Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I know that we will be debating the Immigration Bill very shortly, but I should like to comment on this matter of fees and the premium services that are being offered—presumably to try to make it easier. Speaking as the founding chairman of the UK India Business Council, if there is one complaint about the United Kingdom and our relationship that I hear when I go back to India, as I do regularly, it is about visas. This is particularly true of students, and of the business community. We have serious problems in that the UK Border Agency, as it was, was not fit for purpose and has now been dismantled. Can the Minister confirm that the levying of fees is a caseworking function and falls within the remit of UK Visa and Immigration and not that of the UK Border Force?

Furthermore, it is quite clear when I come in and out of Heathrow in particular that it is very difficult; the queues are very long. We are not adequately resourced to cater for the passengers arriving in the UK. With this system, I presume that the Government are trying to make it easier for someone, by paying a premium fee first, to get a visa and then, once arrived, to get in quickly and escape the queues. Can the Minister confirm that? It is very off-putting, whether you are a tourist or a business traveller, to be confronted by those queues at Heathrow.

Quite apart from this, the Government—as I have said before—should surely be thinking about joining Schengen, which is much better value for money. It would encourage many more visitors to come. This government measure is a step in the right direction but it is completely avoidable if we join Schengen. That would hugely enhance the number of tourists and increase the number of business visitors. It would be much better value for money.

Next, from the point of view of students from abroad, Britain is a very expensive country to study in. They want to study in Britain—our higher education, along with that of the United States, is the best in the world—but both the fees and the cost of living in the UK are high. This has not helped countries such as India, for example, where the exchange rate has deteriorated rapidly and the rupee is now much weaker, making it even more expensive for Indian students. Having to pay an even higher fee for a premium service makes it that much more expensive for them to come to this country. The number of Indian students has dropped by 25%. Our economy desperately needs the income from foreign students—what they spend on fees and what they spend while they are here—which is estimated at possibly £14 billion a year. This is quite apart from the generation-long links that are built.

Moreover, while we are focusing on the fees, the Government are completely ignoring—again, we will address this in the Immigration Bill—the introduction of exit checks when people leave the country. It is very simple, with today’s technology, to scan every passport as people leave the country, whether they are EU or non-EU. Then we would know who has left the country and who has come into the country, which would also help to address the huge problem with illegal immigrants.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which certainly addressed a couple of the points I wanted to ask him. I found it extremely helpful. I appreciate that this is not the order that sets the level of fees, which will come before us again. However, there are a number of questions on this.

First, I entirely agree with the point made in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:

“The Home Office believes that it is right that those who benefit directly from the border and immigration system should bear a higher share of the cost of running the system and therefore reduce the contribution made by the UK tax payer”.

Noble Lords will recall that I addressed that principle in the anti-social behaviour Bill on the issue of firearms licences. The Government did not agree with me in that case and the taxpayer is shouldering a huge burden of millions of pounds every year for firearms licences. Given that it establishes a principle here, I hope it will apply to other areas of government policy, such as those I have raised previously, when appropriate.

The new provisions here talk about the new services that can be provided at a cost. The Minister said something about this but it seems to me that there is still an area of flexibility. He talked about the new optional premium service and where it could be provided. Can he can say anything more about that, or am I wrong and there is no flexibility? However, from what is here and what he was saying, it is implied that there is some flexibility in the services that can be charged for. I am interested to see whether there is a definitive list of those services that are not being charged for now but would be charged for in the future. That would be a useful list to have.

I was looking at the debate yesterday in the other place and one of the areas that struck me, and is something that I have been looking at, was the consultation. I did not think there was a consultation on these proposals. It has closed but it has never been published. As a matter of principle, it is always helpful if information on consultations is published prior to the debates on the issue because presumably the consultation was to inform policy and this debate is to help form policy. I would have greatly appreciated having the responses, or a summary of them, and the details of that consultation prior to today’s debate. Given that the discussion on fees will continue, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could circulate, at least to those interested in today’s debate, or place in the Library, details of that consultation and the Government’s response to it. We will not oppose the order today or pray against it because of that, but I do not think it is a good principle.

As I understand it, part of the proposal is that what the Government call “commercial partners”—and most people call contractors—would be able to charge for services they provide, particularly visa applications. They would also be providing new services and new fees. I hope that, when we discuss fees at a later date, more information can be given to your Lordships’ House on the method of calculation if we are talking about three new variables: new services, new fees and contractors.

I am curious about what appears to be an extended role for contractors in visa applications. Can the noble Lord can say something more about what work contractors will be undertaking that the Home Office is currently undertaking? Will there be a transfer of responsibilities or of work? I am not clear exactly what the contractors will be doing under the terms of this order. Does the Minister know which contractors will be used? Will there be new contracts to bid for? Who are the contractors, if that information is available? What will the process be and what will the work be? How long will any contracts be given for? The key point is that presumably there has to be careful monitoring and high expectations of the standards to be reached by contractors. There have been issues with some big contracts, such as security for the Olympics, which the Minister and I and debated on the Floor of the House. Recently, we have seen security concerns raised over one of the private prisons and problems with electronic tagging. I think there are multimillion-pound paybacks from some companies that the Home Office has employed to undertake work on its behalf. If this is an extension of contractors, we need some very clear assurances on what the monitoring arrangements will be and how they will be enforced to ensure high standards, especially if new fees are coming in to pay for those services.

That sums up the standards that we expect in the work being done by contractors. We also want to know a little more about the fees and what services will be covered by them. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions. If he cannot, I shall be happy for him to write to me. I have asked for a fair bit of detail, particularly on the contractors. If he could give me an overview now and then write to me, I would be equally happy with that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. It is helpful to have an opportunity here to discuss some of the detail that lies behind this. The more exciting event perhaps follows when the level of fees is discussed, but this is the framework against which we might discuss those matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to queues at airports. Certainly from my own experience, while queues are still a feature, they are nowhere near as great a feature as they were. None the less, there will be people who wish to avoid any queueing and, for them, a premium service facilitates that. Part of the reason for fee-charging is to make sure that income generation is available to help resource UK Visa and Immigration, which is the body responsible for this aspect.

The noble Lord asked why we had not joined Schengen. This is a matter that frequently comes up in debate. Our view is that, while we can work as closely as we can with Schengen, we need to protect our own borders—that has been a policy decision under this Government and the previous Government—and we should continue to do that.

We take note of the level of student fees. We are well aware of the pressure that people wishing to come from India are under because of the fall in the purchasing power of the rupee. It is quite right to say that the number of students coming here from that country has fallen. We regret this, but this does not challenge our overall policy because student numbers from elsewhere in south-east Asia and China are up and, overall, the number of overseas students is increasing. I expect, and as the noble Lord rightly suggested, that this matter will feature in debate when the Immigration Bill arrives in this House. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has already advised me that he intends to raise it.

Exit checks are included in the Immigration Bill and will be debated as part of that. I think that it is well known that it is the Government’s intention to introduce e-Borders where possible.

I shall take up the noble Baroness’s invitation to write. I shall include the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, in that and place in the Library a copy of anything that I am not able to answer on my feet here today. I hope that I have covered the majority of the issues that the noble Lord mentioned.

I should say that the cost of production of a UK visa is £136; the fee charged is £80. We are still a long way from recovering costs on student visas, for example. However, we are in a competitive market and we do not wish to have a fee level that discourages people from coming to study here.

I have a note on the contractors, which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, chose to ask about. Overseas visa applicants can choose to take up a number of added-value premium services provided by processing partners on a commercial basis alongside their application. Many of these services have been offered on a small scale and developed over time. We plan to expand these services, so it would bring greater clarity and transparency to have fees. All these services are set out in the legislation. I think the noble Baroness was asking about the nature of the arrangements with contractors. It may be advantageous to write to her on that point.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I must clarify my question: I was probing further on the nature of the arrangements. Will any new services be undertaken by contractors that are currently undertaken not by contractors but by the Home Office?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We have two principal contractors at the moment, VFS Global and CSC. These were retendered in 2013. From 2014, there will be two new contractors. VFS Global is reinstated but Teleperformance UK has been re-engaged. These were open-tender contracting arrangements. However, if the noble Baroness would like more information on them, I am prepared to write to her about the services they supply. I will make sure that that is done. I have some of the information here.

[Lord Bilimoria]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to make two points. He said that the number of overseas students has increased. However, if I may correct him, according to the Times Higher Education Supplement of 16 January, the number of non-EU students at UK universities fell by 1% last year—the first such decline ever recorded. In the Government’s defence, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked if there had been consultation. My understanding is that targeted consultation took place.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My point was that it has not been published and we were not able to see it before the order came before us.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will comment on the consultation after I have described the services. The services provided by the contractors are priority visa services, user-pay visa application centres, prime-time appointments, passport passback, mobile clinics and international contact centres, so there are a variety of things, all designed to facilitate people’s applications. What goes on under these headings is probably best put in the letter rather than my reading it all out.

I must correct myself. I said that the £80 fee is for a short-term study visa; it is actually £298 for the points-based system, but the comments that I made still apply.

The Government held a limited consultation on this. There had been a previous consultation, as my honourable friend Mark Harper announced yesterday. A full public consultation took place in 2009-10 on the whole business of charging and a more limited consultation was carried out. We received 78 responses, mainly from representative bodies. The document will be published. I will ensure that we write to the noble Baroness with details of the consultation and, indeed, the Government’s response to it as soon as it is available.

I say to the noble Lord that we do not want to bandy figures about but the Government’s intention is clear: we do not want to impede students coming to this country. Our figures show that sponsored visa applications for university students rose by 7% in the year ending September 2013. Genuine students are indeed welcome to the United Kingdom.

As I said, I may not have been able to cover all the ground. The noble Baroness mentioned firearms. One day I hope to shoot her fox on that particular issue, but not at this juncture, so I have to take her chiding in good heart. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write on the detailed questions I have been unable to answer.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, sweetness and light is clearly breaking out after a slightly more difficult passage of the Bill at earlier stages. We should all be pleased that the outcome of this has been to strike a compromise between the very real concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and others expressed about the original provision. That had to be balanced, as it was in debate, by the real concern about problems faced by many tenants in both the public and the private sector, and I think that the Government have sought to strike an acceptable balance. To strike the slightest of sour notes, I think it was clear that that balance had to be struck from our debate in Committee, a very full and detailed debate. Perhaps, had the Government come forward with precisely this formulation at an earlier stage, they would have avoided a defeat. I also wish that a similar attempt to try to meet the genuine concerns of noble Lords in respect of other provisions in the Bill might have borne fruit before we got to this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment he has moved today, for his letter and for the helpful way in which he approached taking on board the will of your Lordships’ House. His amendment still allows for nuisance and annoyance to be taken into the housing setting and residential areas. I am grateful for his acknowledgement that it was the Opposition who raised time and again during the passage of the Bill the fact that so much of it is not tenure-neutral. We felt that those who rented their accommodation rather than owned it were getting a bit of a raw deal. In the amendment, the Government have sought to address that problem, so that those suffering from anti-social behaviour in the form of nuisance and annoyance, whether the people who are causing the problem live in public rented accommodation, private rented accommodation or are owner-occupiers, can ensure that that problem is tackled. I am grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgement of that because we have raised it several times during consideration of the Bill. I also welcome the conversion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to this as I know that she was not happy with the amendment and voted against it on Report. The Minister can take great pride and credit in having such widespread support around the House.

I have just one question, which is on the title of the provision still being an IPNA, or an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance, under Part 1 of the Bill. I wonder whether, if I can pronounce this correctly, that should now be an IPASB rather than an IPNA. On the content, that aside, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for tabling that amendment in the first place.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Would it not be a good idea if we got rid of all these ridiculous acronyms, which no one understands?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It may well be. I sometimes think that when we use acronyms, people have not got a clue what we are talking about. However, should it not be an injunction to prevent anti-social behaviour rather than an injunction to prevent nuisance and annoyance?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have an answer to the noble Baroness’s question, which I know about because I asked the same question at one stage. The title of Part 1 of the Bill—a title covering the whole of Part 1—will be revised in advance of the Act being published, following Royal Assent. Apparently, this is quite customary. It is worth making it clear that the title of Part 1 does not represent the formal name for the injunction and that whatever name is chosen will not affect the meat and substance of what it seeks to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House has cause to be grateful to my noble friend, and I am glad that the Government are taking powers to deal with this evil—and it is an evil. However, I express the hope—without anticipating tomorrow’s debate in any detail, because that would be wrong—that there is real consultation between government departments. If it is going to be more difficult, as it should be, for these evil people to do these terrible things in reality, as it were, some will be tempted into the virtual world where so many children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has pointed out, are at ever-increasing risk. We will be debating that tomorrow, but could the Minister give me an assurance that there will be conversations between him and Ministers in other departments to make sure that we have real co-ordination to attack the evil people who do these terrible things?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, yet again I have reason to be grateful to the Minister for the way in which he took away the amendment I tabled and brought it back in a way that can really make a difference. When I first tabled the amendment, I knew that it was stretching it a bit to table it to this Bill, but it had to be said that here was an opportunity to do something about a very serious problem. I am grateful to the Minister because he did not say that it could not be dealt with under this Bill. He took it away and found a way of ensuring we could give these young people the protection they need.

