Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises a case that shocks and concerns us all. I would be more than happy to talk to her directly about these issues. As she knows, the law of criminal damage is being reformed in other respects in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but I want to make sure that we reflect the often devastating consequences of thoughtless and criminal acts of damage against vital pieces of life-saving equipment such as life belts.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passionate work in this area and her advocacy on behalf of the people of Anglesey-Ynys Môn. I recognise the value that organisations such as the ones she mentions can bring to supporting offenders and families through a challenging time. Our grants programme supports the piloting of new rehabilitation services and the further development of current programmes. I am delighted to be able to say that Ynys Môn’s citizens advice and the Irene Taylor Trust have both benefited from our grants programme, and I look forward to seeing the contributions they make to supporting prison leavers as they make the transition towards a new life.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Buckland
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. I have met in this place families of victims of this appalling crime and worked with hon. Members across the House on the issue. I want to get on with it. The commitment remains absolutely crystal clear. I very much hope that we can have a vehicle to do that. I am going to be doing a sentencing Bill this year; that could be one vehicle. I want to get on with this as soon as possible. We will have the time and the support of the Government to change the law in the right direction.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
At the moment, there exists a loophole in the law that allows prolific sexual offenders to groom 16 and 17-year-olds with impunity. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Church of England, the Offside Trust and the all-party group on safeguarding in faith settings are all calling on the Government to close that loophole to protect children. Will the Minister please meet me to explain why the Government have not acted thus far?
Robert Buckland
Again, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her consistent campaigning on these issues; we have worked together on them over many years. I am interested in the overall issue of grooming because it affects not only children but adults with learning disabilities. The Law Commission is looking at this issue now, but we cannot wait. We need to get on with change. I certainly will meet her and talk through the issues with her at the earliest opportunity.
Victims Strategy
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
Before I address all the wide-ranging and important points made in this debate, which is the start of the process that the strategy seeks to inform, may I pay personal tribute to the late Denzil Davies, whose death was reported this morning? He was the first Member of Parliament I ever met. He was my MP, and although I opposed him politically, he was a huge source of advice and encouragement to me. I probably would not be here without people like him, and I want to put on record my condolences to his family and his many friends. He was a Member of this House for 35 years and served on both Front Benches with distinction.
If the victims of crime are not heard, the interests of justice are not served. If they are not served, what meaning can the rule of law continue to have? If the rule of law is undermined, what hope do we have to continue to claim to be a civilised country? It is as fundamental as that and always has been to me. I spent 20 years or so in the criminal courts, meeting the victims of crime every day of my professional life. I have met thousands of people of all ages, from all backgrounds. I have admired their courage and I have tried to empathise with them when things have gone wrong. I have watched human experience unfold before my eyes, and I have done my best to support people who end up, through no choice of their own, in the criminal justice system.
I long ago came to the conclusion that no amount of individual good will or professionalism on the part of dedicated individuals in the system could replace a more systematic approach to the care of victims and witnesses. My former colleague on the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), is right to bring the two subjects together. They are indistinguishable in my mind, because there are many people who, while they have not been a direct victim, will have witnessed some appalling events and have to live with the consequences, as well as go through the ordeal of having to give evidence.
What does it mean for a victim to seek and obtain justice? Obviously, the outcome of a criminal case is important. Rightly, we have independent judges and juries who make those decisions every day of the working week. Putting that to one side, however, I think that what it means for victims is not having to reinvent the wheel every time they come into contact with the various agencies that are responsible for the criminal justice service: not having to repeat their stories, their needs and the specific support to which they are entitled. As Members have rightly pointed out today, it also means that the authorities do not talk in jargon, but, in the words of a member of the victim liaison unit at the Crown Prosecution Service office in Yorkshire and Humberside, “speak in human being”.
I could not have put it better than that member of the team in Leeds whose job is to write letters, day in day out, to victims of crime. I pay tribute to the team’s work: they provide a particularly good example of how to do that. We in the House, who deal with thousands of letters every week, perhaps find letter-writing run of the mill, but to a victim of crime, receiving a letter from someone in authority in the CPS or the police is a significant moment. We really must do better, and get it right. I am glad to note that the CPS is redoubling its efforts, working across England and Wales to improve that vital process.
At the beginning of the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), spoke about the seamless support that victims and witnesses deserve. That, in two words, encompasses the approach set out in the Government’s strategy. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talked about the sentencing process. Again, I think that the need for the authorities to make their position clear and understandable at the right time has never been more important.
As part of my role as Solicitor General, I often conduct “unduly lenient” sentence reviews, appearing as an advocate for the Government in the Court of Appeal, so I continue to meet the victims of what are often very serious crimes, and I can tell from their faces that the process continues to be overwhelming for them. It is sometimes very difficult to explain a situation that may seem straightforward to me, but for them is still difficult to process. If we are to get this right, we need to understand that time and space are often needed for it to be done properly. That ties in with the importance of the written letter and the explanation that is given to victims in the aftermath of a conviction, a sentence or, indeed, an acquittal. I pay tribute to the groups in the third sector that do so much advocacy for victims and their families in such circumstances.
