Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 22 and 25 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end online right-to-work checks for United Kingdom nationals.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, from 21 June, right-to-work checks will revert from the Covid-19-adjusted measures to face-to-face physical document checks for those who cannot use the Home Office online checking service. We are currently evaluating the potential for introducing specialist technology, including identity document validation technology, into the right-to-work checking service. This would provide a permanent digital option for those unable to use the online checking service.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what has the feeling of being, perhaps, an encouraging Answer. The online verification of right to work during Covid has been a huge success for the Home Office. The system works really well; no one I have spoken to is aware of any serious issues. It avoids frauds; it is much more efficient and effective for companies; and it really promotes remote working, helping people in unemployment blackspots get jobs many miles away. What is the reason for junking it? Who benefits? I really do not understand.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am glad my noble friend feels he got a positive Answer because, in fact, employers have been very positive about the temporary measures we have put in place. It is not about “junking it”; it is about the fact that it has been a temporary measure. Obviously, legislation has not been changed in this regard, and we made it clear that we would revert to the full checking regime in line with the lifting of social distancing measures. But I hope that my noble friend is encouraged by the moves we intend to make going forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
If the temporary measure has been successful and there is no need for return to physical right-to-work checks, why not continue with the temporary measure? We do not really seem to have had an answer to that question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, not only are the Government insisting on in-person physical right-to-work checks but some parents say they are being asked by schools to produce passports to prove their child’s right to education as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office is requiring schools to do this and, if so, on what legal basis? If it is not, will the Minister take urgent steps to stop this practice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for a heads-up this morning, and it is important to say to him that Brexit has not changed the rights of foreign nationals to access schools. State schools do not have a role in policing the immigration system. Independent schools, with sponsor licences, do have an explicit duty to have documents proving the right to stay in the UK. I do not know the details of the noble Lord’s case, but I would be most grateful to have some further detail, and perhaps we can discuss it further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, following the move to more distanced right-to-work checks during the coronavirus pandemic via video link, in operation to 21 June 2021, can the Minister comment on what measures were taken to check against fraud and abuse of this process? What were the findings?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, my noble friend asks the absolutely crucial question. We need security measures in place to ensure that the system is robust. What we have had in place as a temporary measure will, I am sure, be evaluated in due course. But she goes right to the heart of what we need when we progress towards more regular online checking.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been reported that EU nationals arriving here who were believed to be seeking work were immediately detained in places such as Yarl’s Wood and deported. Apparently, this has stopped, but what sort of example does the Minister think it sets for the treatment of British citizens in the EU? Secondly, EU nationals who have been British citizens for decades are getting letters telling them they risk losing rights to work, healthcare and benefits unless they apply for settled status in the next six weeks. But they do not need this. Why are the Home Office records so poor?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, EU citizens who have applied to the EU settlement scheme should not be detained in Yarl’s Wood unless there is some exception such as, for example, criminality. In terms of people getting letters, I am sure the reminders are helpful; they are not intended to be hostile in nature.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations 2021.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before the House on 25 March, be approved.
I am grateful for the advice provided by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has helped to inform the order before the Committee. The proposed amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which I shall henceforth refer to simply as the 1971 Act, follows the ACMD’s self-commissioned advice published on 29 April last year about benzodiazepines.
The draft order before your Lordships relates specifically to three of those benzodiazepines: flualprazolam, flunitrazolam and norfludiazepam. Due to their potential harm and the evidence of the prevalence of these drugs in the UK, the ACMD recommended controlling all three substances under class C of the 1971 Act. The ACMD also concluded that these three benzodiazepines should be scheduled under Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 because, as confirmed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, they have no recognised medicinal use in the UK. This is the first proposed addition to control further benzodiazepines under the 1971 Act since the control of 16 benzodiazepines in May 2017, which are also controlled under Class C of the 1971 Act.
Benzodiazepines are associated with a high dependency rate and severe withdrawal symptoms from even short-term use. Furthermore, their combined use with other recreational drugs—in particular opioids and other central nervous system depressants—is associated with an increased risk of mortality and contributes to a significant number of drug-related deaths each year. Data provided by the National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths showed that in England between 2006 and 2015, there were 5,740 benzodiazepine-related deaths. Of these, just under 4% recorded benzodiazepines as the only compounds implicated in the cause of death, which may indicate the frequency with which they are associated with polydrug use.
