Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Evidence base for the destruction, retention and use of fingerprints and DNA profiles
(1) Chapter 1 of Part 1 of this Act shall take effect following the completion of a report on the impact of its provisions by the Secretary of State.
(2) A report commissioned under subsection (1) shall include an evidence-based assessment of the risk of offending following an arrest which did not lead to a conviction.
(3) Evidence assessed under subsection (2) shall cover a period of at least 6 years.
(4) The Secretary of State must make the report, and the Government’s response to any recommendations made in that report, available to the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament.”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 7 and 8 standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe.

As all noble Lords will be aware, Chapter 1 of the Bill relates to the destruction, retention and use of fingerprints. For me, this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. As we agreed at Second Reading, there is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting people’s freedoms from police or government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence from criminals or terrorists. These balances should be guided by evidence and by an assessment of risk and not by liberal or libertarian ideology. The changes proposed by the Government go too far in restricting the use of fingerprints and DNA profiles, and will make it harder for the police to solve and prevent serious crimes. It will also make their work more bureaucratic.

Amendment 1 would ensure that Chapter 1 took effect only after an evidence-based study had been completed analysing the risk of offending following an arrest which did not lead to a conviction of at least six years. The Minister may well tell me that such an evidence-based study would take too long. However, if such a study leads to saving lives, I for one strongly suggest that the time will be well spent. Why is this so important? It is important because the evidence base used by the Government to inform their decision to reduce the period of retention of DNA and fingerprint profiles is extremely weak. If we get this wrong, the implications for victims will be huge. There are countless examples of people who were arrested and not convicted but whose DNA retention was critical in catching them and convicting them of rape or murder at a later date. This is particularly important in relation to rape cases.

As the Minister will know, rape cases have not only a notoriously low conviction rate but a notoriously low charge rate. That is because the trauma for the victim is so great and because of problems with evidence. Many perpetrators of serious sexual crimes are not brought to justice for their first offence. In about 70 per cent of cases in which a rape suspect is arrested, there is no charge. According to Home Office papers, in cases where there is no charge, DNA will be kept in only very limited circumstances so that in many cases the DNA will be destroyed even though it might be critical in catching a repeat offender for a nasty and violent sexual offence.

The Minister will know that a considerable number of cases have been solved because of DNA. Kensley Larrier was arrested in 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. The case never reached court, but two years later he raped someone and was found because of a DNA match. Lee and Stephen Ainsby raped and kidnapped a 17 year-old girl in Barnsley. Lee Ainsby’s DNA was found years later in a case review. It had been taken because he had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Under the proposed system the DNA would not have been kept. Without that DNA those two men would still be free and justice for that young girl would not have been done. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder in Birmingham in February 2005 but released without charge. In July 2005 he raped someone in Stafford and was identified only because the police had his DNA. The senior investigating officer for the case said:

“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either”.

Case after case would have been much harder for the police to solve under the new rules. The Minister may well cite the S and Marper decision by the ECHR that blanket retention and storage of DNA and fingerprints contravenes Article 8 of ECHR. My Government responded with an extensive evidence-led consultation. However, the ECHR decision also recognised the importance of the retention of DNA in fingerprint profiles for individuals who have been arrested and/or charged but not convicted. It is the state’s primary duty to protect citizens’ fundamental rights to life, liberty and security under Articles 2 and 5. The ECHR objection was based on the blanket and indiscriminate approach to retention. Therefore, the argument is about minimising risk to the public of individuals committing an offence in the future and balancing that risk management against considerations of privacy. Evidence-led risk analysis was done two years ago by the Home Office which concluded that the effective length of the retention of DNA profiles was six years for both those arrested and/or charged for a serious offence, and for a minor offence. Conservatives were so convinced by this evidence that they voted in favour of its conclusions on a six-year retention limit contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010 when the noble Lord and his party were in opposition.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

Was that not part of the wash-up process, and was it not an improvement on the existing regime when it could be kept indefinitely? We were bringing it down to six years.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as I explained, because we looked at the evidence we did indeed bring it down to six years. If the noble Lord looked at that evidence it would show that six years is the appropriate amount of time for DNA evidence to be kept.

Following the election, based on no new evidence, the Government announced that they would legislate to adopt the protections of the Scottish model. It was based on no evidence but was simply a judgment of the appropriate balance. A review of the Scottish system by Professor Fraser one year after it was introduced assessed the success only of the current system and did not compare whether a longer retention period would be beneficial or whether retention for three years was detrimental to solving serious crimes. The Government persist in seeking to apply the Scottish model in England and Wales when all the evidence and strong police advice from both sides of the border is that Scotland should instead apply the model of England and Wales. Scotland’s rape conviction rate is less than half that of England and Wales. The DNA database in Scotland is far less effective in solving crime than that in England and Wales. In 2009-10 a DNA profile loaded on to the DNA database in England and Wales had an 18 per cent higher chance of finding a match than was the case in Scotland. That is evidence that our system in England and Wales is far preferable and much more efficient and effective than the system in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She mentioned 23,000 offences. Do they include minor offences?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I would like to be able to answer the noble Lord but I regret that I cannot. I will come back to him in writing.

The statistics and the lack of evidence for the Government’s proposals mean that Amendment 1 is essential.

I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Rosser. Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying serious offence should have their DNA and fingerprints stored for six years. This replicates the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed by Parliament but never brought into force. The six-year limit is based on Home Office analysis and reflects a proportionate response to the ECHR decision. As I mentioned earlier, the three-year figure comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no analysis of risk to public security. That is why Amendments 2 and 3 are essential. They will ensure a six-year rather than a three-year limit for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. I beg to move.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. As noble Lords will know, I have some experience in dealing with crime from the years when I held office in government. Two things became very clear during that period. The first was the enormous value of DNA in solving serious crime. Time and time again, cases came before me involving DNA, including a number of cases that came from the so-called cold cases review, which involved investigating crimes from a number of years before. There were some remarkable discoveries—for example, the so-called Sheffield shoe rapist who was discovered, some 20 years after he had committed, I think, four rapes, two attempted rapes and probably many more, as a result of a match to DNA from his sister who had been arrested, I think, for a driving offence. That would never have come to light but for the cold cases review and if that DNA had not been retained. It is not simply a case of bringing those who deserve it to justice; it is also a question of protecting others from that person. Those who have been convicted, particularly of such serious offences, as a result of DNA are at least off the streets and therefore less likely to cause harm to women, in particular. That is the second point I want to underline.

