Alcohol: Minimum Pricing
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I reiterate to my noble friend that the minimum unit pricing policy remains under consideration. It has not been shelved.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am surprised by that answer. On several occasions I have asked the noble Lord from this Dispatch Box about this so that I might understand why the Government have moved from absolute certainty that they would introduce minimum alcohol pricing to equivocation and a consultation, and now seem to be moving to total rejection. Following David Cameron’s evasive answers at the weekend, the lobbyist and Prime Minister’s adviser, Lynton Crosby, has stated that he has never spoken to the Prime Minister about plain packaging for cigarettes. Can the Minister give us the same assurance about minimum alcohol pricing? Do the Government consider that Mr Crosby should now declare all his lobbying clients?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness has been in government and I am sure that she knows the procedures and the way in which Ministers behave in relation to advisers. I give that assurance in the knowledge that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will vouch for that himself.
EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Although in some ways the opt-out/opt-in issue is complex, with the Command Paper showing how technical and detailed each measure is, it is also very simple. The first duty of any Government is to ensure the security and safety of their citizens. Will opting out and then—as the government Motion states—seeking to opt back into the key measures fulfil the first duty of a Government to their citizens? The key word is “seek”. There are no guarantees and there is no definite confirmation that we will opt back into those measures that are necessary to fight crime and terrorism: just an assurance that we will seek to do so. That is not good enough.
Until the opt-back-in is guaranteed, there remains a risk. The consequences of that risk must be evaluated. Crime does not stop at Calais. EU co-operation with police and criminal justice measures are essential in the fight against organised and serious cross-border crime. Drug trafficking, people trafficking, abduction, money-laundering, paedophilia, cybercrime and, of course, national security and terrorism are all the more dangerous and complex because they transcend borders.
Essential reading for this debate is our EU Committee’s report on the implications of the opt-out. It concluded:
“On the basis of the evidence we have received we do not consider that the Government have made a convincing case for exercising the opt-out ... we find that the evidence supports the reasoning of those opposed to its exercise. Opting out … would have significant adverse negative repercussions for … internal security … and the administration of criminal justice in the United Kingdom”.
Those are powerful words indeed from an all-party committee of your Lordships’ House. It took written and oral evidence from 50 witnesses with experience and expertise, including government Ministers, and had numerous hearings and discussions. Its unanimous, comprehensive and detailed report is the result.
Despite earlier rhetoric, the Government have made clear that they accept that a permanent opt-out from all these measures would not be in the national interest. They now accept that the 35 measures listed in the Command Paper are necessary. Therefore, if the Government opt out, there must be a quick, easy and effective opt-back-in.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has succeeded in persuading the Government to amend their Motion to seek to ensure that the Government will honour their commitment to the details of the 35 opt-in measures. Can I therefore ask the Minister who will reply to the debate—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—to clarify that this is how the Government view the significance of the word “endorse”? Would this Motion preclude the Government from deciding later to change the number of measures contained in the Command Paper—that is, the 35? Are the Government now absolutely committed to the 35 measures? The answer to that is difficult, it seems to me, because on the one hand the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and most of the noble Lords who have spoken tonight want the assurance that they are but, on the other hand, that risks antagonising the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, and the 100 Conservative MPs who wrote to the Prime Minister seeking a permanent opt-out of all 133 measures.
A number of questions have been raised in previous debates that Ministers have so far failed to answer, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. Have the Government secured a guarantee that we can opt back into these important measures? If not, will the Government still opt out without such a guarantee? What timescale do the Government envisage, or consider is reasonable, from the opt-out until the process of opting back in is completed? Are the Government seeking to amend any of the 35 measures other than the European arrest warrant?
The political negotiations to opt back into these 35 measures could be time consuming, difficult and will no doubt be subject to some political horse trading. Has any assessment been made in this age of austerity of the cost of such negotiations? What are the implications and consequences if we fail to opt back in, including financial? If the opt-back-in is not immediate, transition measures will be essential. The example often used by the Government to justify the opt-out is the European arrest warrant. This was to be part of the great repatriation of powers, the transfer of real power back to the UK that Ministers were so fond of talking about.
The Prime Minister said that the European arrest warrant was “highly objectionable”. Government MPs voted on a three-line Whip against a Labour Motion that would have maintained the principle of the European arrest warrant. One of the reasonable criticisms made of the European arrest warrant is that British citizens can be held in custody for excessive periods in foreign prisons while awaiting trial in conditions that would not be acceptable in the UK. Therefore, I welcome the announcement tonight by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Government will now implement the European supervision order. But why did they not do so before the December 2012 deadline? Why the delay? Are those British citizens in foreign prisons victims of the Government’s anti-Europe rhetoric? But now, the Government have had to admit the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant and that, without it, criminals can evade justice. Criminals could seek to escape British justice abroad, and would be able to hide in the UK to evade the justice of other countries.
I concur entirely with the excellent examples that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave, and I have others which I will not go into this evening. I therefore welcome the Government’s U-turn on this issue. However, there are unanswered questions to be addressed before we can be satisfied that public safety is not being put at risk by any interval between opt-out and possible opt-back-in. It is a reasonable question to ask, particularly given that the committee notes in its report that since Denmark exercised its opt-out,
“the Commission had frequently refused permission for the Danes to conclude agreements in certain areas”.