I am grateful to Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner in Manchester, who first raised this with me, and to Colin Lambert, the leader of Rochdale Council and Jeanette Stanley of Rochdale Council. Their message is the same as mine. This is an important tool, although it will not solve the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has already indicated other areas where people with evil intent will try to find a way around legislation. The existing legislation was inadequate. The way these young people are groomed is so callous, calculating and cruel that the children do not even realise they are being groomed and are the victim of an offence. This is now an important tool in the armoury of those at the sharp end trying to protect young people and children and to deal with such horrific crimes. I am very grateful to the Minister for the way he has handled this, and we are very pleased to support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this gives me an unexpected opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box. On behalf of the Ministry of Justice, I would welcome a conversation with the noble Lord, but I can go no further than that.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as we get to the end of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill we have, given the amendments today, a sense of achievement. However, if I am honest—and I think the Minister would agree—there is a sense of some relief. I entirely concur with his comments about the support from around the House and his civil servants in the Box. The Bill has had a long and sometimes tortuous journey. There were times when I thought perhaps we needed injunctions for nuisance and annoyance and for these to be employed in your Lordships’ House. There were a number of scheduling changes which, fortunately, did not interrupt the Minister’s birthday party. However, they did cause some anxiety in ensuring that we were properly prepared for each stage of the Bill. We coped with all those and I am grateful to him and to his Front Bench colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Faulks, for their support.

When the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was speaking from the Back Benches he was very much in favour of an amendment relating to an eviction power in England for those found guilty of rioting offences. Unfortunately, when he moved to the Front Bench we lost the powerful and persuasive speech he would have made on Report. We look forward to hearing other contributions.

We are grateful for the constructive way in which the Minister approached our amendments, particularly the two tabled today and that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, which significantly improve the Bill. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Rosser, my noble friend Lady Thornton, and our Whip, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who did an excellent job. I am also grateful for the expertise of our Back-Benchers. I am thinking, in particular, of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, my noble friend Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lord Harris—although he was described as mischievous by the Minister—whose expertise was useful and wise.

I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the one outstanding issue on miscarriage of justice. All other issues have been resolved today, so I hope we can reach agreement on that, as your Lordships’ House made its view very plain. I hope we can proceed with the next Bill, on immigration, with the same constructive dialogue as the Minister has been willing to undertake on this one.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

EU Police and Criminal Justice Measures: EUC Reports

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I express my gratitude to the committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lady Corston and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who cannot be with us today, for their roles in chairing the sub-committees. Although this is the first opportunity for a formal debate on the initial report, we have used that document to inform other debates on this issue. It has been extremely valuable, not just for the debate but for anybody wanting a greater understanding of the issues involved in opting out and opting back in again. I welcome the fact that we have a debate, at last, on the first report and on the follow-up.

Too often it seems to me that debates on anything to do with Europe become pro/anti debates without any real regard for some of the very serious issues involved. That must be very frustrating to many people who may not themselves be intensely political but who want to know and understand what the debate is about. I feel that many politicians would do far better to deal in fact rather than just try to persuade others of their own point of view. These reports clearly fulfil that function of trying to deal purely in facts. They provide a forensic and comprehensive examination of the Government’s decision to opt out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then seek—and “seek” is the operative word, since there are no guarantees—to opt back in to those that they consider to be essential.

These are not decisions to be taken lightly. A Government’s first duty is to the security and safety of their citizens and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and others make very clear, that security and safety is best served by European co-operation. The Government have to accept that the process of opting out and then, perhaps, opting back in again to some measures is a risk. I share the concerns that the Government’s whole approach to this issue has been more political than practical. No evidence has ever been presented of any harm to the UK from not exercising the permanent opt-out, but a great deal of harm is possible from any failure and delay in opting back in to the 35 or more measures in the analysis given by the committee. It seems to me, as has been said by other noble Lords, that it has had a lot more to do with placating the anti-European lobby inside and outside the Conservative Party. We have had the absurdity of the numbers game between the two government parties about how many measures should be opted back into. Surely, it has to be about the substance and value of the measures, not how many. The first report came to the conclusion that the case had not been made for triggering the permanent opt-out. That was repeated following investigations that led to the follow-up report.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, I also looked at previous debates, not so that I would not say something different but to make sure that I was not repeating myself. However, I will repeat myself in this case, as in previous years I have asked different Ministers the same questions but never had a satisfactory answer. Those questions are: how many of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of are relevant to the UK? How many are currently being used? I should add, how many are in any way harmful to the UK? If I can get an answer to those today, it would be extremely useful. What I am trying to get to, in an easily understood format, is what the precise impact would be on UK citizens of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of. The Government themselves claim that a number of the measures are defunct, so have no impact. So was this ever a serious exercise, or was it always political posturing on Europe?

I am grateful to the committee for the very helpful table at the back of the second report that gives details, including most of the information for which I have asked Ministers on more than one occasion. The follow-up report gives more specific information on the committee’s analysis of those measures. The committee clearly shares my frustration at how the Government presented this information and their assessment of the measures. Paragraph 19 of the follow-up report in response to the Government’s evidence and comments on that is devastating for the Government:

“In our view, this lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon is regrettable. Despite the length of its gestation, Command Paper 8671 showed signs of having been hastily put together. We are disappointed that the Command Paper presented both the 35 measures which the Government intend to rejoin and the 95 they do not intend to rejoin in an unconvincing manner. We regret that the grounds on which the Government made their selection of measures to seek to rejoin were not set out persuasively in the EMs”—

that is, the explanatory memorandums. That is a devastating critique of the Government’s process.

The committee is also highly critical of the Government’s engagement with Parliament. Noble Lords will recall the dismay of your Lordships’ House on the day of the debate, 23 July, when the government response to the initial response was so obviously rushed out just hours before the debate started. Comments that it had been delayed to produce a more comprehensive report did not appear evident from the content or style of the report.

I hope the Minister will take back to the Government the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that this House takes these matters very seriously and it wishes them to be taken seriously by government. We want the time to fully consider the implications and to digest and consider government reports. Obviously, nobody wants to see undue delays in consideration, but a House that has the duty of scrutiny and takes that responsibility seriously is understandably offended if unable to adequately fulfil that function. The report does not suggest a timescale but it does indicate what information would be useful, and perhaps essential, in allowing for proper consideration and decision-making.

I want to turn to some of the detail of the follow-up report and the specific measures referred to. As the report reminds us, your Lordships’ House previously endorsed the 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin as being in the national interest, and the report welcomes the other opt-ins announced by the Government. Perhaps the most significant and the greatest debate in your Lordships’ House is on the European arrest warrant. We found it inconceivable that the Government wanted to opt out, and I have previously provided examples of cases in your Lordships’ House where it had been invaluable. In a previous debate, I was also critical of the Government’s refusal to implement the European supervision order, which ironically had caused some of the problems about which the Government complained in the European arrest warrant. As I said before, we accept that there were problems and will further consider the Government's proposed reforms, as the Government have now recognised that reform is the way forward and are not just dismissing the EAW as worthless. We also welcome that the Government have now agreed to implement the ESO, so that it is easier for those bailed outside the UK to be brought back and bailed in the UK.

I shall now turn briefly to other areas in which the committee recommended an opt-in. Its argument in each of those areas is that there is a case for saying that the national interest would be best served if the UK were covered by the measures. Clearly, the Government do not accept those arguments, and I would find it helpful if the Minister could expand on the reasons why they support a permanent opt-out from those measures, particularly as there is a recurring theme—from the committee, from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and from others—that the Government’s explanatory memoranda were inadequate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, spoke about action to tackle racism and homophobia, and the fact that the UK has been a world leader and a trailblazer on this issue. The concern raised is about the message that the opt-out sends, and whether it is appropriate that, as a world leader and trailblazer, we should step back and give the impression that this matter is not as important to us as it is to other European countries.

Another issue of concern in judicial areas, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is the European Judicial Network. I am not a lawyer, but I found it interesting to note that the Law Society of England and Wales and the Law Society of Scotland both recommended opting back in, specifically referring to their view that it would help address lack of training and awareness. The network was supported by the Lord Advocate as frequently being used to seek assistance with overseas European arrest warrants. I would welcome a response from the Minister on this subject, because I am not clear whether the Government are saying that it is not valuable, or that the points are being fully addressed in other ways. I would like some clarification of why the Government think it would be harmful, or prejudice the UK’s interests, if we were part of the European Judicial Network.

I would also be grateful to hear far more from the Minister about the proposed permanent opt-out from the European probation order, which the noble Baroness also mentioned. It has had broad support in the legal profession, and the Northern Ireland Justice Minister considers that it would be particularly helpful in relation to border issues between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have to ask the Minister a question, which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned specifically: what consideration did the Government give to the part of the UK that has a common land border with another country? It is of interest to hear the detailed arguments on this subject, particularly given the submission by David Ford, the Justice Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, expressed his concern about the lack of consideration by the Government of such cross-border issues. The European probation order is a significant measure, and I am not yet convinced that the Government have made a powerful enough case for a permanent opt-out. I have to ask the Minister: did the Government’s proposed privatisation of the probation service have any bearing on this decision?

We have heard from other noble Lords about driving disqualifications, and the committee has, very reasonably, asked the Government to reconsider their position on this subject. As a Northern Ireland Minister I had responsibility for road safety at one point, and a significant issue then—it remains one now—was the difference in regulations, penalties and offences between the two jurisdictions. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to deal with those, but why are such considerations important for that border but not for those between other European countries? I know that the Government have cited costs, but can the Minister say more about what those costs are, given that we are talking about an important area of public safety, and that we are already taking steps with regard to Northern Ireland?

I shall not go into detail on all the other committee recommendations, because in conclusion I want come back to the subject of process. As the Government move into negotiations, these will have to be intense and focused. Where the Government want to opt back in, it is clear that that needs to be done as soon as possible. What consideration has been given to any interregnum there may be, and what mitigating measures might the Government introduce in such cases?

I entirely agree with the committee about keeping both Houses informed. The committee recommends regular reports, but I must express my concern that “regular” may mean something different to the Government from what it means to the committee. We have been through this before—for example, when we expect a report to be presented in the spring, and then spring moves into summer. Regular reports to Parliament would be very welcome. Can the Minister confirm that that will be the case, and tell us what timescale and method the Government are considering?

The idea, put forward in the report, of a review of the operation of the opt-outs, and of what happens when we opt back in again, is also welcome. What plans are in place to assess the impact? Without greater clarity at the beginning of the opt-out process about the opt-in process, the exercise has always been, and remains, a bit of a gamble.

I greatly welcome the committee’s report but the part I quoted, which has given me the most cause for concern, is its paragraph 19 about the,

“lack of analytical rigour and clarity”,

in the evidence on which the Government have based their decision. I agree that that is deeply regrettable, especially on such important issues as policing and criminal justice, which strike at the very heart of a Government’s first duty to their citizens—that of ensuring their security and safety. I hope that the Government will take note of, and respond in a positive way to, the criticisms and act differently in the future to ensure proper and beneficial consideration of their proposals. In future, I hope that when we have such reports before us we will have timely debates, because these debates contribute enormously and would help the Government in decision-making.

Modern Slavery

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very interested in the right reverend Prelate’s suggestion. As my experience before I came here was very much involved in the supply chain, I know how important it can be to have companies interested and integrated in good practice at every level. This is an area where we are looking to work with the supply chain to drive out slavery in supply at cropping and processing levels in food cases, and in the manufacturing industry.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee on the Children and Families Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, proposed that a guardian should be appointed for child victims of human trafficking, whether for sex or slavery. The Government rejected that. Will the Minister explain why, and will the Government reflect on their decision and look again at whether there should be guardians for child victims of human trafficking?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness is right; the child guardian idea does not form part of the Modern Slavery Bill at present, but we are examining it. The Security Minister, my colleague James Brokenshire, will also meet the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council, which were co-authors of the independent review of practical care arrangements for trafficked children, to discuss their findings. We want to make sure that the arrangements we set in place, both through legislation and the corresponding action plan, really do tackle this problem.