I will never forget meeting the mother of a murdered child, whose then partner—not the child’s father—had perpetrated the most appalling injuries on that defenceless boy. I will never forget the—I will not say “gratitude”, but the relief that I could see she felt that a higher degree of justice had been done when the sentence was successfully varied by the Court of Appeal. It will never leave me, and I am sure that many other Members on both sides of the House will have had the same experience. I think that such experiences are particularly powerful when one is in the court environment, at the coalface, seeing them for oneself. That is why I think it so important for the Law Officers to continue to conduct cases in person so that they can really get a sense of what is going on and can understand and hold on to that vital of experience with the victims of crime.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) understandably pressed us to proceed more speedily with the introduction of a victims law. She rightly said that we need to get the statutory duties right; we need to get them embedded, and we need to provide that systematic approach. We have committed in our strategy to consult upon the introduction of such a law, but it is not just about rights, important though they are; it is also about getting the statutory duties that have to underpin this absolutely right. Far too often, our experience here in this House—I think the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) might agree with me on this—is that we have gone ahead and passed legislation with the best of intentions, and then found that there has been a more than embarrassing, indeed a worrying, gap between the commencement of that legislation and its proper implementation. If we were to go down that road, we would fail victims badly, because we would raise expectations and then let them down. That is why we need to get this legislation absolutely right, but in the meantime we are not just sitting on our hands: we have published a strategy that commits to action here and now. Taking on board the constructive points the hon. Lady made, I think this is the best approach for victims and the interests of justice.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, and I will do my best to deal with as many of them as possible. The existing code has a statutory underpinning anyway, and the parliamentary ombudsman has a role in looking at and reporting on any maladministration, and we will of course, importantly, be looking at how to monitor future performance. The information that we can glean from the work of PCCs across the country about compliance with that code will help us to understand better where things are going wrong, and we expect that information to increase as the strategy is rolled out. That will help inform the important process leading up to the introduction of legislation.
The hon. Lady made a point about the cross-examination of victims of sexual offences—what we might call the section 41 point, in reference to the measure in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 that introduced the restriction in question—and she mentioned the work of the former Solicitor General, now PCC for Northumbria, Dame Vera Baird, and the points made by other Members about this. We looked closely at the use of section 41 about a year ago, because we were very concerned about Dame Vera’s observations. We keep the matter under review, but we looked at about 300 cases and we found that, happily, evidence of the misuse or non-use of section 41 was sparing. In 92% of cases analysed by the CPS, we found no evidence of the improper use of sexual history in a way that would totally defeat the purposes of the legislation.
It is important, however, that we stamp out bad practice and that we train advocates and judges as fully as possible to put up the red light immediately when inappropriate cross-examination is embarked upon, and I am glad to say that all criminal advocates and barristers are now getting training in dealing with sexual offences, in terms not just of cross-examination but of understanding fully the important procedures that have existed now for the better part of 20 years. Without being too anecdotal, I have had professional experience of prosecuting and defending in sexual cases both before and after section 41, and I remember the sea change that took place as a result of its introduction and how alert I certainly was, and other professionals were, to making sure that if applications were to be made that was done in writing before the trial, so that, importantly, complainants and victims were not taken by surprise, which is probably one of the worst things we can imagine: there someone is in court giving evidence about their statement when suddenly they find that wholly extraneous matters irrelevant to the issues in the case are being brought up. It must not happen.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether the Minister will be kind enough to look into the evidence I have on child victims of sexual assault, because I think he might be quite shocked by the data I discovered.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I would be very interested in that. Section 41 is widely framed; it involves not only adult complainants, and it embraces all types of sexual offence, not just rape, important though that is. I would be very interested to hear more about that evidence. She and I have worked together on many Bill Committees as Back Benchers, and I look forward to hearing more information from her.
Spousal rights were raised, as were the terrible circumstances in which someone might have murdered or tried unlawfully to kill their spouse. I understand that the hon. Member for Ashfield raised this point in Justice questions this week, and that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), has undertaken to meet her to discuss it. I reiterate my hon. and learned Friend’s words, because the hon. Lady has raised this matter quite properly in the context of this debate. She also raised the issue of sentence changes to the maximum term for perpetrators of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. We have committed to doing that as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can tell her that I am anxiously looking at a number of unduly lenient cases involving that type of offence and that I get frustrated by the 14-year maximum. I know that it causes judges real sentencing issues when it comes to reflecting the full gravity of the offence, particularly when more than one death has occurred as a result of appalling driving. That point is well made, and we hear it loud and clear.