I thought that the question from the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, about a referendum was a perfectly reasonable one to ask. I was surprised by the somewhat heated and exasperated response which he received from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and by the refusal to answer, especially given the noble Lord’s comments in an article last Monday in which he wrote:
“if Liberal Democrats were in government on our own I suspect we would not be exercising the mass opt-out”.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, helpfully gave an explanation on that point which he had heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, we need certainty on that point. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will be able to give that certainty without the hyperbole that we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The European arrest warrant is a legal framework that allows countries to extradite. Transition measures will have to be legally robust to ensure the satisfaction of the courts dealing with extradition. I appreciate that I have asked a number of questions, but they are not new or unexpected and would be very straightforward for the Government to answer at this stage. I alerted the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, earlier that I would be repeating these questions this evening.
When we debated the Government’s Statement on 19 July, I asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, similar questions, plus two very straightforward ones. I did not receive any replies then, but obviously, the Government have now had time to consider those points and I would welcome answers tonight. I am confident that the Government have answers to them now. These questions strike at the very heart of this issue. They were also referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. If the Government are prepared to take this course of action—to opt out and then seek to opt back in to the key measures—there must be good reasons why the permanent opt-out from the other measures is so important. So, how many of the measures which the Government want to permanently opt out of are relevant to the UK and are currently being used, and what impact will their removal have? What is the exact number of practical, workable and working measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of?
Of the 133 crime, law and order and policing measures, the Government want to opt back into 35, and an additional seven have already been replaced and the Government have opted in. My understanding is that the measures that the Government seek permanently to opt out of are basically harmless and irrelevant or, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said in his opening speech, “obsolete, defunct or simply unused”. His article also referred to the measures negotiated by the Liberal Democrats in the Government as,
“keeping the wheat and losing the chaff”.
Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House which, if any, of the measures which the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of are harmful to the UK? Or are the Government prepared to risk those measures that even they consider essential by being strong and bold in jettisoning the irrelevant?
Unless the Government now have guarantees that the UK can opt back in with no delays, no interregnum where UK citizens are left exposed, what is the point? Or is the Minister going to inform your Lordships’ House tonight that this is a serious and important repatriation of powers from the shackles of Brussels? I suspect not.
There remain so many questions, but the biggest has to be: why? I look forward to receiving some answers from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, this evening, because the questions were raised in previous debates and we are still waiting for answers. The Minister has to convince your Lordships’ House that the Government's actions are in the public interest and not, as it so clearly appears, a ridiculous piece of theatre designed to placate what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, called “those on the wilder side of Euroscepticism”.
Despite the welcome and successful efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to achieve what I hope are cast-iron assurances on the 35 measures, without guarantees that we will be able to opt in with no time lag that puts British citizens at risk, we cannot support the Government in their Motion this evening.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Surveillance Camera Systems and Specification of Relevant Authorities) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I will say a few words because this is an area in which I take an interest. In principle, I have no trouble with using surveillance cameras around the place to find out what happened after an event and, in some cases, to anticipate what might happen. The only thing that has ever worried me is when things are linked together to try to surveil and track a population around. From that point of view, ANPR cameras could be used for purposes other than traffic management and could start to be used for tracking people. A lot of that stuff involves data protection, so all this looks fairly innocuous.
The main thing that I am worried about is whether it really does anything. At the end of it all, these are all good words. Are we just adding more cost and stuff than can be more effectively used elsewhere? It looks like we have just invented a couple of extra posts, which will be very nice for someone; it will do a bit more box-ticking so everyone will think that it has all been covered. However, if it starts being really effective, it will interrupt other people’s jobs where they do need cameras, and make them more difficult.
So I am giving a few words of caution: let us not waste public money on something that is merely a cosmetic exercise. At the same time, many of the issues that do matter in this are covered by the Data Protection Act, for instance accurate databases and things like that. So they are already covered elsewhere. Will having an extra commissioner really make a difference? It is obvious that I am sceptical about it. It does not really address the big problem about the surveillance state and things like that, but we do not have that yet, thank goodness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for his helpful explanations and information. Just prior to the Committee, I indicated to the Minister that we are considering praying against these instruments. I apologise if he was not told beforehand, although the Whips’ Office knows. In future I would talk to them directly. These are important issues.
I want to offer the Minister the opportunity to answer my questions first, because that might alleviate some of my concerns. His answers will be very important in that regard. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, hit the nail on the head with some of the concerns that I want to raise as well. The Minister referred to our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which was quite damning about this order’s ability to achieve the objectives that the Government set out. It stated:
“While the principles themselves are commonsense, some of the explanation is vague, with frequently used terms such as ‘proportionate’ or ‘appropriate’ left undefined in the context”.
Those are wise words. I would impress on the Minister the committee’s final comment, which stated:
“The House may therefore wish to question the Minister about the Government's plans for the wider application of the code and to invite the Minister to clarify how its benefits will offset the costs of the additional bureaucracy involved”.
This SI increases costs and bureaucracy to local authorities and the police of installing CCTV. The Explanatory Notes claim that this is a policy decision motivated by a desire to halt,
“the extent to which private lives are exposed to ever greater scrutiny by other individuals, organisations or the State, leading in some instances to a potential exposure to criminality, or more generally, to an erosion of personal privacy”.
That is the point that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made. Can the Minister say where in this order is anything that restricts the use of CCTV by individuals or private companies and makes any difference to the potential exposure of criminality that the Government have identified? I am not sure what that means in the context of this order. It may be a government objective, but it is nowhere in this order that I can find, because only public bodies—mainly the police and local authorities—are bound by the order before us today. The consultation and the order will not prohibit the installation of CCTV. What it will do is increase the paperwork and bureaucracy, making it considerably more expensive.
