Immigration: Detention
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. This is a challenging issue and the undercover reports and allegations of abuse at Yarl’s Wood have brought a new awareness of the problems and issues at immigration centres. The excellent report of the APPG, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was a member, provides a great service to Parliament. I hope that the Government will see it that way as well.
As this is such a challenging issue, we should be particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for choosing this debate in which to make his valedictory or swansong speech, given that there are so many other issues he could have chosen. However, he chose this issue as, through his contribution to the report and the debate today, he wants to make a real and significant difference.
The noble and learned Lord had a very distinguished legal career outside your Lordships’ House and brought that expertise and thoughtful judgment to his years of service in this House. He has been formidable in debate. Former Ministers have told me that they used to quake in their shoes at the thought of him asking a question. I hope that he will delight in that as he leaves us. However, I did not agree with one issue in his excellent speech. His final litmus test for deciding to retire from your Lordships’ House was when he was offered a seat on the train. That makes me nervous as, two weeks ago, I left your Lordships’ House, caught a 453 bus, and a young lady offered me her seat. It was a sobering moment but I am not quite ready to retire yet. I pay warm tribute to the noble and learned Lord. We will miss him and his contributions.
Along with other noble Lords speaking today, I have asked the Government numerous questions about abuse at Yarl’s Wood and I have been disappointed by the replies because, although Serco runs the centre, the detention policies and the welfare of detainees is the responsibility of the Government. We have already made it clear that a Labour Government will hold an independent investigation into the Yarl’s Wood allegations and the appropriateness of the current level of detention in the system. However, I think that we can do better than that. As we have heard today, and have seen in the report, the current system is failing. There is a growing backlog of cases. Unresolved asylum cases have increased by 48% over the last year. The number of people being held for three to six months has gone up from 1,757 in 2010 to 2,385 today. As the parliamentary report highlights, people are being detained for longer. Delays in the immigration and asylum processes have increased over the last five years with more people being detained for longer than three months, fewer decisions being made and fewer people leaving or being removed. That has to change.
We have already said that a Labour Government would end the detention of pregnant women and women who have suffered torture and sexual abuse and have been trafficked. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, currently guidelines on torture and pregnancy—
Baroness Williams of Crosby
In view of what she has said, will the noble Baroness explain why the Labour Benches all voted against the amendment tabled last year by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, if he were to table it tomorrow, we would not vote against it. Our policy has changed. We have looked into the issue. Noble Lords on the noble Baroness’s Benches who voted against the amendment on overseas domestic workers, which was taken to a Division last night by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, should hang their heads in shame. I take no lessons from noble Lords who voted against his amendment. We have made a very principled decision on what we as a Labour Government would do on asylum detention.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the guidelines on torture and pregnancy are not being enforced, so the immigration laws have to be changed, and then we have to ensure that they are enforced.
We have looked at indefinite detention in further detail. We now believe that indefinite detention for people who have committed no crime and have had no review of their case is wrong. For those asylum seekers who have suffered abuse, torture or sexual abuse, it must be such an ordeal and deeply distressing. It is also extremely expensive for the taxpayer. No other European country or the US has this system in place today, so we do not need to either. I confirm to your Lordships’ House that a Labour Government would end indefinite detention for people in the asylum and immigration system.
We are not setting a timescale today, but in government we will consult on the appropriate time limits to detention, and look at appropriate safeguards for detention decisions, at best international practice and at existing alternatives that are being used and, in many cases, working well. An important part of our commitment is that we would also recruit 1,000 additional border and immigration enforcement staff to help speed up that decision-making process, indentify breaches of the Immigration Rules and enforce and manage removals. Everyone must be entitled to a swift and fair decision-making process. If they have no right to be in the UK, they still must be treated fairly and appropriately.
I want to be clear that we are not talking about those who have committed criminal offences or are being deported because of criminal behaviour, or about those who pose a threat to our national security or public safety. This change will affect the rules around detention for people in the asylum or immigration system.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for allowing us to have this debate. I wish him well and a very long and happy retirement. I hope that we shall still see him in your Lordships’ House.
Finally, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, which may surprise him at this moment. He and I have spent many hours at this Dispatch Box over the last few weeks and he has always been extremely courteous and helpful in seeking to answer questions. Sometimes we have seen more of each other in this Chamber than we have seen of our families outside the Chamber. However, I am really very grateful to him for the courtesy with which he has treated us and the way in which he has engaged in debate.
Private Investigators
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My Lords, I know that, as a former chair of the Security Industry Authority, the noble Baroness feels passionately and cares deeply about this. Of course, that is one of the points. The Security Industry Authority was introduced in the 2001 Act and set up then. If it was such a no-brainer, of course it could have been done a little earlier than 2010. However, we have gone out to consultation on this and the Home Secretary has made it abundantly clear that in both the instances that the noble Baroness mentioned we intend to legislate. We have not had time to do so but it will be done early in the next Parliament. That is a commitment which we have given and which I am sure the noble Baroness opposite will want to echo.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I find the Minister’s answer incredible. The consultation that he referred to was nearly three years ago and it had the highest number of responses of any consultation except that on gay marriage. In fact, the responses were unanimous on that occasion. Does the Minister realise that fewer police officers means that private security is replacing and working alongside the police, and often the public do not know who are the police and who are private security. The Government promised to regulate the companies but have refused to do so. We have an industry whose members are united in wanting regulation to protect the public and to protect their businesses from rogue traders, dodgy companies and criminals—so in whose interests are the Government refusing to act?
