Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this seems to be a matter of straightforward common sense. When there is a history either in which people have been involved in violence or which suggests that they may not always be in full command of their activities, because of alcohol or drug misuse, those are exactly the sort of people who should be denied access to firearms. The cases cited about firearms being used in domestic violence situations are a particularly compelling example of why this is important.

While I accept that chief officers of police must use their judgment, spelling out in legislation in this way that these are the matters they should look at, and that the presumption should be one in which they would refuse a licence application, is exactly the right way round it. That would then place the onus on those seeking the licence to demonstrate why they are suitable, notwithstanding the history of violence they may have shown or the fact that they were known to have substance abuse problems.

It is also extraordinary to hear from my noble friend Lady Smith about the difference in fees for various sorts of licence. This is surely an example where the fees should be set to reflect the fact that the checks which should be done should be thorough and all embracing, and should certainly cover the matters outlined in this amendment. On any common-sense interpretation of what Parliament should be doing about restricting the access to firearms of people who might be a danger to others, this is exactly the sort of amendment that should be put forward and agreed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have had this short debate on what is a very important issue. The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, relates to two firearms licensing issues which were discussed extensively during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. As the noble Baroness has explained, the first part of the proposed new clause seeks to create a presumption that if an applicant for a firearm meets one of the stated criteria, the police should not grant a licence. The stated criteria include evidence of domestic violence, mental illness and drug or alcohol abuse. While I share the anxiety of the noble Baroness about firearms being possessed or accessed by unsuitable persons, the police already have the ability to take these factors into account when assessing the risk to public safety. I would also be concerned about including mental illness as a presumption for a refusal. It would be wrong for us to suggest that all forms of mental illness, even a past episode, should prima facie disqualify a person from possessing a firearm.

I understand that there are particular concerns about domestic violence and abuse. In response to these, on 31 July, we published specific guidance on this issue which provided greater detail on how the police should handle such cases. In addition to that the revised full guidance, published as recently as October—the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, may not have seen that but it is available—specifies that the police must take seriously non-convictions intelligence and information when assessing a person’s suitability to possess firearms. It also states that any incident of domestic violence or abuse which comes to the attention of the police should result in a review of the current suitability of the certificate holder. Decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis, but the guidance is clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that an application should be refused or, if a certificate has already been issued, that the certificate should be withdrawn. This new guidance is now being applied by police forces.

The proposed new clause also seeks to introduce a requirement that the police must follow any guidance issued by the Home Secretary when assessing public safety. I understand that argument, but I consider that guidance needs to remain just that. It is right that chief officers have the discretion to assess applications for firearms in their local areas, taking into account the merits of each case and the published guide. Chief officers are ultimately responsible for public safety at a local level. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this. The Government have sought to make decision-making a local responsibility wherever possible. I would not want to undermine this.

However, we are ensuring that, where national action can support local decision- making, it does. We are working with the national policing lead for firearms licensing to ensure that police have a more detailed awareness and understanding of the Home Office guide. The College of Policing will also be publishing authorised professional practice on firearms licensing, which will complement and cross-refer to our guidance. I believe that this is the way forward. In order to assess standards, HMIC has carried out a scoping exercise on how firearms licensing is conducted in practice, and we will use the findings from the exercise to drive up consistency of decision-making across the country.

I turn to the second part of the proposed new clause, which seeks to introduce a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to consult all chief police officers before revising the licence fees so that they achieve full cost recovery. Noble Lords should be reassured that consultation with the police is integral to the fee-setting process and we fully accept the need to consider the impact of licensing on police resources. That is why a new online licensing system is being introduced, cutting the administrative burden of a paper-based system. Primary legislation is not required to make this happen. Until we have driven out the inefficiencies in the current paper-based approach to the licensing function, it would not be appropriate to raise the fees fourfold in order to achieve a “one giant step” full cost recovery. The current fees and licensing structure has remained the same for a long time and—we all accept—needs to be reviewed. It is extremely important that we achieve a balance between an efficient system and a proper fee level. For this reason, we are considering what level firearms licensing fees should be over the long term, once these efficiencies have been made. I hope that, having demonstrated to the noble Baroness that we have made considerable progress on these issues, she will be persuaded that further legislation is unnecessary and in a position to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I would love to have been persuaded by the Minister, because the only reason we brought this amendment forward is that the current system is not working. If it were, there would be no need for such an amendment, so it is clear that we are extremely concerned. I was interested in the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the case of Michael Atherton; he said that existing legislation was adequate. I tell him that there are a number of reasons why Mr Atherton should not have had a firearms licence, perhaps most crucially his history of domestic violence. The police wanted to refuse his application, but they were given legal advice that they did not have the grounds to refuse. That is part of the problem: it indicates the change in the law that is needed. Discretion can be very difficult for police officers when they are getting legal advice that, if they use that discretion, they will be challenged in courts. That is one of the reasons we have brought this forward. I understand the concerns on mental illness, and I would never suggest for a moment that anybody who has had a mental illness should not be able to hold a licence. I think, however, that there should be a check on people who have had a mental illness who could be a danger to themselves or others; where it is coupled with domestic violence, for example, then there is a case.