My noble friend rightly made the point that there is no more important series of cases for DNA evidence than serious sexual crimes, rape and other offences against women. That is the second thing that I discovered in my time. These are difficult cases to deal with and to convict on, but they cause huge anxiety, shame and sorrow. The great tragedy is when they do not result in a satisfactory result. I am therefore extremely worried about the Government’s proposal to remove without a proper evidential base evidence that could be used in just such cases. In the light of what my noble friend said, this change should not take place until and unless there is clear, convincing evidence that it is not going to put more people at risk or leave more criminals on the streets. For that reason, I strongly support this amendment and the other two amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Sorry, but I do not accept that. I refer the noble Baroness to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that we are in the early days of knowing what DNA can and might achieve in the future. We are offering a very large amount of information to be stored in that DNA. I find that idea scary. Obviously some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, do not; indeed, they positively welcome it. On this, there will have to be a philosophical divide between the noble Lord and myself.

For the reasons that I have given, I would certainly not support the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will feel able to withdraw it because I do not think it would command the support of the House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but excellent debate. I do not really understand what the Minister is saying about the wash-up. He seems to imply that if a Bill is agreed to in the wash-up, it does not have as much authority as other Bills.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I was not saying that at all, though sometimes Bills are rushed through without quite the same scrutiny that they normally deserve. The noble Baroness was trying to imply that that Act had the full support of the Official Opposition. My point was that, yes, we signed up to it because it was an improvement on what was there before, but we still felt that it did not go far enough in that it left the term at six years. We are proposing something different: three years, with the possible extension of another two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful to the Minister.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, talked about the culture of society. He is right to do so. From our discussion today, it is clear that there is a fine line between the preservation of the freedom and privacy of individuals and the protection of citizens from crime and the delivery of justice, and there is a clear discrepancy in that balance. My Benches believe in protecting the freedom of citizens to be protected from crime and the freedom of victims of crime to see their assailants brought to justice. That is the side of that fine line that we fall on. That is the culture in which I wish to live. I wish people to be protected from crime and I wish assailants to be brought to justice so that the victims of crime have proper justice.

The noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Condon, spoke of advances in science, which are very important. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the very fact that there are such fantastic advances in science, and the fact that our country leads in DNA technology, should perhaps make us think that now is not a good time to reduce the length of time for which our DNA is kept precisely because science may enable us to make better use of those samples in the future.

My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked about the value of DNA in solving serious crimes, including in the review of cold cases. I agree with them. The Minister spoke of the excellent report of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I certainly welcome all the recommendations that she made, which will make a difference to convictions for rape if they are implemented. However, those convictions will be added to if we are able to retain DNA; even more perpetrators will be brought to justice.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others are absolutely right when they talk about having their finger on the pulse. That is not to say that we as legislators should follow our citizens in every way; we have a duty to lead. However, in this instance the citizens of our country who believe that they gain better protection from the longer retention of DNA are absolutely right. That is certainly the case in the Forest of Dean, where I come from.

Yes, the Government certainly have an obligation to ensure that individuals are protected from unjustified interference, but they also have an obligation to protect people from crime and to deliver justice for the victims of horrific crimes. With their proposals in Chapter 1, the Government are abrogating their responsibility in these areas. The balance that we have all been talking about this afternoon is important and, in this instance, the Government have got the balance wrong.

I will withdraw my amendment but I will read the debate thoroughly in Hansard. I have to say that it is my intention to bring something back on Report. The noble Lord assumes that, were I to do so, I would not have the votes of the House behind me but we shall see. It is extremely important that the citizens of our country see that we take this issue seriously. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, and for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that it demonstrates that there is potential confusion in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness asked about cold cases. I understand the difficulty described by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in saying whether or not a case has been concluded. However, if in subsection (2) we are saying that,

“material may be retained until the conclusion”,

we need to be a little more specific. The noble Lord talked about the practicalities but also the philosophical nature of these issues. Philosophy is a great thing but when it comes to legislation perhaps it needs to be a little more specific.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment. It relates to the briefing from the Information Commissioner that was circulated prior to the Committee stage. He expressed some concern that the reference in Clause 2 to the conclusion of the investigation was too open-ended.

I am sure that we would all wish the police to be able to conclude every investigation swiftly with either a conviction or conclusion that no crime has been committed. But, we would all acknowledge that in reality that is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has explained. There will often be cases when it is impossible to identify a suspect immediately and when evidence must be retained for a significant period in the hope of identifying a suspect in the future. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to cold cases. The case that comes to my mind is the one that has recently been reopened on the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Evidence, including biometric material, must be retained in these circumstances to enable comparison with the suspect and, for example, to ensure that the suspect’s legal team can examine and probe all the previous police lines of inquiry. If all evidence is not retained in such circumstances, the suspect identified later will be able to argue to the court that the destruction of such material would render it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. In such circumstances, even if Amendment 5 were to be made to the Bill, a chief officer would be unable to certify an investigation as complete, which is I think what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was referring to. In addition, where it is possible for the police to conclude an investigation the introduction of such a certification requirement for all investigations would impose a new bureaucratic process on the police that would be both unnecessary and, when aggregated across the number of investigations conducted, costly. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, makes that quite clear.

For the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept Amendment 5, and I therefore ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the government amendments brought in at the Report stage of this Bill in the House of Commons stipulate that DNA and fingerprint profiles from individuals arrested but not charged with a serious offence could be retained only with the permission of the biometrics commissioner on the condition that the alleged victim is aged under 18, a vulnerable adult, associated with the alleged perpetrator or necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of crime. The effect of that is that many individuals who are arrested for a serious offence will not have their DNA retained at all.

From the definition given in government Amendment 11, it looks as though the Government are setting a higher burden of proof and imposing a greater administrative burden on police, which will have a dissuasive effect on the retention of DNA for serious offences. A false distinction is potentially being made between the risk associated with those arrested and those arrested and charged. As we discussed earlier, rape cases have chronically low charge and conviction rates. The amendment could therefore have an impact on the safety of women. I listened to the reasons which the Minister gave for introducing the new definition, but it would appear to be tighter. I therefore seek an assurance from her that the new definition will include victims in women’s refuges and sheltered housing, and rape victims.