Lord Bates
We are not refusing to act. In case it has escaped the noble Baroness, lots of other pieces of legislation have been going through during this Parliament. We have not managed to get this regulation in. It is a priority, it is something that we are committed to and it will happen early in the next Parliament.
Police: Reduction in Numbers
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment has been made of the impact on community safety of the reduction in police numbers, including the reduction in traffic police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
I am realising the disadvantage of immediately following on when the previous Question went short on time. Decisions on the size, composition and deployment of the police force’s workforce are for individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners to take. They have clearly demonstrated that, with reform, it is possible to deliver more for less. Crime has fallen by more than a fifth under this Government according to the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales, making our communities the safest they have been since records began.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, chief constables can act only within the budget given to them by the Government. The stock response is that crime is falling. But, having lost 17,000 police officers, does the Minister regret that, of 100,000 crimes last year, fewer than 28% were solved? That is less than one in three. Reported rapes are up by 30% but there is a 14% fall in prosecutions under this Government. Violent crime is up by 16%. Overall prosecutions are down and 9,000 fewer crimes have been solved. Does he not consider that the police and the public deserve better if we are really serious about having safer communities?
Lord Bates
I certainly agree about the importance of having safer communities. That is why it is not a stock answer to point out that fewer crimes are happening than at any time since that survey came into being in 1981. It is not something to be complacent about. It is due to the tremendous efforts which the police are making. Nor are we simply saying that reductions in budgets are not a serious matter. We are saying that there needs to be those reductions. As the Police Federation recognised, there needed to be reductions to make sure that we balance the economy. We have reduced bureaucracy by 4.5 million hours, which is the equivalent of 2,100 police officers. Also, we have said that we do not want police officers in back offices but on the front line. We have increased the proportion of police officers who are now serving on the front line. The combination of those two things is why crime is falling.
Undercover Policing
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Answer. He will be aware that this is not the first time that we have debated these issues in your Lordships’ House. He may recall the debates about the women who had children in what they believed were genuine, long-term stable relationships, yet had been conned by undercover officers who cast them off at the same time as they cast off their assumed identity. We also recall that my noble friend Lady Lawrence and her family were spied on with no justification whatever.
Today’s allegations are equally shocking, and quite chilling. People have been investigated not for any wrongdoing or alleged crimes but for their political beliefs. I recall taking part in a very peaceful protest. If I tell noble Lords that it was on Boxing Day, they might guess the reason why I was there: it was a protest against the local hunt. I felt a sense of injustice in being followed and filmed with a police camera in my face while those who were abusing and threatening me were just ignored. Clearly, changes must be made.
I welcome the commitment that the Minister has just made regarding Lord Justice Pitchford’s inquiry, which, as I understand what he said, will be wide. Although the terms of reference have not yet been set, it is intended to include the allegations that have been made in the press today. Getting to the bottom of that will be very welcome, and I thank him for that commitment.
I agree about the importance of undercover policing. We all recognise that it is an essential evidence-gathering tool for some of the most serious crimes, and I pay tribute to those officers who, behaving completely appropriately, put themselves in very dangerous situations to protect others from serious and harmful crime. However, it is clear that new safeguards are needed.
The Minister may recall that we proposed, during the passage of a Home Office Bill in this Session of Parliament, that there should be independent pre-authorisation of undercover work, perhaps by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners. Here I am thinking about long-term covert operations; short-term for a couple of hours is a different matter, but for long-term covert operations there has to be some kind of independent prior authorisation. The Government previously rejected that but, in the light of their response on the Lord Justice Pitchford’s inquiry, I hope this is something that they will reconsider
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Baroness for her welcome. I totally agree with her in paying tribute to the work of undercover police officers, who by and large do an incredibly important job in keeping us safe from terrorist threats and from serious and organised crime. It is a vital tool in policing, giving us an opportunity to bring forward evidence that can be used in court to ensure that prosecutions are made.
The noble Baroness rightly referred back to some of the cases that we have had in the past of inappropriate relationships during undercover policing. That was of course one of the reasons why the National College of Policing introduced a code of ethics that all undercover police officers must abide by. It is important that the review looks at this. Historically, there have been failings. There have been a number of investigations by the police themselves into a whole series of allegations, but we recognise that there have been failings and that is the reason why we need to go further.
On the specifics about the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, it is a fair point. Sir Christopher Rose is widely respected, and that is something that we could look at. At the moment, deployments lasting longer than 12 months must get prior approval from the Surveillance Commissioner and be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, yet again we have had an interesting and knowledgeable discussion. Noble Lords have rightly paid tribute to the Minister for his consideration of the issues that have been raised. It is unfortunate that when the issue was discussed in the other place we had not previously had any sight of the guidance—we were still waiting for the response to the consultation—but it was helpful that during those debates the Minister was able to say to your Lordships’ House that the issues raised in the discussions and debates that took place here would be taken into account in preparing the revised guidance. That was helpful, and it is evident in some of the changes that have been made.
Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced the Prevent strategy with, at the time, three specific objectives: one was to respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threats that we faced from those who promote and encourage terrorism; another, a very strict part of Prevent, was to prevent people being drawn into terrorism and ensure that they got the appropriate advice, support and help that they needed; and the third was to work with those sectors and institutions where there were risks of radicalisation that they wanted to address.
