire business as a result of new technology, which has led to protests on our streets from taxi drivers who feel adversely and unfairly affected, and the major concerns being expressed by large private hire operators on top of the inadequacies of the present fragmented regulation arrangements and the lack of clarity about which bodies and organisations have responsibility for taking action on which issues, which I have asked the Minister to address in his response, mean that decisive action is needed with a rather greater degree of speed than the Government so far appear willing to generate. I await the Minister’s reply with interest rather than with hope.
Trafficking: Children
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Of course I can, and I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for the significant work he has done, consistently, in this area. The College of Policing has changed its programme for providing information to and training for police officers on this; we have the national policing lead, Shaun Sawyer, working on that. The task force has been established, and the Crown Prosecution Service is also updating its guidelines and has already undertaken a number of training sessions for regional polices forces. There is still much more to be done, but a strong start has been made.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister will obviously be aware of speculation about the size of pending police cuts. How will any cuts in the size of police forces, of the kind suggested that the Government might be contemplating, contribute to addressing child trafficking?
Lord Bates
On the wider issue of policing, the noble Lord will be aware that the crime figures have again shown a fall in crime. Today, in England and Wales, the figures are down a further 8%—down 30% since 2010—and that has been done under a period of very tough settlements for the police, which we recognise. That is a tribute to the police and also to the police and crime commissioners. This is something we need to keep under review. I am confident that the Government have made it clear that this is a heinous crime; the powers in the Modern Slavery Act offer a real hope that we can get to grips with tackling the perpetrators of this crime and that it ought to be a priority.
Immigration
Lord Rosser Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Where my noble friend is right is that perhaps in the past—the Prime Minister has spoken frequently about this—we have been too silent on what British values actually are. That is one of the things that we need to be more to the forefront about. We have introduced legislation on that and we are going to bring forward more legislation in the counterextremism Bill to talk up the positives of British values rather than those voices that would seek to introduce discord in our society.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Home Secretary said in her speech:
“We must also have an immigration system that allows us to control who comes to our country … The numbers coming from Europe are unsustainable and the rules have to change”.
Can the Minister tell the House, first, whether making significant changes to the rules affecting free movement within the EU is or is not one of the key issues being pursued or to be pursued by the Government in the negotiations with the EU prior to the forthcoming referendum on our continuing membership? Secondly, if changing those rules is being pursued, what has been the response to date from the other 27 member states?
Lord Bates
I think that the Prime Minister has made himself clear that he is not going to give a running commentary on the nature of this renegotiation. It is important that we do renegotiate our relationship on migration and particularly look at those pull factors to the UK, such as the welfare and benefits system. But, of course, there are other things which are drawing people here in greater numbers as well, such as the fact that we in this country are generating and producing more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. Unemployment is continuing to fall and employment is at its high level. We want that to benefit the people of this country—the people who are already here—rather than being another factor in why people would actually travel here.