I do not fully understand the purpose behind the amendment, nor do I understand which individuals, if any, the Government wish to exclude through the definition. I do not understand why the definition that we already have cannot be used. I suggest that the definition of a “vulnerable adult” should be common to all legislation, because that is the proper way for us as legislators to act. It is both logical and makes sense to citizens who have to deal with the legislation. I am wholly in favour of common definitions. If we are talking about vulnerable adults in one Bill, we should have the same definition in another. I do not accept that the new definition as put forward by the Minister in this amendment is necessary or desirable.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may build briefly on those comments because lurking in them was the question that I was going to ask. I suppose that I had better declare an interest, in that, whatever definition is used, I am a vulnerable old person, so it probably makes no difference to me.

The question is: does the Bill change the definition in the 2006 Act? On the basis of what the Minister was just saying, it leaves one definition in that Act and puts another in this Act. I think that it is very odd that we should have two definitions of vulnerable persons, whether adult, children or any other category of person. If a definition is right for one purpose, I cannot see why it is not right for another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, let me try to explain a little further. We are trying to ensure that, when we refer to “vulnerable adult” in the context of those who are the victims of crime, we are clear about the people who have been affected by the crime against them. Later on in the Bill, in a different context, the term “vulnerable adult” is deployed differently, because it relates to regulated activity and what access a person might have in terms of the activity being carried out at that time. The amendment tries to make sure that, in this context, we define “vulnerable adult” as the person who is the victim, rather than trying to define it in terms of what activity might be used against them, which occurs later in the Bill. I might have to write further to the noble Baroness.

Perhaps I may add that those seeking refuge from an abusive relationship would be covered by the third limb of new Section 63G(2); that is, by being associated with the suspect. However, given the nature of the questions that the noble Baroness has asked and the sensitivity of the topic—I would not want to give anybody the wrong impression about it—it would probably be best for me to come back to her in writing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, before we go to a vote, I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing the amendment and bringing it back on Report. I do not wish to vote against it but I should like further confirmation that the people who should be covered by this definition of “vulnerable adult” are properly considered and covered by it.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think, on reflection, that that would be the right course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my amendment deals with informed consent. It would provide that a person is not considered to have consented to the taking of material without having been fully informed of its potential use and retention. I am hoping that the Minister will tell me that this is not necessary because that happens and will happen. If I am correct in that assumption, I look forward to hearing on what basis the information is given, but if I am not correct, I look forward to assurances regarding how that will be put in place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not wish to return to our earlier discussion about the desirability of a voluntary or mandatory DNA database. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister, pursuant to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that citizens will still be able to give their DNA voluntarily should they so wish. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett did so to show that the DNA database was not something to be feared and that there was no stigma related to it. Listening to the debates in the Chamber this afternoon, I feel even more strongly about the retention of DNA now than I did before. I might well go along to a police station and voluntarily give my DNA.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, this is quite an important principle. I notice that when it comes to cautions and reprimands, particularly reprimands, the police certainly do not warn youngsters of the full implications of accepting one. They do not realise that it is a plea of guilt to a criminal offence, which will stay on their record for certain purposes throughout their life. In fact, I have discovered that even some solicitors in the county courts do not realise that. Therefore, it is important that the police have a duty to advise people properly of the full implications of these things, partly so that the police realise them as well. I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not know whether I can bring light to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, but I will see what I can manage. I will speak to my noble friend’s amendments and, because they have been grouped together, in due course speak to the government amendments in my name—Amendments 24 to 37.

My noble friend helpfully set out her views on the provisions in Schedule 1 in respect of the retention of material taken as a result of a Schedule 7 examination. Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is a national security border power that enables examining officers to stop, search and question a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, without reasonable suspicion that they are so concerned. Given that most major terrorist plots have involved individuals travelling across international borders to plan and prepare their attacks, it is only right that the police are given appropriate powers to examine persons, including through the taking and retention of biometric material—in this context, in order to identify and disrupt such individuals.

Imposing a requirement to arrest an individual for terrorism offences as a condition for retention and use of material taken under these powers, would fundamentally undermine their use as a means to identify those involved in terrorist activity and to gather intelligence. Such intelligence can provide vital contributions towards wider intelligence-based investigations in respect of national security. Terrorism investigations are, by their very nature, long and complex, and at the end of a Schedule 7 examination it may not be immediately apparent that an arrest is appropriate.

Attaching a requirement for arrest would furthermore offer no additional safeguards. The Bill already provides safeguards for material taken from a person detained under Schedule 7. There is a defined retention period of six months, which is considerably shorter than the three years’ retention period that applies where a person has been arrested for a terrorist offence under Section 41 of the 2000 Act. The new biometric commissioner will also have a general oversight role in respect of the retention and use of biometric material taken under Schedule 7.

I hope that that helps partially to explain matters to the noble and learned Lord and reassures my noble friend that the provisions in the Bill are transparent and will provide strong protection against unnecessary retention of material taken from individuals detained under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act.

Turning now to the governance arrangements for the DNA databases, the subject of Amendment 41, I think it is important to note that all DNA material retained by the police will as a result of the Bill be subject to comprehensive regulation, irrespective of the databases on which it is held. Indeed, although the overwhelming majority of DNA information retained by the police will continue to be held on the National DNA Database, where this is not the case, such material will be subject to the requirements of the regimes set out in the Bill, and covered by all the relevant safeguards.

Regarding the counterterrorism database, only DNA profiles obtained by the police in relation to national security—including counterterrorism investigations—will be held on the database. It has already, in effect, been placed on a statutory footing by virtue of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which provides for all material not otherwise subject to statutory restriction, and is already overseen by the National DNA Strategy Board in respect of compliance with agreed national standards and protocols.

The Forensic Science Regulator is also closely involved in ensuring that DNA analysis and validation meet acceptable standards, as he is with the National DNA Database. In addition, we should not forget the new biometrics commissioner’s general oversight function under Clause 20. If the commissioner had concerns about the governance arrangements, I am confident that he or she would not be reticent in bringing such concerns to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Perhaps I may briefly address the government amendments, starting with Amendments 24 to 28. These address three separate matters. First, Amendments 24 to 28 to Part 3 of Schedule 1 are intended to clarify the application and scope of the provisions for the retention and destruction of biometric material to which Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 applies. Section 18 mostly covers biometric material acquired covertly and material supplied by overseas authorities.

The Government are clear that material obtained under Section 18 of the 2008 Act should be subject to a clear and robust regime for the destruction and retention of such material. As such, we have proposed limiting retention to three years—on the basis of a national security determination extendable for renewable two-year periods—after which it must be destroyed.