The Government have made a commitment to lean government, and I do not think that it was just a reference to Eric Pickles’s diet when the Chancellor said it. The impact assessment states that this extra flood of bureaucracy is not subject to the Government’s principles of “one in, two out”, in terms of regulation. Why is that? What is the point of having such a policy if the Government can then simply exempt a regulation from it? That makes a complete nonsense of the policy. The Home Secretary said:
“After years of bureaucratic control from Whitehall … this government trusts you to fight crime”,
but apparently not where CCTV is concerned. Here, the Home Office is creating 25 pages of statutory guidance for local authorities to go through—25 pages of hoops for the police to jump through before they can install CCTV.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. However, he said that I asked about the cost of the commissioner. I did not do so as I referred to that matter in my comments. What I was asking about were the powers of the commissioner and how they could be enforced, not the cost.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The powers are clearly laid out in the instrument which places those bodies identified under a statutory obligation to comply with the code. That is what the statutory instrument is about. Those are the powers of the commissioner and his power is, of course, to see that the code is enforced by those public authorities so affected.
As I say, the Home Office will take an early and visible lead in the voluntary adoption of the code and, along with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, will show how working with the 12 guiding principles can help build and maintain public confidence. Along with the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, we will be raising awareness of the code and its guiding principles. There will be practical advice on how to apply those principles so that where CCTV is needed it is effective in meeting its purpose. Maintaining public confidence is in itself an incentive for voluntary adoption. Not to adopt the code will be to risk reputational damage by appearing to be unwilling to engage with the public or to follow good practice.
The number of cameras is not really the issue. The BSIA’s recent report was clear that the issue is whether the cameras have the ability to meet their purpose and adhere to legal requirements.
The additional costs—the noble Baroness may care to take notice of this—incurred by a local authority are estimated to be on average £2,000 a year, and on average £23,000 for a police force. These are modest costs and are expected to bring the benefits of better quality images and help in investigating crime and bringing criminals to justice and greater public confidence. Placing a monetary value on these benefits cannot be done easily, as I think that the noble Baroness accepted, and yet they are important.
The Surveillance Camera Commissioner plans to generate a self-assessment test, which will be a speedy and efficient mechanism for an organisation—or a business in the case of voluntary adoption of the code—to assess whether it is complying with the code. This will be faster than digesting the code in its entirety and will help to demystify the principles in the code and any technical terminology used. There is no mandatory requirement to replace an existing system but organisations will be encouraged to work to approved operational and occupational standards. This can be done by better use of the existing resources. So I have focused once again on the effectiveness of the systems in delivering what is needed.
CCTV and ANPR are used in a variety of settings for a variety of purposes. Therefore, if some of the definitions are vague and general rather than specific, that is because the code does not contain a detailed, prescriptive and one-size-fits-all guidance which defines every circumstance. Some may regard it as vague but it is a matter for operators to assess necessity and proportionality when using CCTV and ANPR, and to then test their judgment with the public and their partners. This code and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner will provide a framework within which they can exercise their discretion to do so.
The commissioner will provide advice on approved operational, technical and competency standards. He is already meeting with relevant certified accreditation bodies to explore a formal certification scheme for CCTV. In addition, he is developing a self-assessment template, as I have said, to help system operators to assess compliance and to follow the code.
The noble Baroness asked about SOCA. Currently, of course, when Ministers say SOCA they mean the National Crime Agency, which will be its successor. I can demonstrate to her how public authorities have viewed the establishment of the CCTV and surveillance commissioner and his role by the response of authorities such as SOCA and, for that matter, the non-territorial police forces which have been pleased to sign up to this code. They can see the huge advantages of being part of a group of law enforcement agencies that receive the support and technical assistance of the commissioner and the reassurance that the commissioner’s appointment offers.
The noble Baroness also asked about the mechanism for enforcing compliance with the code. Perhaps I may explain. Local authorities and the police will be under a duty to have regard to the code when exercising their functions. The SI will place a statutory duty on them. When a local authority or police force fails to do so, it will be vulnerable to judicial review for a breach of that statutory duty. The possibility of being subject to such a legal challenge will incentivise local authorities and the police to adhere to that statutory duty.
Before I go on, I shall talk about DNA and the noble Baroness’s comments in that area. This is complex legislation, as she will appreciate, and considerable work has been carried out to date to prepare the relevant systems and to consult law enforcement authorities. Having made the policy decision, we undertook a full public consultation and carefully considered the responses before we brought this guidance forward. I am satisfied that it is in time and is specifically designed to address the concerns that the noble Baroness raised.
The noble Baroness particularly asked about the current legislative framework against which decisions have been made. The current legislative regime whereby material is held by the police and other law enforcement authorities is still in effect. There have been no applications to extend the retention period on national security grounds and no material has been destroyed as a result of not extending the time period on those grounds. There have been no applications, but the framework has not ceased to exist.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, will be pleased to hear that under guiding principles one and two we are clear that the use of CCTV or ANPR must be in pursuit of a legitimate aim and meet a pressing need and must take account of privacy, which, as I have tried to emphasise, is the countervailing balance that this code is designed to reconcile. These first principles establish the need for surveillance and reassure the public that it is necessary.
The Government’s intention is to give communities confidence that camera systems are used to meet a legitimate aim, that they are necessary and proportionate —words which noble Lords will fully understand—and that they are used effectively to meet a stated purpose. The vast majority of systems are operated privately. However, local authorities and the police are key organisations in ensuring the safety and security of our public places—which is where the code is initially focused—and therefore have a significant interest in the use of CCTV. That is why the starting point of our journey of incremental and measured regulation is to place them under a duty to have regard to the code. CCTV is used in a wide variety of settings for a wide variety of purposes. Therefore, the code does not contain detailed, prescriptive, one-size-fits-all guidance which attempts to define every circumstance. Some may regard this as vague, but it is for operators to assess necessity and proportionality when using CCTV and then to test their judgment with the public and partners. This code will help them do so.