I am also rather surprised by the Minister’s issue on full cost recovery, because I do not think that that principle is applied to other areas of full cost recovery. It does not really explain to me why a fisherman pays so much more to have a licence or why that licence is so much more expensive than a firearms licence.

In the light of the debate today I will take away the Minister’s comments and look at them in Hansard, and for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I assume this is something the British Transport Police wants. I can hardly imagine that it is something the Government are imposing on it. Is this something it has been pressing for some lengthy period or has it been pressing for it only recently?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, indicated that considerable extra burdens have been created for the British Transport Police in undertaking its responsibilities in this direction. We have been made aware of it. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been a very strong advocate of the issue. I am pleased that the Home Office has been able to respond favourably.

Clause 103 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment we are considering, which was moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would create a specific offence of assault against workers in public-facing roles. Reference has been made to various people who fall in that category such as shop workers, and they also include bus drivers and health workers. The proposed offence would carry a period of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Reference has been made to statistics provided by organisations such as the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW and the British Retail Consortium. The latter estimated that 30,000 attacks on shop staff were reported last year. Women comprise a high percentage of staff in shops, and that is the case with a great many public-facing roles. Given that it is their employment, if they see a potential incident arising it is not particularly easy for them to walk away from the scene.

It has been argued that there is no need to create a different category of offence. I think that the issue is fairly clear cut. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have expressed the same view on this issue and we wait to hear whether it is shared by the Minister. However, I think a lot of people feel that those who are attacked and assaulted in the course of their employment are entitled to greater protection than might be the case in other circumstances.

The current sentencing guidelines for assault indicate that an offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public should be regarded as an aggravating factor adding to the seriousness of the offence. However, as has been said, that is just one of a number of possible aggravating factors. There is a wide range under the sentencing guidelines for common assault offences of this kind.

We are also aware that many of these assaults do not seem to be reported where they happen in the course of people’s employment, which is what we are talking about. The survey by USDAW, as I think my noble friend Lord Foulkes mentioned, showed that 17% of retail staff who had suffered a physical assault at work had not reported it as they believed that nothing would be done. There is also a feeling among some employees that many cases which are reported are not prosecuted, even where the assailants are known to the police.

Reference has been made to the separate offences of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty and, in Scotland only, assaulting emergency service workers. The offence in Scotland in respect of emergency service workers is defined by the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 and is, I think, subject to a maximum of nine months in prison or a fine of up to £10,000. Prosecutions using that Act have grown year on year since its introduction. There were 324 prosecutions in 2010-11 and, in total, there have been just over 1,100 prosecutions since the Act came into force, with the implementation of the Act raising the profile of assaults on those who provide emergency services.

The evidence indicates that if we had a separate offence in England and Wales of assaulting public-facing workers—we are talking about people in contact with the public in the course of their employment—with tougher penalties than for common assault, that would increase the likelihood of cases being prosecuted. It would restore what is clearly waning confidence among many public-facing workers that the judicial system will protect them, and it would act as a deterrent, as preliminary evidence from Scotland shows that while the number of prosecutions for assaulting emergency service workers has gone up, the number of such incidents has declined. That suggests that the message may be getting over, but I am afraid that attacking and assaulting people in the course of their employment when they are carrying out that role in direct contact with the public just will not be accepted. There has to be a change in attitude towards assaults of this kind, and I suggest that that can only properly be reflected in making clear that the penalties will be higher than they would be for other kinds of assaults.

The present arrangements in England and Wales do not appear adequate, as assaulting a public-facing worker in the course of his or her employment is not a separate specific offence and is regarded as being only one of a number of potentially aggravating factors relating to the crime of common assault. The result is that such assaults are not regarded as being much more serious than many other assaults in the way that applies, as it should, to assaults on a police officer in England and Wales and emergency service workers in Scotland.