It is easy to say this, but the scale and complexity of these issues means that trying to address them is not easy or straightforward. We need to better understand the motivations that lead young British people from our community to abandon their homes and families to engage with groups such as ISIS. Part of our response to that, when we first introduced Prevent, was the community strand, which the Government are not now continuing with in the guidance. That is interesting, given the Home Secretary’s speech today in which she recognises the importance of community. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on why that has been raised today, and whether he feels that the community cohesion strategy and the promotion of a very positive counternarrative was a positive and useful strand of Prevent. I am trying to understand why that is not part and parcel of Prevent now.
Many respondents to the consultation noted, and comments have been made about this today, that there was an insufficient definition of “extremism”, while the definition of “British values” and “non-violent extremism” were vague. The glossary, though helpful, says:
“‘Non-violent extremism’ is extremism, as defined above, which is not accompanied by violence”.
I am not sure that that takes us very far at all, to be honest. I would like clarification on what “non-violent extremism” really means. Does it mean extremism as defined in the guidance, which quite rightly includes,
“calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas”?
Is non-violent extremism—I am trying to get this correct—where you are not necessarily calling for the death of someone but you would encourage or support that, even though you would not be involved in violence yourself? Can the Minister clarify whether non-violent extremism includes persons not necessarily being violent themselves but seeking to encourage or support others to do so? That seems to come under the definition of extremism rather than non-violent extremism. Some clarity on that would be helpful.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of the training of front-line staff. I have seen what the impact assessment says about the costs of training, and I think it was my noble friend Lady Lister who referred to the numbers involved, but I am curious about the extent and monitoring of the training. How much knowledge would the Government expect someone to have to be able to appropriately identify potential radicalisation or extremism? I am not sure what the expectations are of what the training should provide. The guidance points out:
“In complying with the duty all specified authorities, as a starting point, should demonstrate an awareness and understanding of the risk of radicalisation in their area, institution or body”.
What exactly is meant by “awareness and understanding”? I think I understand where the Government are trying to get to with some of these definitions, but it might be helpful for those who have to fulfil this duty to have greater clarity.
With regard to central support and monitoring, the Home Office is the body that currently oversees Prevent activity in local areas. Is there a role for the DCLG in this from a community-based point of view? Would it be helpful for the Home Office to engage with DCLG—or CLG, as I think we are supposed to call it now—so that both departments have a role, but focusing specifically far more on community?
On local authorities I was pleased to see that, following the amendment that we tabled here in your Lordships’ House, the guidance now contains a provision which looks at that role of partnership and the impact of Prevent on local communities through continued dialogue and communication with leading community organisations. That is helpful and we are grateful to see that.
The debate has been mainly on higher education. Perhaps I could take a couple of moments to talk about schools and, of course, nurseries. The noble Lord’s face crumpled at that point. Perhaps we can probe a bit further than we did last time. If I have understood correctly, the obligation of the duty no longer falls on management within schools and nurseries but on the governing bodies. Of course, not all nurseries or childcare providers—as defined in the guidance—will have governing bodies. In one particular case, where my mum runs the local preschool, it is the Church of England that is in effect the preschool’s governing body. I think that it is exempt from the duty so that might create complication for church preschools.
Ofsted inspectors already have to have regard to the dangers of radicalisation and extremism. That is part of the Ofsted inspection; they also have to comment on what must be done if it is suspected that pupils are vulnerable. The Prevent guidance also notes that schools have a duty to promote community cohesion. Ofsted was required to report on this but this requirement was scrapped by the coalition Government in 2011 as part of the burden-reducing process. So we have moved away from it being a role for Ofsted that the Government got rid of and it is now shifting towards being a Prevent duty on those schools’ governing bodies. Has any consideration been given to reinstating that role for Ofsted, and has any evaluation been undertaken as to whether that would be helpful in dealing with community tensions, whether social or religious, as an alternative or additional way forward to support the school?
I have struggled with this but I cannot find any further information in the guidance to tell me how nurseries are included and what are the expectations of those front-line staff who work with the children in them. At some point in the next week or so I am going to have to tell my dear old mum, who runs her local preschool, that there is a new duty on her to identify radicalism and extremism is her three year-olds. I do not quite know how I am going to put this to her and retain her sanity and mine at the same time. What training will be expected of those staff in preschools and nurseries to be able to spot extremism and radicalisation in those under-fives?
I am very unclear on the purpose of this measure and how it will work in practice. I hope the idea is not to try to identify the parents who are involved because we are talking about the welfare of a young child, and relationships between the parents, the preschool, the nursery and the child support team are really important. If there is any clarity, advice or information the Minister can give me on how this is going to work, I would be very grateful—and it would help me to talk to my mum about it at the weekend.
I come back to higher education, about which a number of questions have been raised. I would like to put on record my thanks to Universities UK, Million+, the NUS and other organisations which have been very helpful in providing briefings and information. This was a particularly contentious part of our debates and it is extremely helpful that the noble Lord was able to take on board the comments that were made. He had discussions here in your Lordships’ House and discussions with noble Lords and others outside this Chamber. The amendments tabled by the Government to reaffirm universities’ commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom were really important and useful. The substantial changes in the guidance are certainly very helpful and an improvement on the original guidance.