I can provide some further background on the three benzodiazepines covered by this order. The first is flualprazolam. The ACMD’s report states that as of March 2020, there have been 12 flualprazolam-associated deaths in the UK recorded by regional statistical agencies. It also states that the European Monitoring Centre for Drug and Drug Addiction issued a report on flualprazolam in March 2019. This detailed deaths with confirmed exposure to the compound in 24 reported cases in Sweden and two in Finland. In eight of these cases, flualprazolam was cited as a contributory or possible contributory factor.
I move on to flunitrazolam. It is likely that the potency of flunitrazolam is greater than that of the already highly potent flunitrazepam, or Rohypnol, which is controlled as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. A small number of seizures were made at the UK border between October 2014 and 2019. The ACMD report highlighted that small-scale seizures of a mixture of tablets and powder had also been notified in Germany in 2016 and Denmark in 2017.
I move now to norfludiazepam, which has been identified in the UK twice, both in 2017: once from a police seizure and once by the drug identification provider TICTAC. Small-scale seizures also took place in Germany in 2016, Sweden in 2017 and Norway in 2018. There has also been anecdotal reporting of the use or purchase of norfludiazepam by PostScript 360, a charity that provides treatment for withdrawal from benzodiazepines.
As well as the recommendation for control under the 1971 Act, the ACMD also recommended that the three benzodiazepines be placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015, as these drugs have no known medicinal use in the UK. Subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament of this draft order, it is intended that a further statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure, will come into force at the same time as this order, being 28 days after the date the Order in Council is made. This further instrument would make the amendments to the 2001 regulations and the 2015 order.
Parliament’s approval of this order to control flualprazolam, norfludiazepam and flunitrazolam under class C of the 1971 Act, and the scheduling of these under Schedule 1 to the 2001 regulations, as per the recommendations of the ACMD, would make it unlawful to possess, supply, produce, import or export these drugs except under a Home Office licence for research. The maximum sentence for possession of a class C drug is up to two years in prison, an unlimited fine or both, while for supply it is up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine or both.
We know that illegal drugs ruin lives and have a corrosive effect on society. It is clear from the advice we have received that these benzodiazepines can cause serious harm, and that is why we are taking this action. I hope I have made the case to control them, even though I have not managed to pronounce them very well, and I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is worth stating at the outset that there are benzodiazepine medicines which can be prescribed by clinicians and have specific uses, but today’s focus is on illicit benzodiazepines.
As the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Crisp, said, this is often about polydrug use. These tend to be drugs used not just in isolation, and deaths tend to occur when polydrug use is being practised. I totally take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that the criminal justice system approach to drugs must be aligned to public health. When people have got themselves into illicit drug use, you do not want to criminalise them; you want to get them off the drugs that they are on.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made quite an interesting point about managed red light districts not working. I can think of a clear analogy: drug consumption rooms do not work. They are illegal. They exist in Scotland, but they do not work.
The point by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about support for those dependent on prescribed medicine is an important one. There is the Talk to FRANK website, which everyone will have heard about. I know that NHS England and NHS Improvement are leading a programme of work in response to the recommendations in Public Health England’s Dependence and Withdrawal Associated With Some Prescribed Medicines: An Evidence Review. The recommendation for a time-limited dedicated national helpline and website has been carefully considered as part of this work. They are also drafting a commissioning framework to help commissioners to optimise the prescribing of dependence-forming medicines, as well as providing support to patients experiencing dependence on prescribed drugs and symptoms of withdrawal. That framework is expected to be published later this year.
Anyone who develops a problem of dependence on medicines should seek help from their GP in the first instance. They might choose to go to a different GP from the one who prescribed the medication, if indeed the medication was prescribed.
The latest prescribing statistics I have are from the ACMD’s 2020 report, which states:
“Prescribing of benzodiazepines by General Practitioners in the UK has been discouraged and has fallen progressively in recent years … from 16.3 million in 2015-16 to 14.9 million in 2018-19”—
that is still huge. It goes on:
“In 2017-18, there were 1.4 million adults in England and Wales who received one or more benzodiazepine prescriptions.”
Public Health England undertook an evidence review of prescribed medicines, which was published in 2019. It concluded:
“Longer-term prescribing is widespread.”
The review covered adults and five classes of medicines, including benzodiazepines, Z-drugs, gabapentinoids, opioids for non-cancer pain and anti-depressants, and some 41 recommendations came out of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about education. He is absolutely right: education is vital. He asked about reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We keep drug controls under review but do not intend to reform the laws on drugs at this point in time. Drug legislation is part of the Government’s wider approach to preventing drug misuse, and education in schools is key to promoting healthy living, treatment and recovery and stopping the supply of certain drugs.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked me about the specifics of each case where there was death. I do not have the specifics to hand but, as I said in my opening speech, benzodiazepines are often taken with other drugs and alcohol. With that, I finish and beg to move this statutory instrument.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2021.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order 2021.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this order, I shall also speak to the following draft instruments: the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) Order; the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order; the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Recovery of Listed Assets: Code of Practice) Regulations; the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) Order; and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021.