If the Government want to assert that this Bill is about putting the victim first, they should recognise that public-facing workers are all too often victims of assault in the course of their employment, and they should accept this amendment, which creates a separate specific offence, with tougher penalties, for assaults of this kind.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is very interesting that the speeches we have heard have all referred to behaviour which the earlier parts of the Bill are designed to address. Often, assaults arise from anti-social behaviour in the first instance. It has been a very useful debate. The Government cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment but perhaps I may explain why. It has been discussed twice in the House of Commons, so it will not come as a surprise to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that I am not in a position to accept it.

I wholeheartedly share the view of noble Lords that assaults on people whose work brings them into contact with the public are unacceptable. I assure your Lordships that the Government take this matter very seriously. The speeches in this debate reflect our equal concern at the large number of assaults on people serving the public.

The Government entirely agree that no one should be expected to face violence in the course of their work, particularly when they are serving the public. We have a wide range of people on whom we depend to deliver services—nurses, teachers, police officers and firefighters, to name a few. Assault is wrong and a crime, whoever the victim. Transport workers and shop workers also form part of our essential infrastructure, as do many others whose work brings them into contact with the public. Staff of small shops may be particularly vulnerable because they may need to stay open long hours to make a profit and may operate with minimal staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to people who work in the retail drinks industry. It is vital that the criminal justice system treats violence against these essential members of society adequately.

However, I do not believe that changes to the law, or a new specific offence, are necessary to achieve that. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, articulated that view well. I do not consider the proposed changes would mean more prosecutions or warrant the higher sentences which might follow. For example, I think that noble Lords would accept that if someone is assaulted in their own home and must live with the sense of fear and anxiety that that may cause, that, too, warrants a stiffer sentence. Nor do we believe that a higher sentence would necessarily have a deterrent effect. The evidence on that point is decidedly mixed. There is already a range of offences having general application which criminalise violent behaviour, and which would already apply in the context envisaged by this new clause. Further offences would only complicate the law and make prosecution more complex rather than make it more straightforward. I reiterate: assault is wrong, whoever the victim.

All cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police are considered under the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Under the code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction, which I think we all understand. In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, which, again, we would understand. However, the section of the code giving guidance on this public interest test says:

“A prosecution is also more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public”.

That is in the prosecution’s guidelines and is an important recognition of the point which the amendment seeks to address. If the evidence is there, and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.

Finally, mention has been made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee of the sentencing guidelines, which specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so should result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. The Sentencing Council has made clear in its guidance that that phrase includes those who work in shops and the wider retail business sector, which reinforces the way in which the implementation of the law already reflects the concerns of noble Lords on this issue.

I listened to the speeches made by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, as well as the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. It has been a useful debate. I intend to draw the attention of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to the terms of the debate because it reinforces the message that we take this issue seriously in this House as well as within government. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, the one point on which I totally agree with the Minister is that it has been a useful debate. I am really grateful for the eloquent and powerful support that the amendment has received from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Faulkner—before he was elevated to his position as Deputy Chairman—and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.

I am deeply disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who eloquently argued the case that there should be a special offence of assault of a police officer, does not agree that that should also apply to shop workers who are effectively apprehending criminals on behalf of the police. They are doing the same job as the police are doing and ought to have the same kind of treatment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

May I explain that particular discrepancy? We do not ask of people in their normal employment that they place themselves in positions of danger in dealing with potentially violent incidents. We do ask that of the police. That is why all Governments through time have conceded that a special task is imposed on serving officers of the police in the conduct of their duty. That is the reason for that special offence.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

But shopkeepers and others are put in the position where they are not able to get away, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said. They are doing this in the course of their duty and their employment. They are apprehending shoplifters. That is what some shop workers are trained to do. They know they have to do that as part of their responsibility. They are doing the work, effectively, of a police officer. We can come back to that.

The Minister said that this has not been agreed on two occasions in the House of Commons so there should be no surprise that he will not accept it here. But this is a revising Chamber. What are we here for if not to consider what comes from the Commons and make suggestions, proposals and amendments? I hope that that argument will not be used completely as a barrier, otherwise we might as well all go home.