Public Order: Busking and Live Music

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not intend to comment on the Camden case because it is subject to judicial review, as the noble Earl will understand. However, perhaps I can convey to the House the sentiments of the Mayor of London, who clearly believes that busking is an important part of street life in London. He is keen to encourage street entertainment and live music, not least because of the positive aspect it brings to the life of the city. As I have made clear, the Government believe that live music and street entertainment can play an important part in community life. The Government support the mayor’s position.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s responses and I think that the intention of the legislation is clear, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is on to something about the guidance. We all know that overzealous implementation of legislation can cause problems. Will the Minister respond to the noble Lord’s specific point about making things clear in guidance? When looking at the public spaces protection order, will he also consider guidance for community protection notices and dispersal powers because, with this whole new architecture of arrangements for dealing with anti-social behaviour in the Bill, guidance will be important to ensure that we do not have overzealous implementation?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope I gave my noble friend a positive response to his request. The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. Busking can brighten our lives; local action is necessary only to curb any excesses. I think that noble Lords will understand that that can occur. It is not about top-down government; it is about local authorities using the powers available to them. The guidance will certainly make clear the Government’s position on busking and street entertainment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

92A: Before Clause 111, insert the following new Clause—
“Long-term police authorisation requiring independent approval
(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32A (authorisations requiring judicial approval) insert—
“32AA Long-term police authorisations requiring independent approval
(1) This section applies where a relevant person has granted a long-term authorisation under section 29.
(2) The authorisation is not to take effect until such time (if any) as the relevant independent body has made an order approving the grant of the authorisation.
(3) The relevant independent body may give approval under this section to the granting of an authorisation under section 29 if, and only if, the relevant independent body is satisfied that—
(a) at the time of the grant—(i) there were reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and(ii) the relevant conditions were satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and(b) at the time when the relevant independent body is considering the matter, there remain reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the relevant conditions in relation to a grant by an individual holding an office, rank or position in a relevant law enforcement agency are that—
(a) the individual was a designated person for the purposes of section 29,(b) the grant of an authorisation was not in breach of any prohibition imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(a) or any restriction imposed by virtue of section 30(3), and (c) any other conditions that may be provided for by the Secretary of State were satisfied.(5) In this section—
“relevant law enforcement authority” means—
(a) a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) the National Crime Agency;“relevant judicial authority” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales,(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session, and(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland;“relevant person” means—
(a) an individual holding an office, rank or position in a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) an individual holding an office, rank or position in the National Crime Agency.(6) In this section—
“relevant independent body” must be defined by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this section is enacted;
“long-term” must be defined by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this section is enacted.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 92A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser and myself, would make provision on “Long-term police authorisations requiring independent approval”—in other words, police authorisation for covert or undercover operations. The Minister knows of our concerns and interest in this issue, as we flagged it up at Second Reading and my noble friend Lord Rosser proposed a very similar amendment in Committee as well. I know that the Minister agrees with us that meaningful action has to be taken to address how covert police operations are authorised and managed, but it seems to us that the Bill provides the ideal opportunity to address the issue, given that it is the Government’s flagship Bill on crime and policing.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that there is an issue here. In his letter to my noble friend Lord Rosser on 21 December, the Minister outlines the powers that the Government are taking and have taken already, so the Government recognise that changes have to be made. I welcome those changes and do not decry them, but they do not go far enough in addressing the seriousness of the problem to provide the degree of oversight and monitoring that we feel is necessary. I do not think that it is enough to give guarantees or assurances if people are to have confidence that such operations are properly authorised and monitored when they are ongoing. I shall come on to explain the differences that we have.

I reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lord Rosser in Committee that we support undercover policing and recognise that it is essential in dealing with organised crime and terrorism. We recognise the dedication and bravery of those officers who undertake this work, but we can only repeat that such operations must be subject to the highest of ethical and operational standards. That is essential both for their operational effectiveness and for public confidence, which is why we place such store on getting accountability absolutely right in this area.

My noble friend gave two examples in Committee that drive home how those changes must be made and why action must be taken to address the problem that any suspected criminality must be dealt with proportionately and not in excess of what is required. I do not want to repeat what was said in Committee, but I shall outline those two cases briefly.

The first case is that of Mark Kennedy, known in his undercover name as Mark “Flash” Stone, who as a police officer infiltrated left-wing protest groups over a period of seven years. These groups were involved in lawful demonstrations—there is no evidence that they were involved in crime. In that role, he had relationships with women in the protest movement and travelled to eco protests across Europe.

When HMIC reviewed Mark Kennedy’s activities and those of other undercover officers, it stated that his actions led to the collapse of a trial of environmental protestors. The report said that he defied management instructions, but it was never clear what those management instructions were. Indeed, he took the view that his superiors knew what his activities were, so there seems to be a lack of clarification on whether his actions were authorised or whether he just thought that somebody knew about them so it was okay to behave in the way that he did. The HMIC report also suggested that an independent body should be required to authorise such undercover operations, as he had been inadequately supervised and the oversight had to be strengthened.

In such cases, we question not only the ethics of Mr Kennedy and others, but the proportionality of their actions and their cost. I do not know whether there has ever been an assessment of the costs involved in such cases, but clearly neither the costs nor the methods—the ethics—could be justified.

The other case referred to by my noble friend Lord Rosser involved the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, who is now a Member of your Lordships’ House. After her son was murdered in a racist attack, Peter Francis, who was then an undercover police officer and a member of the highly controversial special demonstrations squad, was part of an operation—Peter Francis said—to spy on and attempt to smear the Lawrence family. Those actions in all cases are totally unacceptable.

I also refer noble Lords to a book by Rob Evans and Paul Lewis, The True Story of Britain’s Secret Police, which illustrates the extent of the problems. There have been a number of cases in which women were conned by these men—seven police officers, acting under cover—into believing that they were having a genuine relationship. They had sexual relationships that in a number of cases led to children being born. It appears that those men, who had been acting under cover, shed their responsibility to their children as easily and as quickly as they shed their undercover identities.

I know that the Government have brought forward secondary legislation to deal with the issue through an order, which Damian Green in the other place said would enhance oversight. However, I have two concerns. First, I do not think that secondary legislation gives this House the opportunity fully to examine the proposals before it. It would have been helpful to have included any such proposals in the Bill, as we could then have had the opportunity to fully discuss whether the measures were appropriate. I think that the Government’s proposals go a long way towards dealing with the problem, so I welcome them, but they do not go far enough. We are not convinced that the Surveillance Commissioners are really the appropriate body to provide independent oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Perhaps I should explain to the noble Baroness and the Minister why we did not pray against the order when it was laid. The order made changes that improved the position and it would have been rather churlish for us to say at that time, “We’re going to pray against this because it doesn’t go far enough”. The order has improved the position, but I have a serious issue with the 12-month period. I know that the Minister said that we should give the new regulations, which came into force on 1 January, the opportunity to bed down, but why not get it right first time? This legislation provides us with the opportunity to do so. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that it is about getting the balance right. A 12-month undercover operation is a long undercover operation. If there is no independent monitoring and approval before that 12-month period comes to end, a lot can happen. This amendment is about the integrity of the operation concerned and ensuring that nothing is going wrong. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, if the integrity of an operation is compromised, it can mean that a court case fails. We have seen that in other cases involving long-term covert operations. That is a very serious matter. Further, those who have been undercover have thought that activities were authorised when they had not been explicitly authorised. It goes back to authorisation by commission or omission—it seems to have been authorisation by omission in the cases of some undercover operators.

I take the point that the order represents an improvement, but the fact that 12 months can elapse before any further oversight or independent monitoring take place represents a serious error. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will understand why I feel the need to test the will of the House on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister may recall that on a previous occasion, when this matter came up in relation to Clause 126, I spoke very briefly in support of the amendment that was then being proposed. The reason I spoke was because two Members of this House, who are not present this evening, made speeches which—to put it as gently as I can—cast doubt on the confidence one should have in the police. I got to my feet not because I agreed with them but because it seemed to me that there was an underlying issue that ought to be mentioned. It is public confidence. It may well be that, because of the very high profile of the posts we are talking about, particularly the post of commissioner, public confidence will be of the greatest importance. For that reason, which I hope the Minister will recall was discussed last time, I will make the same point again, this time in relation to this much more focused and, I hope, more helpful amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister did not think I would pass up this opportunity. This is an interesting amendment. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blair, say that the Minister was going to resist the amendment, because when I read it, especially after our previous debate, I assumed, possibly wrongly, that it reflected what the Minister had said in previous debates and therefore set out the position for clarity in the Bill. Clearly, nobody in your Lordships’ House has criticised in any way the possibility of a police officer from overseas, suitably qualified, becoming a chief constable or the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. That is not at issue.

What is at issue is that they should be subject to the same conditions and rules as any member of the UK police force. I am surprised if the Minister does not think that there should be an explanation or guarantee of some form of appropriate security vetting, in the same place as the Bill says that a police officer from an approved overseas police force can be appointed. The change is being made in the Bill; I would have thought, therefore, that any qualification to that change should also be made in the Bill.

I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance on this, and will take it away and come back at Third Reading with something that is appropriate and addresses the concerns that have been expressed. I do not think that it is unreasonable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made a very strong point about public confidence. It serves public confidence well to understand that if a police officer comes from overseas, particularly in the role of commissioner, which is a counterterrorism role unlike any other chief constable role in the entire country, they will be subject to the same kind and level of vetting as any police officer taking the job from within the UK.

I hope that there has been some misunderstanding or error in the report that the Minister intends to resist the amendment. He has his piece of paper there; I hope it does not say that. I hope he will want to think again and come back. I think that he will have got a sense from your Lordships’ House that there is widespread support for what seems to be a very moderate clarification, and I hope that he can accept it.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I see this as an area of principle. I somewhat regret that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, addressed the issue ad hominem; I think that that was a little unnecessary. The Government take this matter seriously—and take his amendment seriously, too. As I said when responding to similar concerns in Committee, I agree that it is essential that those who are appointed as police officers undergo vetting appropriate to the role they are undertaking. I reinforce that view today. I am grateful to the noble Lord for reflecting on that debate and, in constructing his new amendment, taking the arguments I presented into consideration.

However, while vetting is vital, I do not believe that primary legislation is the place to set out the level of vetting. It is not the place where the level of vetting should be determined. Nor do I see the case for singling out just one chief officer post—namely that of Metropolitan Police Commissioner. As I said in Committee, no Home Secretary—also an appointee of Her Majesty—would make an appointment to the post of Metropolitan Police Commissioner that would put national security at risk. Furthermore, naming,

“developed (or equivalent) security vetting”,

as the requisite standard in primary legislation could be a hostage to fortune. Were the name or criteria for this type of vetting to change, this requirement could become outdated.

However, I have listened very carefully to the arguments that the noble Lord put forward, and there may be some merit in setting out vetting requirements in regulations. It is right for the College of Policing, as the body that sets the standards for policing, to take the lead role in considering whether to propose such regulations. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 111 makes statutory provision for its formal role in the preparation or approval of regulations. I will undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the college.

The noble Lord also highlighted the possibility that in a few years’ time we could find that all the chief officer equivalent posts in the Metropolitan Police, and indeed in other forces, could be filled by persons who have previously never served as a police officer in the UK. I have to say that such a possibility is, at best, theoretical, and I think that the noble Lord would admit that. Under the existing law, it could already be the case that every officer from commander through to deputy commissioner could be a person with no previous policing experience in the UK. That was not the case when the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was commissioner and, in practice, I see no possibility whatever of that happening in future.

We simply do not need legislation to preclude such a possibility. It has never been a legal requirement for the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or for deputy or assistant chief constables in other forces in England and Wales to have been a constable in the UK or a British national. As I indicated, these are not really matters for primary legislation; they are matters that the College of Policing may wish to advise on as matters for regulations—or they are matters that can be stipulated when a particular appointment is advertised. We remain of the view that an amendment to the Police Act 1996 is not required and, accordingly, I cannot undertake to bring forward a Third Reading amendment.

It will be for the Home Secretary to make decisions on the eligibility of applicants for appointment as Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and for the commissioner and chief constables in every other force to decide in relation to other senior posts. It is right that the Home Secretary and police chiefs should be trusted to decide who is best qualified and most appropriate to fill those roles. I cannot undertake to bring forward a Third Reading amendment on this issue, as I said.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blair, will accept that the issues he has raised are not new. They would have arisen whether or not Clause 128 was in this Bill. He is right to raise these matters, but questions about the appropriate vetting of senior officers and about the relevant previous experience of such officers on appointment should not be a matter for primary legislation. However, I will draw this debate to the attention of the College of Policing. It may be that the college will come forward with regulations in future. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crickhowell (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on the last occasion that my noble friend brought this matter forward and I am delighted at the outcome. I add only one thing. I do not often put down Parliamentary Questions these days, but if I do not see an order appearing, I will put down Parliamentary Questions and will do so, if necessary, with increasing frequency as that memorable date in May 2015 approaches.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I rise briefly, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, when he raised this issue in Committee and at Second Reading. He is wise not to rely on the Private Member’s Bill route at present, since we have a number of Fridays when we are discussing just one Bill, which crowds out every other Bill that noble Lords wish to bring forward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, about “Better not, Minister”, or “Better, Minister”. I think that the phrase in the “Yes Minister” series—which I heard myself as a Minister—was, “That’s very courageous, Minister”, which, from civil servants, is not praise. I hope that the Minister has not had to be too courageous in accepting the principle behind this amendment.