In this complex and challenging arena we have always been clear that our approach to regulation will be incremental and measured. Andrew Rennison characterised this as taking small but practical steps, and I am sure that that is a strategy that the noble Baroness will endorse. We are taking action to reassure the public and as a driver of public standards. We in government remain committed to ensuring that, where the powers which these orders seek are granted, they are necessary, proportionate and transparent and, crucially, that their use goes hand in hand with respect for our long-held individual rights and freedoms. Both the orders before the Committee today go to the very heart of that matter, and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who has sought to address the points that I have made. However, I am not convinced that he has addressed them all. I am still unclear on the point, which he did not answer, on the enforcement or monitoring powers of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. He said that it was a statutory duty on local authorities or the police, so the fear of judicial review would ensure that they carry this out. My experience of local authorities is that the fears of the cost of judicial review often lead them not to take an action that they would otherwise take. My fear would be that the costs of a judicial review—and there are 12 principles under which they could be judicially reviewed—could lead a number of local authorities to say that they will just not bother with this because it is too much effort.
I am disappointed that the Minister described what I think are genuine concerns as hyperbole. The place to question such issues is your Lordships' House; that is our role, as well as scrutiny. I am sorry that the Minister was unhappy with that position.
On the final order, the Minister said that there have been no applications to destroy biometric information, and none had been destroyed. Can I take it that that means that there have been none over three years old? Those are a couple of points that were not raised. I shall take this back and read the Hansard to see from what has been said whether my points have been addressed.
Alcohol: Minimum Pricing
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think noble Lords are well aware how long “due course” may be.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, for all the talk of consultation, the consultation on the alcohol strategy specifically ruled out consulting on minimum alcohol pricing. It said that the Government were committed to introducing a minimum unit price, but added:
“However, in other areas, this consultation seeks views”.
The Home Secretary said:
“We will … introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol”.
What has changed the Government’s mind? Has private lobbying forced this U-turn?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can certainly counter that allegation. The response will be a comprehensive review of alcohol and the way in which we tackle alcohol abuse in this country, and it will be available in due course.
Visas: Foreign Domestic Workers
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, and indeed this is one of the issues that the Minister for Immigration is considering. However, perhaps I may put into perspective what the April 2012 reforms require. The control of the scheme is itself one of the protections in place. Previously there was a five-year period, and a six-month period obviously enables us to discipline that particular application so much better. We require evidence of an existing employer-employee relationship and 12 months of overseas employment before the visa application can be made. We also require that written terms of condition of employment accompany that visa application and are produced with it. Employees are still entitled to the protections in UK employment law, and they are provided with a letter in a number of languages setting out their rights under the law.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, nobody wants to see the visa system abused. However, I am confident that the Government do not think it is right that anybody working in this country should be made more vulnerable to slavery or physical, sexual or mental abuse, with effectively no power to take action to protect themselves, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Will the noble Lord consider, in the meeting that he will shortly have with Mark Harper MP, what action the Government will take to ensure that those who are responsible for such crimes will be brought to justice, and not allowed to get away with it by deporting the evidence?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Indeed, anybody who violates the trafficking laws in this country is subject to the full force of the criminal law. Given that individuals have already worked for their employer for 12 months overseas, it is reasonable to assume that there is a normal employer-employee relationship between those individuals.
Europol Regulation: European Union Opt-In
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting and illuminating debate. Perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am to the committee. I found this report and the previous report on the opt-out to be extremely useful, and it should have a much wider audience than only Members of your Lordships’ House. Any debate around European issues is often led by emotion and those with strong views. It often becomes one of those public debates whereby those with strong views seek to persuade others why they are right and it becomes difficult to make a balanced and dispassionate contribution. I have thought for some time that what many people want is for politicians to stop telling them what they should think and why they should agree with them but be given hard facts in a reasoned way and be allowed to make their own judgments. What are the benefits and problems, as well as the potential benefits and potential problems? Both reports are excellent and need a wider audience because they address just those issues in a dispassionate and thoughtful way. Certainly when preparing for today’s debate I found both reports hugely valuable.
It feels slightly odd to be debating an opt-in when so much of the debate and political discussion between now and next May, when the final decision has to be made, is all about the Government’s proposed block opt-out. That will be a much wider opt-out than the decisions on Europol before us today. I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that when I was looking at this, “political hokey-cokey” were exactly the words that came into my mind. As he indicated, it is a very expensive hokey-cokey and there is no guarantee that once you have been in and come out you can go in again. For that reason, this is a slightly confused debate to which the reports bring a great deal of clarity.
I have a few questions for the Minister, which developed as I prepared for the debate. I should be interested to know how many other measures are awaiting an opt-in decision by the Government and whether any have been delayed because of the discussions regarding the opt-out. In our discussion on the first report last week on the opt-out, there was some suggestion that there were other opt-in measures that would address some of the concerns that the Government have raised around issues such as the European arrest warrant, but no action has been taken. Because there is an opt-out decision to be taken, proper consideration is not being given to potential opt-ins.
Perhaps I may restate the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, on the other issues connected to Europol that would remain on the Government’s opt-out list, even if the Government opted in. It sounds more like the hokey-cokey all the time, does it not? Even if the Government opt in on the Europol measures, other connected measures would be on the opt-out list. I feel like a character in a play, somewhere between Alice Through the Looking Glass and “Yes Minister”. However, it would be helpful to have some clarity from the Minister on those points. These reports help to make sense of the decision to be made this month and set the issue in a wider context.
