Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, at its heart, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill reflects the coalition's determination to transfer power away from Whitehall and return it to communities and professionals. Both parties of this coalition Government support the democratic reform of police authorities. Our chosen model of reform—to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives—was expressly set out in the coalition agreement. In taking forward this reform, we will swap bureaucratic control for democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners in all forces in England and Wales, save for the City of London, which is an exception.

Some have argued that there is a need to delay these reforms. We do not agree. These reforms cannot wait. We do not have the luxury of delaying change when HMIC, the inspectorate, concluded in its policing in austerity report that only four police authorities inspected by it were judged to have performed well in both setting strategic direction and ensuring value for money for their police force. Effective performance in both these functions is essential. Given the state of public finances in this country, it is also urgent. Moreover, the accountability of the police should be to the people and not, as it has increasingly become, towards Whitehall. I shall return to that later in my remarks.

The second fundamental principle to policing in this country is operational independence: freedom from political interference. I am aware that some in this House have been concerned that in altering the arrangements for the governance of the police, this principle, which the Government regard as sacrosanct, might be impaired. There is no necessary connection, but as this is a matter of such importance to us all in this House, I intend to deal with it straight away.

It is important to note that under the Police Act 1996, chief constables had direction and control over their forces and that they continue to do so under Clause 2. Moreover, under the Bill, they will be constituted as corporations sole and will have greater powers than now to appoint their immediate subordinates. To reassure those who remain anxious about the issue of operational independence, the Policing Minister undertook during debate in the other place to develop a protocol in consultation with ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, setting out the distinct roles and powers of Ministers, chief constables, PCCs and other bodies in the new policing landscape. That work is well under way and the aim is to have the draft available for this House at Committee stage.

As noble Lords will be well aware, our reforms of the ways in which the police are held to account are the most comprehensive for 50 years. We have not made the changes lightly; nor, as I indicated, have we ignored feedback on ways in which our proposals could be improved. We are grateful for the input from ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities and the Association of Police Authority Chief Executives, as well as individual forces and all those who submitted evidence to the Bill Committee.

Our discussions with stakeholders have helped us better to ensure that the Bill achieves the commitment in the coalition agreement to have proper checks and balances in place. I should like to say a word on this aspect.

An argument has been put forward that police and crime panels do not offer real checks and balances in relation to police and crime commissioners and that they are toothless, but this is far from the case. We expect the relationship between the PCC and the PCP to be as constructive and cooperative as possible. However, we are giving the PCPs the means to ensure, in the event of disagreement, that police and crime commissioners exercise their democratic mandates in ways that are proportionate, effective and reasonable. Their scrutiny powers include a veto, by a three-quarters majority, over the police and crime commissioner’s proposed precept and his proposed candidate for chief constable; the ability to ask HMIC for a professional view when the police and crime commissioner intends to dismiss a chief constable; the right to review the draft police and crime plan and make reports and/or recommendations to the police and crime commissioner who must have regard to them; the ability to require the police and crime commissioners to attend the panel to answer questions; the duty to appoint an acting police and crime commissioner where the police and crime commissioner is incapacitated, resigns or is disqualified; and responsibility for all complaints about a police and crime commissioner, although serious issues must be passed to the IPCC.

Those are teeth, and they will be strong safeguards against the fears of some in the House that police and crime commissioners will act irresponsibly in office. The Government believe that the people of this country can be trusted to use the power of the ballot box wisely but we are nevertheless putting backstops in place. I should mention here that, elections apart, the running costs of police and crime commissioners will be cost-neutral. The elections themselves will cost no more than £50 million—not £100 million, and not £200 million, as has been put about. We have put all our costings on the web so that all can see how we have arrived at these figures.

I should like to spend a few minutes discussing each of the five areas in the Bill. The first is police and crime commissioners, about which there is little more to be said. Their introduction will focus policing on what local people want, not what national Governments think they want. Work has already begun to enhance accountability across communities in England and Wales through providing access to detailed street-level crime and antisocial behaviour data. This has generated extraordinary interest in the public and counters the argument that through PCCs we are assuming a level of public interest that is not there to drive the model. On the contrary, this shows that the interest is present and requires stimulation.

At the same time, there are key national and international responsibilities in policing to which the PCCs must make strong contributions. To ensure this the national Government, who will refocus their role away from micromanaging local policing towards exercising a better grip on key national issues, have a proper role to play.

The Bill provides for the Home Secretary to issue a strategic policing requirement that will inform the way in which police and crime commissioners work with their chief officers to deliver their forces’ national and international responsibilities. There will be strong duties on them to manage national threats, including through collaboration.

We are determined that when these reforms begin, the transition from the existing system to the new regime is as smooth and as painless as possible for police forces and communities. To this end the Policing Minister is personally chairing a transition board made up of all the relevant partners and charged with delivering a programme of 12 projects to ensure that there is an effective and seamless transition to the regime of police and crime commissioners.

Finally, I want to clarify the position in Wales. The Government have respected the will of the Assembly and amended the Bill to remove the police and crime panels from local government structures and establish them as free-standing bodies, but we have done so without sacrificing the public scrutiny powers and using locally elected representatives. In the Government’s view, it is not in the interests of the people of Wales to have a different governance and scrutiny structure for their forces when policing is reserved to Westminster and to the Home Secretary. There cannot be two tiers of governance for a police service whose officers and assets so regularly cross the regional boundary between England and Wales in pursuit of making our communities safer and tackling crime.

I turn now to alcohol licensing. As I have already said, the Bill will give power back to local communities in policing, and it will do the same for licensing decisions. Alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder is estimated to cost the taxpayer over £8 billion per year, and last year there were nearly 1 million alcohol-related violent crimes. That is a good deal too many. The Bill will address these issues. Last summer, we consulted on plans to overhaul the Licensing Act 2003. We received over 1,000 responses, which are reflected in these clauses of the Bill.

The Bill will allow early morning restriction orders to be extended to any time between midnight and 6 am. It will give licensing authorities the power to take swift action to tackle problem premises without having to wait for a relevant representation from a responsible authority, and it will lower the evidential hurdle for licensing authorities to make it easier for them to refuse or revoke licences held by irresponsible retailers. It will allow anyone, anywhere to make representations concerning a licensing decision, regardless of vicinity to a premises. It will double the maximum fine for underage sales of alcohol to £20,000. It will allow local councils to charge a late night levy on licensed premises that remain open after midnight to help pay for late night policing and other services such as taxi marshals and street wardens. But let me make it clear that premises that close before the levy takes effect will not have to pay.

Following an amendment in the other place, the Bill includes a provision to introduce locally set licensing fees so that the costs of licensing authorities, in discharging their duties under the Licensing Act, can be fully recovered. All of these measures show that we are committed to tackling alcohol-related crime and disorder by giving more powers to local areas.

The Government are clear that no one person or group of persons should take over Parliament Square to the detriment of others. The Bill contains a tough but proportionate package of measures to prevent encampments, to deal with disruptive activity and to give the police the necessary powers so that the space can be enjoyed by all. It will also restore the right to peaceful protest around Parliament by repealing Sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. It will thus deal with encampments not by restricting protest, but by prohibiting the erection and use of tents, structures, sleeping equipment and the unauthorised use of loudhailers in Parliament Square.

I turn now to drug abuse. The Bill provides powers to crack down on the damage caused by so-called “legal highs”. Many of us will be aware of the growing concern about the availability, use and potential harm that they pose. The existing arrangements for bringing a drug under control using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 remain our preferred approach. The power in the Bill to make year-long temporary class drug orders will allow us to take swift action temporarily to ban harmful substances which have been specifically developed to get round existing drugs legislation. There will be no possession offence for a temporary-class drug. We do not wish to criminalise anyone, particularly young people, while the harms of a drug are being fully assessed. We have listened to the representations of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and those made in the other place and we have made an amendment to the Bill to consult the ACMD before invoking a temporary order on a statutory footing. The Bill also allows the Home Secretary to make an order on the recommendation of the advisory council since the council is able to provide advice of its own volition. This underlines the Government’s continued commitment to independent, expert, evidence-based advice.

Finally, the Bill makes reasonable changes to the procedures for obtaining an arrest warrant for universal jurisdiction offences. Universal jurisdiction is a key principle of international justice. It enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted in the UK, regardless of where they have been committed. The Government believe that the requirement to seek the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a case has a realistic chance of success is a fair and proportionate measure to ensure that arrest warrants are issued in a responsible fashion. The Bill is a package of measures, carefully balanced to tackle problems in our society through restoring power to communities and professionals where it belongs. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am grateful for the generally thoughtful tone of the debate this afternoon and evening, even if it was not especially supportive of the Government’s position. Like other noble Lords, I was struck by the fact that it was graced by three outstanding maiden speeches, from my noble friends Lady Berridge, Lady Newlove and Lord Blencathra. Listening to the speech of my noble friend Lady Newlove, in particular—I agree with those who said how moving it was; indeed, she told a tragic story—I was reminded that this Bill is also a social responsibility Bill. I am sure that the whole House hopes that when enacted it will reduce the likelihood of the sort of incident that she described occurring in the future.