The debate moved on in a helpful and important way when we heard the input from constituency Members. They referred to their own experiences in their constituencies, and echoed some of the analysis that we can see in the strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) made those points very well in his speech. He reminded us of how far we have come in terms of changing the law to respond to the needs of modern crime—in particular, stalking and harassment. The hon. Member for Rotherham and I have worked on those issues in the past. I had the honour as a Minister of bringing into law the offence of coercive control, having campaigned for it as a Back Bencher. In the past year, we saw about 4,000 such cases, which equates to 4,000 victims of criminality who would not have had a voice two or three years ago. I constantly ask my local senior police officers about their experience of rolling out and using that new offence, and I am glad to say that there is an increasing understanding of its complexities.
Clare’s law was also mentioned. It is among the many key changes that the Government have introduced to safeguard and protect those who have either been the victims of crime or are at risk. I was particularly proud of our decision to place domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, bringing into force legislation that had been passed under the previous Government.
I have omitted to mention pre-trial counselling, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham and others have referred. There is a legitimate question about ensuring that the evidence of victims and witnesses is preserved and protected in a way that minimises the risk of its being undermined in cross-examination, but plenty of professionals out there have the training and understanding to know that. Where we have suitably qualified psychiatrists or other mental health professionals, there should in my view be no bar to the sort of general counselling help that would be of real value to people who are experiencing some form of trauma as a result of what has happened to them. With those safeguards, I am sure that more can be done to support victims, who often have to wait too long between the offence and the trial or the sentencing process.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) drew our attention at length to the Scottish experience, as he is wont to do, and I make no criticism of him for that. He knows from previous answers that I have given to him and his colleagues that I am always alive to and interested in the Scottish experience. Indeed, history teaches us that many of the innovations brought in via the Scottish criminal justice system have been adapted here in England and Wales, and I see no reason for that to stop. That is why his contribution was particularly valuable today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke with some force about his local experiences and the work being done by people such as the Donovans, who are an inspiration to many. His speech saw the welcome introduction of the theme of restorative justice, another issue in which I have taken a long and deep interest. Restorative justice must be victim led, and there are various scenarios where it works most powerfully.
Having spoken to victims who have availed themselves of face-to-face meetings with perpetrators, often in a prison setting, I know that the sense not just of closure, but of regaining control that victims can get is a powerful factor. I was glad that the coalition Government placed restorative justice on a firmer statutory footing in previous legislation, because we see it at all levels, particularly in youth offending, where it can be extremely powerful to bring a young offender face to face with their victim. As long as restorative justice is led by the victim—it is not a substitute for more appropriate action where necessary—then it is a valuable tool.
The hon. Member for Rotherham made an important speech that dealt in particular with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. She knows that the Government have committed to a review of the scheme; we have already committed to an important change to the “under the same roof” rule, which will be brought into force as soon as is practicable. She made other points about the position that people, particularly young people, will often be put into when it comes to consent.
The hon. Lady and I worked on the Serious Crime Act 2015 when it was in Committee, where we removed any suggestion that children were somehow impliedly consenting to sexual conduct when they were under the age of 16. If she remembers, we removed phrases such as “child prostitute” from the law. We tried in a constructive way to reset the clock when it comes to the protection of children, and let me be absolutely clear that victims who have been groomed should never be treated as if they consented. Let that message go out loud and clear to whoever needs to hear it. I am glad to say that the CICA has revised its staff guidance. That was done with engagement with the third sector, so I am interested to know of any instances where that concept of implied consent is somehow being reintroduced into the process when Parliament made it clear that it has no place in criminal law.
The hon. Lady also made other important points about unspent criminal convictions. Again, that issue must never be the subject of generalisation, and CICA claims officers should take into account the reasons for criminal behaviour when considering unspent convictions that do not result in a custodial sentence or community order. In other words, look at the person, not just the lines on a page. While it would be wrong of me to seek to intervene in individual cases—the CICA is independent—this is a useful opportunity for us to make such important points.