I want to raise a couple of thoughts, because this is a big issue. The cost to councils is enormous. I come from a generation that came home from school or from shopping with our hands stuffed full of any litter we had had during the day. Sadly, that is not always the case now. Sometimes the methods used are not entirely appropriate, although the problem has to be dealt with.

I have one concern. As I understand it, the Minister will bring forward an order-making power at Third Reading, but I take the comments from noble Lords opposite that we need assurance that the order will not be delayed and will be fairly swift. We all know how long orders can take. Given that they are unamendable—though they have to be consulted on—it should not take too long. If the Minister can give assurances or any guidelines on the timescale in which he expects to bring the order forward, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I am delighted with the news that the Minister accepts the principle of this amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have sat listening to noble Lords’ expectations thinking, “No pressure, then”, so I hope that I do not disappoint noble Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward his amendment. All noble Lords share his concern about littering; indeed, as all who have spoken in this debate have said, it is anti-social, causes a nuisance, is an eyesore for the communities in which we live and can cause harm to the environment and, potentially, other road users. It is unacceptable behaviour and should be treated as such.

My noble friend describes his amendment as a simple measure to “fix” a problem. I have not heard the words quoted by my noble friend Lord Deben—“Better not, Minister”—in all my time, albeit brief, in ministerial office, although he of course had a longer time in office and perhaps had to deal with slightly more weighty matters than I have. When my colleagues who work with me on this Bill talk to me, they demand not “courage” or sensitivity to other considerations that they do not believe to be justified; I find them remarkably supportive and they have been very supportive on this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister, my honourable friend Norman Baker, wrote in his letter of 11 November to the JCHR, responding to recommendation 36 of its report on this Bill, that the Government would consider the judgment of the court in the judicial review of David Miranda’s examination and the observations and recommendations of the independent reviewer on that examination, but I hope that, at the same time, he will also consider the recommendations already made by the independent reviewer as mentioned. I do not know what the timescale for this would be, but to give Ministers a chance to start their review with a blank sheet of paper, I commend this amendment deleting new paragraph 11A.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as always on such issues, these are interesting debates, and I always note that I am one of the few non-lawyers to speak in them. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I put on record my thanks to the Government for their letter of 15 January in which the Minister explained the changes that were being made to the Bill—it should be understood that your Lordships’ House welcomes those. We concur with the Minister’s judgment about the David Miranda case and we, too, await the judicial review and any report from David Anderson. It may be helpful if we have a discussion once we have received that report.

The amendments before us today highlight issues of concern not just in the law but in the way in which the law may be implemented. However, as I said in Committee, we also take note of the comments of David Anderson as independent reviewer and we are not persuaded to support these amendments tonight. We would support further consideration of Amendment 93B if there were any further incidences of improper detention of citizens from Northern Ireland, but that consideration needs to take the form of a proper consultation involving the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, the Irish Government as well as the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The PSNI has the unique task of policing a land border with the Republic of Ireland and it rightly requires additional powers to enable it to reduce border crime and prevent dissident attacks. We therefore cannot support Amendment 93B.

There is more work to be done on some of these issues. We certainly want to return to the Miranda judgment when it comes out.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

The noble Baroness has explained that the Opposition are not able to support the amendments, but she has not explained why. Could she tell the House why the Opposition do not consider that a standard of reasonableness, in view of the severity of the sanctions, is appropriate?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we have two reasons. First if the noble reads my comments in Committee, he will see that we gave further information on that. Secondly, we take the view as outlined by David Anderson in his report, and we think that was a reasonable position to take.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, have all made very valuable speeches on this issue, addressing the fundamental principle of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 through their amendments: when a person may be detained and when their personal electronic devices may be examined.

I preface my remarks by noting that we continue to await the judgment of the High Court in the judicial review proceedings brought by Mr David Miranda, following his examination under Schedule 7 in August last year. Although the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, who has been referred to several times in the debate, has made some recommendations in relation to Schedule 7, we will not have the benefit of his report on the detention of Mr Miranda and any further recommendations he may make until after the judgment is handed down. Consequently, the debate on Schedule 7 will continue beyond our proceedings today and beyond this Bill. I am certain that we will return to these matters in detail in the future. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for agreeing to this approach and I commit to keeping her informed of the Government’s approach to the issue.

Let me address the amendments before the House. I begin with Amendment 93B, which provides that a person “may not be detained” for examination,

“unless the examining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect”,

that the person is concerned with,

“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

The powers in Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act are for the purpose of determining whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. This is an examination of whether they appear to be. As I explained in Committee, examinations are not simply about the police talking to people they know, or already suspect, are involved in terrorism. They are about talking to people travelling to and from places where terrorist activity is taking place or emerging, to determine whether those individuals appear to be involved in terrorism—whether that is because they are or have been involved, will become involved or are at risk, either knowingly or unknowingly, of becoming involved.

The Government maintain the view that introducing a reasonable suspicion test for the exercise of powers under Schedule 7, both to detain individuals and to search electronic devices, would undermine the capability of the police to determine whether individuals passing through ports, airports and international rail stations appear to be involved in terrorism. That view is shared, as some noble Lords have commented, by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who explained to the Home Affairs Select Committee:

“My exposure at a variety of ports to the operational constraints under which ports officers operate inclines me, on balance, towards rejecting the reasonable suspicion standard as a condition for detention”.

Mr Anderson highlights:

“Terrorists pose risks on a different scale to most other criminals: they have shown themselves capable of causing death and destruction on a massive scale”.

He adds:

“Active terrorists are not numerous, and not easily identified as such”,

and that a port environment suspicion may be,

“harder to substantiate objectively in the absence of specific intelligence”.

Those are important words, setting the background to the Government’s consideration of these matters.

I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepts that, “the concerns which underpin” the independent reviewer’s,

“rejection of a reasonable suspicion standard are entirely justifiable concerns”.

For his part, the independent reviewer has recommended that detention be permitted only, and continue only, when an officer is satisfied that there are grounds for suspecting that the person appears to be concerned with terrorism. In Mr Anderson’s view, this represents,

“the maximum safeguards consistent with the continued productive operation of these vital powers”.

There have been two or three references to the discriminatory effect of these powers on ethnicity. Perhaps I should tackle this one. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said, if the powers are operated properly, the ethnic breakdown of those examined will correspond not with the ethnic breakdown of the general population or the travelling population, but with the ethnic breakdown of those involved with terrorism. I believe we have to accept that.

The Government welcome the debate to find an appropriate threshold for the exercise of powers to detain individuals, and to make and retain a copy of electronic data under Schedule 7. However, in the specific context of port and border controls to determine whether individuals appear to be concerned with terrorism, reasonable grounds for suspicion is not an appropriate threshold. Ensuring an appropriate threshold that is clear in its meaning and provides an effective safeguard in its distinct context is a matter the Government continue to reconsider. We shall reflect further on the recommendation that the independent reviewer has made. However I am not persuaded that it would be right to introduce a test of reasonable suspicion, as Amendment 93B seeks to do.

The effect of Amendments 93A, 93C and 93D would be to restrict the duty of a person being questioned under Schedule 7 to disclose anything in relation to data stored on a personal electronic device unless they are detained. They also restrict the power of an examining officer to search things in relation to data stored on personal electronic devices unless the person being questioned is detained. I have tried to reassure my noble friend Lord Avebury that the power to search for and examine property, including personal electronic devices, is an essential part of the Schedule 7 powers. The independent reviewer observed—I make no apology for quoting him again—that,

“the Schedule 7 evidence which has assisted in the conviction of terrorists … consists of physical possessions or the contents of mobile phones, laptops and pen drives”.

These amendments are intended to complement Amendment 93B and to require reasonable grounds for suspicion to delay a person and consequently to examine their personal electronic devices. I have set out the Government’s position on the reasonable suspicion threshold.

The independent reviewer has recommended that the power under new paragraph 11A to Schedule 7—to make and retain copies of data from personal electronic devices—be exercised only if a senior officer is satisfied that there are grounds for suspecting that the person is concerned with terrorism. As with the threshold for detention, the Government are considering additional safeguards for examination of personal electronic data. We shall reflect further on this, both on the independent reviewer’s recommendation and alternative enhanced safeguards—for example, to provide for a review officer to approve any decision to examine data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I draw attention to my interests in policing and private security as set out in the Register of Lords’ Interests.

The Minister will no doubt be pleased to hear that this amendment represents my final attempt to introduce business licensing of companies engaged in the private security sector within the framework of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. As he will be aware, the Bill constrains the form in which my amendment can be framed. As I will explain, however, it is still my belief that the goal of business licensing of companies working in the private security sector can be achieved more effectively in this way than by the alternative routes the Government are proposing.

There is almost complete agreement across the industry, and certainly in the Home Office, that the licensing of individuals working in private security has had a beneficial effect in driving up standards and increasing public confidence. Regulation has been a force for good, as the industry has argued, by marginalising criminality and giving confidence to the purchasers of security and to the general public that they will be contracting with properly vetted and properly trained workforces.

This is increasingly important as private security firms take on more and more responsibility for safeguarding public space and looking after sensitive national infrastructure. For three years now the industry has been arguing for business licensing to build on what has been achieved in the past decade and to provide effective regulation of a sector that plays such a vital role—and a rapidly expanding one—working alongside the police, in counterterrorism activities, and with a wide range of public agencies.

The reason that no progress has been made since 2010 is clear. Within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office there is a determination—one might say almost an ideological fixation—that no new undue burdens should be placed on businesses, regardless of considerations of public safety and public confidence, and of the benefits of combating the criminality that still lurks in the industry. Any regulatory changes, they insist, must be proportionate and targeted; and this part of the Government has yet to be convinced that the benefits of business licensing of private security companies will outweigh the costs and that it is really necessary.

This, I believe, is why the Home Office is proposing two possible alternative routes for progress in this matter; both, in my view, profoundly unsatisfactory. The first suggestion of the Home Office is to introduce business licensing of private security companies through secondary legislation. The disadvantage of this approach is that it cannot be enforced by a range of appropriate and effective sanctions. Regulation without enforcement is worse than the existing situation, because it plays into the hands of the unscrupulous and the downright criminal, and penalises conscientious and law-abiding businesses. The essential feature of regulation is that it must be effective. The industry has legitimate concerns, and has made its view clear, that business licensing introduced through secondary legislation cannot be effectively enforced.

The second Home Office proposal is to find an MP who comes high up in the annual ballot for Private Members’ Bills in 2014 to agree to introduce business licensing by this route. The cynicism of this suggestion takes my breath away. How many Private Members’ Bills ever make it over the many hurdles put in their way to the statute book? Is this the way to engage with an important industry that turns over up to £6 billion annually? The Home Office must know that without government support this route is extremely unlikely to yield any concrete result, yet blithely suggests that this is a credible option owing to its own inability to overcome the objections of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office and bring in primary legislation.

This is the dilemma that my amendment is aimed at resolving. What it seeks to do is to license, in the first instance, companies with contracts, or that are seeking contracts, to work alongside or with public authorities. That would almost certainly include all approved contractor scheme companies, which covers around 70% of those working in the sector. My amendment backs this up with a full range of enforcement powers and the ability to exchange information about those companies licensed across government and public agencies. The remainder of companies working in the private security sector—almost certainly the smaller companies and the one-man businesses the Government are so concerned to protect—could then be dealt with in a few months’ time by a second set of provisions. Indeed, secondary legislation might well be utilised here. I ask the Minister: would secondary legislation be possible to complete this process? If not, a small targeted Bill in the next Session could easily be taken through to license those companies that did not come into this first tranche of my proposals.

I can see merits in this two-stage approach, but I am aware—and I have to say this—that some industry leaders are worried about it on the grounds that it adds a layer of complexity to an already complex set of industry regulations. But all private security industry leaders want an effective range of sanctions to underpin regulation, and they also all want the effective exchange of information, which will not be secured by the routes the Government currently have in mind. If the Minister could give an assurance that a second stage of business licensing to cover those companies not covered by this amendment will follow relatively quickly, this would achieve the goal of business licensing of the private security sector more effectively than the alternatives the Home Office is proposing. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept that I am trying to be extremely helpful.

Finally, subsection (1) of the proposed new clause repeals the clauses that have been on the statute book since 2010 and that were brought in to deal with the licensing of wheel-clamping businesses. They were dealt with by the coalition Government in a different way. Since that time the provisions have remained on the statute book, giving the confusing impression that business licensing is already in train. For the sake of clarity, therefore, these provisions need to be repealed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, not only for the expertise that she brings to this issue—and she declares her interests in that—but for her commitment in ensuring that we get some proper regulation of the private security industry. It is something that the public want and it is something that the industry itself is looking for. I would hope that the Minister would accept this or bring something back.