My noble friend Lord Rosser underlined this issue when he said again and again that we are talking about people who, in the course of their work, cannot walk away. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she avoided the trains back from Manchester on which there were football supporters because she did not want to be assaulted. With respect, she can avoid those trains, but the workers on those trains cannot avoid them. They have to be there to run the trains and collect the tickets. That is the difference, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has tabled a lot of amendments to the Bill, will consider that carefully.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Would the noble Lord consider an assault on the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on a train to be less severe than an assault on someone employed to work on the train? In effect, the noble Lord seeks to introduce a special measure for someone who is assaulted in the course of their work. My argument is that assault is wrong; it is a crime whoever is the victim. Let us keep it simple and not complicate this with what people are doing at the particular time they are assaulted.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am not saying that. It would probably be even more heinous if the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was attacked. However, as she has told us, she can avoid those trains on a Saturday afternoon: the workers on the trains cannot. I do not want to prolong the debate as there are other important amendments.

Having heard the arguments, I am happy, between now and a later stage, to consider, with my noble friends on the Front Bench, the unions and others, what the Minister has said, particularly his helpful point about drawing this debate to the attention of the police and Crown Prosecution Service. The amendment might be revised or, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, suggested, we might look at narrowing it down to deal with people in particular circumstances. I hope I will have the opportunity to bring it back on Report and test the view of the whole House. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, to explain the background to the comments that I am about to make, as most noble Lords will know I was a police officer for over 30 years and have seen things from the enforcement side. However, a few months ago a former partner of mine in his early 40s, to whom I was still very close, took an overdose of an illegal drug and died. Hopefully, noble Lords will realise that I am not biased one way or the other on this issue, bearing in mind recent events.

Obviously, I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, and I therefore welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this is not the way to reduce harm. My professional experience has taught me that young people in particular—though, as I say, my former partner was not particularly young, but then everything is relative—take no account of whether or not a drug is illegal, particularly bearing in mind the discredit that has been cast on the system of drug classification, where very harmful drugs are in a lower category and far less harmful drugs are in a higher one. They certainly do not pay any attention to what class any illegal drug might be. As far as I see it, the evidence that cannabis use has been reducing, for example, is the result of information in the media about potential harmful medical effects of cannabis. That is what has really had an effect on people’s attitude towards that drug, not whether or not it is illegal or indeed what class of illegality it is in.

This is a very difficult issue to deal with. As we know, particularly with regard to legislating, all that the manufacturers do is slightly alter the compound whenever a drug is made illegal, as previous speakers have said. Clearly we need to allow our young people to know exactly what the effects of these sorts of substances are and try to persuade them not to take them, bearing in mind that most young people pay no attention to whether or not they are illegal. We should therefore put far more emphasis on and resources into education and far less into enforcement, let alone into making yet more substances illegal.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity for debate. The quality of speeches that we have had has shown that the House is good at debating issues of this type; indeed, my noble friend Lord Ahmad took a debate only recently on this subject. It is a good thing that we are reviewing policy in this area. As the noble Lord has explained, these new clauses seek to address the open sale of new psychoactive substances.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

On that point, I noticed that the title of the new clause says “new”, but that word does not appear anywhere else in the amendment. Does the title therefore take precedence over everything else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the intention of the new clause is to deal with the problem of novelty, and indeed much of the debate has been concerned about novelty and the ability and inventiveness of the producers of these drugs. I will check the wording of the amendment in that regard but, as I am not seeking to make it a part of the Bill, it is not a concern of mine.

Many of these new products are often sold under misleading descriptions but of course are ultimately marketed for the purposes of intoxication, and there are potential harms to our fellow citizens from the fact that they are freely available. The first amendment builds on the provisions of the intoxicating substances supply legislation that previously led to the successful prosecution of a legal high supplier. It is also similar to the legislative proposals adopted in Ireland and Poland. Similar new clauses were tabled by the Opposition in the House of Commons and Jeremy Browne, who was then the Minister responsible for drugs policy, set out the Government’s approach to new psychoactive substances. He also referred to the Home Office’s international comparators study of alternative approaches to drug issues such as legal highs, which we now expect to complete soon to help inform our response.

The Government have been far from inactive in this area of our drug strategy. We are working with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, monitoring the emergence of and trends in new psychoactive substances and updating our legislation following advice on the related health and social harms where appropriate. We are also supporting law enforcement agencies to use the full force of the law where officers suspect that head shops are selling controlled drugs or substances containing them. That is often the case because hundreds of these substances are already controlled drugs in the UK.