I get the point about time limits, and I have seen for myself the delay that understandably means that many victims of sexual offences will not come forward at the first opportunity. We are now light years away from the time when witnesses were asked such questions in court. People understand how difficult it is to come forward. We know that many victims often blame themselves for what happened, quite unfairly, and that this is about people doing things in their own time. Again, there is discretion when it comes to applications, but I have heard the point loud and clear today, and I am sure that that will help to inform the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) rightly talked about the impact of domestic violence on children, who often witness it or even hear it in the home. We must not forget the effect of the sheer force of noise on young people. I am glad to note that courts up and down the country will treat that as a significant aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing perpetrators of domestic abuse. The scars might not be physical, but they remain for a long time, if not forever, in many cases.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) made some important points about cases of which she has had experience and, again, made the point that the need to improve practice now was imperative. Understandably, the debate has expanded somewhat from just the criminal justice process, but it is right to say that any victims legislation will apply to the victims of crime. That criminality can extend to major disasters, whether it is Grenfell or Hillsborough, and I am not going to prejudge the outcome of any proceedings, as they might well arguably be crimes themselves, although we will have to wait to see the outcome of any procedures. I take her point about the need for urgency, which is why the strategy does more than fill the gap. It brings together years of work and, importantly, looks to the future in a way that we can get to grips with now.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) rightly reminded us of an aspect of the debate that we have not touched on today, which is to do with what I call hate crime. He quite properly reminded us of the appalling incident outside Parliament. He knows that I and others have supported the respect the turban campaign, and I have supported it in this place and in my local gurdwara in Swindon as well. He is right that we need to take these things seriously lest they take hold in a way that will reflect poorly on our society. Again, he mentioned stalking, harassment and sexual offences in that context. He was absolutely right to do that. He also mentioned the victim’s right of review and I can assure him that it already exists so when the CPS has a decision with which a particular complainant is not happy, they can ask for that to be reviewed. That is happening now, and in a number of important cases it is already there. Can I reassure him that although he then got on his soapbox a bit—and I am sure that he will forgive me for saying that—a lot of the recommendations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others are things that we have already done or that we are doing via the strategy? As DPP, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took through massive changes to the CPS that I believe resulted in a more efficient service that still delivers a very high degree of justice for thousands of people year in, year out.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) brought her knowledge and experience to the debate. In particular, she talked about the victim personal statement, and in a moving way. I know that she did not intend to be moved in that way, but it moved us. More importantly, it informed us. The victim personal statement is a vital opportunity not just for the victim to have their voice but for the court to be able fully to understand the impact on them. That is why I am particularly enthused by the proposals to use bodyworn videos to capture not just what is said but the way in which it is said and the sense that the victim statement should be a living document.
At the moment, there are sometimes one, two or three versions of the VPS designed to update the court. Asking the victim to make a statement again and again is not necessarily the best way to support them, so the concept of a living VPS would really help. Again, I am pleased with the work done by the CPS to co-ordinate and synthesise the increased use of VPSs across the service—it has to increase. In particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, has dealt with his commitment and our commitment to review the Parole Board process, and the hon. Lady’s comments have considerably informed that debate. We are recruiting intermediaries, and Members have seen our commitment to that. We need to make sure that when we use intermediaries, they are genuinely for the purpose of assisting the victim to give their evidence. I have used them myself in cases and achieved results that I would not have dreamt of without them, so I understand and get it. A major recruitment process is ongoing.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought the experience of Northern Ireland as a welcome intervention into this debate. He talked about the wooden spoon, which, in rugby parlance, Ireland have won more than Wales. I do not think I had better dwell any further on his experience of corporal punishment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned Scotland, who are the doyenne of the wooden spoon, although they are getting better. I am talking about rugby union, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I know is a discipline you do not care for that much.
Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(9 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion
I understand the principles and the motivation behind the provisions, but I have some concerns about clauses 16 and 17. As with the right to rent provisions, they will undoubtedly have an impact on legal migrants, British citizens who cannot easily prove their immigration status and ethnic minorities. The measures could lead to an increase in the racial profiling of drivers. The powers are worrying in that they are, in fact, stop-and-search powers. If they are exercised by immigration officers those officers need to be regulated in the same way as police officers are, with checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. Can the Solicitor General spell out how the rights of individuals will be protected, and what redress they will have for wrongful or repeated searches and arrests?
The Chair
Sarah Champion
As I said earlier, we do not have a problem with clauses 16 and 17. The two amendments are designed to protect innocents. If the Minister is able to confirm that protection is in place, either in guidance or in the Bill, we would like to hear it.
The Solicitor General
Let me deal first with the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman about the evidence. There is a loophole involving people who are unlawfully here—illegal migrants—who are driving with foreign-issued licences. The offence will cover all aspects of driving by migrants who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully.
Every year, about 10,000 queries are referred to the Home Office by the police relating to either road-side stops or vehicle stops. We do not have precise numbers on cases where an illegal migrant was found to be driving a vehicle, but of the one fifth of cases related to vehicle stops, about 10% relate to drivers who are in the UK legally. I am talking about a loophole here. I think it is right that we try to close that when it comes to covering all incidents in which the authorities through other intelligence and other reasons to stop vehicles come into contact with people who are here unlawfully. The provision is another important tool to deal with a matter of public concern.
I recognise the reasons behind amendment 75, but in my view it is very broad and very subjective. It will create scenarios, for example, in which a defendant might claim they had reason to believe they were in the UK legally, simply because they had misunderstood the date on which their leave expired. It would be difficult to prove otherwise and then the purpose of the offence is undermined.
Let me deal with offences of strict liability in the context of driving. This concept is not new. For example, the offence of driving while disqualified under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, is an offence of strict liability, so this is not a new departure, although the defence would be a new departure when it comes to driving offences of this nature.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 17, page 21, line 30, at end insert—
‘(10A) Before laying regulations to bring Section 24D into force, the Secretary of State must ensure a pilot of the arrangements takes place.