I would be surprised if the Government are at all reluctant to have such regulation, given that the groundwork has already been done. Back in 2010, during the public bodies review, the Government announced their intention to have a,

“phased transition to a new regulatory regime”.

The work has been done by many of those bodies involved in this sector. I am told by the International Professional Security Association that despite,

“positive engagements between all parties and three years of hard work on all sides we remain disappointed that there is still no primary legislative vehicle confirmed as the most appropriate means to reform the regulator, introduce a scale of proportionate enforcement sanctions and establish a working gateway for information sharing between the regulator and HMRC”.

As my noble friend Lady Henig explained, there is confusion about the measures taken in the Crime and Security Act, particularly around wheel clamping. People think there is regulation when there is not.

I was quite surprised to receive information from the Security Industry Authority showing how vast the private security industry is. The scale is changing rapidly. The Government have a responsibility, given that the level of state reliance on private security services is very high. The public rightly expect high standards, but they perhaps also expect that, if standards fall below the required standard or if something goes wrong, something can be done and action can be taken to deal with that.

If we look at the scope of the private security industry, most days Members of your Lordships’ House will see members of the private security industry if we go shopping, fly from an airport or use public transport. They also support police activity and guard elements of our national infrastructure. The private security is also involved in magistrates’ courts and prisoner transfers. The Security Industry Authority now licenses more than 330,000 individuals. That does not cover all those working in the industry, but that is still about twice the number of police officers in the UK. It is clearly an area where there has to be efficient and effective regulation.

We are seeing the public increasingly coming into contact with the private security industry. They have a right to expect high standards from the industry, but they also expect government to take some responsibility, particularly when the private security industry is carrying out government functions. I mentioned the transfer of prisoners, and custody is another example. The consequences of a mistake—and mistakes happen in any environment—can be extremely serious and extremely high profile. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I think my noble friend has given us an opportunity and a way forward, and the Minister and the Government should perhaps consider the mix of primary legislation followed by secondary legislation in order to give the same effect.

My noble friend is quite right to reject the route of a Private Member’s Bill. I know that practically the only Private Member’s Bill we will be discussing in your Lordships’ House in the next year will be the European Union (Referendum) Bill. There are more Fridays put aside for that than I have ever known in your Lordships’ House. I am an admirer of Private Members’ Bills. I got my own Private Member’s Bill on to the statute book back in 1998 in the other place, but I recognise how unusual that is, and it was not as detailed or as comprehensive as the legislation we need for this.

Clearly, legislation is essential. I think my noble friend Lady Henig has given the Minister an opportunity to take this away, look at it and see what can be done in primary legislation and what can be followed up in secondary legislation, unless the Government can come back with some way of doing this very quickly in primary legislation. I know the work has been done, but I have to say to the Minister that if something were to go wrong because of a failure of regulation, it would be dreadful when we have the opportunity here and now to do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I think that he has argued a powerful case this evening and I share his concerns. I am not convinced that the Government have made the case for removing the automatic right of appeal. Given the criticisms that the Government themselves have made of the European arrest warrant, I find it particularly surprising that they now seek to remove the automatic right to challenge such a warrant.

I can understand why the Government brought this forward in terms of the Baker review. However, we are talking about British citizens being extradited to face what I would hope would be justice in another country. I have looked at the same information as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the figure of 12% of appeals being successful is likely to change significantly. The Government have made other, welcome changes to ensure that cases without merit are more easily dismissed, and we would support those. I am not convinced that the information that Baker had to work with can now be viewed as a reliable indicator of the current number of unsuccessful appeals. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, the world has moved on and the Government have made changes, and therefore the figures will have changed.

However, the court will still have to make a decision on whether to allow leave to appeal. I do not know whether the noble Lord can help me on that. Would it be a written or an oral process? That is not clarified in the legislation. Whatever the process, it is going to require a degree of judicial and administrative time, and that seems to me to eat into any cost savings. However, the impact assessment says that those savings will in any case be minimal, if there are any at all.

The other point that the noble Lord made was about the court’s discretion. An individual would have to be able to show that they had new evidence or a different legal analysis, or that the evidence that the judge relied on in making the original decision to extradite them was wrong or incorrectly interpreted. We have to accept that there can be mistakes. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, outlined the scenario of a duty solicitor. He or she would do their best for their client but they might only just have met the client and may not have all the information. It is a complex area of law and they may not be up to speed or have dealt with such cases before, so it is not impossible, although it is understandable, for mistakes to be made. It seems to me that in the very short time available for seeking permission to appeal, they would have to have almost the same information as they would need for an appeal, and that is quite an amount of detailed information. I wonder how somebody in those circumstances could provide all the information required in the time allowed.

Syrian Refugees

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. As he said, more than 2 million Syrian refugees, many of them children, have fled to neighbouring countries. Their situation is catastrophic and totally desperate.

We can take pride in the response of the British people, and the UK has rightly led the way in providing aid. However, we have now been asked by the United Nations to join its programme, together with 16 other countries so far, to help the most vulnerable refugees—those who struggle to survive in the camps. I am talking about abandoned children who have no other protection or support; torture victims; those in need of medical help; mothers and young children; and those who have been abused in the camps. We know that many women and young girls are at risk of sexual abuse and rape. So this is not about immigration policy or border control; it is about playing our part to provide sanctuary to the weakest and most vulnerable.

Charities such as Save the Children and Oxfam are calling on us to act alongside the 16 other countries that have offered places to the weakest refugees. So far the Government have refused to join, calling the programme “tokenistic”. Will the Government now urgently reconsider that decision? How many of the refugees at the greatest risk, who are fleeing murderous conflict and are in fear of their lives, will be offered a safe haven in the UK?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

61A: Clause 69, page 41, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) that the use of particular premises has resulted, or (if the notice is not issued) is likely soon to result, in a sexual offence against a child,”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment adds a new ground for the issuing of a closure notice that would allow premises to be closed in cases of sexual offences against a child. It is largely a preventive measure but would be an important extra tool in tackling this problem. No one could have failed to be distressed and horrified by the reports late last year of groups and gangs of men who abused young and vulnerable girls. They did so by a cold, calculating and sinister grooming process, sometimes involving drink and drugs, which allowed them to sexually and physically abuse these children. So cleverly warped are these groomers’ tactics that the children—and vulnerable adults—may not even realise at the time that they are being abused and exploited.

We have an opportunity in the Bill to provide more ammunition for those trying to prevent this shocking and evil crime. I hope noble Lords will allow me to put on record my gratitude to those who brought this matter to my attention: Tony Lloyd, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester; Colin Lambert, leader of Rochdale Council; and Jeanette Stanley, Rochdale’s safety community manager. They have given me some hugely important and useful evidence. I know they have been in contact with Home Office Ministers as well. Their experience and knowledge of what works in tackling such crime and where the gaps are in legislation is invaluable. I know that the Minister shares my concerns on this issue and I hope that the Government will share my view of the suggestions that these people brought forward to try to tackle this problem.

They are seeking an immediate closure power where there is a safeguarding threat. Greater Manchester Police has evidence of properties that are unregulated and unlicensed being used in a variety of ways to prey on vulnerable adults and sexually exploit children “behind closed doors”. Yet the only powers the police have—and will have in legislation if the amendment is not passed—is to close premises on anti-social behaviour grounds. Now that the police have evidence of the shape and extent of this problem, that is no longer enough. In Rochdale, they have been able to use the current anti-social behaviour closure order power on a number of occasions to good effect because they also had sufficient evidence of recent and repetitive anti-social behaviour incidents. However, the main reason for obtaining a closure order was because of safeguarding concerns involving children and young adults. That power allows a short-term disruption to the abuse while the police can then take longer-term permanent action.

Norman Baker, as Home Office Minister in the other place, has responded to the suggestion outlined in our amendment that closure powers exist under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He is absolutely right—they do—but they apply only to prostitution and pornography, not to protecting children and vulnerable adults. The powers do not allow for the swift action that is needed. However, perhaps the most serious problem with that approach is that to use a sexual offences order, evidence of a criminal offence is needed. The grooming method of such gangs is quite sophisticated in a warped way, and many victims of child rape and sexual abuse do not complain. They may even believe that their abuser is their boyfriend and that they have sex with his friends to please him. While in the clutches of these men, the victims cannot even recognise that they are being abused.

This is a simple amendment. It obviously does not solve all the problems but it will make a difference. Tony Lloyd and Councillor Colin Lambert first wrote to Minister Jeremy Browne on 4 October last year seeking this help to tackle the problem. I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, as Minister, for his willingness to discuss these issues with me. I really hope that the Minister can accept this amendment but I would be happy for him to take it away to consider further, and for us to bring something back at Third Reading. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a hugely important matter. I was glad to hear her say that she would welcome the Minister taking the matter away, but I have to say that my reaction would be to wonder whether, as she says—and I am not doubting what she says—there are gaps in our legislation that mean there are problems for the authorities. If that were the case, I should have thought it necessary to make changes to the Sexual Offences Act. I question whether the changes should be made in this Bill, given that the offences she is talking about are of a very different order from the nuisance and disorder that this part of the Bill is addressing.

There is also the difficult issue of taking steps to prevent something that might be a criminal offence—we are talking about something rather different in this part of the Bill—without having gone through prosecution and so on. I have not had a discussion with the Minister —he might be about to take the ground completely from under my feet—but it seems that we are talking about something very important but rather different.

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

My Lords, sexual offences against children are a serious crime and one of the utmost concern to the Government. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for tabling this amendment to allow the House to debate this important issue today.

The Government are determined to do everything they can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. The United Kingdom has some of the toughest powers in the world to manage the risks posed by sex offenders, but we are committed to ensuring that the police and other enforcement agencies have the right powers to protect the public from sexual harm.

It may be useful to noble Lords if I outline some of the powers already available to the police to tackle the sexual exploitation of children. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, in particular, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, already gives the police and the courts the power to close premises on a temporary basis where there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are being used for certain sexual offences involving a child and that closing the premises is necessary to prevent the commission of those offences.

Under that Act, service of a closure notice by the police will prevent anyone entering or remaining on the premises, unless they regularly reside in or own the premises, until a magistrates’ court decides whether to make a closure order. If the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions are met, it can make a closure order for a period of up to three months. An application can be made for the closure order to be extended but the total period for which a closure order has effect may not exceed six months. The Sexual Offences Act closure notice and order therefore operate similarly to the closure power in the Bill, although they are targeted specifically at sexual crimes against children, which are listed in Sections 47 to 50 of that Act. These crimes all relate to the abuse of children through prostitution or pornography. In addition to their duty to investigate criminal offences, the police have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and have powers to enter premises and remove children to ensure their immediate protection if they believe they are at risk of significant harm.

I recognise—the noble Baroness is correct to draw this to our attention—that there are concerns that the powers in the Sexual Offences Act do not go far enough. As the noble Baroness has indicated, Home Office Ministers have been in recent correspondence with the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd, on this issue. Tony Lloyd has pointed to cases where takeaways and other premises could be used for grooming children.

As I have said, the closure powers in the 2003 Act relate only to premises used in connection with prostitution or pornography, so there may indeed be a case for extending their reach. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has pointed out, I believe the 2003 Act rather than the closure powers in this Bill, which relate to anti-social behaviour, is the proper place to address this issue.

I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that if she would be prepared to withdraw her amendment, I will undertake to give the matter sympathetic and urgent consideration in advance of Third Reading. I cannot, at this stage, as noble Lords will understand, give any commitment to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading. However, I will let her know the outcome of our further deliberations in good time so that she can, if necessary, retable her amendment, or something similar to it, at that stage.

We all want to ensure that all possible action is taken by the police to protect children at risk of sexual exploitation. I share the noble Baroness’s determination to get to the bottom of this issue and, as speedily as possible, to plug any confirmed gap in the powers of the police in this regard. I hope that on this basis she will be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response in this regard. It contrasts quite starkly with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who seemed to be much against taking action in the Bill. However, his response—

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I apologise to the House if I was not clear. I was entirely sympathetic with the thrust of what the noble Baroness was seeking to do but was suggesting, precisely as the Minister has said, that the Sexual Offences Act might well be the place to do it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

It came over rather more negatively than that, but the Minister’s response was very useful and I think it showed a clear determination to take action on this. I am very happy to enter into discussions with him and we should be able to find a way to bring this back at Third Reading. It is an urgent issue: children are being abused today and will be abused tomorrow and the day after, and we have a real opportunity here to make a difference. I am grateful to the Minister for seizing the opportunity and I look forward to our further discussions.

Amendment 61A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I feel a little torn, having read the amendment, because I would heartily support it. In fact, I proposed two Private Member’s Bills which set out many of the provisions in the amendment. I would support the amendment, but we are where we are, with the Government having proposed the legislation. I have been working with organisations such as the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and others for four or five years now, so I know their commitment to dog control notices. I believe that the Government have taken on board a large number of the arguments put forward. The department should be commended for the amount of work it has done to listen and to propose amendments to deal with some of the concerns raised about the Bill as drafted.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has a very good point. It would be wrong not to say that I think in my heart that dog control notices would be an excellent idea. However, I believe that the Bill will now go a great deal of the way to meeting many of the assessments that we set out. It sets out to defend assisted dogs for the blind. It sets out to deal with the issue of dog attacks in private residences. It sets out clearly in the guidance how the local authority should try to deal with many of the issues.