However, the proposed destruction requirements in Section 18 are not expressly limited to material obtained from known persons. We are concerned that this will lead to anonymous material and, in particular, material taken from crime scenes, having to be destroyed at the three-year point. Indeed, as currently drafted the Bill requires just that. This unintended consequence would result in the destruction of material before the police were able to identify the individual to whom it belonged, complete an investigation of an offence—potentially compromising prosecutions in the process—or make a case for its retention on national security grounds. For these reasons, the amendments are designed to prevent the automatic and premature destruction after three years of anonymous and unidentified crime scene material obtained by the police.

We do not consider that anonymous material or material taken from a crime scene—where it is also anonymous—should be subject to the same destruction requirements as material obtained from known individuals. Rather, it should still be possible for the police and other law enforcement authorities to retain such material indefinitely. However, we recognise that not all crime scene material will be anonymous in nature and as such want to make clear that where there is provision for indefinite retention of unidentified material, once identified, such material will be subject to the same retention and destruction requirements of material where the identity of its owner is known on acquisition.

Amendment 26 will exclude from Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act material taken under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, as it will become shortly. This is consistent with the exclusion of other existing statutory regimes from the scope of Section 18 to avoid enacting overlapping and conflicting provisions. We consider that all these amendments enhance the provisions in Schedule 1 by making clear how they are intended to operate.

Amendment 29 would omit paragraphs 6(4) and 7 from Schedule 1 to the Bill. Those paragraphs, which contain provisions in respect of the retention and use of biometric material in Scotland for national security purposes have, in effect, been made redundant by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011, which itself gave effect to the changes that those provisions would have made. Simply put, the provisions are no longer needed and can therefore be removed from the Bill. There are three consequential amendments to Clause 113 and Schedule 10 which we will need to come back to later in the passage of the Bill.

Finally, Amendments 30 to 37 to Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 extend the list of purposes to which material taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and held pursuant to a national security determination may be used. They further ensure that the order-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order applies in respect of provisions regarding a transferred matter where it is ancillary to an excepted or reserved matter.

Amendments 30 to 33 provide that the purposes for which material retained pursuant to a national security determination which was taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order may be used are the same as for the rest of the UK. That is, that such material can be used for the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or for identification purposes, in addition to that for national security and terrorist investigations.

Amendments 34 to 37 are technical amendments. They amend the Secretary of State’s order-making powers so that the Secretary of State is able to make provision in respect of transferred matters where such provision is ancillary to excepted or reserved matters.

I apologise for taking so much time on those government amendments, but I hope that my noble friend will be content with the explanation I have given of her Amendments 41 and 23. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment, and I will move mine in their proper place.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, forgive my intervening at this stage. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. From what I heard of his response, I think that I would agree with him that her amendments should not be pressed, but I imagine that they are probing amendments.

As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, I intend to bring forward amendments on Report relating both to a period during which evidence can be collected before the Government’s proposals were introduced and to the period for which DNA samples and fingerprints could be retained—for six years rather than three years. If my amendments are accepted, a consequential amendment will be required to subsection (6) proposed in government Amendment 28, but that is for a later stage. For the moment, I am content to accept the noble Lord’s amendments.

[Baroness Doocey]

I thank my noble friend for the clear way in which he addressed my concerns. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that as soon as he got to his feet, I thought to myself, “I hope I will never get to court and meet someone like him”, because I think I would just throw my hands up in horror and plead guilty, regardless of how innocent I was. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

UK Border Security: 30 November

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as regards the second part of my noble friend’s question, that is obviously something we would have to consider after 30 November and after we have seen how we manage on that day. But I can give my noble friend an assurance that none of the checks he mentioned will be relaxed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the Government have sponsored speculation about what they will, may or might do to maintain UK security, especially at the borders, on 30 November—everything from bringing in the Army to the idea of staff from the Prime Minister’s Office manning passport control points. However, people need and deserve stability. If they have booked a holiday that day, they need to know whether they can get away. If businesses have important customers coming to the UK, they need to know that their businesses will not be damaged. I should therefore be grateful if the Government would publish, clearly and fully, for the benefit of the country as a whole, what in detail they intend to do on Wednesday in relation to border security.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity to condemn the strikes that are taking place on Wednesday, which would have been helpful. If all parties agreed that those strikes should not happen we would not have this problem. We shall be operating the appropriate checks with the appropriate people, appropriately trained to make sure that visitors—whether they are coming here as tourists, whether they are coming here for business or whether they are returning UK citizens—can get in without any disruption or with disruption minimised as much as possible. The noble Baroness will also be aware that this is an operational matter and for security reasons it would not be appropriate to comment in detail, as she wishes, on the arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness accuses me of being fixated on this issue and perhaps I am somewhat naive to be so fixated on this issue. I do not know in which way the members of the unions involved happen to vote. I happen to know that those unions support the party opposite. That is why we are still waiting for that condemnation from the party opposite.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that any strike is a demonstration of failure? Does he further agree that the Government themselves have failed to resolve this strike?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I totally and utterly reject what the noble Baroness has said and again invite her, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, to condemn this strike.

Violence against Women and Girls

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend is absolutely right. That is why we are working very hard with police forces across the country to ensure that they are made fully aware of how they need to respond, very sensitively, to issues of sexual and violent abuse.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, 76 per cent of ex-partner murders have stalking as a lead-up to the event. Does the Minister agree that actions must be taken now to stop this murder in slow motion? Would the noble Baroness further agree that, while county councils are clearly having to make cuts too deep and too fast, they absolutely should not make cuts to street lighting because of the serious implications for women and their safety?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, very briefly, I inform the noble Baroness that we last week launched a 12-week consultation on stalking to see if it will become a specific offence. A lot is going on, but I will of course write to the noble Baroness on the other issues that she has raised.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill. We may hear many fine speeches today that will characterise the Bill as a choice between protecting historical liberties and the march towards authoritarianism. However, I agree with my right honourable friend the Member for Blackburn, who said in another place that this is more a standard criminal justice amendment Bill than a sweeping redress of the balance of freedoms in this country. Some parts of the Bill present us with a stark choice not between freedom and the Orwellian state but between tiresome, sometimes intrusive inconveniences and increasing the risks to public safety. Regulation of CCTV, limits to the DNA database and crucial changes to the vetting and barring regime all present us with such a choice, and we are deeply concerned about the potential impact that the provisions may have on some of the most vulnerable communities in our society.

I will begin with the positive aspects of the Bill. We give our wholehearted support to the provision to erase historical convictions for gay sex that for far too long have blighted the lives of many gay men. We also welcome the extensions to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but I ask the Government to look at the needs of universities and other public research organisations in relation to research and progress. In addition, we support amendments to RIPA that aim to obtain greater proportion in the scope and use of powers, and we are very happy to allow people to get married whenever they desire. The reduction in the pre-charge detention of terrorist subjects from 28 to 14 days is another thing on which we can agree on the basis of evidence, and of course we support the restriction on stop and search powers.