A number of questions have already been raised that I will not repeat. This cross-institutional Prevent working groups obligation has now been removed. That is helpful, as are a number of other changes, but I have a couple of points for the Minister. It is unusual in any debate on a statutory instrument to debate what is not in it as opposed to what is. However, a number of issues have been raised today about the guidance that the Government will bring back; for example, the issue of external speakers, and guidance on the management of events. Conventional wisdom tells us—the rumour mill is very busy on this—that there is a disagreement between two departments, which if it is the case is not very impressive; perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us. It is said that there is a difference of opinion between BIS and the Home Office. I hope that that is not a delaying tactic to get us past the election. The Home Secretary’s speech today laid out a number of measures that she thought should be brought in to deal with counterterrorism issues. You have to ask why, if she believes that those are very important measures, they are not in this Act, which was brought forward in the last Session of Parliament—but are so essential that they are now being brought back after the election. That issue gives me enormous concern.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that the Home Secretary has always made it clear that she attaches great importance to this issue; unfortunately, however, it was not possible to get the measure through this House, so it will have to come back, whichever party comes to power.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The noble Lord refers to one issue, but the Home Secretary raised several today, and I assume that this guidance forms part of it. I hope that it is not a delaying tactic for the order before us today. On a rare occasion, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Lister, who said that it was “regrettable” that it was not with us. Although it is in some ways, it is also an opportunity. The noble Lord was very helpful, and when we had our discussions previously he said that he would engage—or that there would be engagement, if not with him personally—with those who would be responsible for implementing such guidance. I always think that guidance and legislation are effective only if they can be implemented in practice—the workability test that was spoken about so often with regard to other legislation. It cannot just be a theory; it has to be something that works. I hope that this will be an opportunity for the Government to engage with the universities and those who will have responsibility for implementing the guidance on who has responsibility for the duty so that they can discuss with the Government—I hope that those discussions are taking place now—how to make this sensible, practical and effective.
One final point, which has been raised by other noble Lords, is the relationship between HEFCE, as a monitoring body, with other bodies. It is not a funding body; I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that it is to be hoped that the Government are not planning to set up a completely new quango to monitor that. However, I understand that meetings were due to take place last week, on 20 March, with HEFCE and other bodies to discuss how that could work. It would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us on any progress that was made at those meetings.
A number of questions have come out of this debate, but I hope that the noble Lord will take away with him our gratitude for having seen significant changes; we are grateful to him for listening, because that is not always the case. I hope that we have not wrecked his career by thanking him too much. The guidance we have now is certainly better than what was presented to your Lordships’ House and discussed in Committee.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has generated a flurry of notes from the Box and I will try to cover most of the questions that were raised. However, as I try to respond to the points that were raised, it will be worth trying not to lose sight of the general agreement on the journey on which we have travelled, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, helpfully set out at the beginning, and which I think noble Lords on all sides of the House have broadly welcomed.
We began the journey because Prevent was already in place—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, made the point that it was introduced by the previous Government. We found, through the regional co-ordinators of Prevent, who had a good working relationship with many universities, that the quality of the way in which the Prevent programme was delivered in higher education institutions varied widely, and that often the level of compliance was best where perhaps it was needed least, and worst where it was needed most. For that reason, having given the matter very careful consideration, the decision was made to put it on a statutory footing to try to get some consistency in the way in which it was delivered. That is the context behind this.
I am conscious of the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Judd, in talking about how precious our higher education institutions are as a bulwark against extremism. That was one of the finest debates that we had on the Bill. Early on, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about bringing areas of contention out into the open and said that having a debate about them was critically important. That was why, as part of that, we put in place in the Bill and reiterated in the guidance that institutions should have particular regard to academic freedom duties in the 1988 Act and freedom of speech issues in the 1986 Act. Without getting into specific issues that the noble Baroness raised about Imperial and my noble friend raised about Southampton, that is what needs to be taken back to those authorities, to remind them that that is what the guidance states, rather than what it does not—and sometimes how it is interpreted.
I was grateful to many noble Lords who welcomed the fact that we now have a glossary. Those who went through the detailed passage of the Bill will realise that Appendix F was designed for the Minister’s benefit rather than necessarily for those who are participating. I at least found it very helpful, even if, in certain areas, it does not quite go far enough. I shall come to some of those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, with his experienced eye, spotted the nebula for quangos that could be there in the absence of HEFCE—but we should not take it that not specifying HEFCE is saying that it is not going to be that organisation. We consulted on that, and clearly there needs to be a discussion and an agreement that HEFCE will be prepared to take that on. But I can state—and I hope that this will reassure noble Lords—that it is certainly not the Government’s intention to establish a new body to carry this out.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton about whether guidance will be withdrawn if further guidance is not agreed, that will be for the next Government—and we could be coming back to that a few times in the course of my remarks. But it is a serious point because it will, of course, have to be brought forward. It is not our intention that the duty should commence for the further and higher education sectors until guidance on managing speakers and events has been published and approved by Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, made the point that it would require another affirmative statutory instrument to come before your Lordships' House and that there would be a debate on that. Without that debate and that order, it would not be anticipated that we could give commencement to the wider provision, because there would be a very large hole in the guidance that would be implemented.
I will pick up on a few points. Noble Lords referred to recording meetings of organisations. I do not have anything official on that but, intuitively, that would seem to be exactly the type of thing that would be a good way in which to ensure that, when there are speakers of this nature who may give rise to contention, they are reviewed—and that could be part of the internal review. That is exactly the type of innovative idea that I would like higher education institutions to take advantage of.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, welcomed a large part of what is in the guidance, but he also asked for the definition of “non-violent extremism”. It means simply that extremism is not accompanied by violence or a threat of violence. The Prevent strategy is clear that it includes challenging non-violent ideas that are part of a terrorist ideology and that risk drawing people into terrorism. In that context, I would add that, although we are talking about acts of terrorism, we are also talking about radicalisation. The Prime Minister’s task force on tackling extremism and radicalisation felt that there should be a provision to capture that which is radical and extreme but does not directly incite acts of violence—although it could, of course, lead that way.