Obviously, this is a complicated piece of legislation and we are changing 11 other pieces of legislation to fit it in. I would have preferred a separate piece of legislation on dogs. However, that was met with hostility from all sides of the House when I raised it a number of times—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Not from me.

[Lord Redesdale]

Of course not; the noble Baroness is quite right, we did not clash on that occasion. I believe that the Government have listened and the position has moved forward. I know that many organisations would have preferred dog control notices. However, the work that the Government have put in to making the guidance a readable and understandable document and the flexibility of the department in ensuring that it is a workable document, should—this is, of course, the aim—reduce the number of dog attacks. It should also go some way to addressing the real problems introduced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in causing animal welfare issues for so many dogs and so many problems for a lot of owners throughout the country.

--- Later in debate ---

Moreover, in its report, the EFRA Select Committee recommended that the Government should consider the potential to extend the law to any protected animal. Indeed, the RSPCA, the BVA and Cats Protection have jointly called for such wider protection. I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration. Will he commit to taking this away for further thought?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for bringing these issues before us for debate. We had a fairly lengthy debate on dogs in Committee. It was quite illuminating at certain points and also helpful in outlining the extent of the problem we face. Even since that debate took place there have been several quite dreadful attacks on people, with some serious consequences, which shows the need for strong action.

In Committee I acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and reported on the scale of the attacks. I do not intend to repeat all the figures. They are on the record and, in any event, they will have increased in the past couple of months. However, they are truly shocking, and, given that 23,000 postal workers have been attacked in the past three years, I wonder how many suffered delivering our Christmas mail.

Something the Minister said in Committee gave me cause for concern. I have no doubt that he is convinced that the Government’s actions will work. I was very pleased that in Committee he committed to reviewing the effectiveness of government measures, and I trust he is willing to confirm that review in your Lordships’ House. I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, would also welcome a report back on how the Government’s measures are working if no amendment is agreed.

The Minister also said in Committee:

“I hope the Committee will agree that it is better for a dog owner to address the problem themselves rather than to be compelled to do so under the terms of a notice”.—[Official Report, 02/12/13; col. 106.]

It is precisely because some dog owners do not address the problem themselves that there is the need for a dog control notice. If every dog owner could be trusted to take the necessary action, no notices would be required. It is because so many owners are negligent in that regard, and dogs are able to attack people—or, as we have heard, other dogs or animals—that there needs to be further protection and further action. I believe that dog control notices are the way forward.

When a dog attacks a person or another dog, it may not be malicious on the part of the owner. I think I stressed that. It may be a lack of awareness, but the consequences are the same in either case. Dog control notices provide the ability for local authorities to take action to prevent such attacks. A wide range of organisations supported the introduction of dog control notices—the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the British Veterinary Association, the pet charity, Blue Cross, the Communication Workers Union and the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the Minister will consider bringing this forward solely to try to address what I know he and the House regard as a serious problem. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that we hope to have a better response from the Minister and that he will give some ground on the issue of dog control notices. If not, can he indicate that the review he referred to in Committee will be reported to your Lordships’ House so we can judge the effectiveness of the existing legislation?

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, brings his professional expertise to this debate—for which we are grateful—with his Amendments 86B and 86C. I was shocked at the number of attacks he referred to on other animals and cats. I was not aware that it was so great. I think it reinforces the need for preventive measures and, undoubtedly, prevention is the preferable way forward. His amendments are helpful and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. The suggestion that he take them away and consider them and bring them back if he thinks there is merit in them and they can improve the Bill is very helpful and wise.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, for bringing it back for us to consider, having had this debate in Committee. In a number of instances we are going over ground we have discussed before, but it is important that we try to set the Government’s position in some context. As noble Lords will know, I was a Minister in Defra—and, indeed, had quite a lot to do with some of the early talks about how to deal with dogs and the dangers that out-of-control dogs present not only to postmen and people visiting houses but to people going about their daily lives.

While it is true that some organisations, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, support dog control notices, it is similarly true that some do not—and it is by no means the case that the scales are weighted on one side of the argument. That aside—it is history really—the animal welfare organisations have all agreed to suspend their campaigns for dog control notices and to work with us to ensure that the same aims may be achieved through the community protection notice.

I very much welcome this constructive approach from the sector. It is a genuine partnership, working with the Government to ensure that measures may be as effective as possible. That really answers the noble Baroness’s point as to how the facilities offered by the community protection notice will be publicised and how it will be implemented. It will be implemented with the co-operation of the dog charities, and I expect this dialogue to continue after implementation; I know my colleagues in Defra will listen to these organisations on the question of how effective the implementation is.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested a report for Parliament. I am sure that this House will readily take to a debate on this subject a few years hence, when the new regime has had a chance to have an impact. I am confident that it would be a positive debate; I would like to think so.

As I said, Defra officials are in regular contact with the national policing lead on dangerous dogs, as well as other units involved in this work, so that the new measures may be as useful and as user-friendly as possible in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. Reference has been made to the guidance that has been produced for practitioners. The Local Government Association, representing those who will be using the measures—they are likely to be the enforcers—has been consistent in its message that it does not see the need for an additional power specifically in relation to dogs.

The Government agree with the underlying aim of the amendment: to hold irresponsible dog owners to account and, more importantly, to change their behaviour. However, we have already provided the necessary powers in the Bill, so it remains the case that we cannot support the amendment. Effective use of the provisions in the Bill should see an increase in responsible dog ownership and a reduction in the number of dog bites and dog incidents.

I make it clear that the community protection notice can do all that the dog control notice proposed in the noble Baroness’s amendment can do. In fact, I will be so bold as to go further and say that it can do more, because it avoids the prescriptive nature of issue-specific notices and allows practitioners to respond to all manifestations of behaviour that negatively affect the community. Focusing on the impact of the behaviour ensures that dog owners are not unjustly penalised and that communities are protected from existing, as well as new, forms of irresponsible dog ownership.

The community protection notice provides a mechanism so that officers faced with a case of irresponsible or anti-social dog ownership may decide on the most effective way to stop and prevent future recurrences of that behaviour. It may be by requiring the dog to be on a lead in certain areas, fixing inadequate fencing, attaching a letterbox guard or requiring the owner to attend training classes. The officer, in consultation with welfare experts where necessary, may use the notice to educate owners and increase responsibility.

It may be helpful to provide an example to noble Lords of how the CPN could work in practice. Many noble Lords will have heard about terrifying and unacceptable incidents in which postal workers have been attacked or regularly have to face the unpredictable and, at times, out-of-control behaviour of dogs at certain properties. Clause 98, in amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, corrects the current legal lacuna and will ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can take forward prosecutions where postal workers and others are injured, or indeed fear injury, by a dog while on private property.

However, let us suppose that the threshold is not met; perhaps the dog is out of control but not dangerously so, as defined by the 1991 Act, but is nevertheless barking excessively at the postal worker or jumping up at the letterbox. I think that all noble Lords have had enough doorstep delivering experience to know exactly what we mean. Under the new powers we are introducing, the postal worker may alert the authorities and report the behaviour. I should take a moment to congratulate Royal Mail on its sophisticated reporting and logging systems for these incidents, which have proved useful in tackling such irresponsible ownership.

The local authority may investigate and, if it is satisfied that the test for the community protection notice has been met, serve a written warning that such behaviour is evidently detrimentally affecting the quality of life in the locality—in this case, that of a postal worker, although other people may be affected. An officer from the authority may wish to visit the address and discuss the issue with the owner, or may simply post the order as a warning to the owner. The warning would state that the officer considers the threshold to have been met and would detail the offending behaviour. It would make clear that the officer will serve a community protection notice should the behaviour not change or stop, and that, over time, this may result in prosecution and a criminal record.

For many owners, this level of intervention will be sufficient, and the engagement from an officer will encourage the owner to consider the opportunities for better education and training. However, if the warning is not heeded, a community protection notice could be served, which may make a number of requirements of the owner: for example, that they attend dog training classes with their dog and/or attach a letterbox guard or similar item, as I have already illustrated. The owner will be provided with the opportunity to become more responsible and the postal worker will be better protected. Should the owner attend training classes, the dog’s welfare may also be improved. All this can be achieved with a community protection notice, fully negating the need for an additional power in the form of a dog control notice.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

86D: Before Clause 100, insert the following new Clause—
“Firearms licences: assessing public safety
(1) The Firearms Act 1968 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 28A (certificates: supplementary) insert—
“28B Assessing public safety
(1) When assessing the threat to public safety under section 27, 28, 30A, 30B or 30C, the Chief Police Officer must ensure that a range of background checks are performed.
(2) Where these checks uncover substantiated evidence of violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse, the presumption is that the Chief Police Officer should refuse the licence application unless exceptional evidence can be brought forward by the applicant as to their suitability to possess a weapon.
(3) When assessing public safety within this section, the Chief Police Officer must follow any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(3) After section 113(1) (power of Secretary of State to alter fees) insert—
“(1A) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult chief police officers to ensure the level of fees collected by the police under sections 32 and 35 are appropriate after considering the costs they incur through the administration and assessment of firearms’ licences made under this Act.””

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I say first that we welcome the measures that the Government have already taken in the Bill on firearms, as far as they go. That is why I have brought forward to your Lordships’ House today a slightly different amendment from that which I proposed in Committee. I understood the concerns that were raised then in relation to mental health; although it still needs further discussion, the comments made were fair.

Our amendment calls for greater effectiveness in background checks when considering applications for firearms licences. The specific reference and concern we have relates to cases of domestic violence. The amendment seeks to amend the Firearms Act 1968, so that where there is substantiated evidence of a history of,

“violent conduct, domestic violence, or drug or alcohol abuse,”

it would provide a presumption against being awarded a licence unless evidence could be provided that there were grounds for exemption.

I provided statistics in Committee, so I do not intend to repeat those. However, I feel that many noble Lords and the public would be quite shocked that someone, where there is substantiated evidence of a history of domestic violence or violent conduct, can gain legal possession of a firearm. The Government have issued guidance on this, which the noble Lord repeated in his response to the Committee. As welcome as this guidance is, it is not legislation, and it therefore carries an element of discretion which makes it very difficult for the police.

I gave an example in Committee of the case of Michael Atherton. He was convicted of the murders of his partner Susan McGoldrick, her sister and her niece. Michael Atherton had a long history of domestic violence, but was still allowed to own four shotguns. The licensing officer who first examined his application made comments on it. These comments are quite chilling. The licensing officer said:

“4 domestics—last one 24/4/04—was cautioned for assault. Still resides with partner & son & daughter. Would like to refuse—have we sufficient info—refuse re public safety”.

In the end, amazingly, Durham Constabulary came to the conclusion that it did not have sufficient grounds to refuse.

We all know that public authorities, such as the police, often have to take the safe decision in line with legal advice, because they cannot afford the cost of legal challenge. Many of us will be aware of cases, particularly in local authorities, where councils wish to take one decision, but are advised that if they do that it could be challenged, and they cannot afford a challenge. So sometimes decisions are taken, not because those taking the decision believe it is the right thing to do, but because they are frightened of the cost of defending it. Too often, the police find that when they refuse a licence, that decision can be overturned by the courts. Last year the deputy chief constable of Hampshire Police attempted to prevent a man keeping shotguns after a series—not just one—of allegations of serious sexual crimes, including against a 17 year-old girl. That was just one of a string of licensing refusals that Hampshire Police made that were overturned, each one costing thousands of pounds.

The IPCC investigation into Michael Atherton’s case recommended that new legislation was needed alongside guidance. In 75% of the cases where women have been killed by guns, it has been classed as a domestic incident. In 2009, 100% of female gun deaths were in domestic situations. The evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of these deaths involved legally held weapons. How many lives could be saved by this amendment?

On the fees element of the amendment, I still do not understand the Government’s position. The noble Lord tried to enlighten me in Committee and failed. Why are the Government so reluctant to introduce full cost recovery in firearms licences? They do so in so many other areas. We want to see better and more effective checks and better support for the police when they have reasonable concerns for public safety if they were to issue a licence. We recognise that more effective checks would cost money; there would be an additional cost. That is why this is so important, especially when we are seeing such large cuts in police budgets. At present, the Government are subsidising firearms licences at the cost of around £18 million a year—and you have to ask why. If the Minister cannot accept our amendment, will he answer this one question? How do the Government justify such a huge subsidy for firearms licences?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have addressed the issues and the challenge which this amendment presents. I am very happy, of course, to talk to the noble Baroness on any subject which concerns our responsibilities to this House, but I am not persuaded that further legislation is needed on this matter. However, if she feels that she needs a decision, she should press this issue at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the attention to detail he has given and for responding so fully to what has been an interesting debate. I am intrigued by some of the comments. My noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey perhaps hit the nail on the head in trying to bring the debate back to the intent of my amendment.