The first duty of any Government is the safety and well-being of the public and national security. Over the past decade, we have seen an increase in serious and organised crime that can and has caused severe harm, poses great risk to victims and causes inevitable economic damage. I take note of Europol’s Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment made earlier this year, which stated:
“Serious and organised crime is an increasingly dynamic and complex phenomenon, and remains a significant threat to the safety and prosperity of the EU”.
The assessment goes on to state that as society and business become more global, so do the nature of the threat and the risk, particularly regarding the use of new and emerging technology.
The value of Europol as described by other noble Lords is widely accepted. The value of the range of EU police and criminal justice measures is also widely accepted as being of huge benefit in the fight against organised and serious cross-border crime, which is made more dangerous and more complex by its cross-border nature. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, illustrated some of that in the cases he mentioned. Dealing with drug trafficking, people trafficking, abduction, money laundering, cybercrime and of course national security and terrorism relies on co-operation, both Europe-wide and nationally.
We have already heard about the main changes proposed by the draft regulation that the UK is being asked to opt into. I do not wish to repeat the detail but in summary, first, are the new commitments around data sharing and enhancing the role of Europol as a hub for information exchange. Second are the proposals for a more robust data protection regime, alongside structural changes in data management and processing, to make better use of the data that are held. Third is improved governance and increased parliamentary scrutiny by national Parliaments and the European Parliament, and proposals for greater accountability. Fourth are the changes to the existing structures by merging Europol and CEPOL; although my reading of the proposed regulation is that it is more of a takeover than a merger.
On the first issue, data sharing is essential. There is little point in co-operation between states if information is not up to date and relevant. However, we understand the concerns that have been raised by the new wording. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the exact reasons for the Government’s concerns on this. The Government consider that information should be shared on a voluntary basis, if I understand their position correctly. That is not unreasonable but is there likely to be an imbalance in information supplied from different countries? The Government have responded that they have concerns about the feasibility. Can the Minister be more specific about what he means by “feasibility”? Perhaps we can have some more detail on that. The committee’s recommendation on this issue seems eminently sensible, given that there are concerns, but I am keen to understand exactly what they are. The committee’s recommendation on negotiation is helpful but I wonder how effective we as a country can be in negotiations, given the Government’s commitment to a block opt-out. That must be a real worry for those negotiating on our behalf in addressing any concerns that the Government have. Obviously, if others around the table think that we are likely to opt out, it is harder to reach agreement. The Government will need to convince them that we are serious about real engagement. That might be a challenge for any negotiators. Paragraph 20 of the report is helpful in seeking to tread through this minefield and makes a very robust recommendation on the course of action that the Government should take in respect of Europol if they decide to exercise the block opt-out.
On the second matter of data protection and better analysis of data, both proposals are welcome but I agree that there is a lack of clarity about the data protection provisions, and that uncertainty will remain until later this month when the directive is to be agreed. The Commission’s document refers to the current legislative set-up preventing Europol being fully effective and equipping member states with the necessary, complete and up-to-date tools. From the report, this appears to be in relation to forensic and operational support and criminal analysis. It also seems that this regulation is needed to tackle the remaining barriers to full co-operation. I certainly welcome the proposals to strengthen the current data protection regime, including those intended strictly to limit the holding of personal information, as well as proposals on the individual’s right to access information held and the availability of compensation for unlawful data processing. It would be helpful to know the Minister’s views on this and whether the Government are satisfied with those proposals.
However, it is the merger of Europol and CEPOL that is perhaps most contentious. Listening to comments from noble Lords around the House this evening, there seems to be little confidence that this will go ahead in the proposed form. As I have already said, it seems to be more of a takeover than a merger, and I am not surprised that both directors have opposed it. That, in itself, would not be the sole basis on which to oppose change but they have raised strong issues of concern. I share the concerns about the financial implications and effectiveness. The Government are wise to be sceptical about the prediction of savings. They themselves know from their mergers of quangos and cuts in organisations that the savings realised on paper are often not so evident in the real world.
We have previously made points in debates in your Lordships’ House about the creation of the National Crime Agency and the dangers that the Government face in not providing transitional costs. We often hear that changes in administration or bureaucracy are going to realise great savings. Obviously savings can be made, but when the rationale for structural change is just to save money, too often there then follows a hunt for cuts to realise the savings that have been promised, while at the same time the process of change swallows up money that could be used to provide services.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum provides an assessment of the benefits. It certainly appears that there are good reasons for greater co-operation between the two bodies, although it is worth noting Appendix 2 of the committee’s report, in which the director of CEPOL states that the synergies and co-operation between the two agencies are already excellent. He takes the strong view, with some evidence, that money is not being wasted by duplication. The directors of both agencies raise concerns about the supposed financial savings and the implications of a merger in terms of efficiency.
The second area that the Commission identifies as being made more effective is that of identifying and responding to training needs. Having read the report, the Explanatory Memorandum and the regulations, I share some of the concerns that have been raised about training, not just in terms of the budget but in terms of guaranteeing the quality of training and the priority given to training. This is a dangerous area in which to risk losing effectiveness. I know that the Government have some concerns but I hope that they will not be used as a way to try to derail progress. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that the Government will enter into negotiations on this and report back to your Lordships’ House as those negotiations progress.
One aspect on which I should like to understand the Government’s position is the development of EU centres and the provision of training to fight specific crimes. Looking through the regulations and the other material, I wonder whether the Government have considered or explored with the Commission the possibility of a specialist centre being based in the UK. I would have hoped that the Government would enthusiastically embrace the opportunity of having one of these EU centres in the UK—we already have CEPOL at Bramshill—to further develop and share high-level expertise. Bramshill is a former police college and it has had international respect but it is being sold off. I hope that that does not blind the Government to what could be a real opportunity to extend our influence and share our expertise in policing Europe-wide.