We also firmly support the Government's intention to crack down on cowboy clampers who have bullied and harassed members of the public. However, we are disappointed that the Government are not also seeking to ensure that there is proper regulation of the private ticketing regimes that the Bill establishes as an alternative. In the other place, the Minister said that effective self-regulation by the parking industry was the way forward. However, this issue has arisen precisely because industry self-regulation has proved totally ineffective. We are concerned that the Government's best intentions will do little more than squeeze the balloon, turning thug into extortionist as rogue clampers turn into rogue ticketers. Citizens may well turn to Citizens Advice, which dealt with more than 16,000 parking inquiries last year. However, it is under huge pressure as a result of the cuts.

Other aspects of the Bill give rise to deep anxiety and betray a fundamental distinction in our parties' attitudes towards risks to the vulnerable in our society. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that the use of closed circuit television footage during the August riots helped the police to identify and charge almost 2,000 suspects. CCTV forms a central part of police investigations. It makes people feel safer and is especially important to those living in troubled neighbourhoods. Local authorities and police forces are struggling with eye-watering budget cuts and redundancies, yet the Government are proposing to pile extra red tape on authorities that wish to set up CCTV in their area. Do they believe that local authorities and police forces have a fundamentally more sinister use for CCTV than private operators? If there is a genuine need for regulation, why do the Government not think fit to extend the safeguard to the vast majority of CCTV that is privately owned?

Technology has revolutionised the prevention and detection of crime in this country, and nowhere more so than in the use of DNA evidence. DNA provides 40,000 crime scene matches a year and alongside fingerprints provides a critical component of investigations into the most serious crimes of murder, manslaughter and rape. The Crime and Security Act 2010 proposed that the DNA of those arrested or charged with, but not convicted of, a serious recordable offence be held by police for six years. This was based on Home Office analysis that shows that the risk of re-arrest falls to the level of the general population after six years. Part 1 of the Bill reduces this limit to three years. The Conservatives were convinced by this argument in opposition and voted for a six-year limit. Why do they now wish to halve it? What new evidence has caused this U-turn, other than the ideology of their coalition partners?

The retention of DNA of those arrested or charged but not convicted is especially important in the case of rape, which suffers notoriously low charge and conviction rates. We know that it is often only after repeat offences that rapists are finally convicted. As a result of this Bill, 17,000 rape suspects would be immediately removed from the DNA database. Experience shows that some, although not all, of these individuals will go on to commit further serious violent and sexual offences. In fact, the Government know that they are creating a significant public safety problem here, which is why instead of capping retention to three years they have included a provision to extend retention by an extra two years. In an effort, perhaps, to pacify Liberal voices, the Government are offloading responsibility for key public safety decisions on to our stretched police forces.

There are numerous cases in which murderers and rapists have been convicted only because their DNA samples were retained on a database for more than three years. To reduce the number of years is both irresponsible and dangerous. Part 5 of the Bill makes significant changes to the vetting and barring scheme that was introduced in the wake of the horrific murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman at the hands of their school caretaker. As noble Lords will know, the previous Labour Government, having recognised the weight of unnecessary burdens, implemented the recommendations of Sir Roger Singleton's report, which reduced the number of individuals needing to register with the ISA by approximately 2 million.

However, we believe that this Bill goes far beyond removing simply “unnecessary” burdens, and presents a serious risk to the advances that the scheme has made to child safety. The new barring regime would no longer include those who work in supervised situations with children or vulnerable adults. Charities, including the NSPCC, argue that this fundamentally misconceives the nature of supervision in places such as schools and care homes, where light-touch supervision means that there is often opportunity for an individual to develop inappropriate and abusive relationships with the child or adult. Furthermore, those convicted of serious barrable offences who do not currently work or express an interest in working with children will not be placed on the barred list at all.

This cannot be right. It is interesting to note that an online survey conducted by Fair Play for Children found that 96.6 per cent of respondents felt that adults convicted of offences against children should be placed on the barring list as soon as they are convicted.

We welcome the introduction of new portable Criminal Records Bureau checks. However, like Girlguiding UK, for example, of which I am a proud member, we are greatly concerned about changes that would mean that the CRB checks are sent to individuals before employers.

The coalition agreement states that the vetting and barring regime should be scaled back to common sense levels. We believe that this Government are at fundamental odds with the “common sense” of the majority of the public in not choosing to err on the side of caution when it comes to the safety of the most vulnerable in our society. I am glad, however, that this Bill presents us with an opportunity to address an important loophole in our law that means that those subject to sustained and harrowing experiences of stalking are not receiving the recognition and protection that they need and deserve.

Stalking behaviour is consistently unidentified and underestimated by the criminal justice system. The lack of legal definition of a stalking offence means that the police, probation officers and the courts will look at offences in isolation; as a result, patterns of behaviour are often not spotted until a serious offence is committed. Clare Bernal, for example, was shot dead in a Knightsbridge store in September 2005 by Michael Pech. Pech had stalked Clare after their three-week relationship ended, following her in the street and bombarding her with threatening calls and messages. However, after being arrested and charged with harassment he was bailed and travelled back to Slovenia, where he purchased the gun that he used to shoot Clare while awaiting sentence. We need greater clarity in the law to ensure that other women do not have to experience what happened to this young woman. There are hundreds of similar harrowing examples of women living in terror and sometimes being murdered.

I know that the Minister is a fan of the Scottish model for other provisions within this Bill, so I hope he will support changes to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 that are similar to those introduced in Scotland last year and that would make stalking a specific offence, thereby naming and defining this poorly understood crime.

In the 10 years prior to the introduction of the offence of stalking, Strathclyde police reported a total of 70 stalking-related prosecutions. In the first six months after the enactment of stalking laws in Scotland, there were 140 prosecutions in Strathclyde alone, with an estimated 500 to 600 prosecutions in the whole of Scotland by the end of this year.

A similar small but crucial change in the law would mean that the 18.1 per cent of women estimated by the British Crime Survey of 2010-11 to have been a victim of stalking could seek greater protection. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of this House will support an amendment to this effect.

Earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced with much fanfare that this Bill,

“gives us a chance to ... return individual freedoms to the heart of our legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 205.]