Last week, we initiated a concerted programme of enforcement activity to disrupt the market in new psychoactive substances, restricting their availability on our streets and targeting the criminals behind the supply of these substances. As part of this, police have been visiting head shops across the country to send out a clear message that so-called legal highs cannot be assumed to be safe or legal. We are also working with prisons to raise awareness of the risks of legal highs with both prisoners and visitors. The UK Border Force and the National Crime Agency are also stepping up action to stop new psychoactive substances at the borders.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Howarth of Newport, originally raised the issue of what we are doing in terms of education. We are doing all we can to inform young people, prevent them from taking drugs in the first place and intervene early with those who start to develop problems. We want all young people to have access to education and information on drugs so that they are aware of the harms and are able to make informed choices and resist peer pressure. The Home Office ran a communication activity from July to October this year which targeted 13 to 19 year-olds contemplating using legal highs, and we are going to consider using similar campaigns in future.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Has the Minister held discussions with his counterpart Ministers in the education department? The evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee was that the majority of schools provide drug education only once a year or less. As far as the national curriculum goes, they are required to provide some sort of drug education within the science curriculum, but that is just about it. PHSE has only a toehold in school education. This is not the right way to help young people develop the resilience and capacity to take their own responsible decisions. A great deal more needs to be done in our schools.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I note the noble Lord’s point. I assure him that communication across government on this is very vigorous. I am sure he will agree that schools are not the only place where you can communicate with young people. We live in an age where there may be other less formal ways of conveying this message. I think the Government are right to see issues such as this also in those terms. I hope he will understand that our strategy is multifaceted; it is not just the single point that he made. The legal high trade is very resilient. It is inventive. There is no silver bullet for dealing with it. We need to ensure that whatever we are doing is equally resilient and effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth may have been referring to a meeting of the Home Affairs Select Committee last week, at which my colleague Norman Baker, who is the Minister now responsible for drug policy, advised the committee that he is particularly keen that we look at all the options for tackling new psychoactive substances and learn from other countries in that regard—the noble Lord referred to New Zealand, for example—and that is what we are doing. However, even though this area is a cause for concern, caution needs to be exercised before we take any further steps. The possible unintended consequences need to be fully understood. That is why I think that the speeches of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick, along with the excellent speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, demonstrate that they are right to be concerned that the amendment and this new clause are deficient.

With this in mind, the move away from an evidence-based approach to drug harm that Amendment 56NA could imply is not one that the Government can take lightly; I think noble Lords were right to point that out. We are committed—as indeed we should all be committed—to ensuring that our legislative response continues to restrict the supply of harmful new psychoactive substances, both in our communities and online, by providing UK law enforcement with robust and practical powers to tackle this trade.

[Baroness Meacher]

The Minister said that the way forward is more enforcement. Is he aware of the view of the UK Border Agency, ACPO and others that the legal framework and the enforcement behind it is actually not fit for purpose to deal with the particular problem of “new psychoactive substances”, as they are called—although in fact they are often not new?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Enforcement is, of course, part of the issue. If we decide that we need to restrict the supply, we will need to have the methodologies of enforcement. However, I think that I have made it clear that having evidence and information is equally important to underpin any legislative background against which we are operating. There is much going on in this area and I make a commitment to keep noble Lords informed of developments. With that in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I will ask the Minister to clarify one point before I make my main response. Did he say that officers, whether police or trading standards officers, had been going around the country to head shops and warning them of the error of their ways—those were not the Minister’s exact words but that was the general thrust of them—and that those officers were also saying to them that legal action could be taken against them? Or were they just going around and chatting to them, giving no indication at all that they had any powers to do anything?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot recall any such reference in what I said.

[Lord Rosser]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that there had been a reference to such approaches being made. I will make one particular point on that, which is really a follow-up to the point that I just made, even if I misunderstood what the Minister had said.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have come across the point referred to by the noble Lord. The police have indeed been visiting head shops across the country to send out the message that legal highs cannot be assumed to be safe or legal. I think that is a reasonable thing to say. It is part and parcel of the communication that the people who are engaged in this trade need to be aware of their social responsibilities and the legal risk in what they are doing. It is a reasonable task to ask of police, who are enforcing the law in this area.