As time is short, I should like to confine the greater part of my closing remarks to Part 1 of the Bill. I hope that the House will understand if I do not tackle all the points made, but I hope to touch on the key themes. Something else that struck me in the debate was the fact that many of the doubts expressed by Members of this House betrayed what I would regard as being a preference for expertise over visible leadership, reliance on robust democracy and indeed the good sense of the electorate—a prejudice that my noble friend Lord Howard warned us against at the beginning of the debate. Reliance on the people is not, as some noble Lords have suggested, naivety. It is actually healthy democracy. As against that, I particularly welcome the offer from those who have considerable experience in policing to work with us to engage constructively on making these reforms work. Of course, I accept that there are ways in which they can be improved.

The core of the Bill, however, is about accountability. It is not about operational policing matters. The Bill will support operational matters and will not, as has been suggested, somehow adversely affect them. That is why your Lordships did not hear from me this evening about many operational policing matters, on which Members on the opposition Benches have touched. I agree with those who have said that we have the best police service in the world, but we do not have the best governance of that police service. It is that aspect that the Bill is designed to improve.

There have been many queries as to why the reforms are needed and why they are needed now. Let me touch on this again; I spelt it out in my opening remarks, but it is worth repeating one or two of the points. A number of noble Lords suggested that the reforms are not needed. We disagree. It is clear, as I have indicated, that there are some philosophical differences between us, as well as, I suspect, differences in the assessment of the quality of the situation that we have at the moment. In our view, the case for change is clear. Police authorities are not sufficiently connected to the public. We know this because only 7 per cent of the public understand that they can approach their police authority if they are dissatisfied with policing. I reject the argument that anonymity does not matter. A typical police authority gets only about two letters a week from the public. When the Mayor of London took on the responsibility of policing in our city, the fact that there was a recognisable figure in charge prompted a significant rise in the amount of correspondence received from the public. The public care and, contrary to what has been suggested, they are not satisfied. At the moment, they simply do not know whom to call. We believe that some of the provisions, which have not received great attention in the debate, for greater transparency in all the proceedings that will take place between the police and crime commissioner, the chief constable and the PCPs, which lie at the core of the Bill, will help immensely in generating greater information about and confidence in the police.

The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, argued that no police authorities had failed their inspections. That is the case, but we do not think that not failing is good enough. As I mentioned, only four police authorities are performing well out of the 22 inspected by HMIC. I think that we all agree that HMIC must be respected in its judgments. We believe that we can do better than that and that the public have a right to expect better performance.

We also think that there is a democratic deficit between the authorities and the public whom they are meant to serve. Only 8 per cent of wards in England and Wales are represented on a police authority. We think that the system of governance, even if it is not broken, is not performing well enough and requires improvement, so we are going to make the changes. We also think that the change is needed now. As I indicated, the Government do not believe that piloting would be helpful. I have no doubt that I will have considerable opportunity in Committee to explain in greater detail why I think that that is the case, but I must inform the House that I will be resisting that idea vigorously.

The coalition parties support the direct democratic reform of police authorities. It is interesting that the Opposition also favour the democratic reform of police authorities. The only difference between the Opposition and the coalition Government is how, not whether, it should occur. That puts a point on some of the arguments that we have heard tonight. Right at the outset of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that HMIC be asked to approve the Government’s reforms before they are instituted or that there should be a series of local referenda before they could take effect. If we think, as a House and as Parliament, that direct democracy in policing could be improved, it seems to me odd that we should suggest that HMIC should make a judgment on what is clearly a political matter. That is not what HMIC is there for. As for local referenda, the PCCs are a national policy, and a single system of governance is needed. Policing crosses force boundaries, just as criminals do, and we must have a degree of commonality in how it operates, so I do not think that we can go for local referenda.

In respect of the arguments made to the effect that these reforms will politicise policing—we have heard a great deal of that this evening—I want to be absolutely clear: that will not be the case. There is no reason why there should not be partnership between the PCC and the chief constable. Many of the Bill’s provisions are clearly designed as a failsafe in case there are problems but the whole premise of the Bill is that there should be partnership. We agree with those who say that there should be partnership, and we are confident that partnership will come about. Equally, it is important, as the whole House acknowledges—we certainly support this—that the operational independence of chief officers is not prejudiced. It will not change. Under the 1996 Act chiefs will continue to have direction and control of their staff. Operational independence is already protected, not just by measures in primary legislation but also in common law and the attestation of all constables on appointment, as has been said in debate. It is a cornerstone of British policing and nothing—nothing—in the Bill or any protocol that we produce will alter that, but we shall seek to make the principles of the relationship between the various parties clear in the protocol.

It has been well said that the police are answerable to the law. Indeed, we are all answerable to the law. But the Government see no contradiction between being answerable to the law and being accountable. These two things go hand in hand.

I have no doubt that in debate we will spend some time on the arrangements in London. I am not going to deal with those this evening, but I should like to make a comment on one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He seemed to be suggesting—perhaps I have him wrong—that because the precise method of accountability of the chief constable had not been prescribed in the legislation, therefore it could be assumed that there was no such answerability. That is not the case. The PCC has the same statutory responsibility to hold the chief constable to account as he has at present to the police authority. Not everything has to be spelt out in detail in the legislation as if no one is capable—

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, my point was not that there is not a clear accountability mechanism, because that is set out in the Bill; my point is—it applies not just in London but to all the PCCs—that the one-to-one relationship between the elected individual and the chief officer of police does not allow for the visible answerability of the chief officer of police, answering questions in public on matters that affect the locality. That is what will disappear in this Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not think that that is the case, my Lords, because there is nothing to stop meetings taking place in public. Indeed, the records have to be put into the public domain, so I do not think that somehow this relationship will be conducted behind closed doors. On the contrary, I think that it will be extremely transparent. One other point I would like to make is that the police and crime commissioner can require a chief constable to report on a particular matter if he does not get co-operation from him, although I do not see why he should not. Both accountability and transparent accountability will be present in arrangements.

I should like to deal with some of the points where it was claimed that this new model would be costly and would introduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and to be clear about what the model involves. The PCP will not replace the police authority, so those costs are gone. The PCC replaces the police authority and indeed will need support staff but, unlike now, they will be held directly to account by the public, so we will require them to publish details of their expenditure and the public will expect them to deliver value for money. This creates a very strong incentive to drive costs down, an incentive which does not exist at present.

If the House is concerned about costs, I say that the alternative models that have been suggested—an elected chair of a police authority or indeed an elected police authority—are no less expensive than what we are proposing, and would probably be more expensive. We also think they would be less effective.

Finally, I should like to put these reforms into their proper context. Some noble Lords have asserted that PCCs will be concerned only with the local agenda, neglecting national issues and protective services. I had hoped that I had spelt that out adequately in my opening remarks, but let me repeat that that is not the case. The Bill starts to rebalance the system from the Government telling local areas what their priorities are to focusing on those issues that are of national importance such as organised crime and counterterrorism. To that end, we have included Clause 79, which gives powers to the Home Secretary, as I mentioned, to set out a strategic policing requirement. That is obviously an important document. The strategic policing requirement will describe the collective capabilities that police forces across England and Wales would need to have in place in order to protect the public from serious harm and maintain national security; that is, the contribution that they would be expected to be capable of making to these national issues. The police and crime commissioners will have to have regard to the strategic policing requirement, which means that they may not ignore it when setting out their police and crime plans. It cannot be the case that their focus can be wholly local.

I cannot see how a police and crime commissioner who wished to be regarded as effective would see his duties as not encompassing the things that he needs when it is quite obvious to the public that he needs to be charged with doing them effectively. When he is setting out his police and crime plans, they will include the discharge by that police force of its national or international functions, and chief officers will be held to account if in any respect they fail to come up to the operational standards that are required. Furthermore, all this will be underpinned by the new backstop powers which currently apply only to the Metropolitan Police Authority for the Home Secretary to enter into an agreement with any PCC or the Mayor of London on their national and international functions, where it is deemed necessary, to direct them to take action. We hope that that is not the kind of thing that is going to be necessary, but clearly the power will be in place if it has to be exercised. At a later time, as the House is aware, we will be introducing the new national crime agency, which will be a framework for the functions of national scope, and these will cover such things as organised crime.

I turn briefly to the points made on licensing, the first of which is the removal of the vicinity test. I know there is a fear that this proposal could lead to an increase in frivolous or vexatious representations, but I have to say that during our consultation a very large number of respondents welcomed greater community involvement in the licensing process, and they were clear that the activity related to licensed premises can have an effect well beyond the immediate vicinity. The objectors, of course, have to make a case which is related to the full purposes of licensing.