(10B) Following the completion of the pilot mentioned in subsection (10A) the Secretary of State must prepare a report and lay it before each House of Parliament.
(10C) The pilot mentioned in subsection (1) must take place in a minimum of two police force areas and last for a minimum of six months.”
This amendment would ensure that the Home Secretary conducted a pilot of the proposed powers to allow police forces to confiscate the cars of suspected illegal immigrants before the measures were introduced.
I can deal with this amendment briefly. We have debated the provisions in the clause itself. Several concerns have been raised and several assurances have been given by the Government, but these are new provisions, so the amendment simply provides that they should be piloted before they are rolled out, partly to ensure that those assurances work in practice and partly because, when introducing new provisions of this sort, piloting is always a good idea to ensure that they work in practice. However, the substance of the debate has already been had, in terms of the concerns and assurances.
Sarah Champion
I was on the Select Committee for Transport and went out with the DVLA when it was doing some of its stops with police officers. I apologise for raising this question in this debate, but I did not know where else to raise it. I was shocked when the Minister said that 10,000 inquiries were made to the police last year. I know that the DVLA has vast concerns that it does not have the resources to investigate people driving illegal vehicles rather than illegal driving. How will the police, immigration and the DVLA work together? Also, has he considered the resources, which will be considerable if there are already 10,000 inquiries? Acting on those and investigating will be pretty resource-intensive. Can he comment on that?
The Solicitor General
I will certainly endeavour to answer the hon. Lady’s queries, but I will deal first with the substance of the amendment. I understand fully the intention behind it, but I view it as unworkable for two reasons. First, the regulations will set out the circumstances in which a vehicle may be released from detention and make provision for how vehicles should be disposed of where conditions governing the release of a vehicle are not met. Without laying regulations, therefore, we will not have the necessary legal powers to conduct a fully functioning pilot. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras can accept that.
Secondly, there is a point of principle here that I am sure he will understand straight away. A pilot would require a criminal offence to be enforced in certain parts of the United Kingdom and not in others. Such a piecemeal approach is clearly not desirable from a practical point of view given, for example, that vehicles can be driven across a number of regions. I do not know about you, Mr Owen, but the thought of car chases in 1980s American films is coming to my mind, where people cross a state boundary and offences that might have been committed in one state are not enforceable in another.
The Solicitor General
I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras would not wish us to go down that particular path—it is axiomatic, but it needs to be said. A pilot could therefore create confusion for migrants and complicate matters for the police when enforcing the offence.
As I have said, the chief superintendent, David Snelling, indicated to the Public Bill Committee in his evidence how the offence could work in practice. He explained that the police would first have cause to stop a vehicle and would then, as appropriate, ascertain the circumstances of the driver. If it is found that the driver is here illegally, the detention provisions can apply. The police are well versed in general processes relating to detaining, releasing and disposing of vehicles, so there are no new processes in the clause that might justify a pilot.
I will attempt to deal with the concerns of the hon. Member for Rotherham. The statistics that I mentioned concerned referrals to the Home Office. There is already a high degree of joint working and information sharing, which is proving an effective means for targeting and appropriately identifying people who are here unlawfully. On resources, for example training, the Home Office has been working with the police on developing the proposals and will continue to examine the potential need for further training with police colleagues. However, as I have said, these are not new types of power, so there is no absolutely overwhelming need for a complete start again on training.
I am assured that immigration resources are already in place and, as I said, this is not about a sudden general expansion in our expectation of how the police are going to behave. This is not an encouragement to the police to start randomly stopping people, which would of course have a huge impact on resources. Intelligence-led policing is not only intelligent, it is efficient. For those reasons, I hope that I have answered the genuine concerns that the hon. Lady raised.
Sarah Champion
With respect to the Minister, I am not concerned about resources for training; I am concerned about resources to have the police officers who can go out, stop or go into premises. In the Home Office cases that I get, a lot of the delays in deportation are caused by a lack of staff to carry out the work. Can the Minister reassure us that if we agree to this legislation, the police have the resources to act on it?
The Solicitor General
Yes, I can. Perhaps I have not clearly outlined that we do not expect police officers to take on a whole new swathe of different inquiries, independent of already existing intelligence and information; rather, this provision is a bolt-on. It allows police officers to follow another reasonable line of inquiry as a result of the intelligence they have already obtained. The scenario that the hon. Lady is concerned about is not one that is going to come to fruition. This is about putting another tool in the box, rather than an expectation that there are suddenly going to be new independent operations as a result of these new powers. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance.
Immigration Bill (Tenth sitting)
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(9 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General
I entirely agree. If their operations relate to other intelligence—for example, on organised fare dodging or some sort of illegal activity on the tube that was either antisocial or worse—then clearly, that joint working would be very important and would reflect the best intelligence-led operations. We are all keen to eliminate a random use of these powers that would be arbitrary and would not, in my judgment—and I am sure, in any reasonable person’s judgment—reflect the criteria set out in the Singh case and reflected in guidance ever since.