[Lord Rosser]

I have no problem at all with the police going around and doing that. I was asking: if the police are going around doing that—I have no problem with it; it is a good idea and they should be doing it—are they able to say to those they meet who are involved in that particular trade that any legal action can be taken against them?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If the drugs are illegal, clearly that is exactly the position, and that is the point they make. The assumption those people may have, that some of the formulated chemicals that they are selling are legal or safe, may well be wrong. The noble Lord will know that some chemicals on the list of banned substances under recent legislation—last time we brought in 10 proscribed formulations—may well be present in products that those people may not be aware are illegal.

[Lord Rosser]

One of the main points is whether those are illegal drugs, in which case action can be taken. That is one of the issues around many of those psychoactive substances. If the noble Lord says that the police are going around and saying that some of those substances may well not be legal, can he tell me whether any prosecutions are forthcoming as a result of those visits?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Certainly, if people were found to be in possession of illegal drugs, an offence would have been committed and the opportunity to prosecute undoubtedly exists. The point is that there are people in this business who assume that what they are doing is beyond the scope of the law. We seek to make sure that they are properly informed of the fact that there is no such hiding place. The law is there to protect the citizen, and the current and future drugs legislation is designed to do just that—to make it clear to them that there is no hiding place for them.

[Lord Rosser]

If the Minister had been able to give me some assurance that he felt that action could be taken through the law against people involved in supplying those particular substances, I would feel greatly relieved. However, I have listened to what the Minister has had to say and there have been an awful lot of mays, ifs and maybes, and nothing specific. He is not saying that, as a result of looking at current legislation, the Home Office and the Government are satisfied that action can now be taken under a particular Act. My understanding and the information I have—the Minister may well tell me that I am wrong—is that some local authorities have attempted to take action under existing legislation but have not been successful. However, if the Minister is saying that there is legislation under which we can take action against those people in relation to those substances, I would be greatly relieved. However, I would like to know what that legislation is and what action is being taken.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I promised to keep Peers informed of the outcome of that campaign, and will do so. However, it is quite clear that with some of those psychoactive drugs—I believe that I debated that issue with the noble Lord in Grand Committee, when we passed that legislation—the truth is that people may be dealing in those chemicals who are unaware of the illegality of their actions. I will keep noble Lords informed and I hope that we can move on.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is it not a great difficulty that neither the police nor trading standards officers have the means to test those substances and find out what they are?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

They have access to the means to test the substances, which is a reasonable enough basis on which to alert the people running those premises that they might be dealing in illegal drugs.

[Lord Rosser]

Obviously, I shall withdraw my amendment. I feel that the Minister seems rather nearer to me than virtually all other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate in feeling that legal action might be possible and have some value.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We have identified harmful legal formulations. The noble Lord sat with me while we discussed that in Grand Committee. This House has approved statutory instruments that identify those substances. We are quite clear that our war on dangerous drugs will include the restriction of supply of harmful psychoactive drugs. It does that at present and will do so in the future. However, the development that the proposed new clause seeks to put into the Bill takes this further than what we consider to be our current policy. We ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment because we are working in that area. My honourable friend Norman Baker is likely to produce his views on this matter shortly. I have committed to informing noble Lords on that basis.

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate the Government’s position, which is that if any of those substances sold contained controlled drugs, they would expect the retailers to be prosecuted. That is what Norman Baker was quoted as saying in the press. However, the issue is that many of the substances involved are not illegal, for all the reasons that we have been discussing. That is one of the reasons why we have the problem that we have. I am aware that the Government are not entirely unsympathetic to the issue of law enforcement, even if there has not been much support for that idea from anywhere else in your Lordships’ House today. I am referring to the Government’s approach, which we are dealing with. When I say “legal enforcement”, I mean as per the amendment that I put forward. I do not suggest that people are suggesting that legal action should never be taken.

In the Written Statement to which the noble Lord recently referred, which was published towards the end of November, he quoted the Minister for Crime Prevention, Norman Baker, who said that the G8 member states had,

“identified a need to speak with one voice to source countries, creating a space for dialogue about substances of concern and pressing for domestic controls in source countries and law enforcement cooperation”.—[Official Report, 26/11/13; col. WS79.]

I am not entirely sure what “law enforcement cooperation” refers to, although I am not asking the Minister that now.