In some ways, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Marland, that you cannot legislate out crime, but I am not pretending for one second that by passing this amendment there would never be another incident. You could make that argument for any provision in the Bill. You could argue that you should not have legislation on anti-social behaviour because that will not get rid of it or that you should not have legislation to evict people for riot offences because that will not stop all rioting. That is not an argument for not bringing forward legislation that can make a difference.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, hit the nail on the head. You have to legislate with facts—not in haste. What we are seeking is to ensure the police have the powers they need. I take the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the importance of background checks. Yes, we understand that, and we know that background checks are made. I made this point very clearly in my comments on Michael Atherton’s application, where the licensing officer would have liked to refuse because of evidence of domestic violence—he had received a caution. The licensing officer would have liked to refuse, but for various reasons the police may come back and say, “We do not think we can”. When we read that it has cost Hampshire police thousands of pounds when licences have been challenged, we realise that there is a case here.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that a decision must be taken on its merits, and that is exactly what the police are seeking to do. They want to take decisions on their merits, but there is a fear of legal action. The amount of discretion offered means they could be challenged. In the Michael Atherton case, three people were murdered with a legally held shotgun despite a previous caution for—and therefore substantive evidence of—domestic violence. It is worth nothing that after this case the IPCC said that there has to be legislation alongside guidance.

I do not accept the Minister’s comments. It is not a matter of having evidence but of giving the police the tools they need to act on the evidence they have. That is what the legislation at present does not do. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I do not share his confidence that there is no legislation that could be brought forward to protect the public. The public will be absolutely horrified to know that, where there is evidence of violent behaviour or domestic violence, people can be legally allowed to have firearms. That is quite shocking and I am surprised that it is being defended by noble Lords.

I am sure that when checks were undertaken on the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marland, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, no evidence was found of violence in their backgrounds, so they were happily given a licence. But there are many people who are not like the noble Lords and who do need to have some checks and balances.

[Lord Deben]

The noble Baroness has not mentioned me among those who said that but I should like her to include me within the list, otherwise it would be incomplete.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am very happy to include the noble Lord in the list, unless he tells me otherwise. However, the point is valid. The checks are being done now but the police are clear that there are cases where they have felt obliged to issue a licence although the evidence has told them that they should not. On the issue of subsidy—

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I am not quite clear about whether the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is not trying to tackle two problems in her amendment—the question of the police’s powers to refuse licences, and fees. Is she trying to do too many things? We might not agree on all these things.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Perhaps I am trying to do too much in one amendment. I have included the fees issue in the amendment—and I am surprised that the Minister defended the £18 million with which the public are subsidising firearms licences—because there will be an extra cost for the additional checks that the police may need to undertake in these cases.

As I said to the Minister, I was happy to come back and specifically discuss with him a way that we could ensure that people with a history of violence are unable to get a firearms licence. He has rejected that offer. In the interests of public safety, there is no alternative but to press the amendment and test the will of the House.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s eagerness to accept this, and it may have something to do with the hour, but, just occasionally, I have a few words to say on the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I must admit that when I first looked at these amendments I had a slight concern about the role of the community safety partnerships and their responsibilities. My own CSP has seen a massive cut in its budget and its capacity to deal with some of the issues before it. But when resources are short, planning is most essential. It would be extremely useful to have the kind of co-ordination function that is laid out in the amendments.

I am sorry that the Minister laughed when my noble friend said how helpful he was trying to be. He has been accused of many things during the course of proceedings on the Bill. He was accused of being mischievous when he was trying to be helpful. He put on record that he is trying to be helpful now and there was hilarity from the Benches opposite, which I genuinely think is most unfair. This is the kind of amendment that sets in place how the objectives of the Bill can be achieved by those responsible for implementing it.

There are new powers in this Bill. It is important that all the partners understand their role and the expectations. I give one example. The noble Lord will recall that I proposed amendments in Committee on dispersal orders. One of the issues is that there is no longer a responsibility on the police to consult the local authority when issuing dispersal orders. The new orders that the Government are proposing are wider and can last longer than the ones in place at the moment. There is also no obligation to consult the local authority, but the guidance says—I cannot remember the exact phraseology—that there is the opportunity to discuss or that that is expected or is likely. Before any dispersal orders were issued, would it not be helpful if discussions took place within the community safety partnership about what the expectations would be when it came to the point of issuing one? It is fitting to have that kind of co-ordination, to know what the expectations and responsibilities are, to ensure that the legislation being put forward by the Government has an impact, that it does not disappear into the ether somewhere but can be worked on. I would expect that this is the very least that the Government would expect—to have this way of taking the new legislation into the existing framework.

I certainly accept my noble friend’s comments that he is seeking to be helpful. It is a very helpful amendment. I trust that the Minister will be able to take that on board.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for that comment. Indeed, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. I am quite prepared to accept that he has a helpful side to his nature. I am very grateful that he has presented these amendments. I sense the spirit in which he has tabled them. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is always helpful. I am grateful for her contribution to this debate.

I will talk about the issue in general and then talk about how it happens specifically. This is about how police and local councils will use the powers running right through Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill. I will deal with Amendment 90 first and then I will come on to Amendment 91. I have listened to the noble Lord’s comments on the amendment. Although I appreciate the helpful intent behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary. As the noble Lord will be aware, Sections 5 to 7 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 already require local authorities and the police to co-operate with each other and other local agencies in formulating and implementing strategies to reduce crime and disorder. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is absolutely right. The Government expect local authorities and the police to co-operate together. The formulation and implementation of those strategies would manifestly include a consideration of anti-social behaviour. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware of the London Borough of Haringey’s current community safety strategy which identifies six outcomes, one of which is to:

“Prevent and reduce acquisitive crime and anti-social behaviour”.

It is in implementing such strategies that it goes almost without saying that the responsible authorities will take full account of the new powers in Parts 1 to 5 of the Bill, as well as existing less formal interventions, to tackle such behaviour.

As a result of our extensive consultation on the new powers with local authorities—the Bill has been drafted with local authority consultation as its backbone—as well as other agencies, I am confident that they are fully aware of the importance in ensuring that the use of the powers is underpinned by a coherent strategy and good partnership working. Indeed, local authorities have played a major role in shaping the new powers and would no doubt be keen to ensure that they work effectively in their areas. Moreover, along with their individual strategies and the Government’s statutory guidance, local authorities will issue their own guidance to front-line professionals on the use of the new powers and their approach to them. This is what they do with their existing powers and I see no reason why that practice would not continue.

I turn to Amendment 91. I will repeat the point that I made in Committee. The election of police and crime commissioners put the public back at the heart of our drive to cut crime, thereby giving them a greater say in how their local area is policed by these directly elected representatives. I admit that it will be a great day when I can get the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to admit that the policy has achieved that objective—but that task is not beyond us.

Under the provisions of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs are required to issue and publish a police and crime plan for their local area and must consult with their chief constable in drawing up the plan. Such plans must include objectives for reducing crime and disorder. As I indicated in Committee, 30 of the police and crime commissioners have put tackling, preventing and reducing anti-social behaviour as one of their key priorities in their plans. Another eight have put reducing the impact and keeping people safe from anti-social behaviour as one of their individual priorities; and the remaining three commissioners want to encourage the reporting of anti-social behaviour.

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. London’s Police and Crime Plan 2013-2016 states that,

“tackling anti-social behaviour … or quality of life crime, is critical to addressing perceptions of disorder in a neighbourhood, and although MOPAC”—

the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—

“is setting no explicit targets for the police in this area, ASB is one of the three priorities for the London Crime Reduction Board, chaired by the Mayor”.

It is obvious that the successful implementation of this and other police and crime plans when it comes to tackling anti-social behaviour will necessarily involve an assessment of how the new powers in the Bill can be put to best use.

This was reflected by Sir Graham Bright, the Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner, who said about the Bill in October last year:

“Police and Crime Commissioners have been closely following the progress of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We want the police to be given effective powers to tackle anti-social behaviour that provide better protection for victims”.

Sir Graham went on to say:

“It is also important to have a multi-agency approach to tackling anti-social behaviour as the police are only one part of the solution. By working with local authorities, housing associations and other agencies we can effectively combat anti-social behaviour and empower victims and communities”.

In short, the police, local authorities and other agencies recognise the importance of understanding how to use the new powers in the Bill effectively to protect the public from anti-social behaviour. The statutory guidance provided in the Bill will undoubtedly help them in this regard.

In practice, I believe that on this issue there is little between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We are at one in recognising the importance of partnership in working to tackle anti-social crime and anti-social behaviour, and of this being reflected in local crime and disorder strategies and police and crime plans. This is what the Government expect local authorities to do.

In implementing such plans, in so far as they relate to tackling anti-social behaviour, we would clearly expect the police, local authorities and other agencies to make effective use of the new powers in the Bill. While we seek the same outcome, I do not believe that these amendments are needed to achieve it. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is one of those debates that are quite special to your Lordships’ House. I spent 13 years in the other place and I have been in your Lordships’ House for three and a half years. I think other noble Lords who served there would agree this is not the kind of debate that we often heard in the other place. This House is made all the more relevant and important because of that. It is also one of those debates that Ministers from any party in Government would perhaps refer to as “interesting” and “helpful”. It certainly has been a very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Morris, have done this House a great service by bringing forward this amendment.

I want to be clear at the outset that I think everybody who has spoken wants to see effective and swift action to tackle serious anti-social behaviour and to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves. It is not overdramatic to recognise that, if left unchecked, anti-social behaviour can destroy lives. Ongoing anti-social behaviour can cause alarm and distress and, in some cases, leaves people feeling utterly devastated and unable to cope. It creates total misery.

In previous debates, I have spoken of my experience in supporting victims, both as a Member of Parliament and a county councillor. There is no doubt that when anti-social behaviour orders were brought in they created a significant change in the way such cases were dealt with. There were teething problems but experience has shown that they are an important tool in tackling such serious problems. That is why I just do not understand why the Government are embarking on such a dramatic change in this legislation. Obviously, improvements can always be made to any system and we would support improvements to anti-social behaviour orders. However, this really is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and does not improve the position for those suffering from anti-social behaviour.

I am not a lawyer—I am perhaps in a minority among those who have spoken today—but all my experience and instincts from dealing with this issue tell me that these proposals from the Government are ill thought-out and unworkable. Noble and learned Lords with far greater experience and knowledge than I who have spoken have come to the same conclusion. As we have heard, the concern is that the Government’s new proposed threshold for granting an injunction for engaging or threatening to engage in causing nuisance or annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities if the court considers it to be just and convenient is too vague and too broad. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, described it as open-ended machinery that would catch people who should not be before the courts. The danger is that in the rush of those being brought before the courts for nuisance and annoyance we could lose focus on the serious cases of harassment, distress and alarm.

The very real concerns about how this power could be used and abused were raised at Second Reading and in Committee. In preparing for this debate, I started to draw up a list of activities that could be brought into the remit of Clause 1. I had to give up after several pages and hours. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, described it as an extraordinary power, and indeed it is. I appreciate and welcome the experienced and knowledgeable legal views but this is not just a legal issue. It is a moral issue of dealing with those people who are suffering the most. The Government are not targeting the behaviour causing the most serious problems but creating a catch-all clause that could affect almost everybody at some point. There is no doubt that some people and some activities inevitably cause some degree of nuisance and annoyance. However, is an injunction, which in most cases will be pretty weak and ineffective—although at the extreme end it could involve custody—the most appropriate way of dealing with these cases, or should we accept that in our everyday lives some level of nuisance or annoyance is a consequence of ensuring the liberty and freedom of the individual? Liberty and freedom are not open ended. There have to be constraints and the test of harassment, alarm and distress spoken about today is the appropriate point to place those constraints.

The ACPO lead for children and young people, Jacqui Cheer, emphasised this point in November when speaking to the APPG on children. She said:

“I think we are too ready as a society, as the police and particularly with some legislation coming up on the books, to label what looks like growing up to me as anti-social behaviour”.

There have also been concerns that one person’s annoyance may be another person’s boisterous behaviour. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it need not be boisterous behaviour. Exercising fundamental democratic rights of protest or even just expressing views in a forceful manner can cause nuisance or annoyance.

The Minister’s amendment suggests that behaviour has to be reasonably expected to cause nuisance and annoyance. That is an admission that the Government now recognise the unreasonableness of the clause that they have previously defended to the hilt. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made clear, while that change on its own may be welcome, it does not address many of the points being raised here today. It still leaves the test as nuisance and annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities. That is not good enough. I was interested in the points made by the noble and learned Lord on “just and convenient”. I accept his assessment of the value and usefulness of that. If the boisterous behaviour to which I referred is ongoing and causes harassment, alarm or distress, then action obviously has to be taken. But as it stands, even with the government amendment, a one-off event that causes nuisance or annoyance to any person on the balance of probabilities would still lead to injunction.