On the issue of health bodies becoming responsible authorities, I can confirm that the Government will ensure that in the future this role is compatible with the changes being made to PCTs, but in the short term the PCTs will be the relevant health bodies. As regards the maximum fine for underage sales of alcohol, by doubling it, the Government are sending to retailers a clear message that we will not tolerate the sale of alcohol to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked a number of detailed questions focusing on why the Government were not doing more in other areas, and no doubt we will take those in greater detail in Committee. The point of the Bill is to do something simple, obvious and straightforward, and which is capable of being actioned in a way that we hope will be effective. However, I quite appreciate that there are issues other than those set out in the Bill which add up to an effective challenge to the increasing abuse of alcohol.

As for the levy, it applies across the whole licensing authority area because that is the simplest and fairest way of ensuring that all premises that benefit from selling alcohol late at night contribute towards costs. We have to recognise, as I have just said, that there is a problem of alcohol abuse in this country and it has to be tackled. That is why the emphasis in this Bill is on increasing our ability to do just that.

I hope the House will be willing to forgo responses on the many points raised in relation to Parliament Square and universal jurisdiction. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has promised us a lively debate in Committee on the first and I have no doubt that we shall debate the need for the intervention of the DPP on the second. The DPP has made it clear that he would be willing and would have the capacity to act rapidly in any case and that his intervention would not act as a delay or a bar on issuing a warrant.

The core of the debate has been on the PCCs and I want to make two last points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, made the point, which I am sure the whole House accepts, that we shall need to come together on this Bill to ensure its passage. Secondly, while I did not accept many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, he said something with which I profoundly agree; namely, that trust is crucial to the preservation of our tradition of unarmed, impartial policing. In making the changes, the Government are determined to preserve this long-standing principle and great tradition. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Revocation, Savings and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2011

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this statutory instrument was drawn to the attention of the House because of the public policy likely to be of interest to it, not because of a defective Explanatory Memorandum. It is not so long ago that we had no Explanatory Memoranda to orders, only Explanatory Notes, which still exist but which are much narrower, technical and often, I must say, opaque. It has only been since 2004, when the Merits Committee was formed, that we have had this type of assistance. I should declare that I am a member of the Merits Committee at present. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the committee's advisers, Jane White and Grant Oliver, who pursue with a quiet doggedness issues which arise on too many of the literally thousands of SIs which come before us: things such as lack of reporting on the outcome of consultation, and very often the late presentation of an order so that there is no proper time to investigate before it comes into force.

It should go without saying—although I had better say it—that accountability and access to what the Government do is of the utmost importance. Transparency may be a little overworked as a term, but the concept is not. Information must be available and accessible, not least to avoid any suggestion that what we have—this is not my term, although I wish it was—is not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. The Explanatory Memorandum is important, because it is a public document, but I think that this Explanatory Memorandum is clear. It is detailed within its own terms. Perhaps it would be good to have an impact assessment to accompany statutory instruments, but, as things are at the moment, that is not usual.

My greater concern is the usual—the importance of joining up different parts of government. The SI comes from the Home Office; it was announced by the noble Baroness. Her statement dealt with the procedures affecting people coming into the UK from the accession states, not the wider impact. The report notes with disappointment that the DWP has not provided an estimate of associated costs. It had seven years to do so. I cannot resist the basic arithmetic, which tells us when six of those seven years were.

The noble Lord has raised a number of interesting questions, and I will, to an extent, repeat them. Given the time that there has been, why have the Government not sought to develop a more accurate measure of the likely numbers? The noble Lord referred to the 11,000—it may be almost 12,000—claims rejected in the past calendar year which apparently would have succeeded with the ending of the transitional arrangements. How confident are the Government that those figures are close to being accurate? How will they seek to verify them? Newspaper articles use the figure of more than 100,000 migrants. If I were to ask the Minister whether she knows where the newspapers got the figure of 100,000 from, that would probably be an unfair question, because we all know that newspapers are not necessarily the most accurate reporters.

Have the Government worked out the cost of the increased access to benefits? It would be helpful if the Minister would say a little about the Jobcentre Plus team to which the noble Lord referred. Is it dealing with just these accession state nationals? I hope not, as I hope this is all in a wider context. I also hope that it is not just the DWP but, for instance, BIS or Communities that have considered the implications of this change. I am not suggesting that they have not.

The point of the transitional arrangements was to monitor accession state nationals’ access to the UK labour market. We are told that by paragraph 7(2) of the Explanatory Memorandum. What was the result?

The best argument for a full Explanatory Memorandum dealing with the impacts is yesterday’s Daily Express, whose front page screamed, “Migrants Flood Back to Britain”. I know the reluctance to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but perhaps fuller Explanatory Memoranda on this sort of issue would assist in ensuring accuracy rather than raising the temperature so unnecessarily and unpleasantly.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. Let me try to explain why the Government limited themselves in the Explanatory Memorandum to the points that it made. It was not out of a desire to deny Parliament legitimate information. It had much more to do with the inherent difficulty of getting reliable figures into the public domain. I will try to explain why we were cautious.

There are two aspects to this. The first is what the future pattern of migration to this country is likely to be and the second is the consequences for the benefits budget. My first point is about migration. Noble Lords will know from experience that making predictions about levels of migration from new member states is a fairly precarious activity. The Benches opposite are abundantly aware that previous efforts to put numbers on expected arrivals after May 2004 were not entirely successful. Indeed, they subsequently chose not to estimate arrivals from Bulgaria and Romania when they joined the EU on 1 January. I have sympathy with that because of the previous experience. We all recall that it was estimated that 13,000 A8 nationals would migrate to the UK in 2004. There is genuine difficulty in this.

However, there are some points that can usefully be made. First, there is the position of A8 nationals who are already here. One effect of the worker registration scheme has been that those entering the UK labour market have generally been prevented from having immediate access to out-of-work benefits if they are seeking work or become unemployed. It is also reasonable to assume that a substantial proportion of those who have arrived since 2004 were already no longer subject to the restrictions because once they have worked here legally for more than 12 months they are no longer subject to the WRS.

The number of A8 workers who have registered under the WRS since May 2004 is approximately 1.1 million. The WRS does not record how many of those who have registered have subsequently left the UK, but statistics from the Labour Force Survey suggest that the number of A8 nationals in employment in the UK in the three months to the end of 2010 was 615,000. It can be assumed that a fraction of that number, but we do not know how many, are A8 workers who have already worked legally and continuously in the UK for more than 12 months and so are not subject to the WRS and therefore the termination makes no difference to their status.

What is more difficult to predict is the extent to which we may experience more or less migration from A8 countries after 30 April 2011. While the Labour Force Survey provides us with some information on the stock of A8 migrants to the UK, it does not tell us about flows over time. The general trend indicated by the International Passenger Survey estimate of long-term migration from A8 countries, which was published by the Office for National Statistics last year, is that immigration levels steadily fell during 2008 and 2009 and then levelled off while numbers of A8 nationals emigrating from the UK rose sharply in 2008 before exits fell off. The result is that net migration from A8 countries appears to have been positive, but not particularly strongly, over the past year.

Police: Deployment of Workforce

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect serving police officers to be moved from front-line roles to cover back-office functions of civilian staff who have been made redundant.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

No, my Lords. As Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has established, one-third of the police force—that is, 80,000 people—are not on the front line. There is significant scope for major savings in reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency in such matters as procurement and IT without touching the front line. Furthermore, in its recent report, Demanding Times, HMIC shows that front-line officers can be deployed much more productively. There is “significant variation between forces” in the visibility and availability of officers and PCSOs. Some constabularies manage to have only 9 per cent of their officers on the street at any one time; and the average is only 12 per cent.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, in the light of the disclosure that in Warwickshire, full-time police officers are being removed from the front line to fill back-office vacancies caused by the government cuts; the finding by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary that 68 per cent of police officers and civilian staff combined are involved in the front line and will be very hard to retain in the face of the 20 per cent cuts; and the statement by the chief constable of Lancashire, who is the ACPO lead on police performance management, that with the scale of the cuts being experienced, they could not leave the front line untouched; can the noble Baroness confirm to the House that the undertaking by the Prime Minister that front-line police services will not be cut, but will be protected, still stands?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government believe that front-line services will not be affected by the savings that have to be made. As HMIC has established, there is considerable room for savings to be made without touching the front line. I have given some illustrations; many more could be given. To give one example, at the moment, the average percentage of available officers who are at any one time visible on the street is 12 per cent. That is 18,795 officers. If all the forces were to reach the best practice available, which is that of Lancashire, that would amount to 26,627 policemen. Very big increases in efficiency can be made.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, work is rightly going on by police forces and by the Home Office on reducing bureaucracy. Has any assessment been made of what savings can be made from consequent reductions in back-office requirements as a result of savings in bureaucracy?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, this is just the kind of work that needs to be done. It is not easy to make those head-count calculations until one has an idea of how each force is going to make the savings, but there is no doubt that if, for instance, one procures much more efficiently than we do at the moment, considerable savings can be made.