I will certainly withdraw the amendment. This has been an interesting debate. I am well aware that I have not had any friends as regards the amendment that I moved. My concern is that there has been a general recognition that there is a problem in this area and that it is getting worse. I do not think that any noble Lord has sought to say anything to the contrary. The real concern must be that we do not spend all our time discussing what to do, not taking any action at all and finding that the problem gets worse and worse, which could happen. Let us hope that that is not the case; I note what the Minister has said about actions they seek to take. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

56Q: Clause 110, page 81, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) in subsection (9), for “the first regulations to be made” there is substituted “regulations”.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

56QZA: After Clause 113, insert the following new Clause—
“Charging of fees by the College
After section 95 of the Police Act 1996 there is inserted—“95A Charging of fees by College of Policing
(1) The College of Policing may charge fees for providing services of a public nature only if—
(a) the services are of a specified description and are provided with a view to promoting the efficiency, effectiveness or professionalism of the police, and(b) the fees are of a specified amount or are determined in a specified manner.(2) In this section “specified” means specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 56QZC and 56QZD, which are on the same issue. Clause 119 deals with consultation on regulations about hours, leave or pay. My amendment, which is probing at this stage, would remove the provision whereby the duty on the Secretary of State,

“to consider advice from the Senior Salaries Review Body or to refer the matter to the Police Remuneration Review Body does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that”,

the matter is so urgent that there is not enough time, or the nature of the proposed regulations makes it unnecessary to undertake that. The duty is to “consider” advice rather than consult, so perhaps the message goes out but one does not wait to receive responses.

In my mind, this boils down to hours, leave and pay. What can be so urgent about these matters that the Secretary of State should not have to undertake process? If they are minor, the SSRB and the PRRB can say so. Indeed, if they are urgent, the two bodies could say, “We appreciate the urgency but we simply do not have time to deal with this”. The provision in new Section 52A(5) is a check on the Secretary of State, so I am concerned that it may be sidelined. The other amendments in this group are with regard to the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to address this important safety mechanism in the functioning of the Police Remuneration Review Body. The provisions that my noble friend’s amendment would delete from the Bill are intended to be used in only two instances. The first is if a matter is so urgent there is not enough time for the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice to consult the review body, which is of course not in constant session. To illustrate that, the Government have in mind a time of national emergency—for instance, ongoing, widespread rioting, or co-ordinated terrorist attacks across the country, or even, because we must always plan for every eventuality, at a time of war. There might be, for example, an alternative process for arranging officers’ shift patterns, or officers might be called to take on special duties that we could not foresee but which might be critical to the national response to an emergency, and for which we would want them, rightly, to be compensated.

Secondly, the provisions that my noble friend has drawn to our attention are intended to be used in situations where it would be unnecessary to consult the review body on a matter. For example, if a minor drafting error in the regulations needed to be corrected it would be inefficient and unnecessary to have to consult the Police Remuneration Review Body before correcting the error. Similarly, if there was an uncontroversial change to employment law that did not automatically apply to police officers by virtue of their unique employment status, of which noble Lords will be aware, we would want to amend regulations to reflect this change in the law without reference to the review body.

We added this power specifically in response to comments by policing partners, including the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, that they would be concerned that not being able to make police regulations without reference to the body, in certain circumstances, could actually make the system more cumbersome. We believe that this provision addresses that concern.

I should conclude my comments on this proposed amendment by noting that in all cases, regardless of whether the review body is consulted or not, a draft of the proposed changes must be supplied to all interested parties before any changes are made, and this includes the opportunity for interested parties to make any representations. Therefore, neither the Secretary of State nor the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice would ever make changes to police officer remuneration in a vacuum, and would always have the input of representatives of police officers and those responsible for maintaining police forces. I hope in the light of my explanations that my noble friend will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it is helpful to have that explanation on the record. On the point about hours, leave and so on in the event of a national emergency—I believe that “national emergency” is being used in a rather non-technical, wide sense—I had assumed that the terms and conditions of the regulations already allowed for the flexibility needed for the circumstances referred to by my noble friend. That is no doubt naivety on my part. As to whether something is necessary, I simply say that it can be a matter of judgment. That is why I thought it was important to understand what was meant here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for tabling these amendments. Clearly, their principal purpose is not so much to be specific but to provide the welcome opportunity to hear from the Minister what the Government’s future intentions are in relation to the IPCC, particularly concerning its independence. Very important comments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens, about the need to ensure that there are suitably qualified people within the IPCC to carry out the investigations that are needed. We, too, hope that the Minister will be able to indicate how the Government see the future of the IPCC, in particular what changes and objectives they are seeking for the IPCC in the years ahead.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, when we discussed police integrity last Thursday, I felt that there was a degree of unanimity in the House. In the debate that we have just had on these amendments, there was also a degree of unanimity, certainly with regard to the direction of travel that we want to see the IPCC adopt. We had a very good debate last week, initiated by my noble friend Lord Paddick, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Doocey for the contribution she made to that debate, and for tabling these amendments today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Tyler said, we need to address perception as well as reality. The IPCC confidence survey reported that 85% trusted it to handle police complaints impartially but we cannot be complacent in our drive to rebuild the IPCC as a truly independent body.