Again, the Minister will have to consider that any negotiations to seek changes in the details of the memorandum and regulations could be damaged by the Government’s intention to seek an opt-out in 2014. I appreciate that having to look at this issue in the shadow of the block opt-out makes such discussions very difficult for the Government, but I would hope—and other noble Lords have echoed this in their comments this evening—that the importance of this issue would focus the Government’s attention on the opportunities of sharing and improving UK law enforcement and policing. There are also some very welcome comments on scrutiny, accountability and good governance.
At the beginning of this debate, I said that a Government’s first duty is to the security and well-being of their citizens. Crime does not stop at Calais. The policing methods of “Dixon of Dock Green” are no longer enough to tackle the complex and intelligent web of serious and organised crime, where the benefits of, and skills derived from, modern technology sit alongside the old-fashioned criminal masterminds. Police officers today are highly trained and they will have to co-operate across borders if we are to be effective in bringing to justice the drug dealers, money launderers, child abusers and all those who traffic in human misery, as well as fighting terrorism and protecting national security.
The decision before the Government is whether to opt in to the new Europol regulations. A very interesting aspect of tonight’s debate has been that there is real support from noble Lords across the House for European and national co-operation to effectively tackle these issues. However, not a single voice has been raised this evening in support of the Government’s proposed block opt-out. I should have thought that, if there were to be such a contribution on this issue, it would have been heard this evening.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated, it is impossible to see this debate in a vacuum. We have to set it against the announcement that the Government want to opt out of all policing and criminal justice measures and then, in the hokey-cokey, try to opt back in to some of them, but we do not know which ones and how many or what the priorities are, and we do not know what the costs will be. As I have made clear, there are very real concerns about the Government’s position and perhaps, more importantly, the way that they have handled this issue. It undermines confidence and weakens our negotiating position when there are very real and serious issues that have to be addressed.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he can give us some clarity and reassurance on the issue. However, I greatly welcome this debate and, again, pay tribute to the whole committee for its thoughtful, insightful and very readable report.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord because he has been generous in giving way. He has said that time will be made for the other place to debate this issue once the government decision has been made. The decision has to be taken by 30 July, which is the last sitting day in your Lordships’ House before the Summer Recess. However, the other place will finish around two weeks earlier. Can I have an assurance that, if the decision is taken between the other place rising and 30 July when this House rises, the noble Lord will make an Oral Statement so that we can debate the issue on the basis of the decision that is made, not the theory of the decision?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I imagine that I will be able to tell noble Lords that it is highly probable that a decision will be made before the other place rises, rather than before 30 July. The business of this House is a matter for the usual channels and I place myself in their hands. However, I would want to communicate any decision of this importance to the House and, indeed, to Parliament. I am sure that that will be acknowledged by my noble friends who occupy the usual channels.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey is correct to say that there are numerous examples of good co-operation. He illustrated the virtues of Europol and why, notwithstanding the discussions on whether to opt in or to let it run and then negotiate, it is such an important institution and we support it. I am aware that we share common ground with other member states on some issues, but there are no guarantees. The issues are subject to qualified majority voting and there have not been any detailed negotiations that have allowed us to gain a clear idea of how much support we have for our concerns. Should we not succeed in amending it, we would be bound by the final text, and that is a matter of concern to the Government.
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I should like to highlight that there are two separate issues here: the block opt-out and the Europol negotiations. The two issues are not being confused and this debate is about the Europol regulation, not the opt-out.
Undercover Policing
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I join in his comments of support for Doreen and Neville Lawrence and their family. I suspect that no words can give comfort in a situation such as this. Having had to cope with the horror and the tragedy of the murder of their son Stephen, they had almost 20 years of campaigning for justice before anyone was brought to book for his murder. They then had to wait for a public inquiry into the Metropolitan Police’s handling of the investigation and the institutionalised racism at that time. We are still awaiting action to address the devastating failures and shocking decisions made by the Metropolitan Police at the time of Stephen’s murder.
Today, we have these disgusting allegations. Officers were tasked to spy on the Lawrence family to find “dirt” on them and their supporters. It is alleged that police officers logged who went in and out of the Lawrence family home, yet at the same time they were failing to gather sufficient evidence to prosecute Gary Dobson and David Norris, and any other suspects at the time. We can only imagine the hurt, distress and anger—and also the deep sadness and sense of betrayal that the Lawrence family and their supporters must continue to feel. With allegations made last year that corruption within the Metropolitan Police contributed to the failure to get justice for the Lawrence family, we called for a wider public inquiry into those allegations of corruption and we also considered it an opportunity to address more widely the progress within the police in addressing racism. Instead, the Home Secretary allowed the Metropolitan Police to review itself and, as the noble Lord has indicated today, asked Mark Ellison QC to review the paperwork on this specific issue.
It would be helpful today for the Minister to update your Lordships’ House on the progress in that case. He said something about it but it would help to have a little bit more information. Does he consider whether there is any overlap in these new allegations? A specific concern is whether police officers providing information to Mr Ellison have withheld relevant information from him. Will the noble Lord comment on that specific point? We have previously endorsed the call of Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, for the reinstitution of a public inquiry to examine any dereliction of duty by the Metropolitan Police at the time of Stephen’s murder and, more widely, the progress made in implementing the Macpherson report’s 70 recommendations. We continue to support that call.