[Lord Imbert]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Question need not have been asked at all if only a proportion of the £200 million-plus which is planned to be spent on the election of police and crime commissars was to be spent on real policing?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that the figure for the election of PCCs is £50 million, which will be every four years. It has been provided for in the spending round; it does not relate to the police budget.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House her definition of a front-line police officer, and does it include officers working under cover for some length of time?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think we can rely on HMIC, which has given us a definition of front-line police officers—I am just looking for it. The inspector has said that it is indeed those officers on the street and also those officers who provide support, which he calculates as being the 60-something per cent that was mentioned. We now have a definition of front-line policing that the Government are happy to accept.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, may I press the Minister on her definition to make quite clear that she is giving an assurance on front-line policing of those who are police community support officers? Will she affirm the huge value that those members of the police give in preventive action in terms of crime that otherwise might occur within the community?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we entirely agree on the value of PCSOs as well as that of warranted officers. Crime prevention is a very important part of policing, which is one of the reasons why the Government attach so much importance to police officers being visible on the streets.

[Lord Mawhinney]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is impressed by the efficiency of the Lancashire force, referred to by my noble friend. What power do the Government have to require other forces to get themselves in line with what is happening in Lancashire?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government are not able to “require” forces, but would very much encourage it. HMIC leads the way in the assessment it does and the recommendations it puts to police forces about the way in which they can improve performance.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, as a Lancashire resident and formerly for 20 years a member of the Lancashire Police Authority, I am very proud of the service we achieve for the people of Lancashire. Will the Minister accept that, although she referred to money coming from different pots, it is my experience that the people of Lancashire would prefer to see their service maintained at the current high level rather than money being used to bring in a new system, for which I have yet to meet a single advocate in Lancashire?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, as I said, the police budget is in no way affected by the cost of the election of PCCs. I think that when the inhabitants of Lancashire have experience of elected PCCs, they will find that it turns out to be an extraordinarily satisfactory system and better than the one they have now.

Draft Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (Remedial) Order 2010

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the draft order laid before the House on 20 December 2010 be approved.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft remedial order is to abolish the certificate of approval scheme to prevent sham marriages. A certificate gives migrants written permission from the Home Office to marry. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its support in this matter.

In its first report on the order published on 16 November 2010 the JCHR agreed that the scheme should be abolished. It also agreed with the Government’s approach in using this order to achieve abolition. The Government laid a revised order in December 2010 making minor technical changes recommended by the JCHR. In its second report published on 14 March the JCHR recommended that Parliament now approve this order.

The Government want to bring this order into force subject to your Lordships’ agreement. We are doing so for two reasons. First, the domestic courts have declared that the scheme is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Abolishing the scheme will remove this incompatibility. Secondly, changes made following rulings from the domestic courts have weakened the scheme and the Government do not consider it any longer to be an effective method of dealing with sham marriages.

The certificate of approval scheme was introduced in 2005 by our predecessors to protect the immigration system and marriage laws from abuse, in particular from those entering into sham marriages. The scheme did not and still does not apply to Anglican marriages taking place in England and Wales and this different treatment for non-Anglicans is at the heart of the judgments against the scheme. The House of Lords ruled the scheme unlawful in the case of Baiai by making a declaration of incompatibility relating to the discrimination between civil and Anglican marriages.

The scheme has been modified in several ways to comply with court rulings. This included allowing people who had been excluded from the original scheme to apply for permission to marry—for example, illegal immigrants—and we also suspended the application fee. However, the current scheme is now frankly a shadow of its former self. It is ineffective as a means of preventing sham marriages and we believe that there is no merit in continuing with it. The Government therefore intend to end the scheme, subject to approval, on 9 May. Your Lordships may ask what the effect will be. Indeed, it is hard to know. There is a risk that reports of sham marriages from registrars will rise when the scheme ends. Common sense indicates that this could well be the case. The Government will do their level best to combat the risk with the remaining powers at their disposal, which I am about to outline.

Reports of sham marriages are already rising. In 2009, there were 561 reports of suspected sham marriages; in 2010, there were 934 such reports. We do not know the extent to which this constitutes a real rise or simply better reporting. Either way, there is a problem here to tackle, which must be of concern to everyone in this House. Therefore, when the scheme is abolished, the UK Border Agency will use the powers it still has to tackle sham marriage abuse. It is looking at ways in which it can use them more effectively to stop what is obviously covert immigration. It will obtain sham marriage information from the register office.

The registrars will play a very important role in the future. It is already a key role and it will become even more important. Civil registrars will continue to exercise their duty to report any suspicious marriage to the UK Border Agency, under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The existing rise in the number of reports reflects the work that is already being undertaken by registrars to focus on tackling this abuse. This work will be intensified. It will also ensure that migrants will still be permitted only to give notice to marry at one of a number of designated register offices throughout the UK. This will mean that the UKBA can focus resources on a limited number of locations.

The UK Border Agency will also act on information so that immigration officers will be able to disrupt sham marriages scheduled to take place in churches. The UKBA is building on existing relations with the Anglican Church so that suspicions about sham marriages are reported by clergymen and clergywomen. The UK Border Agency has developed training for members of the clergy to help them identify potentially suspicious marriages. Immigration officers and police will continue to work together to arrest facilitators, brides, grooms, witnesses and guests—anybody who is involved—at ceremonies across the country that are, in fact, sham.

The aim will be to destroy a criminal business if one is taking place. We have already had some notable successes. In the north-west, for instance, seven Czech nationals were recently sentenced to between 16 months and five years for their part in facilitating sham marriages, some of which were also bigamous. Two of the group also received custodial sentences. An operation in the Midlands has so far seen 13 people convicted, with sentences totalling 20 years. Last month the agency mounted its largest sham marriage operation to date, which saw officers swoop on geographically spread addresses in London, Birmingham, Nottingham, Devon and Kent, while a simultaneous operation took place with the Dutch police in Rotterdam and Tilbury. There have also been a number of successful operations where churches have supplied information when they believed a marriage might be suspect. This included the conviction of an Anglican vicar, Alex Brown, and his two co-conspirators, who were recently found guilty of facilitating more than 300 sham marriages.

The UK Border Agency will also prevent a person who has entered into a sham marriage acquiring any immigration rights. The legal position is clear. Those who enter into sham marriages are not able thereby to rely on that marriage to obtain leave to remain or to acquire the right to reside in the UK as the spouse of an EEA national. Third-country nationals wishing to enter the UK on the basis of a marriage to a British citizen or person settled here are and will remain subject to our Immigration Rules. If we believe a marriage to be a sham, an application for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules will be refused. That still has to happen. Those who are discovered taking part in, or facilitating, sham marriages will be prosecuted.

We are closely scrutinising the marriage route to the right to remain and looking at measures to tighten it. We have already announced that we intend to consult on extending the spouses’ probationary period before settlement beyond the current two years. An additional period would allow a longer time to test the genuineness of the relationship. As I said, the Government will do their best to combat the abuse of immigration through sham marriage. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, of course we welcome this order, which corrects a serious error of judgment by the previous Government. We also welcome the Minister’s careful explanation of its purpose and consequences. She said that there was evidence of an increase in the number of sham marriages in the figures for 2009 to 2010. If I have the correct figures, the number of sham marriages increased from 561 in the first of those years to 934 in the second. However, is it not a fact that people do not acquire any additional rights to remain as a result of a marriage when they have entered the country for some other purpose? It would be interesting to find out what the subsequent immigration experience of the people was whose marriages were reported as possibly being sham. I am sure that the UK Border Agency carefully followed up all the reports that the Minister has mentioned. For future reference it would be useful to know how many of the people were subsequently prevented from remaining in the country because it was established that the marriages were not only suspected of being sham but were actually false.

The Minister also spoke about the experience of the police in detecting particular cases. She mentioned the Czechs who were convicted and sentenced to between 16 months and five years for facilitating sham marriages, and said that in some cases those marriages were proved to have been bigamous. Obviously, an offence was committed by those people quite apart from the immigration offence and they would have quite properly been convicted for that reason.

When the Labour Government introduced certificates of approval for marriages between people, either or both of whom were subject to immigration control, there were immediate warnings from those with experience of immigration law and the European Convention on Human Rights that the scheme was discriminatory. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association briefing to your Lordships for the Third Reading of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act said that the provisions on sham marriages did not apply to those who marry in the Church of England and were therefore discriminatory against all other religions, a point that was taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report of 30 June 2004 and by every single court that subsequently ruled on the matter.

The incompatibility with the convention was identified by the domestic courts as early as 2006, so the remedial order that we are now considering, which is intended to be “fast track” corrective action following a declaration of incompatibility, has taken five years to mature. Not surprisingly, the Joint Committee on Human Rights regrets the substantial delay. Having set out their intention to use a non-urgent remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, this Government acted as quickly as possible to abolish the certificate of approval scheme in response to the House of Lords judgment in the case of Baiai, which had been delivered on 30 July 1998. Will my noble friend say whether it would have made any difference if the matter had been treated as urgent? Does she think that there is any way of speeding up the process generally in any future cases, of which, fortunately, there have been very few so far?