In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, relied largely on the definition in the Housing Act 1996. Noble Lords have concerns about paragraph (b) of the amendment. I do not share their concerns because it is appropriate in limited circumstances for the existing law aimed at people in social housing to remain to give housing providers the tools to deal with tenants in such circumstances. No change is being sought to that position and that is what part (b) of the amendment makes clear.

I will now address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his defence of the Government, which I am sure we will hear in due course from the Front Bench as well. One great benefit of ASBOs is how seriously anti-social behaviour is taken. The issue of alarm, harassment and distress is crucial and there are appropriate sanctions for dealing with it. We could end up with more of these orders being imposed but in most cases they will be a weaker response to dealing with anti-social behaviour. The noble Lord referred to the guidance and he read it out very quickly. I have a copy of that guidance. It is somewhat confusing because it says, as he rightly quoted:

“It should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused, and are not likely to cause, harm to victims or communities”.

Where in the Bill is harm referred to? Guidance is not legislation. The legislation, as it stood, referred to alarm, distress and harassment. The Bill refers to nuisance or annoyance. Guidance suggesting there has to be harm as well does not override what is in the Bill. Noble Lords who were defending the Government’s position, when asked whether they could give examples of activities that would come under the Bill’s definition of nuisance and annoyance but not cause alarm, harassment and distress, were unable to do so. Every example they gave of where action should be taken caused harassment, alarm and distress. It is quite clear that the existing legislation is the best way to define the kind of behaviour that is disrupting lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also raised the issue of hearsay evidence. It is currently the case with anti-social behaviour orders that professionals can give advice on behalf of those suffering so that they themselves do not have to go to court to present their case. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, made a very important point about the courts being clogged up and about the pressures on police officers having to respond to every case of nuisance and annoyance. Has the Minister given any consideration to how the police should respond with their increasingly limited resources to cries for help from people suffering what they consider to be nuisance and annoyance and whether they will then be able to deal with very serious cases of anti-social behaviour?

The existing test of harassment, alarm and distress recognises the seriousness of anti-social behaviour and the need to take action against those who breach an order. The definition proposed by the Government is too broad and the remedies are too weak. Setting the threshold so low undermines fundamental freedoms and tolerance. It is a great shame that, having had warning at Second Reading and in Committee of the great concern in your Lordships’ House, the Government did not come back today with something a bit better than the amendment being put forward. There are serious concerns about this, not just because it would catch too many people but because those who are really causing distress in our communities will not be the focus in tackling problems. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dear. The only compromise that would be acceptable today would be if the Minister were to say that he accepts that there has to be a change of definition and that he can assure us that that would be “harassment, alarm and distress” and not “nuisance and annoyance”.

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

Well, my Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I am not particularly thick-skinned, so I am clearly sensitive to the views that have been expressed by this House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and other noble Lords who have spoken, because they have done justice to this debate by the contributions they have made. I owe it to the House to explain the Government’s position, and perhaps I can then take this issue on.

Clause 1 is clearly an important part of the Government’s reforms, and I begin by acknowledging that there has been some common ground on the need to include it in the Bill. We have indeed reached some common ground on the elements that we need to include in Clause 1 to make it effective. First, I am glad that the civil standard of proof for the new injunction has been accepted by so many noble Lords. Secondly, I welcome the tacit acceptance of the “just and convenient” limb of the test for an injunction. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, said that this is a proper consideration for courts in any case, but it is right that we should make it explicit as one of the limbs of the test.

The terms of Amendment 1, as compared with the amendments put forward in Committee, are a welcome demonstration that this House listens carefully to the evidence put before it both by noble Lords and by front-line professionals, and that it adapts its approach accordingly. The Government have also listened to the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee and by the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that is why I have tabled Amendment 2, which we believe addresses the concerns about the breadth of the “nuisance or annoyance” test. Although Amendment 2 is not part of this group, it addresses exactly the same issue—the appropriate form of the test for the grant of an injunction—and, accordingly, it is important that your Lordships consider Amendments 1 and 2 together.

As I said in the debate in Committee when my noble friend Lord Faulks tabled his amendment, I believe it is inherent in the way that the court will look at any application for an injunction to consider whether it was reasonable to grant an injunction in the circumstances of the case. I am grateful for my noble friend’s contribution, and I look forward to him joining me on this Bill before we conclude our consideration of it.

I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her contribution to this debate. I also thank other noble Lords who wanted to speak but were not able to or who have forgone their right to speak in order to expedite this debate. In that I include my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Berridge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I share the noble Earl’s appreciation of the late Paul Goggins, in my case from when he was a very good Prisons Minister. I am equally sad to learn of his death.

In the context of these amendments I share his concerns that we should be looking at detention for, as it were, a first offence; for something which, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, might not even be a criminal offence. If it is a criminal offence, of course, we do not need the detention powers in the first place. I look forward with interest to what my noble friend has to say. I hope that he has been allowed to be more helpful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee than he was on a previous amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his generous and kind comments, which we appreciate, for our former colleague Paul Goggins. He was an exceptional MP and, for those who knew him and were very fond him, he was an exceptional person as well. We are very sad to lose him.

On the amendments, rather along the lines of the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, perhaps I may ask some questions about dispersal orders. The extension of dispersal orders that the Government are proposing seems quite strange. Previously, dispersal orders were for 24 hours, with democratic oversight in consultation with the local authority, and covered a restrained geographical area. That has changed because under the Government’s proposals they are for 48 hours with a much wider geographical area. There is no involvement of the local authority but there is the involvement of a member of the police force of the rank of inspector or above.

The Minister will recall that we discussed in Committee the lack of clarity around the operation of dispersal orders. A number of questions were put to the Minister but we did not get answers then. Given this extension and the change in how the Government want dispersal orders to operate, it is a concern that the detention, particularly for young children, would remain for a much broader and wider offence about which we have had very little information, and I read the debate again today. It raises some questions for the Minister to answer. Why does he think that these dispersal orders are appropriate? Does he think it likely that, because of the wider area, the increased length of time and the fact that there is no democratic oversight, we shall see more dispersal orders? Is it appropriate in those cases that we may see more breaches of them?

It raises a concern that something as minor as a dispersal order, which can be issued by a police offer on the spur of the moment, when there is not really a process in the way we would expect, could lead to detention. The extension of how the Government are planning to use dispersal orders in the future, retaining detention for young people if there is a breach, gives rise to concern. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it appropriate, how he thinks it will be used and on how many occasions? I am concerned that we may see an increase in dispersal orders. I am very unhappy about the Government’s proposals in any case, but if we see an increase there could be an increased number of breaches and we could then see detention of young people. Will the Minister explain how this will operate and why he thinks it is appropriate?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I start by joining in the tributes being paid to Paul Goggins. I know that my colleagues in the Home Office share this view. We were together yesterday evening when his illness was mentioned. His loss this morning is a loss to British public life and I am happy to pay tribute.

I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling these amendments. It is right and proper that we consider these matters. His amendments raise important issues about whether detention is appropriate for someone aged under 18, and we debated this at some length in Committee. I was pleased that we had the opportunity for a productive meeting yesterday and I hope that I will be able to answer some of the points made by the noble Earl and other noble Lords.

The Government strongly support the use of informal interventions and rehabilitative approaches, particularly when dealing with young people. That is at the heart of our overall approach to anti-social behaviour. However, detention must be available to the court if the new injunction is to act as an effective deterrent and to protect victims and communities in the most serious cases. When we consulted on the new anti-social behaviour powers, 57% of those who responded were in favour of the breach sanctions for the injunction for under-18s. Only 22% disagreed, with only a further 4% against any custody for under-18s.

The injunction is a court order and must be supported by tough sanctions to ensure compliance. However, in contrast to anti-social behaviour orders, under-18s will not be unnecessarily criminalised and saddled with a criminal record for breach. However, it is only in the most serious or persistent cases of breach that a court may detain someone aged under 18. Schedule 2 to the Bill makes clear that a court may not detain a young person for breach of an IPNA,

“unless it is satisfied that, in view of the severity or extent of the breach, no other power available to the court is appropriate”.

Where this is not the case, the court may impose a supervision order on a young person and Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out a number of non-custodial requirements that can be attached to such an order. The relevant requirements are a supervision requirement, an activity requirement or a curfew requirement. These are three of the requirements which may be attached to a youth rehabilitation order, the youth equivalent of a community sentence.

We would expect the youth courts to do all they can to ensure that a young person’s rehabilitation is effective. In making any decision to make a detention order, the court must consult with the youth offending team and inform any other body or individual the applicant thinks appropriate. If the court does decide to make a detention order, it must give its reasons in open court. The availability of custody as a sanction in exceptional cases reflects the current position as regards the anti-social behaviour order on application. Indeed, breach of an ASBO on application attracts a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment as well as a criminal record.

The previous Administration took the view that there needed to be effective sanctions for breach up to and including imprisonment, including in cases involving young people. While it was generous of the noble Earl to congratulate the previous Government on this aspect of their policy, we do not believe that they got the balance quite right between punishment and rehabilitation. That is why we are treating breach of the IPNA as a contempt of court rather than as a criminal offence: we believe that they were right to include the option of custody for both adults and juveniles. To remove that option for juveniles would significantly weaken the effectiveness of the injunction and thereby weaken the protection we are seeking to afford to the victims of anti-social behaviour.

I shall address some of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl and other noble Lords. Of course, a vital part of preparing for the introduction of these new powers will be appropriate training and support for the judiciary, police and other front-line professionals in how these powers are applied to young people, and the Home Office is already discussing these requirements with the Ministry of Justice, the Judicial College and the College of Policing.

I can inform the noble Earl that young offenders under 18 years of age may be placed in a young offender institution run by the National Offender Management Service, NOMS, a privately operated secure training centre or a local authority secure children’s home. Placement is made by the placements team of the youth justice board, which is notified by the court when custody is given. They will use their expertise and will be informed by the relevant youth offending team to place them in an appropriate establishment suitable for their needs. The youngest and most vulnerable young people will be placed in secure children’s homes. There are no longer any places for girls in young offender institutions, so they will be placed in a secure training centre or secure children’s home.

Under the Bill, the court must consider any representations made by the relevant youth offending team in considering whether to make a detention order against an under-18. Moreover, the applicant for a detention order or a supervision order must consult any youth offending team and inform any other body or individual the applicant thinks appropriate. I hope that helps to reassure the noble Earl.

I shall go on to the dispersal order.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord made the point about it being a contempt of court. Can he tell me in how many other cases young people can face detention for a contempt of court?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Off the top of my head, I cannot, but I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her on that. I will copy in all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and put a copy in the Library.

As for breach of a dispersal direction, I can offer the noble Earl some comfort and, in doing so, I should like to correct the impression I gave in Committee on 20 November that custody was an option for breach of a dispersal direction by a person aged under 18. I can, in fact, reassure the noble Earl, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that this is not the case. Detention and training orders—the juvenile equivalent of imprisonment —must be made for a minimum of four months. That means that where the maximum term of imprisonment that could be imposed is less than four months, as is the case here, a detention and training order is not an option in relation to a juvenile offender. The court will be left with the options of a youth rehabilitation order, a fine, a conditional discharge or an absolute discharge. I hope that is of some reassurance and apologise if my previous comments misled noble Lords. I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Earl as regards the dispersal powers.

In the case of the IPNA, I fear that we have to agree to differ on the appropriateness of having custody as a long-stop option for breach of an injunction by a person under 18. For the sake of victims of anti-social behaviour, we remain strongly of the view that, in exceptional cases, a detention order should be available to the courts. We should not weaken these provisions by removing that option.

Amendment 86, the final amendment in this group, seeks to place a new responsibility on local authorities to provide youth services to prevent young people becoming involved in anti-social behaviour. This obligation is already effectively provided for by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which places a responsibility on local authorities to formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder in their area, where crime and disorder includes anti-social behaviour and youth anti-social behaviour. That Act includes a responsibility for local authorities to keep the strategy under review, monitor its effectiveness and alter it accordingly. Local authorities must ensure that their strategy focuses on the types of problem in their area, based on an analysis of local levels and patterns of crime and disorder, and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Therefore, if an area has a particular problem with youth anti-social behaviour, the local authority has a responsibility to put measures in place to reduce the problem. I would expect this to include preventive measures. In addition, the Children Act 1989 places an obligation on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area who are in need and to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs. This includes services to prevent young people becoming involved in anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder, as well as services to support those young people and their families who become involved in anti-social behaviour or crime.

I hope I have reassured my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Earl that the duty he seeks to create through this amendment already exists and that local authorities have these crime and disorder reduction strategies in place. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.