On the substance of today’s allegations, clearly this links in with wider concerns, as the Minister has addressed, about the use of undercover and covert operations by the police. Noble Lords will be aware that I have previously raised in your Lordships’ House concerns over the identities of dead children being used by officers, without the consent or the knowledge of their families. We have had evidence of shocking allegations and instances of inappropriate relationships. I do know whether the Minister had the opportunity to read the Guardian magazine this weekend, but I would recommend the article by Rob Evans and Paul Lewis on the activities of SDS police officers. The impact of their activities on individuals shows how serious and devastating such behaviour can be.
I know that the noble Lord shares our concern about transparency in any investigation on inquiries into these issues. I spoke to him earlier about this and, as he said, the only way to restore public and professional confidence is to have openness in the investigation and openness in the actions taken to address any problems. We have some concerns about the Home Secretary’s approach in wrapping these allegations together with the pre-existing investigation being undertaken by Derbyshire’s Chief Constable Creedon and supervised by the IPPC. That investigation is looking at complex and covert investigations into environmental and animal rights groups that go back many years. In the past month, new allegations have been made about corporate protests and potential undercover police involvement. This is another monster of an inquiry being undertaken by the IPCC. It is already taken 20 months and cost £1.2 million, although no arrests have yet been made. This will take some years. Alongside Hillsborough, the scoping of Orgreave, and many other investigations, it is unclear whether the IPCC will be able to prioritise and deal with all those issues in an appropriate timescale. Rightly, these are all huge issues of concern.
In addition to the undercover element, there is a common theme. It was so powerfully evidenced in relation to Hillsborough, as the noble Lord and I discussed at the time, and is now reinforced in the case of the Lawrence family—namely, that police institutions seek to undermine victims. Police institutions try to smear those seeking justice as being agitators or they even try to find some evidence of their being criminals—trying to smear them in the process. The agony that the Lawrence family has endured since the day Stephen was murdered has also made this case uniquely damaging to British policing and public confidence. Unless that is effectively and properly dealt with, not only will that lack of confidence endure, it will undermine the confidence of the majority of police officers who seek to serve the public honestly and decently.
We now have two different inquiries: the investigation, Operation Herne, and the new Ellison review dealing with very similar things. I have a few questions for the noble Lord. I want to get to the bottom of whether the Government are absolutely confident that these inquiries will, first, be sufficiently focused; and, secondly, have complete co-operation from police officers. They also have to ensure that whistleblowers will be sufficiently empowered and protected to come forward. A number of recent cases show that the actions of whistleblowers have been vital in exposing the allegations of serious corruption within public institutions. Crucially, we seek an assurance that there is no information or evidence that could be lost in a black hole between the different inquiries.
The Home Secretary has chosen not to institute, as we requested, a swifter IPPC-led investigation that is independently resourced. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that Chief Constable Creedon reports on the specific allegations before the House of Commons Summer Recess? I think that the Home Secretary indicated this afternoon that that was the case in the comments that she made. It would be helpful if he would confirm that for us.
The Lawrence family and the public need the truth and they need it quickly. They deserve the truth. I shall summarise the points that we wish to raise with the Minister and the Government. First, we need a swift investigation by the IPPC into any allegations of misconduct in relation to spying on the Lawrence family; secondly, an update on the corruption allegations; and a clear need for a wider inquiry as Doreen Lawrence, Stephen’s mother, has called for. We need urgent progress and all those three areas and I hope that the noble Lord can give serious consideration and respond positively to all these issues.
Visas
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the average time taken to assess and process an overseas visitor’s application for a visa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, in the financial year 2012-13, on average, visit visa applications were processed in under 10 working days—the exact figure is 9.17 working days. We measure this from the time that the customer submits their biometric information to when the application is ready for collection by the customer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the president of the China International Travel Service has criticised the Government’s changes to the visa system as making little difference in encouraging Chinese tourists to the UK and complains that the system is even more complicated than that to get into the US. Does the Minister accept that the potential loss of income to the UK economy remains at £1.2 billion? What urgent discussions will Ministers have with the Chinese authorities and tour operators to make it easier to apply for UK visas without compromising security, as other countries seem to be much more successful at doing this?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I read the article containing Miss Yu’s comments. It is vital that the UK is seen as being open for visitors and business. That is very much the case as far as China is concerned. The President of China has talked about there being 400 million visitors from China by 2018. We need to recognise the need for a customer focus in our visitor offer. That is why the Government have broken up the UK Border Agency into two parts, one of which deals with immigration enforcement. The other, UK Visas and Immigration, is dedicated to delivering a high-quality customer service to those wishing to enter the UK.
Crime: Child Abuse
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what information they have on the number of individuals who have downloaded child abuse images, and on the number of those individuals who have been charged.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the Government take the issue of tackling illegal content very seriously. In 2012, 255 individuals were found guilty of the principal offence of possessing prohibited images of children or of possessing indecent photographs. In the same year, 1,315 individuals were found guilty of the principal offence of taking, permitting to be taken, making, distributing or publishing indecent photographs of children. It is, unfortunately, clear that there are links between these sick activities and the attacks on young children which have featured in the news recently.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The latest estimates show that up to 60,000 people are involved in downloading child pornography. Even though we can obtain their names and addresses, as the noble Lord said, there are fewer than 2,500 convictions each year. The figures show that one in six of those involved in child pornography will commit a sexual offence on a child. We would like to work with the Government to ensure swift and co-ordinated action on this issue. What progress has been made in the technology industry to make a step change in how we tackle this? Do the Government accept that they must be prepared to act if no changes are forthcoming?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
These are important issues, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she supports moves to strengthen the Government’s position in this regard. The work of the Internet Watch Foundation to encourage search engines and internet service providers to put in place warning messages known as splash pages that tell users that they are about to access a website containing illegal child abuse images is a very important development. However, our preference is for such websites to be taken down or, where that is not possible, blocked from being accessed. Work with the internet service providers is key to getting this problem solved.