The lesson to be learnt from this episode, however, is that it is dangerous to rush solutions to immigration problems through Parliament towards the end of the proceedings on a Bill without any consultation and in the face of reasoned criticism. The clauses embodying the certificate of approval scheme were introduced on recommitment, a wholly unsuitable mechanism for radical proposals that affect the very institution of marriage, as we said at the time. We were not satisfied that the scheme was effective, proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. The failure of the previous Labour Government to listen to the warnings by the Liberal Democrats, the JCHR and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has cost the taxpayer perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds in litigation and compensation, and there may be further claims still to come. In particular, there is one case before the European Court of Human Rights, and the JCHR proposed in its 31st report of Session 2007-08 that where there are multiple claims for compensation, the Government should adopt an approach that minimises the burden on the court and expense for the taxpayer. The Government do not consider that there is a significant risk of multiple repeat cases because potential litigants have had plenty of time to challenge the certificate of approval scheme since it was ruled to be unlawful.

There was a scheme for reimbursement of the certificate of approval fee of £295, or £590 where both partners to a marriage were subject to immigration control, but only where the payment caused the applicants real financial hardship at the time of payment. Of the 1,213 requests for repayment of the fee, only 170 had been granted and 49 remained outstanding at the end of January this year. In his letter to the JCHR of 21 December 2010, the Minister said that ILPA was wrong to say that the test for repayment was difficult to satisfy, because anyone able to meet the financial hardship test would qualify. However, the point that ILPA was making was that there was a four-and-a-half year interval between the introduction of the scheme and the date on which the UKBA first made arrangements to reimburse those who had suffered financial hardship. Most people do not keep records for that length of time and might well be unable to produce the evidence required. It does not seem to have occurred to the Minister that this could partly explain the relatively small number of applications for repayment and the 82 per cent failure rate of the ones that were made. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised. I will deal first with those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is right to say that no additional rights are acquired by this conduct. On the question of the measures that we might be putting in place to deal with the absence of the certificate, I will say two things. The noble Lord asked whether we could have done this more speedily. We laid the orders within three months. The other thing is that it is wise, in order to limit the extent of the abuse and the absence of having the certificate scheme, to intensify and put in place really effective measures. One of the things we have been doing during the time between laying the order and being able to bring it to the House is ensuring that the measures that we have in place are as effective as we can make them. So the time has not been wasted. We have been as fair as we can be about the question of payments and when there has been a question of hardship the money has been refunded. The reason why there are relatively few applications, as the noble Lord said, is that people have had good warning. We do not believe that there is going to be a great splurge of demands following the repeal of this order.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, misquoted me and then asked me to approve a whole lot of assertions that I had not made. I did not say that I had a strong belief or confidence that our remaining powers would be effective. It is most unfortunate that the previous Government put in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly said, a scheme which they were warned would be discriminatory and which has now been struck down. It would have been better if they had put in place one that was capable of continuous implementation. What I said was that it was hard to know what the effect of the abolition of the certificate would be. I also commented that we did not know the extent to which the rise in numbers was attributable to better reporting or to increases.

[Lord Rosser]

The quote I gave was actually from Mr Damian Green, the Minister for Immigration, who is on record in Hansard as saying that the increase in the reports of suspected sham marriages in 2010,

“shows that the certificate of approval scheme was becoming less effective, as well as the success of our crackdown on sham marriage and the subsequent publicity”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29/3/11; col. 4.]

So the person to whom I was attributing the success of the Government’s measures was not the noble Baroness but Mr Damian Green, the Minister for Immigration.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My honourable friend in another place was pointing to the efforts that the Government are making to compensate for the absence of a scheme that, had it not been discriminatory, might still exist. Great efforts are being made to ensure that the hinge position now occupied by registrars will be effective. That is why the links between UKBA and registrars’ offices are being increased and intensified, why guidance is being issued to the clergy and why registrars’ offices are being given training to ensure that they can recognise an application for a suspicious marriage if it comes their way.

We have to intensify all those methods. It is difficult to know at this stage whether that will be effective. The Government will do our very best, because it is important and in the public interest that this should not be a route for covert immigration, which it has been becoming—people have been engaged in what we can only call organised crime to get people into this country via that route. We have conducted two publicity campaigns, as my honourable friend in another place mentioned, designed to alert both those who enforce and those who may try to abuse the system that measures are being taken against that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, that in Scotland all register offices are designated, so the issue of having to travel does not arise. Only the application has to be made through approved offices. For people who marry abroad, other immigration rules still apply, including an English-language test, so not all the barriers against abuse fall away as a result of the absence of the certificate scheme. The answer to the noble Lord’s question—is a failed asylum-seeker subject to continuing immigration control?—is definitely yes. Anyone without status that enables them to stay will certainly be subject to immigration controls.

No other route will arise from the absence of the certificate scheme that will make it easier for people to abuse the system. We are doing our very best to ensure that the absence of the certificate scheme does not render either the sham marriage route—the suspect marriage route—or any other route to abusing the immigration system any easier to operate. As a general proposition, I think that the House would agree that there is increasing effort both to publicise the fact that the Government intend to act against abuse of the system and to put in place effective measures to ensure that, having said that we will do that, that is the outcome.

Although there is some anxiety in the House, which I share, about our ability to control the situation, we will be monitoring it carefully and making our best efforts to ensure that that route is not used. I hope that the House will feel it necessary to abolish the scheme and, on the basis of the Government putting in place the best methods that we can to control this, approve the order.

Motion agreed.

Human Trafficking: EU Directive

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received asking them to help stop human trafficking by opting in to the European Union Directive.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Government received a range of representations, including from parliamentarians, members of the public and non-governmental organisations. We said, referring to the opt-in, that we would make a decision about the finalised text at the end of the process, rather than at the beginning of the drafting. This is what we have now done. The Minister for Immigration has written to the parliamentary scrutiny committees in both Houses, seeking their views on our intention to apply to opt in.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I pay tribute to the Government, who are doing the right thing, although I regret that it has taken too long. I also pay tribute to the Anti-Slavery International petition, women’s groups and other campaigners, who have clearly brought to bear a great influence on the Government. The National Working Group for Sexually Exploited Young People has found that there are only 38 areas in the UK with a specialist service in place. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is effective intervention and consistent local delivery of these services around the country; and how will these nationally important functions be managed under the Government’s proposed politicised policing framework, as set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I can hardly accept the last point made by the noble Baroness. As regards the quality of the services that the Government wish to see in place, there are certainly some excellent boroughs that can act as best practice models, including such places as Hillingdon. The Government’s aim, obviously, is to ensure that all boroughs and local authorities operate at the level of best practice. There is constant consultation between the Government, local authorities and the NGOs involved to achieve that result.

[Baroness Goudie]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has now done a U-turn and stated that human trafficking is a terrible crime. Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister whether he will put the issue on to the G8 and G20 agenda for November? As she knows, human trafficking is a now global issue and it should be on these international agendas. That is the only way in which we will see the end of it in our lifetime.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not think that the Prime Minister has made any kind of U-turn—he has made a very clear statement of the Government’s position on the evils of human trafficking. I will take back the point about the desirability of having this on the G20 agenda.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, will my noble friend also consider the extreme importance of effective police co-operation in dealing with this vile practice? I cite in particular the very constructive relationship that has been formed between the Metropolitan Police and the authorities in Romania. It is very important that people should understand that this is a matter not just of one or two criminals but of very organised gangs who are quite prepared to clean out the young people in a particular district in an exporting country and to disseminate them round the richer countries of the world, under their orders and making profits for their vile trade.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My noble friend is quite right: human trafficking is a concern for all constabularies. It is also a concern for the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, which operates internationally. He is right to say that this is a global issue. It is also a matter in which the police take a lead in our ports of immigration, most particularly in places such as Heathrow and St Pancras, ensuring that when there is suspicion that a child has been trafficked, the suspicion is picked up immediately and the arrangements to handle the case are put in place.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, what discussions are ongoing between the Government and the organisations concerned with the trafficking of women and children into this country? How will the identification of the number of people trafficked, which is very vague, be improved? How will the Government tackle situations involving employment and housing, rather than just prosecuting people?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that the noble Baroness is referring to the desirability, with which the Government agree, of having, in effect, an end-to-end process in which one is able, through contacts abroad, to understand the systems for trafficking; to pick up the children being trafficked as and when they arrive in this country; and then to be able, with the local authority, to ensure that proper care is taken of them. That, in fact, is the Government’s aim, and we are trying to bring together a system that ensures that that happens. We are in very close consultation with those NGOs that take a strong and constructive interest.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that the end-to-end process must include healthcare. Many of the people who have been trafficked will have been very damaged by the process. What are the Government doing to support good healthcare for them?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The local authorities have overall responsibility if a child has been taken into care, and the local health authorities are involved in the process that they put in place.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware of the sterling work which has been undertaken by my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in consistently pressing Her Majesty’s Government to achieve a united front across Europe for tackling this evil of human trafficking. But is she also aware of the Tearfund report, Silent No More, which was launched this Monday at Lambeth Palace with the support of both Archbishops, and which highlights the largely untapped potential of the church in preventing and reducing the impact of sexual violence, and the associated task of improving attitudes to women in many parts of the world? Will she join me in welcoming and commending this important report?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I pay tribute to the very notable work done by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. It gives me great pleasure to be able to welcome this church initiative.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has come in behind an amendment that I put down. I hope that this is one of many occasions when the noble Lord will come in behind amendments that I put down in this House.