In many ways this is hyperbole, but by creating barriers to CCTV use, limiting DNA retention and restricting the vetting and barring scheme, exactly whose freedoms are being returned? Certainly not the freedom of local businesses, some of which suffered in the riots but were able to see the perpetrators brought to justice thanks to CCTV; nor the freedom of young women to feel safe walking the streets late at night; nor the freedom of children and young people, who in future could be supervised by paedophiles or others who have been barred.

I note the comments made by the Minister about balance. At the moment we believe that the balance is wrong. Some parts of this Bill are welcome but critical parts of it deserve close scrutiny and amendment. Together with my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, I look forward to working with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, to ensure that there is better balance in this Bill.

Visas: Domestic Workers

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I believe that my noble kinsman has had a meeting with my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Browning, on this matter, and I believe that there have also been a number of meetings with my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Mr Damian Green. These matters have been discussed, but I repeat what I said earlier. This is a matter for consultation; we will want to consider these matters and come forward with the appropriate solution, which in the end will be a balance.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is clear from the exchange of views today that what we are talking about here is tackling modern slavery. That is precisely why this question was raised today. The Minister says that the Government are looking at the granting of domestic worker visas in order to safeguard against unnecessary immigration. That is a very good thing. However, I understand that in 2009 only 795 migrant domestic workers were granted settlement. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me how many of those originally entered the UK on the “Domestic Worker (Visitor)”, the “Domestic Worker (Other)”, and the “Domestic Worker (Diplomat)” visa.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the more detailed points that the noble Baroness raised at the end, I will obviously have to write to her, but I think she is wrong to assume that all incoming domestic workers are being treated as slaves. They do have protections: they have the protection of the National Minimum Wage Act and all other appropriate protection. But we recognise that there is abuse here. What I am trying to talk about is getting the right sort of balance so that we can have a fair and proper immigration system—something that I have to say the party opposite failed to address in all their years in power—and have the appropriate protection for those workers who are being abused.

Multiculturalism: Interfaith Dialogue

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, this has been a very fine debate thanks to the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Mitchell, and the wealth of experience in this Chamber. In this House we are fortunate to have noble Lords of so many faiths, and none. Shortly we will have a new colleague who is a Sikh and I am sure that we all celebrate that.

Interfaith dialogue and action have taken place for many centuries—indeed, millennia, as the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, informed us. I mention Emperor Akbar the Great who encouraged tolerance in Mughal India which was, and is, a hugely diverse nation. Acts of violence, including wars, have also taken place over the centuries in the name of religion. The need for interfaith action and dialogue continues. I suggest that in our globalised world, more and more people migrate for economic and social reasons, and for security when their own states become fragile, and that need will increase. Indeed, when one considers poor harvests, escalating water shortages, and the effects of climate change, especially in coastal areas, there are bound to be more tensions in our world, more migration and more diversity in our societies. As a result, the mutual understanding and tolerance that come from interfaith dialogue grow more and more significant. As we have heard this afternoon, interfaith is not just about religion; it is about building bridges within and between diverse communities; it is about health, education, poverty, hunger, and so many other things; it is about action. As Gandhi said,

“What is faith if it is not translated into action?”.

We have heard some superb examples this afternoon of interfaith dialogue leading to action and to real change in people’s lives. Thanks to a conversation with the former Bishop of Coventry some years ago, I learnt of the interfaith work that they have nurtured in Kaduna, Nigeria. I visited both Christians and Muslims in that area, and learnt that lives have been saved there thanks to the interfaith dialogue that has taken place. Only a couple of months ago I was in Bradford with the Muslim Women’s Council, a feisty bunch of confident women who I am sure are well known to the Minister. They are leaders in their community, and some are actively engaged in interfaith dialogue. I say to my noble friend that they certainly are encouraging young girls to engage in dialogue with people of other religions.

I was much taken by the Coexistence Trust mentioned by my noble friend who chairs it and by so many others. I am delighted that it is being encouraged by the FCO and the British Council to set up a trust in the United States, and I wish it well. I hope that it is asked to take root in other countries. As an aside, I have to say that I have concerns about some religious schools. Like my noble friend, I wonder how closed institutions that educate children of one faith only can contribute to combating ignorance and lead to a more tolerant society in which the traditions of this country are honoured and respected.

President Kennedy said:

“Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one’s one beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others”.

Tolerance is at the heart of our debate this afternoon. I hope that our society is becoming more tolerant, including of science. A recent poll said that 88 per cent of people of faith supported the previous Government making incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation unlawful. I think that is a great way forward. I am proud to live in a country where, for the vast majority of the time, we celebrate our communality and respect our differences.

We live in a richly diverse and multicultural society that we celebrate, but we live in difficult, often divisive, times. For many reasons, our communities are sometimes fractured and people feel insecure and burdened. The values that underpin our society sometimes feel more fragile than they should, and some citizens, of all religions and origins, feel that the cultural and religious values that they cherish are under threat.

I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that the liberal, unregulated market economy that we have been living with has failed us, and that we need to build a more ethical framework for our future. I think that interfaith dialogue can help us in that. As has been said, interfaith dialogue nurtures understanding, promotes tolerance, and fosters our confidence to be proud of who and what we are in a diverse society. It contributes to the common good, but it must be inclusive. Therefore, interfaith dialogue is and must be one of the means by which our communities are strengthened in our increasingly complex world.

Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Waddington’s amendment would not prevent the passing of these regulations. It is an amendment that regrets a certain result from the present situation; that is all. That is well expressed in a press release that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission issued on 11 August. It applied for leave to intervene in the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. It said then:

“If given leave to intervene, the Commission will argue that the way existing human rights and equality law has been interpreted by judges is insufficient to protect freedom of religion or belief”.

The commission has withdrawn that as a result of representations made to it, which does not entirely increase my confidence in its independence, but that is what it said originally. That is really what my noble friend’s amendment expresses; it seeks not to change what the regulations are proposing but simply to express a concern that may be taken into account in whatever emerges in future.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise to express concern about the draft regulations being moved by the Minister, to speak against the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that I speak as someone who is proudly married—for 31 years today—but who strongly supports the Equality Act and the regulations that flow from it. I am proud of the Act and of the fact that those on all Benches in this House supported it when it was a Bill in this House.

The duties that we are discussing today are critical in delivering the public sector equality duty that is enshrined in the Equality Act 2010 to provide better all-round services to the community and all its diverse members. The purpose of the duties was explained carefully by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and others, I believe that as a result of three rounds of consultation the duties appear to have been watered down and therefore fail to deliver the main objective to ensure the better performance of the general duty by public bodies. It is difficult to understand how a single objective can enable a public authority to meet the range of its equality duties, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this point more fully.