Accession of Croatia (Immigration and Worker Authorisation) Regulations 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, which answered a few of my questions, which I know he is always pleased to do. I wish to clarify a couple of points by asking a few questions. The Minister mentioned a seven-year transition period, yet the order refers to a five-year transition period and 2018. I assume he referred to seven years because there is a possibility of extending the transition period for a further two years at another date, but this order is for only five years. In case I have misunderstood, will the Minister clarify that?
I am interested in the enforcement regime regarding those who come from another country and try to work. Is it the same as the regime for other employment visa requirements or will there be something different in place for transitional arrangements? Can the Minister say anything about how this will be monitored? I would be interested to know the details, and if he wants to write to me I would be happy for him to do so.
Obviously, we support transitional arrangements. As the Minister acknowledged in his comments, we brought them in for Bulgaria and Romania. I fully understand why it is not possible to get an accurate assessment of the numbers involved, but the Minister said that this order is being brought forward today because of the fear of uncontrolled flows of workers from Croatia to the UK. He also said that there is no anticipation of large numbers coming to the UK. That seems somewhat contradictory. Has there been any assessment of the numbers involved, or was the assessment that it was not a large number and the order is just to minimise the risk in case that is wrong? It is not quite clear as the Minister’s comments were contradictory. If there has been some assessment, I am interested in the flows in the other direction. How many people from the UK want to go to work in Croatia?
On the more general points, from what has been said today and from comments made by other Ministers in the past, is the Minister able to clarify the Government’s longer-term position on free movement within the EU and say whether there are any plans to change the rules on it? I noted the Minister’s comments about unskilled workers from Croatia or, indeed, any other country when local workers are available. On that point, which is slightly tangential but very relevant to this discussion, how can we ensure that unscrupulous employers do not illegally employ those who are not entitled to work in this country and exploit them by doing so? I am thinking of things such as ensuring that the minimum wage is paid and that health and safety regulations are taken note of because cutting back on those issues is one way that unscrupulous employers exploit foreign workers and therefore undercut and undermine the local workers to whom the Minister referred. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not weaken those protections, and that when they are not upheld they will take action?
I know that the Government have been very slow in enforcement. There has been a lax approach to the minimum wage legislation. I was very pleased to hear this weekend that HMRC has recently brought a swathe of prosecutions on this, because it had fallen by the wayside. I am pleased that it is picking up now. An assurance from the Minister on those particular issues would be very welcome. I appreciate that that is slightly tangential but it is an important issue. This is the point he is making; we must ensure that people who are not legally allowed to work in this country do not do so.
We are broadly content with the order before us today, but if the Minister is able to address the questions I have raised it would be helpful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contributions. As usual, she sets me a high standard if I am to avoid writing in detail, although I certainly would not hesitate to do so if I felt I was not able to answer satisfactorily.
I should like to reiterate that these regulations implement the commitment contained in the Government’s programme for government to apply the toughest possible transitional restrictions to any future member state in the EU. That is why we are presenting them. We do not expect levels of migration from Croatia to be significant, however. I made that clear in introducing these regulations.
It was interesting that the Baroness said that she was concerned that we had not given an actual estimate of these figures. We know there could have been considerable numbers from other countries if we had not set these restrictions in place in the past, so we feel that the policy that we arrived at in the coalition agreement was the right one.
I will first explain the business of the five years. I did so in introducing the speech when I explained that these regulations go up to June 2018 but provide for a further extension of two years; they can go up to 2020. They put in place the mechanism whereby the Government can indeed have a seven-year transitional regime.
The noble Baroness asks, “Why apply transitional regimes?” and, “Is it contradictory?”. I hope the noble Baroness supports that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thought I made it clear that I did support transitional regimes. I never asked, “Why transitional arrangements?”. My query is about the Minister’s contradictory comments. I recognise that it is difficult to make an accurate assessment of the numbers involved, but the Minister used the term “uncontrolled flows” when he was talking about the need for this and then said he did not expect large numbers. That was the point I was making. The two comments seemed contradictory. I was trying to square the circle on that. I hope I was clear that we support transitional arrangements—indeed, we brought them in previously for Romania and Bulgaria. So that was not the point I was making. I want to be clear on that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful for that explanation. As a result, I now understand the position of the noble Baroness. Thank you.
She asked me about the details of how these figures would be monitored. Obviously, where transitional permits are actually applied for, we know how many people are coming from Croatia to this country. As to how they will be enforced, the noble Baroness will know that we now have within the Home Office an immigration enforcement unit that ensures that illegal workers—and, indeed, illegal employers—can be prosecuted. These matters can be dealt with much more forcefully than before.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness noted HMRC’s assault on minimum wages. There has been a lot of cross-departmental working on these issues as the Department for Work and Pensions has an interest in them as well as the Home Office and HMRC. The rather amusingly entitled Operation Pheasant was designed to seek out exactly this problem in the part of the world in which I live, and successfully identified weaknesses that we do not want to see. After all, an exploiting employer is also an unfair employer who presents unfair competition to those who respect the law. The enforcement of the law is an important aspect of making sure that business in this country is conducted on a level playing field.
The noble Baroness also asked whether we would seek to reopen the free movement directive and what our approach to that was. We are examining the scope and consequence of the free movement of people across the EU as part of the general balance of competences review. We monitor enforcement issues and publish the outcomes on the Home Office website. All details of instances where employers have been discovered to be illegally employing individuals are published on that website. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness and that she will approve the regulations.