I am very interested to hear from the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones—why the Government have decided to join the Opposition on this amendment. Both at Second Reading and in Committee, I raised concerns that there are real risks of allowing criminality to return to an industry that has cleaned up its act dramatically in recent years. I have always felt it to be reassuring when you go into a venue and meet security personnel with credentials on display that show that the individual has reached a certain standard, had a Criminal Records Bureau check and is deemed to be a fit and proper person to undertake this kind of work.

Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to delete this body from the Bill, but will work behind the scenes and bring something back in the future. If that happens, I am sure that this House will give it the line-by-line scrutiny it deserves. It is important to ensure that we take the industry with us; the industry does not want to see the criminals return. Security checks on individuals who want to join the industry remain. A common approach to a problem that has largely been solved, but may need to be reviewed and updated as things change, could command support across the House if handled properly and built on what has been achieved in recent years.

I will leave it there; I do not wish to detain the House longer than necessary. I am eager to hear from the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the amendment removes the Security Industry Authority from the list of public bodies that the Minister can abolish by secondary legislation. Some noble Lords may wonder why the Government are supporting an amendment which is the same as one which the Opposition put forward a few weeks ago and which we then resisted. If I go into the Government’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill, it will then become clear why we are now supporting this amendment.

First, our willingness to accept the amendment does not represent a change of policy; it remains the Government’s intention to abolish the SIA in its present form. We have, however, decided that this will be best achieved through a different piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, it was announced on 14 October as part of the public bodies review that the SIA would no longer be a non-departmental public body and that we would take forward a phased transition to a new regulatory regime. I went through the reasons for that during the Committee debate on 28 February, and I do not intend to detain the House at this hour by going over that ground again. I am sure that noble Lords will welcome that.

Home Office Ministers asked the SIA last October to consult key stakeholders, including the industry, and to produce a detailed plan of how the phased transition to the new regulatory regime could be achieved. As the House will know, the chair of the SIA, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and its chief executive, Bill Butler, presented their plan to the department on 16 February and there has been a subsequent meeting with the Home Secretary on 14 March, so there has been close dialogue between the SIA and the department.

The key points that emerge from the proposals are that: regulation will shift from licensing individuals to registering businesses, which will have to meet a comprehensive set of conditions set by the new regulator; the regulation of individuals will become the responsibility of registered businesses, which is an important point; the new regulator will have the power to impose sanctions, including removing the right to trade in the private security industry on the part of businesses that fail to comply with the conditions that it sets for registration; and the Government’s aim is for the new regulatory regime to be in place by the end of 2013, using a phased approach to ensure a smooth transition.

We have decided to support the amendment to remove the SIA from the Bill because Clause 1 includes only powers to abolish bodies and transfer functions via secondary legislation. It does not include powers to set up new regulatory bodies, and it has become clear that primary legislation will be required to establish a successor self-regulatory body that will have the power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. If I understood the noble Lord’s point, he attaches importance to the idea that the regulatory body should have teeth. The Government agree—in other words, it must have powers that will enable it to enforce sanctions against companies that breach standards.

We have therefore taken the opportunity to review, and decided that references to the SIA should be removed from the Bill. The same primary legislative vehicle that will establish the successor regulatory body will also be used to abolish the SIA, so we will put it all in another Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that I cannot give further detail on that legislation today, except to say that we will bring it forward when parliamentary time allows.

A final point: the Home Secretary has also written to Ministers in the Scottish Government and in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to advise them of this amendment. Regulation of the private security industry in their nations is a policy decision for the devolved Administrations to make. We are working with them to ensure that transitional and subsequent arrangements meet the needs of all UK Administrations.

Accepting the amendment does not constitute a change in policy; it is a change to the vehicle that the Government will use to deliver that policy. There is wide agreement between the Government and what I understand to be the points made on the opposition Benches regarding the substance. It is still the Government’s intention to abolish the existing body and replace it with another body for the private security industry that is self-regulatory. I therefore support the amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I apologise that I did not stand up before. As the name of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is on the amendment, I wanted to see what the noble Baroness was going to say in response before I could intervene. I have a couple of questions further to her speech.

The Minister suggested that we are thinking very much along the same lines; I think that that was what she said towards the end of her speech. Let me be clear that we do not agree with the Government about the future of the SIA because we believe that it is essentially doing a good job as it is. As we understand it, the industry itself is content with the present situation and willing to pay for the present system.

I return to two issues that were raised in the debate that we had in Committee. One was the attitude of the police. As all noble Lords will know, when we brought forward the primary legislation, one of the main bodies in favour of primary legislation being introduced were the police themselves, who felt that the security industry when unregulated was rather a dangerous industry, not just for the people working in the industry themselves but also for the wider society. It was as a means of protecting wider society that the legislation was introduced.

I will be grateful if the noble Baroness can tell us whether or not a consultation with the police and other concerned bodies will take place before a Bill is introduced. I will also be grateful if she can tell the House when a Bill is likely to be introduced. One of the issues that concerns these Benches is the fact that, in future, it is hoped by the Government that the regulation of individuals working within the security industry should become the responsibility of the security businesses themselves. That is precisely why primary legislation was introduced in the first place. The industry was not properly investigating or in charge of the individuals who were working in the industry and this led to endangering some of the people who depended on the security industry—for example, the young in nightclubs.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised a question about prisoners in the last debate on the subject. At the moment where prisoners are moved from prison to prison, the wherewithal to do it is provided by the security industry. That is an extremely important part of the industry that needs to be properly regulated. Will the Government consult with the Ministry of Justice and everybody else who has anything to do with the movement of prisoners and the wider care of prisoners? As I understand it, people who work within the security industry are sometimes employed within private prisons. It does not seem a sensible move or good idea to reintroduce some form of self-regulation rather than to have proper regulation for an industry that is extremely important for the well-being of our society.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am slightly puzzled that the noble Baroness says that the opposition Benches do not agree with the approach that I have just outlined. Before the Government came to office, the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, herself was moving towards a more self-regulatory regime. She has seen the Home Secretary and other Ministers and is working with the Government on a transitional regime to a new body. I find it difficult to see why there should be such a problem for the opposition Benches.

On the question of the attitude of the police, we are consulting ACPO, which supports the approach. The police attach importance to effective regulation. That is precisely why I made my third point, in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in the previous debate. This body will have power to impose sanctions on businesses that do not comply with set standards. There will be set standards in a number of areas. Certainly, the whole question of custody will be one of those areas of set standards. I have to say that the differences are more synthetic than real. I hope that in due course, when we introduce and come to debate the legislation—I am not, unfortunately, able to give the noble Baroness a date for that because it depends on the crush of parliamentary business—there will be cross-party agreement.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, my name is also on this amendment. Indeed, it was my amendment in Committee to which the noble Baroness responded. The Government, understandably, are a little diffident towards the Opposition tonight. The fact is that there has been, if not quite a U-turn, definitely a bit of a C-turn on this—quite rightly, too. Under the Bill as printed, the Government were going to abolish this body. They were not going to substitute statutorily backed self-regulation. What existed in the SIA was going disappear. The regulation of the industry and the personnel within it, and the standards and the great improvement in those standards that we have seen since the SIA was set up, could have been seriously endangered.

Just before the previous vote, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, met a certain degree of scepticism from these Benches when he said that the Government were a listening Government. At least on this amendment the Government have listened to some degree.

Passenger Name Records: EUC Report

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in expressing my gratitude to the European Union Select Committee for organising this debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for acknowledging the Government’s willingness to give practical effect to the procedural undertakings that they have given. As a result, we have had a discussion on the Floor of the House at an early stage of consideration. The Government will take very serious account of what has been said today.

One of the things that has emerged from the debate is that the European Union Committee, the Government and a number of noble Lords are in agreement that there is concrete evidence of the utility and benefits to be derived from the analysis of PNR data in terms of passengers’ security. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put the case for the directive containing intra-EU PNR data as well as data on third-country flights as least as cogently as I could, if not more so. Therefore, I do not need to go over why the Government consider this to be an important part of the legislation, and why they wish to continue to strive to get it included. We have consistently argued that the directive should contain this information and that it should cover intra-EU routes.