As noble Lords will recall, the Equality Act 2010 brought together existing equalities legislation, with its specific equality duties, and added additional equalities-specific protected characteristics, as the Minister explained. Concern was expressed at the time that the new duties would be less robust, and I think this is precisely what has happened. The regulations before us are a step back from the level of specific equality duties that public authorities are currently used to under provisions on race, gender and disabilities. Yet there is evidence that the existing specific duties, which are more specific than those that we are being asked to approve today, have been useful in assisting public bodies to make progress with equality. The noble Lord, Lord Low, has given tangible examples of the ways in which specific equality duties are being used to improve outcomes, both for disabled people and school pupils, and as we have heard, positive outcomes for pupils include better access to facilities, feeling valued, developing higher aspirations, and narrowing gaps in performance and participation in sport.

In the wake of the disturbances this August, I suggest that these outcomes have become more, rather than less, important. The purpose of specific duties is to give proper guidance to public bodies whose main job is often not about equality but rather about healthcare, education, recreation, et cetera, but all these bodies want to improve the delivery of their services in a way that has equal outcomes for all. I must say to the noble Lord that I am not saying sameness for all, but equal outcomes, which is a very different thing. Despite the Minister’s assurances—

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, it was the noble Baroness’s Government who decreed that the upper ranks of the Civil Service should be representative of the community that it serves. I take it from the way she nods that that is her view. Surely we do not want 15 per cent of near illiterates and 10 per cent of near innumerates in the higher ranks of the Civil Service? Should we not have a more subtle way of deciding these things than passing over able candidates in favour of less able ones, for the first time since the 19th century?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I do not think that the Act suggested that people should be appointed if they are not properly qualified, or that the best person for the job should not have it. The Act said that there should be equal opportunities, so that whether you are black, white, disabled, yellow, orange, gay, lesbian, or heterosexual, you should have equality of opportunity, and the best—

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, the Act refers specifically to protected definitions of people. The very word “protected” means that they are going to be treated more equally than others.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

No, my Lords. It defines certain disadvantages, but it does not mean to say that some people are more equal than others. We are not in an Animal Farm situation. We are saying that every individual has their intrinsic worth as a human being, and that they should be treated in an equal manner and given equality of opportunity. That is what I believe we are all—or most of us—agreed upon in this Chamber.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, the word “protected” simply means those protected against discrimination in those categories. However, it seems to me that the noble Baroness was giving a very narrow interpretation, which may be why she agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Low. May I try to say what I think the regulations mean? Regulation 3 says that each public authority,

“must prepare and publish one or more objectives it thinks it should achieve to do any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)”,

but that does not mean, in my judgment—no doubt the Minister will want to respond to this—that if they publish only one objective, that is sufficient.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I do not think I know the difference, since I am asking a question. The question that I am asking, if I may be permitted to do so, is whether the Minister—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am not the Minister.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

I am so sorry. I meant to ask whether the noble Baroness, looking at the wording, accepts that there would be a judicial review, or something worse, if one were simply to do what she suggests.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, these are questions for the Minister. I am just putting my views as the spokesperson for the Opposition. I go back to what I was going to say, about transparency. The Government rightly stress the need for transparency and accountability. However, it is difficult to understand how these can be enhanced when the public and public sector employees will not be able to compare the equality performance of similar bodies because the information will not always relate to the same issues or be measured in a standard way. Access to data is crucial, but it is difficult to interpret those data if they are not given in a standard way. Therefore, it will be more difficult for public authorities and those they serve to discover and understand what good practice is. There is a possibility that there will be a new postcode lottery. The Government have failed to provide clarity with these regulations. It could well be that the burden on public bodies will increase in some way. As the Council for Disabled Children says in its excellent briefing,

“the requirements should be clear to all public bodies who are required to comply with the specific duties. This purpose is better served by making these requirements explicit in the Regulations rather than leaving public bodies open to challenge because ‘implicit’ requirements have not been made clear to them”.

I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in relation both to freedom of religion and conscience and to burdens and bureaucracy. I must also disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is in many ways my noble friend. During the passage of the Equality Bill we debated these issues long and hard and they were subject, as he rightly said, to amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was wrong when he made the arguments at that time and he is wrong now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for pointing out the difference between the law of the land, which I believe is correct, and mischievous misinterpretations of that law, of which there are undoubtedly many. While I respect that around this Chamber we have different views, I am concerned that perhaps some of the voices opposite are those of the modern Conservative Party. I know that some on my Benches will disagree with me on that.

When we debated the Equality Bill, there was wide agreement on all Benches that the Bill—now the Act—was the right way to address discrimination and advance equality of opportunity in our tolerant British society. I believe that that is still the case. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, says that specific regulations would be a burden on the public sector. However, I remind him that good regulations serve an important purpose. In this case it is to ensure that systematic inequalities can be challenged so that all members of our society can live and flourish without discrimination. The noble Lord dismisses the importance of equality of outcomes, whereas I suggest that outcomes and opportunity are equally important.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, is right to stress the need for the general equality duty to produce tangible and positive outcomes. I fear that the regulations have been weakened to such an extent that the outcomes will be neither tangible nor positive. In the other place, the Minister made a commitment to review the duties in two years’ time. That is very welcome, but I ask the Minister to confirm that such a review will take place and to provide further information about a timetable for it. How will the evidence be gathered? Will the review be based on progress towards the aims set out in the general duty, rather than simply on the aspects covered by the specific duties, and will it be public? I also ask the noble Baroness for a clear commitment that the specific duties will be amended if the review reveals that public bodies have not made sufficient progress in eliminating discrimination and advancing equality of opportunity.

The equality duty should be one of the most effective ways of combating institutional discrimination and putting the public sector at the forefront of efforts to secure equality. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said, in this seemingly fractured society I believe that issues relating to equality and discrimination have assumed greater importance and that regulations to define the specific duties are vital to delivering the general equality duty. As I said earlier, I would be very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Low, should he wish to vote on his amendment.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I will deal with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Waddington and the noble Lord, Lord Low, separately, but I will begin by dealing with my noble friend’s amendment. I recognise that he speaks with passion and that he has been consistent in his arguments. I stand here as somebody who may not be absolutely in tune with everything on the subject of equality, but I do know the outcomes of discrimination and inequality. I think, therefore, that what we are doing here today is helping to address those issues. While there may be Members among my noble friends behind me who think that we have gone too far, I say to them: ask the people who do not have access to those opportunities and you may get responses that are difficult to take if you have never had to undergo such discrimination yourselves.