Sarah Champion
Opposition Members have real concerns about community cohesion and racial profiling, and it sounds as if the Minister too is concerned that the powers should not be used inappropriately. I appreciate what he said in relation to my hon. and learned Friend and the guidance notes. Would the Minister therefore commit to conducting a review to make sure that these powers are not overused, and that our concerns are just concerns and not reality?
The Solicitor General
I fully expect that any revised guidance notes published to reflect any changes passed in this Act will be a faithful reflection of the case law as we have outlined it today. I am absolutely sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will keep these matters under continuous review. If, indeed, a body of evidence emerges that challenges the position I have outlined today, I am sure that colleagues would look at that. It would perhaps be wrong of me to commit to anything specific today, but the hon. Lady has placed her concerns on the record for all to hear, and I am sure that the observations that we have made in this debate will be heard in another place and at other stages before the Bill, as we hope, eventually becomes law.
The final point I want to make is that I do not think that anybody wants to see the lawful and proportionate operations of our immigration authorities severely hampered. My genuine fear is that however well intentioned this amendment might be, it would lead to a hampering of those operations. Therefore, for those reasons, I urge Opposition Members to withdraw the amendment.
The Solicitor General
We have already dealt with some of the important provisions of clause 19, so I will try to be as brief as I can. In essence, clause 19 will amend schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to provide clear powers for immigration officers—when, for example, they are examining a person to see whether their leave should be curtailed—to search premises for evidence of such purposes. It would also update existing powers to seize documents to include those held in electronic form. As we know, immigration officers may examine a person to establish whether they require leave to be here in the UK and, where leave is required, whether they already have leave or if it should be given, including the period and conditions of leave. However, the current provisions are not explicit about establishing whether any existing leave should be cut short. Situations are encountered by immigration officers where it may be appropriate to curtail the migrant’s leave because that person was found to be working or claiming benefits illegally or, sadly, had obtained leave by deception. As a consequence, where leave is ended with immediate effect, that person becomes liable to removal.
If the House consents, we will add a power for immigration officers, where they are already lawfully on premises, to search for and seize documents which may support a decision to curtail leave. This does not include documents which are subject to a legal professional privilege. Immigration officers already have powers to search for evidence of the offences of breaching conditions of leave or obtaining leave by deception, but this of course is only for evidence that would support a criminal prosecution. However, in the vast majority of cases where migrants fail to comply with immigration law or do not depart voluntarily, our strategy is to remove them from the United Kingdom rather than pursue costly prosecution and possible imprisonment for minor immigration offences. We believe that to be a proportionate approach which is in the public interest.
We therefore believe that it is more appropriate for immigration officers to have specific administrative search powers where they are exercising administrative rather than criminal powers, and we already have the framework in schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971. I have already mentioned the importance of updating powers so that legislation moves with the times, which is why we now include documents that might be stored on electronic media or devices.
Sarah Champion
I am sorry to labour this point. I hear what the Minister is saying, and I do not disagree with the argument that he is making. However, does the Minister really think that the Home Affairs team, the immigration team, have the resources to go in and do this work? In my constituency, when we have people who are waiting to be deported, there simply are not the officers who can go in and carry out the work. Surely the Minister should be looking at that.
The Solicitor General
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 22, page 27, line 36, after “If” insert “the immigration officer has reasonable grounds for believing that”
This amendment clarifies that where an immigration officer is not absolutely certain that an item which has been seized under clause 21 is also evidence of an immigration offence, the immigration officer still has discretion to retain it rather than being under a duty to pass it to another investigating authority.
Amendment 95 is a minor and technical amendment that clarifies that where an immigration officer is not absolutely certain that an item that he or she has seized under the power in clause 21 is also evidence of an immigration offence, they still retain a discretion to hold or retain it, rather than being under a duty to pass it to another investigating authority. This addresses the very fine line between some offences, where it may not be clear at the outset whether they are immigration offences or not. For example, immigration officers investigating facilitation of an illegal entry in breach of immigration law may encounter forged, counterfeit or improperly obtained passports but may not necessarily know without further investigation whether they are being used by the facilitator or are unconnected with this offence.
Sarah Champion
On a point of clarification, how long can an item be held? For example, if a student has their laptop taken, that will have a direct impact on them. Is there any form of compensation or support around that?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am checking the subsection, but I do not think there is a specific timeframe. I will come back to her, if I may, once I have outlined the position regarding clause 22.
Amendment 95 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Solicitor General
The clause provides a duty for immigration officers to notify the relevant investigating authorities, normally the police or National Crime Agency, where they have seized anything under clause 21.
It also applies where immigration officers, working in criminal investigation teams, have seized anything using their powers in relation to specified crimes that are commonly encountered in the course of exercising a function under the Immigration Acts, such as bigamy, forgery and human trafficking.