A number of noble Lords asked about training. That may sound rather grander than it is. I have flashbacks of exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on this subject. I do not want to tempt him to come into the Chamber and engage me on this issue again, but I remember him going through the effect of the impact assessment, quantifying how many co-ordinators it would require and extrapolating the cost of that across all institutions.
I come back to the point that we are talking about, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned in the Scottish context—a light-touch approach. Initially there would be a workshop to raise awareness of Prevent: there is a DVD-led training tool to teach front-line workers how to identify and support those at risk of radicalisation. The DVD course is half an hour or an hour long, and is designed simply to introduce people to the key themes that they ought to be aware of. When we talk about training we are not anticipating that great swathes of trainers, and those being trained, would be required in organisations.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also asked about the differences between the Scottish guidance and the English and Welsh guidance. Universities in Scotland will be under the same Prevent duty in law as universities in England and Wales. There are some relatively minor differences in the drafting of the Scottish version of the guidance. On the whole, these reflect the particular circumstances in Scotland. The Scottish version of the guidance makes it clear in the introductory section that being drawn into terrorism includes not just violent extremism but non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and popularise views that terrorists then go on to exploit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the position of student unions. They are not subject to the Prevent duty, but whatever procedures apply to university premises will apply no matter what body is using them. This will be a matter for university governing bodies. Also on the subject of students, the noble Baroness welcomed the fact that in the guidance we had introduced a requirement to consult. That reflects the contents of the letter that I sent out on 9 February, and also the intervention, to which I pay tribute, of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who asked for an undertaking that students would be engaged in the process. I said at the time that that was very sensible and that we ought to include it in the guidance—and it is now in the guidance, in the section on partnerships.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on nurseries, although I am not 100% sure that I fully understand what nursery staff could do in response to something that a three year-old says or does that would be beyond what they currently do in ensuring that three year-olds behave appropriately. However, I asked the noble Lord specifically about the training for nursery staff. He has spoken about training generally. Is the training for nursery staff the same as it would be for staff at schools or universities or will there be specific training for those who deal with much younger children?
Lord Bates
That is a good point. Procedures need to be set out to ensure that the nursery has guidance in place detailing how it will implement Prevent and what it would do if a three year-old said, “My sister is going off to Syria”, or something of that nature. What would it do if a child made such a comment? Does it have a procedure for dealing with that? To whom would it report that and what action would it take? That is probably not the best example as I have just thought of it and I am sure that the officials will probably send me 10 far better examples. However, I am just trying to appeal to the common-sense elements of this. If such an incident should happen, do nursery staff have a procedure in place to deal with it? I think that is all that would be required of nurseries. The noble Baroness raised a very fair point about Ofsted. I am afraid that I do not have the answer at this stage but it is a good point and I will ensure that I write to her on it. I have tried to address as many of the points as possible—
Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this is a larger number of instruments but a shorter debate than usual. We support the regulations and order, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord were able to answer a few questions. To take the last one first, paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, on “Consultation outcome”, says:
“The Lord Chief Justice was consulted … Due to the urgency … there has been no public consultation”.
But that is not the outcome; it just says that he was consulted, without saying what the response was. If there was an outcome to the consultation, it would be helpful to know what it was, otherwise there does not seem much point in calling it an “outcome”.
The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act regulations are interesting and valid ones to look at. I would also have thought that in many cases the officers concerned would not want, in their own interests, to be searching a child, whether of the same sex or of the opposite sex, on their own. If I was their trade union representative, I would probably advise them not to. There are dangers to the child, but there are also dangers to the officers concerned. That is something that perhaps should be examined and considered. Our staff do a very difficult job in difficult circumstances and we would not want them to be in a position where they could face accusations; nor would we want a child to feel uncomfortable and even more frightened than they would already be in such cases. I hope the noble Lord is able to give some reassurance and clarification on those points.
The other point I would like to make concerns the risks identified in the impact assessment. It says:
“Possible risks will be mitigated by monitoring and reviewing the use of the powers”.
The powers will be used by Border Force officers and the police but they are the very people who will also be monitoring the use of the powers, or they will at least be collecting the data to monitor the use of the powers. This has been quite a sensitive issue and has had a lot of discussion. Clearly, I am confident that the Government do not want mistakes; they want to get this right. Can the Minister say anything about how the powers will be monitored? Data will be provided by the officers implementing this provision but the monitoring of it will be quite important so that we can assess how effective it is and how appropriately it is being used, to ensure that it is not used for anything other than the purposes for which it is intended.
The authority to carry scheme regulations and the explanatory memorandums—I am sure that is not the correct plural—all referred to the fact that 28 people or organisations responded to the consultations. Was there one consultation or will 28 bodies respond? Was there one, overarching consultation or separate ones? I think it will be helpful to look at the ones relating to the authority to carry schemes together. It was quite clear that the majority of carriers welcomed the extension of the scope and that was widely supported, although a majority were also concerned that the maximum fine of £50,000 was excessive. I have seen the Government’s response to that. What is important is when that will be implemented. Looking at the Explanatory Note, I am not 100% clear about “best endeavours”; one of the impact assessments also refers to the Secretary of State taking into account how co-operative someone has been. It would be helpful to have a little more guidance on the circumstances in which the Government would pursue action that could lead to a maximum fine. I know that the maximum fine is used only rarely and is intended to be a deterrent but I would like to know the circumstances that would mistake against prosecution in the first place and, secondly, the level of the fine.