My noble friend has made clear his concerns about the issue of religious freedom.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The Leader of the Opposition—she has been a distinguished Leader of the House in the past; I hope that she will not be again for a long time, but she fulfilled the task very ably. I hope that she is now able to confirm that the Opposition will no longer refuse the proper disposition of Bills between the Chamber and Grand Committee, because that would assist the House to move on to normal working practices. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has a view that is held, I am sure firmly by him, for political reasons. I look only at the reality of business.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the government Chief Whip. I know—it is not that I think—that my colleague the opposition Chief Whip has been very willing to consider, quite properly and appropriately, Bills going into Grand Committee. That is what we wish to do. We wish to co-operate fully with the Government. It has to be said, however, that many of the Bills before us are extremely complex. It is not just that they are political. Therefore, my noble friends on these Benches—not only those who are here today but those who are not in their places—believe that the scope of the Bills is such that they deserve to be debated in the Chamber.

One of the problems, not only on my Benches but throughout the House as a whole, is that people do not understand yet that the Grand Committee is not a second-rate Chamber. It is a Chamber where we can deliberate and assess Bills and scrutinise them just as we can in this Chamber. All around the House we have to be more aware of the ability of this House to better use the Grand Committee.

Having said that, I want to put on record that earlier in the day it was said that we had agreed to put one Bill into Grand Committee and then subsequently decided that it would be more appropriate for it to be taken on the Floor of the House. I record that that Bill was the Scotland Bill. After the elections to the Scottish Parliament, things fundamentally changed, not just politically but in terms of the subject matter of the Bill. That is why we decided it was more appropriate for the Bill, which is now a major constitutional Bill in our view, to be taken on the Floor of the House.

That having been said, I know that next week my noble friend the Chief Whip will wish to enter into further conversation with the government Chief Whip to see how we can secure other Bills in a Grand Committee of this House.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I put on record my gratitude to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her intervention. She and I agree on so many matters when it comes to the business of the House. I entirely accord with her views expressed clearly about the value of Grand Committee. I am sure that she is right that it is misunderstood generally around the House, not just by newer Members of this place who work well here but those who have a more established presence. It is a valuable place.

I recall that I agreed very reluctantly for the Extradition Act to be considered in Grand Committee because it was a highly controversial Bill at the time. But it proved that it was worth while. I certainly welcome, late as it is at night—we have had a long day—the measured way in which the Leader of the Opposition has responded and the fact that she has put forward a proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, the opposition Chief Whip, should enter into further discussions next week about the disposition of Bills into Grand Committee. That is most welcome.

Human Trafficking: EU Directive

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[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.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am still surprised as to why the Government are seeking to move forward with local enterprise partnerships, leaving nothing at all at the regional level. I have been hoping for some time that there would be a measure of movement on the part of the Government, and I hope to hear about that from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

The East Midlands Development Agency, better known as EMDA, was formed in 1999 and for the past 12 years has done a good job providing help and support to the economy of the East Midlands. It works regionally and sub-regionally where that is appropriate, so it is disappointing that the Government are seeking to abolish this RDA. I am not against reform per se, but it seems a bit over the top and creates a system that is unable to meet the needs of businesses and meet the regional challenges to create jobs and support the regional economy.

Noble Lords will be aware that the East Midlands is made up of six counties. It is the third largest and third most rural region in England, and has a population of 4.3 million people. There are well over a quarter of a million businesses in the region, and it is where I worked for many years. It is made up of largely rural counties with principal town and cities. I should say that I have great affection for the East Midlands. Compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, it is a region of relatively low wages and needs a measure of co-ordination and intervention at this level to protect jobs, boost job creation and enable businesses to flourish with the right sort of support. I am aware that other noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate will refer to the RDAs in their own areas, but I think that a recurring theme will be that at the regional level, this is a big mistake. Local enterprise partnerships on their own will not fill the gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 16A tabled in my name and in the names of several of my noble friends. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I am not against reform—I welcome it—but I am against the abolition of the RDAs in a wholesale way. I raised a number of questions on the abolition of the RDAs in our debate at the Committee stage and the Minister was kind enough to write to me with a detailed response. I have to say at the outset that I still have very deep concerns about the abolition of the RDAs, both in terms of the impact on economic growth and the process itself.

I turn first to the Government’s response to the report of the Public Administration Select Committee entitled Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State. The response is brimful of bravado, which I would say is misplaced in this context, but I digress. I refer to paragraph 6 of the response, which deals with the £2.6 billion that will flow from savings on public bodies over the spending review period and the estimate of a reduction of at least £11 billion per year by 2014-15. It has been estimated in some quarters that it could cost as much as £1.4 billion to wind down the RDAs and complete existing programmes. Yet in his letter, the Minister tells me that it is not possible at this stage to quantify the costs of RDA closure. I am sure he is correct, but if so, how can the Government state categorically that total savings as a result of this legislation will be at least £2.6 billion during the spending review period? It would be helpful to have a more detailed breakdown of the savings, especially after the extraordinary hyperbole we heard at the beginning of the process—not, I hasten to add, from the Minister.

I turn now to the issue of consultation, which I raised in Committee. I welcome the increased consultation that is now a part of the Bill thus far, although my noble friend Lord Hunt will move further amendments on consultation in due course. But in relation to RDAs, the Minister told me in his letter that:

“We have not so far undertaken a formal consultation on the abolition of the RDAs”.

I hope that as a consequence of this Bill consultation will in future take place at the appropriate time—before announcements are made and legislation is introduced. I note from the Minister’s letter that the Government are obliged to consult before laying any order to abolish the RDAs, assuming that they remain part of the Bill, and that they will meet this requirement. Personally, I think that such a consultation is far too late in the process. I also asked in Committee about the role of government offices. The Minister told me that BIS is working to put in place a new economic development delivery landscape and that this is the role that the network of small BIS local teams will be designed to fulfil. This is reinventing the wheel. In the main, the government offices do an excellent job at the moment. They may well need reforming but reform should not mean abolition; it should mean just some readjustment of the process which we have had thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

16A: Schedule 1, page 16, leave out lines 12 to 19

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his offer to keep us informed of the consultations as they go on. The Minister was right to say that it is a political decision that has been taken by this Government. We believe that this is fundamentally the wrong decision. We believe that it is wrong for the economic growth of our regions and it is wrong for the economic well-being of our country. Therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.