It sets out the arrangements for: notifying the relevant authority of the items seized; whether or not the authority will accept the items; handing them over; or returning them if, for example, the relevant authority does not believe them to be evidence of an offence.
In response to the concerns of the hon. Member for Rotherham about length, as I thought, there is no specific timeframe. However, there is an expectation that the immigration authorities will act reasonably. There are obviously practical concerns about retention of items such as laptops by the authorities. I am sure that they would view it as being in their very strong interest either to return the item, if it discloses the commission of no offence, or to pass it on to the relevant authority, if it were connected with the commission of a criminal offence. Therefore, there is a strong utility argument that would prompt the immigration authorities to act more promptly rather than hold on to items in the way that she fears.
Sarah Champion
I should be grateful if the Solicitor General would issue a statement on that in the guidance notes. I know from the experience of my constituents who have had mobile phones taken that they just seem to disappear, and that seems almost as a punishment or intimidation rather than for a productive reason.
The Solicitor General
I am happy to reassure the hon. Lady in this way. The arrangements in clause 21 mirror the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 arrangements, and that should reassure her at the very least that there is a framework. I accept that within that there will be occasions when individuals do end up waiting an inordinate time for items.
Of course, there are powers in relation to a criminal investigation under the Police (Property) Act 1897. Although I cannot give an undertaking, the points that the hon. Lady has put on the record are noted but I am satisfied that we have a framework mirroring PACE that acts as an exhortation to the authorities to act in a reasonable and prompt way. I am grateful to her for raising that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Retention of things seized under Part 3 of the Immigration Act 1971
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Champion
It is incredibly reassuring to hear that, but will the Solicitor General put it in the Bill?
The Solicitor General
My understanding of what I prefer to call “full searches”—full non-intimate searches is probably the correct term—is that they are never done to a male by a female or to a female by a male. That has been the case for a considerable period, and probably ever since PACE. I might be wrong, but that is certainly my understanding from years of using the code of practice in my work as a criminal practitioner, prior to my entry into the House.
I want to deal with the question of what precisely we mean here. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset adumbrated the point that this is not about an intimate search. This is not a search of body orifices—for example, the mouth. It is what we would describe as a non-intimate search. More importantly, it is not the rather horrific image that might be created in our minds of someone completely unclothed being searched. That is not what happens. The individual must not at any stage be completely naked, so searches have to, in effect, take place with regard to each item of clothing in turn. Of course, that involves looking between the clothing and the skin, because experience sadly teaches us that important documents can often be concealed there, but at no time is the individual humiliated to the extent that they are left without any clothes on at all.
The Solicitor General
We are going to provide additional guidance on the power to search under clause 24. That is for those who are directing the search on behalf of the Secretary of State and those who are conducting the search. Detainee custody officers, prison officers and prisoner custody officers are trained in the use of search powers, which includes strip searches. Detention services order 9/2012 provides instructions to detainee custody officers, and prison service instructions 67/2011 and 16/2014 provide instructions for searching persons in prisons and young offenders institutions respectively. We will build on those and ensure that the new provisions contain clear guidance.
The hon. Member for Rotherham made a point about the wording, “in the presence of”. We would say that the words are clear: it obviously means the person conducting the search as well. I hope that the explanation that I give as the Minister presenting the clause will be sufficient clarification to allay her fears on that point.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for that clarification, and now that he has specifically put that on record, I am comfortable with that. I know that the Minister is always honourable in his intentions. Could I ask him to answer my point about youth offenders? At what age does he think it acceptable for young people and children to go through this search?
The Solicitor General
I was coming on to that very point. The power to search children in this way will only be used in exceptional circumstances. Let me explain the background. The Government’s policy is not to detain children in immigration and removal centres, so as part of the family removal process where children are held in a short-term holding facility a few days prior to removal, we believe that this search power will not be necessary because we will have the travel documents in place already.
Regarding young offender institutions, children under the age of 18 are exempt from the automatic deportation provisions for foreign national criminals, so one ground is already removed. Let me give me an example of exceptional circumstances. A 17-year-old male might be held in a young offender institution following a conviction of rape. He is facing deportation on conducive grounds because of this sentence and gang affiliations. If the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that he may have nationality documents in his possession, then it may be necessary for officers to conduct a full search in the way that we have described. I hope that gives the hon. Lady reassurance that we really are talking about exceptional circumstances, such as an older male who has perhaps been convicted of a very serious offence, where there is a clear public interest in making sure that all reasonable steps are taken before removal from the UK.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Robert Buckland and Sarah Champion(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Buckland
I agree that it would have been nice to have made some of the amendments in the Commons, but I understand that in the other place there is more time for deliberation and for votes, so the fact that we reached this stage in that way does not trouble me. We are in the right place and the legislation is now in good order. Let us not forget that the process that got us to this stage predates First Reading, because there was an extensive consultation process. A consultation paper was issued in 2011, followed by many months of proper consultation not only with education providers and the third sector, but with children and young people themselves, whose views have been brought to bear in large measure in the Bill.