The guidance for these regulations has not been published. A lot will depend on what exactly is in the guidance. Is the Minister able to say when we will see it, what the process will be for scrutinising it, whether there will be consultation with the carriers themselves and when it will be brought to your Lordships’ House?
I also picked up the strange issue about mistaken identity. The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Administrative arrangements are in place to ensure that an individual is not mistakenly identified again”.
Surely we should have far more robust processes in place if we want to have confidence in the procedure. If mistaken identity occurs once, it surely should not happen to the same individual a second time, or perhaps I am misunderstanding something here. I would like to know what administrative arrangements are in place to ensure that we do not have a second mistaken identity. Really, what are we doing to ensure that we do not have the first mistaken identity? The issue of identification is crucial to providing confidence in this. I am slightly worried.
I understand that there will be some discussions with the industry about the guidance. I would feel happier to see a willingness to make practical changes in how things work. Quite often we can look at something in theory and know where we want to get to, but the industry may have suggestions on how that works practically rather than just in theory. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the Government will consider changes if the industry comes up with ways in which to make this scheme more effective without undermining the basis for it in the first place.
I have similar points to make on the Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations, as similar things have arisen. The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“The Government’s position however remains that carriers must provide accurate, complete and timely information. Not only is this a legal requirement but they also have a responsibility to ensure adequate steps are taken to protect against threats to their assets, passengers and crew”—
and indeed to the country. If a mistake has occurred, what evidence will the Government require from carriers to ensure that they have used best endeavours? Is there some way of monitoring the processes, procedures and protocols that they have in place? That will be absolutely crucial to ensuring that it works in practice.
On the fifth and sixth statutory instruments, the Minister knows that we have supported the power for passport retention and think that it is appropriate. We still take the view that there should be a power of appeal; that is extremely important. Again, the detail of the code of practice will be crucial and we look forward to more information on that. Can the Minister make clear—just to put it on the record—what changes have been made to the code of practice and any guidance as a result of the feedback on the issues? That feedback is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum on these regulations and includes,
“specifying the availability of legal aid and clarifying whether family members may access temporary support arrangements”.
Those issues were raised in previous debates that we have had, and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If the Minister can give further clarification on that, that would be very helpful.
That is the extent of my questions to the Minister. If he is unable to address those today, he can write to me, which would be extremely helpful.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made in the debate. I am deeply conscious that there are a large number of orders and regulations before your Lordships this afternoon. The detail of the questioning is very welcome and important—we are talking about very serious issues—and I guess that it will not be possible for me to answer every particular question today. However, I will certainly undertake to write, and copy it to all noble Lords who have been involved in this debate so far.
I will make one general point about the authority to carry scheme and how it operates—this covers the point that was raised about identity and the possibility of mistakes and, in many ways, touches on the point made by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. This is information that the airlines are currently required to send to the National Border Targeting Centre based in Manchester. The information comes in a particular format: it has the passport as one identifier and the date of birth as another identifier, along with the name. It is hoped that through triangulating those three bits of important information the possibility of a mistake can be eliminated.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what changes we are making as a result of this order. Effectively, the changes that we are making in relation to that area are that, in the past, it was for inbound flights. The information on people coming into the UK had to be submitted in advance, cleared and checked against the no-fly list. We are now saying that, where inbound journeys are taking place through certain ports or rail terminals and where UK citizens are travelling abroad for obvious reasons—for instance, if there are flights from London to Istanbul or via Barcelona with an end point in Istanbul—that would raise certain questions. Therefore, we are now asking for that additional information to be provided.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I asked whether there was one consultation on all the statutory instruments grouped together, or one consultation on each statutory instrument.
Lord Bates
There was one consultation on all the statutory instruments together. If that is not correct in some way, I will set that out in writing.
The intention is to work with carriers, not to fine them £50,000. The UK Border Force already works with carriers, and this will continue. Fifty thousand pounds is for the worst-case breaches. Of course, carrying somebody who we consider to be a sufficient threat to be on a no-fly list is not only a foolish thing to do but a very dangerous thing to do, not only for the airline but for the other passengers and the crew of that airline. Therefore it is right that the penalty is strong, but we hope that it will not be necessary.
I think that I have touched on most of the points raised. The noble Baroness asked about monitoring the use of the power and whether the code explains how to use the power. The code includes a section on monitoring the use of the power, which confirms that the police must consider whether there is any evidence that the power is being used on the basis of stereotyped images or inappropriate generalisations. It must review whether the records reveal any trends or patterns that give cause for concern, and, if they do, take appropriate action to address this. Monitoring records should, where possible, include age, disability, gender, race, religion and beliefs, and sexuality. It also confirms that the power is subject to review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
In what circumstances would a maximum fine be given? I have covered that already.
On engagement with NGOs, we undertook a six-week public consultation to raise awareness of the consultation. We notified key stakeholders, including law enforcement, community and regulatory organisations, that consultation had begun, and invited their views. The code focuses on disrupting travel for terrorist-related purposes and on wider safeguarding children issues that are routinely considered by the police.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys asked whether civil liberties organisations in particular had been consulted. I think that the answer is that the stakeholders that we consult include civil liberties organisations; I would expect that to be the case. If that is not the correct answer, of course I will write to her.