I note what my noble friend Lord Hodgson said—that this is a “nice to have” rather than a “must have”. However, I shall seek to explain why the Government take a different view for two reasons. First, the argument that it is possible to evade the information that this provision might yield by choosing another form of transport may be valid. However, that is not itself a compelling argument for not obtaining the information if you believe it to be necessary to inhibit terrorism. Secondly—this is the major point—we have had ample evidence since earlier drafts of this legislation that aviation is a major terrorist target. We cannot ignore that. Therefore, it is right, consistent with individuals’ right to privacy—I entirely take the points that have been made about that and will return to them—to provide and maintain the maximum security that we can for passengers on aircraft, otherwise aircraft may well be blown up before they reach us.

[Lord Dykes]

Further to that point, with which I agree, does the Minister agree that it is remarkable that, although the security procedures at airports are extremely irritating for most passengers and that we all suffer, there is a high degree of psychological support for those measures among passengers, who know how vulnerable air flights are?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord’s point is entirely well made. One of the things that the Government are nevertheless trying to do, with international co-operation, is to reduce as much as possible the burden of those procedures—a lot of them are physical. The more information we have that enables us to alleviate some of the other constraints and put them together in a package, the safer we will be and the less intrusive the security procedures will be.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made various points. API information is already collected and it is possible to know with whom you are travelling. He is quite right to say that extra information will be collected. It is precisely because that information includes details of how the ticket was paid for, which is a major indicator of the kind of passenger with whom you are dealing, that it is thought wise and helpful to have it. This directive will go no further in the information that it asks for than that which is already contained in the agreements that the EU has negotiated with third countries, such as the United States, Australia, Canada and possibly others. I repeat that the Government’s first duty is to ensure the security of their citizens.

The UK has tabled an amendment that it hopes may form part of the negotiations. Our view is that the directive should allow member states—not oblige them, if that is unachievable—to require carriers to provide PNR data. That will increase effectiveness and help us to ensure that our borders are adequately protected. The committee and the House will entirely understand that this is a key consideration regarding our decision on whether we opt in.

We have been lobbying hard on this issue for some considerable time. I am pleased that an increasing number of member states are being persuaded by the arguments involved. However, I have to say that we do not yet believe that we have reached where we need to be to ensure that such a requirement becomes part of the directive. A great deal of work remains to be done. Even if we obtain the support we need in the Council, the Government are also conscious that many Members of the European Parliament hold strong views on data protection and on whether the proposed measure is proportionate. I know that many noble Lords have connections with Members of the European Parliament, and the Government would be extremely grateful if noble Lords, if they had occasion to, were able to persuade those MEPs of the merits of our case and reassure them on any concerns they may have.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll and others that the Government will take the whole question of the safeguarding of this information extremely seriously. There is a whole section of the proposed directive that addresses that issue, and we will scrutinise that as carefully as anyone. We understand and believe in the necessity of allowing security and privacy to ride together, and not allowing them to be put in opposition to each other. We believe that the directive is proportionate, and that it would continue to be proportionate if it included intra-EU PNR.

The House wishes to know whether the Government will be able to opt in. As I said, further work must be done on the directive and we must do more lobbying in order to get to the place where we feel we need to be. There will be further discussion of the directive at an important home affairs Council on 11 April. We are striving to ensure that the Council, in its final statement, will send a strong signal that intra-EU PNR will be the common position. If we can get that signal, it is likely—and that is a very positive “likely”—that we shall want to opt in to the directive from the outset.

I hope that the House will accept that at this stage the Government need to maximise their negotiating leverage. They will reflect very carefully on the points that have been made today before they reach a final decision; they take the points made by noble Lords extremely seriously. There may be points of detail between us, but not fundamental points. We will of course communicate our decision to the House as soon as it has been made.

Sex Offenders Register

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement repeated by Baroness Neville-Jones on 16 February (HL Deb, cols. 714–15) on the sex offenders register, to what extent the statement took account of ministers’ duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary under section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, Ministers are fully mindful of their duty under the Act. HMG took account of their duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary by taking steps to remedy the incompatibility identified by the court.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is clearly right that we do everything we can to protect the public from sex offenders, but does she accept that the Home Secretary went too far when she described an eminently reasonable judgment of the Supreme Court as appalling? Has her right honourable friend the Home Secretary been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I should like to make two points in response to that. First, there was real public anxiety about some of the potential consequences of the judgment, which was being reflected by the Government. The Government have taken appropriate action to meet the court’s judgment and to protect the public interest. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt spoken to his colleagues.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure for us on the Cross Benches when the pot calls the kettle black. No doubt the Minister will recall that it was a Labour Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, who wrote in the Evening Standard that he would not give in to the judges. Would the Minister therefore suggest to her right honourable friend that she would do better to follow the line taken by another Labour Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, who, when asked to comment on an adverse court decision, of which there were a great many, would only ever say that he was disappointed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is not a question of giving in to the courts; it is undoubtedly a question of the proper implementation of court judgments and the role of Parliament in making legislation.

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, we all respect the independence of the judiciary, but does not this case illustrate one of the difficulties caused by the Human Rights Act, which requires judges to go beyond their traditional role of interpreting the will of Parliament and to substitute their own views on proportionality? Is it not that which justifies the concerns of those of us who believe that these matters should be decided by Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the whole House recognises the importance of proportionality and it will note the important point that has just been made.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

In light of the decision of the court on the right of sex offenders to be able to appeal against their place on the register after 15 years, why did the Government come to the view that it was right to exclude a mental health tribunal or any other judicial body from that review process? It is fatuous for the Minister to say, as she did, that a policeman—she meant a police officer, I am sure—will know far more about the person whom he has been supervising than anyone else. Does she not realise that police officers, like offenders, move around? We cannot expect police officers to be as independent as professional and experienced people. A police officer can have a role in going to a tribunal to put a point of view. Will she think again about this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government do not accept that the procedure being proposed is fatuous. Police officers concerned have a much better idea than many others about the nature of the conduct of the defendant, both in prison and later, and they are appropriate people to take a view on this. Moreover, they will do so in consultation with other agencies, as the MAPPA process, in which other specialists will be involved, will be taken into account.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

Does the Minister acknowledge that there is great disappointment on these Benches too at the tone of the Home Secretary’s Statement and that we had hoped that that sort of language had been left behind by the coalition Government. Can she explain how the Prime Minister’s statement in connection with the same case, that the Government would do the “minimum necessary” to comply with a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, was calculated to encourage respect for the rule of law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that the Government should be judged by their actions. In this instance, they have put forward a reasonable, proportionate and effective proposal to meet the judgment of the court.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the making of judgments, not just about matters of proportionality but also about reasonableness, is an inherent part of the judicial process, which is not just a matter of mechanistically interpreting the law?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the Government and the House would agree with that sentiment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is right that the judge’s ruling should be observed by the Government and that they should take steps to implement such rulings which are in accordance with our present law? There is no question of the judges usurping the responsibilities of Parliament because of the way in which the Human Rights Act is framed, but we have an obligation, as a matter of treaty and convention, to obey the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government accept that the convention has to be observed and that the Act has to be interpreted and they will act on their duties under both.

Prostitution

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Government are looking at the approaches taken towards prostitution in different localities throughout England and Wales in order to identify effective practice in terms of policing, minimising harm, multiagency working and enabling people involved in prostitution to leave it. Practical guidance for local areas will be published later in the spring. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Government have accepted 21 of the 23 recommendations of her recent review. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, particularly on behalf of the Home Secretary, for the wisdom and hard work that she has brought to this issue.

[Baroness Stern]

I thank the Minister for that extremely encouraging reply and for her very kind remarks about the rape review. Does she recall that after the conviction following the horrible murders of three street prostitutes in Bradford, the Association of Chief Police Officers called for a review of the laws on prostitution and for a dialogue on better ways to manage the problem? Does she accept that the current law is far from ideal? It does not protect prostitutes from danger, it does not help—as it should—those who want to exit prostitution, and it does not help the police to manage the problem. Does she intend to have a dialogue with the Association of Chief Police Officers about this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My understanding is that it was one particular member of ACPO who commented recently on the subject and that his remarks focused more on management issues—in particular, the establishment of the database, how we fund it, how we get at information about how people are led into prostitution and what we then do about it—than on changing the law. The Government’s attitude to the legal situation is that given that there has been a recent change in the law, about which my party had some misgivings, we should now let the change settle down and see how it operates. However, we are doing that on the basis of very close evaluation of its effectiveness.