Only this morning I visited one of the special schools in Swindon, the Uplands secondary school, where the Uplands Educational Trust was holding its annual general meeting. It is a new organisation that has been set up purely to start offering post-19 provision for young people who have gone through the school system and hit the cliff edge of transition, which is still a problem that bedevils parents, carers and young people in the education system and beyond. It is an admirable and excellent initiative that I fully support. I believe that such organisations will be the mainstay of enhancing and developing post-19 provision right up to the age of 25 and beyond for many young people with disabilities and special educational needs. Without the input of such organisations, I worry that the aspirations in the Bill for extending provision to those crucial years will not be met.
The message that came home loud and clear from parents and carers today was that although they warmly welcome the Bill, the implementation will be key. Once again I heard from many parents who find the transition period the most difficult one of all, despite the good intentions and the good work of local authorities, such as Swindon borough council. The message that they wished me to convey to the House is that in many cases, involving the parents and carers—the greatest experts when it comes to their children and young people—is vital to making transition work.
If we are to get that right, the code of practice that will be brought into force later this year, as set out in the Bill, will be crucial. I am glad that the code will be approved through the affirmative procedure in this House in its first iteration, with subsequent revisions made using the negative procedure, which should allow for frequent updating. The existing code has not been updated since 2001—hardly the embodiment of the living instrument that I and many others expect the code of practice to become. It is my sincere hope and fervent wish that the Government take on board the failure of that code to keep up to date with modern practice and to ensure that it truly is a living and adaptable instrument that reflects not only the aspirations of children and young people with special needs and disabilities, but the reality of experience on the ground. Implementation is everything.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the very important issue of transition. I share his thoughts and concerns and thank him for raising it.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She and I have spoken about these issues in the past, and I know that she shares on behalf of her constituents the aspirations that I have for mine.
Other hon. Members have mentioned implementation, but it is important to reiterate the point. I stress the importance of the pilot scheme for the single point of redress as regards the appeals mechanism for parents who have met with a refusal or a decision that is not, in their view, in the interests of the child they look after. I argued long and hard with my hon. Friend the Minister for a streamlining of the system. My worry was that despite the proper attempt to bring health, education and social care together, the courts and tribunal system would still be fragmented in the sense of people having to launch and lodge appeals in different formats.
My hon. Friend has rightly placed great emphasis on mediation. I support the provisions that relate to the use of mediation for parents, because we do not want more of the adversarial combat that has bedevilled the fight that many families have had to undergo to obtain SEN provision. It is important that the pilot becomes a reality, that the intentions in the Bill are not left to lie gathering dust, and that there is a proper evaluation of the pilot so that, if it proves necessary, we can go down the road of having a single point of redress provided by the first-tier tribunal. That is important in making the system user-friendly, simple, streamlined and clear.
Some of the most important amendments deal with the extension of the duty on local authorities to identify not only children and young people with SEN but all children and young people with a disability. That is a hugely important concession that goes a long way towards satisfying the concerns of those of us who were worried about what happens to children and young people who are, for example, on school action or school action plus and would not be caught by the provisions. These amendments, which are replicated throughout the Bill, will make a huge difference to the lives of young people with a disability. They also give added impetus to the need for early identification of a health issue. Leaving these matters until full-time education is not good enough when there is so much more we can do during the early years and, indeed, the very early years to identify disability so that, way before the child gets to school, action is taken not only to diagnose the condition, whatever it may be, but to assist them and their family with its consequences.
I warmly welcome the whole-family approach that is now being taken in the context of carers. Together with other hon. Members, I supported amendments on young carers. I was very pleased that the recommendations about parent carers made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, were also taken up in the other place. We now genuinely have a whole-family approach to the assessment of carers, and that is absolutely vital if we are really going to make a change on the ground.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the position of young people in detention. The glaring deficiency in the Bill as originally drafted has now been amply dealt with by the very comprehensive amendments that were accepted in the other place. My friend Lord Ramsbotham deserves huge credit for the tireless work that he does on this and other matters. Particularly important is the fact that the disability of difficulty with speech and language communication will now be identified as a health issue at the earliest possible stage, and I think that will have hugely positive consequences for those young people affected.
I think we can say that this is a Bill of which we can be justly proud and that we will be able to look back on it in the same way we look back on the Education Act 1981, which first legislated on the SEN concepts with which we are now so familiar. That Act is now being succeeded by a Bill that takes on those concepts for a new generation and develops them in a humane, comprehensive and effective way. As I have said, however, if we do not get the implementation right on the ground, and if the local offers I expect to appear across the country are no more than mere signposting, we will have failed. To use a well-worn phrase, this is not the end or the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning when it comes to judging the effectiveness of this historic Bill.