With the answers that I have given thus far and the assurances that I have given on continuing the dialogue, particularly in relation to children, I commend the statutory instrument to the House.
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EUC Report)
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, to return to the committee report, I thank my noble friend Lady Corston and her committee. I was also grateful for her introduction to the debate. She was extremely helpful in her narrative about the twists and turns, and the ongoing debate on this issue. It was of benefit to the House to hear about the frustrations that her committee had in dealing with some of these issues.
Other noble Lords who took part in our previous debate on this issue on 28 October 2013 will recall that the report that we then discussed and the scrutiny that the committee had provided were invaluable in the understanding and analysis of what a European public prosecutor’s office could do and was intended to do. That position remains the same. I thank my noble friend and her colleagues on the committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for providing what for me, having not considered this in great detail before, is a clear and detailed report.
There are important issues, but although the premise may be very straightforward, there are complexities and differences of opinion on how they can best be tackled, which cannot be lightly dismissed or ignored because they are genuine and justified concerns. As my noble friend Lady Corston pointed out, it is not a new proposal. The idea had been discussed even before the Commission’s proposals in the 2001 Green Paper, particularly in discussions on the Nice treaty. At that time, an outline proposal was debated but then abandoned though lack of support. Concerns were expressed and discussed then. They are still being discussed and concerns remain, which have not been addressed, about the relationship between an EPPO, Eurojust and OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office. The European Scrutiny Committee in the other place reported that a body such as the EPPO was,
“unnecessary, particularly given the existence of Eurojust”.
Our committee took evidence from experts of exactly the same view.
It is not the first time that this has been raised and it is not the first time that it has been debated in your Lordships’ House; it is the second report of the EU Committee. However, despite the criticisms of the proposed mechanism, the issues that the proposal seeks to address are very serious. That is why the deficiencies in the proposals are so disappointing and so serious. This is not an issue that has been plucked out of thin air; it seeks to address a very genuine and serious problem. The level of fraud against the EU budget must be taken extremely seriously and action has to be taken to address it. When we last discussed the issue, the Commission estimated the level of fraud at around €5 million in each of the previous five years. That is money taken from British taxpayers. Not only do we need to take action against those responsible and bring them to justice, it is very clear that far more preventive work and action must be undertaken.
The ongoing debate is not on whether we should tackle fraud, or assess whether we are tackling it or how best to tackle it, but on whether the proposal that has been put forward for the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is the best way to deal with the problem and to bring those responsible to justice. As this report highlights and analyses, there is also the question of whether the Commission recognises the concerns that have been raised and why they were not addressed in the revised proposals. As we said, the proposals previously presented clearly breached the subsidiarity principle, and the national level approach supported by existing EU mechanisms was far more appropriate.
It was therefore unfortunate and unhelpful that, as the report makes clear, despite the response of a number of national parliaments expressing their concerns and despite the Commission being forced to review the proposals in December 2013, the Commission decided not to make any amendments but to continue with the proposal as originally intended. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, referred to it as a cursory review; I think that that is a correct assessment. As a result, 14 reasoned opinions were issued by national parliaments, which clearly makes the case that there are widespread concerns across the EU—we are not the only country with such concerns and reservations. Then we had the position where, seeking compromise, the Greek presidency issued an alternative text—but that is not supported by the Commission.
So where are we now? The conclusions and recommendations of the EU Committee are not based, as we have seen so often with debates on EU legislation, on whether the committee is pro-European Union or anti-European Union. I mention that because it sometimes characterises debates. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson—and whether someone is pro-EU or anti-EU can colour their judgment on anything brought forward. When we had that farce of the opt out, opt in again debates on policing and criminal justice measures, it was very clear that the Government’s position was highly political, rather than a pragmatic, principled position in the interests of tackling crime across the European Union.
I have to return to this—I know that the Minister will groan with frustration as I do—but I have never, ever had an answer from the Government to my question about the practical impact or the operational value of those EU crime and policing measures that the Government have opted out of. I suspect that their answer is that there is very little: surely no Government want to get rid of EU-wide measures that are effective in tackling crime. Either the measures that the UK has opted out of had a practical and operational effect, or it was just a political stunt. I suspect that it was the latter.
That is where the committee’s report is so useful, both for your Lordships’ consideration in this debate and for wider consideration. I hope that the Minister recognises that it is also helpful to the Government. I saw the Government’s response rather late in the day in an undated letter to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I do not know when the letter was sent; I was able to get a copy only today. I certainly would have appreciated a copy of that letter much sooner for today’s debate than collecting it from the Printed Paper Office earlier.
I come back to the central point about this report: it is factual, well informed and principled. I think that the frustration of the committee in looking at these issues comes across very loud and clear. On this occasion, it is frustration—I have to say—not with the UK Government but with what appears to be, and I put it politely, some intransigence on the part of the Commission. All of us need to understand how serious the issue of EU fraud and financial crime is. Being critical of the proposals put forward in no way detracts from our wish to tackle these issues or from our understanding of how serious it is. The proposals and recommendations of the committee seek, first, to address some of the problems that have arisen from the Commission’s proposals, and, secondly, to suggest how the UK could take a lead and play a key role in seeking to ensure that those issues are addressed.