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

Is the noble Baroness aware that women and children who are trafficked end up in prostitution? What is being done to make sure that the people who are trafficking women and children are prosecuted, rather than the women and children?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, trafficking people is a very serious offence, in which the Serious Organised Crime Agency takes a particular interest. I assure the noble Baroness that we are aware of the degree to which prostitution is fed by traffickers, and we will tackle it both at the trafficking end and the prostitution end where women unfortunately become involved. We entirely agree about how serious this is.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, is there any liaison between the Minister’s department and the Department of Health? As she may be aware, I made known my views on brothels during the debate last week on International Women’s Day. For a long time I have argued that it would be good to have brothels registered so that doctors could do regular inspections. That would help with health and liaison with the police over crime.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, there is a great deal of multi-agency working in this area. I am afraid that I am not aware of the detail of the relationship between the Home Office and the Department of Health, but I will write to the noble Baroness on that subject. I entirely agree that the health aspect of prostitution is an extremely important angle. Her point is well taken.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

As a co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking, I will take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. Is the Minister aware that if these women who are trafficked from overseas are processed too quickly and sent back to their homes, many of them are very likely to be retrafficked? That is particularly true if they are sent back to villages in China and Romania.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble and learned Baroness has just told me something of which I was not aware. I do not know whether the department is aware of it, but I will certainly take the point away because it is extremely salient.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, does the Minister agree, without commenting on any case currently before the courts, that a woman working in the sex industry who claims to have been assaulted by men should expect protection from the police and from society, rather than face prosecution for brothel keeping?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

She is certainly entitled to protection from the police in cases of violence. We still have the legal situation, but she is certainly entitled to protection against violence.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the considerable work done in Ipswich after the dreadful murders of five prostitutes in 2006? Does she agree that the Ipswich prostitution strategy, which brings together all partners such as health, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, referred, local authorities, police and probation, is an excellent example that should be implemented nationally?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Schemes of that kind are examples of best practice that the Government wish to foster. We must tackle prostitution at a local level if we are ever to be effective in any of the measures that we take against it.

Drug Use and Possession: Royal Commission

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this debate on a subject of very considerable public import that, precisely because of the harms associated with it, excites very considerable strength of feeling and, I have to say, disagreement. There is a broad consensus on some of the damage that it does; where those who are informed as well as those who are uninformed part company with each other is on what we do about it.

I would like to respond to the points raised and set out the Government’s thinking as it has developed on the drug strategy. Between us and those advocating decriminalisation, which I have to tell noble Lords the Government are not going to engage in, there is common ground on some of the things that we consider need to accompany a policy that continues to classify drugs and criminalise the taking of them. Do we believe in an evidence-based policy? Most certainly. Do we think that the law can do it all by itself? Certainly not. We certainly think that both education and treatment need to be integral parts of policy. Do drugs contribute to global crime at all levels, violent as well as organised? Yes, absolutely they do. Do we need therefore to take action? Clearly, we do.

The example of Portugal has been mentioned, and I shall come to that in a moment, because the conclusions that you draw from the evidence in front of you is going to influence what you say about what should happen next. The picture that emerges from Portugal is somewhat more complex than some noble Lords have allowed.

Let me say something about how the Government’s thinking is developing and then I shall return in the light of that to some of the comments that have been made. As the House will be aware, in December last year the Government launched their new drugs strategy, whose component parts include: reducing demand; restricting supply; building recovery; and supporting people to live a drug-free life. The supporting part is very important.

The strategy has two high-level ambitions, one of which is to reduce illicit and other harmful drug use. I might say that we do take a dim view of alcohol abuse, which we also believe needs to be tackled. Some of the treatments that accompany that are much like those for the abuse of drugs. It is for the reason that alcohol abuse is certainly going up that we are clamping down on below-cost sales of alcohol and restricting their sale to young people, and so on. We do think that that needs tackling—so there is nothing between us on the subject of the evils of alcohol abuse. However, we do not believe that because alcohol abuse is going up, that is somehow reason for not being tough about drugs as well.

Our second ambition is to increase the number of individuals who are able to recover from their dependency on drugs or alcohol. In delivering these ambitions for the next four years, we are committed to an evidence-based approach, and we will undertake evaluation of the policy as we go along. We are not suggesting that we will pursue this policy irrespective of what the evidence shows that its results might be. I assure and promise noble Lords that constant evaluation will be an integral part of the approach that we pursue, and we will take into account the wider evidence available. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that I have asked whether we have any social research on the stocks at the moment. I fear that the answer is no, and I think that is something that we should take away.

High-quality advice on this complex field is obviously of the utmost importance. We value greatly the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the proper consideration of its advice is at the heart of enabling us to deliver this strategy. We are developing with it an evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness and value for money of the drugs strategy. We will redo that on annual basis and from that annual review we will then develop further initiatives and actions as the programme develops. That I hope will give us the necessary flexibility to respond to changes in the drugs scene and the nature of the trade and based on the outcomes that we are managing to achieve.

The Government are also ensuring that our policies complement each other and build the necessary links between the strategy itself and sentencing, welfare and public health reforms so that we optimise the outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of individual policies.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the whole question of impact assessment. I have some sympathy with this notion. It is very hard, however, to know what you are measuring. One reason is that it is extremely difficult to disaggregate the interaction of various phenomena. Two honest people can measure an impact and come out with a different answer. I hope the House would agree that we have to tackle the complexity of the interaction of various factors. I hope if we are able to do that it will give us a better clue as to how to proceed.

I suppose I need to say at this point that, although we are going to go through evaluation, we do not intend to go for a thoroughgoing review. We do not consider that that is warranted. What we want to do is to give the strategy that we are outlining, which contains new components of policy, a good try to see what it delivers. We are not a Government who will take no notice of the results of policy, but we certainly think that the case at the moment is made for proceeding with the policy on the basis of constant review.

As I said, we have decided that we are not going to decriminalise, but we are going to deal with a lot of the features of the scene. The four decades of the Misuse of Drugs Act have provided the UK with a coherent legislative framework. Although some noble Lords seemed to think that we could somehow duck our international obligations, we do not believe that is actually the case. We have to engage in policies which restrict the availability of drugs and their misuse and which protect public health and welfare. We will continue to try to do that.

We will engage in a number of positive features in our policy—I think it is important to do that—but before I come to that issue I want to say something about the relationship between the level of crime and drug use. The findings from the British Crime Survey 2009-10 show that drug use among young people in the 16 to 24 age group has fallen to 20 per cent, from 29.7 per cent when the survey began. That is quite a significant drop. The latest figures from the NHS Information Centre’s annual survey of drug misuse in England, which was published earlier this year, confirmed the downward trend of the past few years. That is why I mentioned the complexity of interaction. That is an encouraging phenomenon and we would like to know exactly why that is happening.

We want to empower young people to steer clear from drugs rather than encourage their consumption. In due course we shall be debating the Government’s proposals in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill for the introduction of temporary banning measures, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We believe that it is right and proper to have measures in place to be able to ban such substances. The experience of methadrone convinces us it is the right thing to have done. The ban had an impact on attitudes—consumption went down. We are certainly not of the view that it is wise to give the impression that, because a drug is legal, it is therefore safe. Indeed, some of those drugs are extremely damaging.

As part of reducing the demand strand of the drug strategy, we want to help people resist the pressures to take drugs and the encouragement that may come in their lifestyles and we want to make it easier for those who have taken drugs to stop. This is key to reducing the huge cost to society. We will focus in our strategy on early years prevention, particularly for families who have complex needs, and we will provide high-quality drug and alcohol education and information to young families and parents through schools, colleges, universities and the Frank service. Education was stressed by a number of noble Lords. We certainly intend to lay a lot of emphasis on that. We will provide intensive support to vulnerable young people to stop them becoming involved in drug and alcohol misuse.

We also wish to give discretion to the police on whether to prosecute in given circumstances and to the judiciary to take into account all the circumstances of an offence. In practice, the law enforcement element is one that we wish to see used judiciously. It is fair to say that some of the results in Portugal, where it has been said that legalisation has taken place, do the opposite in that they put people into treatment, which is what we want to see happen here. However, some of the picture in Portugal is not so good. It is the country in Europe, I think, that has the second highest level of HIV. There are relationships between these various phenomena.

Very few custodial sentences are imposed for simple possession offences and a fine is the most commonly imposed conviction.

[Baroness Meacher]

Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why she will not have a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? It has obviously now been in place for 40 years. Whatever may be said about Portugal, the reality is it had a very high level of HIV before decriminalisation and now has a very good record. Most importantly, young people there are now less and less likely to go into drug addiction. In view of this evidence, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government will not even look at and evaluate, whether through an impact assessment or a royal commission, their own policies? We have very high levels of drug use in this country, and we are not doing well.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Baroness is doing us a slight injustice. I did not say that we would not look at anything; I said that we were going to base our current policy on constant evaluation. We understand that we need to look at how successful our policy is being. We do not believe, on the basis of the strategy that we wish to pursue, which has new elements to it, that the moment has come for a thoroughgoing review, but we are going to continue to evaluate the effects of our policy. I hope that that will convince noble Lords that we are not going into this absolutely blindly.

I would like to say one or two other things, but I must conclude. The Government will put resources, energy and ambition into pursuing a policy that we are endeavouring to make broader in its scope and more effective in its outcomes.