In connection with Amendment 56QZE, noble Lords will be aware that the Government are transferring resources to the IPCC to enable it to undertake all serious and sensitive investigations—an intention that is entirely consistent with my noble friend Lady Doocey’s amendment. An announcement will be made shortly, in line with the police annual settlement process, on the level of those resources. I can assure noble Lords that the expansion of the IPCC is on track and it will begin to take on more cases from next year.

However, in requiring the IPCC to carry out “the majority of investigations”, the amendment does not specify the nature of those investigations. My noble friend Lady Doocey talked about serious investigations and that is probably what she intends the amendment to deal with. Of course, some complaints made against the police are best dealt with at local level. We will still have the police investigating the police at a local level; for example, where it is a matter of service levels or a lack of civility. But I think we can all see that with the more serious investigations the IPCC must independently be in a position to investigate those matters.

As a Lincolnshire man, I am finely tuned to poachers and gamekeepers. As regards Amendment 56QZF, I note that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, are anticipating our direction of travel. I appreciate that the requirement for the director of investigations to be someone who has not held the office of constable in the United Kingdom would seem to provide a stronger guarantee of independence. However, I question how the public’s best interests would be served by the IPCC having to dismiss someone who currently performs this function effectively and impartially; indeed, I am doubtful whether this would even be possible under current employment law.

I am with the noble Lords, Lord Condon, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, on this issue. We need a skills base within the IPCC if it is to be able to perform the task we expect of it. Similarly, the target—and it is a target, even though the Government have all but forsworn targets—of at least 75% of those employed as investigators by the IPCC being from non-police backgrounds by January 2017 is intended to address concerns about impartiality.

However, this amendment overlooks the steps the IPCC has already taken to ensure a diverse and multidisciplinary staff, and the training scheme aimed at those from a range of backgrounds. It is worth noting that according to the latest published figures, the proportion of investigatory and caseworking staff with a background in policing is below 16%. Of course, what is most important is the way in which all IPCC staff work and their commitment to the values and culture of the organisation. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Condon, Lord Blair and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington—and, I hope, the noble Lord, Lord Imbert—share these sentiments. It is good to have such a distinguished group of former Met commissioners participating in this debate. I am sure they will agree that it is the culture of the organisation that dominates the way in which it responds to its independent role.

Moving to Amendment 56QZG, I can see that for the Home Secretary to receive annual figures on the proportion of staff from non-police backgrounds, and the number and nature of their investigations, would provide a degree of detail and certainty as to operational conditions within the IPCC. However, the commission already has a statutory duty to report to the Home Secretary on the carrying out of its functions each year. It already publishes details of the organisation and its investigations in its annual report and in annual statistics. I can see no benefit from prescribing the content of the annual reports in the way that the amendment seeks to do. Indeed, it might be suggested that that is not a very independent thing for the Independent Police Complaints Commission to be asked to do. I know that is not what my noble friend intends but it would certainly add to the bureaucratic burden of the organisation.

Having said that, I agree with my noble friend that the IPCC must be independent and be seen to be independent. In the light of my comments, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Imbert (CB)]

My Lords, as the only other former commissioner here, I feel that I should add my support to their concern about the date.

I have often been told that the best way to catch a slippery officer—one who is corrupt, rude or has no integrity and lies—is to set an experienced, crafty detective chief superintendent, who is honest and full of integrity, to catch him. He knows the moves that that corrupt officer is going to take. It is this experience that I fear we will lose, but we must, in order to show the public that the IPCC is absolutely independent. I agree with the points that have been made about that, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey.

However if we put that date on it, I fear that the IPCC, in its endeavours to get to the position where 75% are non-former constables of the United Kingdom—I hope that that means anywhere, including Australia, Canada, America or wherever—may well select people, whether ex-Customs, military or whoever, who do not have the experience or the time to train properly to catch a corrupt police officer. The date is far too soon. Let the IPPC select people who will make first-class investigators; let us not rush it, please.