It should also be recognised that the political landscape has changed—as my noble friend Lady Corston observed—in the way that these matters are considered. Any new proposal such as this would now be subject to a referendum and legislation if its adoption by the UK were to be recommended—although that is not currently the case and it seems unlikely that it will be so. What is so disappointing is that the Commission’s position does not appear to have changed and it does not appear to be designed to try to gain as much support as possible for an EU-wide body or EU-wide co-operation around the core principles and actions of tackling crime. Had the Commission wanted to garner greater support, and if it was serious about ensuring that this was workable and that other nations would sign up to it, it would have amended the proposals and had more discussions. That frustration comes through in the report. There is no doubt that tackling any cross-border crime, including—or perhaps especially—EU fraud, benefits from EU-wide co-operation.
The objections outlined in this report cannot be lightly dismissed and I was pleased to read the Government’s response. The objections deserve far greater consideration by the Commission. On the issues that were highlighted—exclusive competence and workload—evidence was given to the committee that a new body such as the EPPO would collapse under the weight of the work it was provided with. The impact on Eurojust and OLAF is important, not just in principle, but in pragmatic, operational terms: how a new body such as the EPPO could possibly be effective in practice. It seems that all those who gave evidence for the report said that the complications of such a body would make it even more difficult to prosecute than it would be without the body: first, because it would collapse under the weight of the work, and, secondly, because of its relationship with the other bodies.
It is worrying—as the report and the Home Secretary’s evidence highlighted—that the lack of attention to the impact on non-participating member states creates an unacceptable level of risk that has to be addressed. When this proposal was first discussed, it was on the basis that all member states would sign up to it; that is clearly not the case, so the issue about those member states that do not sign up to it has to be properly considered. We had a similar debate on the National Crime Agency not applying to Northern Ireland, and we see it in this debate on a far wider scale; it is clear that they have not properly looked at this issue. My noble friend Lady Corston warned that the UK could be placed at risk by being, in effect, a safe haven for illegally obtained EU funds. That is why this issue has to be considered.
I do not want to repeat the detail of the report. It is an excellent report, and it does this House a great service to be able to consider such reports. The committee’s recommendations are useful and seek to find some way forward. The Government’s response—in the time that I have had to look at it—is positive, but this is a debate that will continue for weeks, months and, I suspect, possibly for years. We often say that a committee’s report is a valuable contribution to a debate, but in this case it goes far wider than that. This report is essential reading for any Government who have to deal with this matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Water Cannon
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right that we should take our time, and that is what the Home Secretary is doing. That is why she commissioned the report and that is why she wrote to ask for further information. Of course, this came to the Home Secretary from the Chief Constables’ Council—from the operational side—last year and we are giving very serious consideration to it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we are not talking about a gentle spray from a garden hose here. Is the Minister aware that water has to be heated before it can be fired from a water cannon? Does he agree with the comments from ACPO that water cannon could be justified because of the need to police protests against the Government’s austerity programme, or does he agree with the late Bob Jones, the police and crime commissioner for the West Midlands, who said that water cannon would be,
“as much use as a chocolate teapot”?
Lord Bates
There is a well established procedure for considering these things, as happened with Tasers under the previous Government. A proposal comes forward—a request is made—and consideration is given to the scientific and medical implications of deploying the particular model. That is also placed in the context of a decision by the Home Secretary on the nature of policing and public consent.
Immigration: Regulations
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
A number of issues were raised in that very distressing report by Channel 4 which we are investigating. Stephen Shaw will also be investigating them as part of his independent review.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I also raise the Channel 4 documentary, which, as the noble Lord said, shocked and distressed us all. On 8 March, my noble friend Lady Bakewell asked about female staffing levels in Yarl’s Wood. The Minister reminded your Lordships’ House that Serco was contractually committed to delivering a level of 66% by 2015—that is, now. Following that debate, the chief executive of Serco, Rupert Soames OBE, wrote to me to say that the number of female officers was being increased. His letter says that Serco is working to increase this to 60%—not 66%—and “aim to achieve it” by the end of 2015. Will the noble Lord confirm the correct figure? Is it a contractual and therefore legal obligation to increase the number of women officers and what happens to Serco if it fails?
Lord Bates
Serco was offered that contract. One of the principal concerns which many people have had, and which the Women for Refugee Women report also identified, was that there were insufficient female detention officers in that facility and that their numbers needed to be increased. One of the conditions put out before renewing the contract to the tender organisation was that it needed to increase the proportion of female officers. The figure I gave was 65% or 66%; the chief executive may now be saying 60%. I will certainly look into that; I will speak with him and of course will write to the noble Baroness and ensure that she gets the right information. However, the principle is that we need more female detention staff to look after female inmates.
Sexual Violence against Girls and Women
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right in that regard. Of course, that is the purpose of the website, “This is Abuse”, which is targeted at young people. It has been viewed by some 2 million young people. That is the purpose behind the new campaign, What is Consent?, which sets out what is involved: the capacity to consent, the freedom to consent and the steps taken to obtain consent, which must be present in all relations of a sexual nature. The noble Baroness is also absolutely right that more needs to be done.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, part of the problem is that young girls who are manipulated and sexually abused have been groomed to believe that they are in a consensual relationship. While there can be legal arguments about what consent is when a case gets to court, surely it is even more important to protect those young girls before any such abuse takes place. Let me press the Government again: given that the value of sex and relationship education is widely understood and known to be effective, why are the Government refusing to ensure that it is compulsory in all schools?
Lord Bates
I think that best practice is happening in most schools. It is certainly compulsory in all state schools. There was a case related to certain freedoms being given to academies, which covered this. However, the expectation is not that academies can somehow disregard this, but that they will use their freedom to improve on the minimum standards for the teaching of sex and relationship education that were set out by the Secretary of State in 2001.