The Government are taking wide-ranging action to crack down on crime and make our communities safer. One important part of that mission is our drive to stay one step ahead of criminals seeking to move, hide or use the proceeds of their illegal activities, and seeking to frustrate attempts by law enforcement agencies to recover them. The Criminal Finances Act 2017 was introduced to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and significantly improve the UK’s ability to effectively trace and recover the proceeds of crime. The Criminal Finances Act has not been fully commenced in Northern Ireland. The reserved aspects of that Act—the counterterrorist financing and tax evasion provisions—were commenced, but the devolved provisions, primarily those pertaining to asset recovery, are outstanding.
Noble Lords may recall that the Assembly was dissolved during the passage of the Criminal Finances Bill, meaning that it was not possible to secure a legislative consent Motion. It was decided that the devolved provisions should remain in the Bill. At that time, we signalled our commitment to the central principles of the Sewel convention by openly stating before Parliament that we would not commence provisions on matters devolved to Northern Ireland without the appropriate consents having been obtained. Following the reconstitution of the Assembly, and in the absence of a mechanism to seek legislative consent in retrospect, the Justice Minister agreed that the outstanding powers should be commenced and—after engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and the Justice Committee and advising all Northern Ireland Assembly Members—asked the Home Secretary to commence the relevant provisions. We plan to commence the powers on 28 June this year.
I am pleased to introduce the draft instruments that we are debating, which form part of the package of legislation required to complete commencement. These draft instruments will each bring one of five distinct codes of practice into force. Each of the five codes of practice has been revised to reflect the extension of Criminal Finances Act powers to Northern Ireland. Some further minor amendments have also been made for clarity.
The first draft instrument brings into force a code of practice providing guidance for UK-wide agencies exercising reserved functions in Northern Ireland. That code governs powers of search, seizure and detention of property located in Northern Ireland to preserve it for confiscation. While it applies only to Northern Ireland, the code is issued by the Home Secretary because it relates to reserved bodies and their functions in Northern Ireland.
The four remaining instruments before the Committee bring into force revised codes of practice to provide guidance on search powers for recovering cash, powers to search personal assets, and investigatory powers. Three of the four remaining codes are issued by the Home Secretary and one is issued by the Attorney-General and Advocate-General for Northern Ireland specifically to provide guidance to prosecutors in the exercise of investigation powers.
The new powers that give rise to the revised codes of practice were debated extensively by both Houses during the passage of the Criminal Finances Bill. They are: the extension of various powers to officers of the Serious Fraud Office; a change to the definition of cash for the purposes of cash seizure and forfeiture powers to include gaming vouchers, fixed-value casino tokens and betting slips; the creation of new powers to seize, detain and forfeit certain personal assets; a broadening of the use of disclosure orders, which may now be sought in support of a money laundering investigation; and the introduction of unexplained wealth orders, which require certain persons to explain the origin and legitimacy of any assets that appear disproportionate to their known income.
Codes of practice must be revised, or new ones brought into force, when certain changes are made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That Act mandates that the Secretary of State must publish a draft, consider any representations made and modify the draft in the light of such representations, prior to laying revised codes. The draft codes of practice we are debating were subject to a nine-week public consultation spanning from the end of last year to the beginning of this year. Information on the consultation can be found in the Explanatory Memoranda that accompany the statutory instruments. Additional codes of practice have also been publicly consulted on and revised by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice.
To be clear, this debate does not concern the powers themselves. Rather, we are here to debate the codes that provide guidance about the use of those powers. The revisions that the Home Office and Attorney-General’s Office have made to the codes are technical and minor. The draft codes of practice largely replicate the published versions, as debated and approved by both Houses in 2017 and 2018.
The Proceeds of Crime Act and its subsequent amending legislation are complex. The codes of practice are therefore required to aid law enforcement officers’ understanding of the appropriate and proportionate way to utilise their powers. Additional record-keeping requirements imposed by the codes ensure that the public and judiciary can scrutinise the circumstances in which the powers are used, or are intended for use.
Certain powers governed by these codes of practice are intrusive; they may involve significant interference with individuals’ rights to privacy and peaceful enjoyment of their property. That is not to say they are not justified, but it is clearly right that we provide guidance on the exercise of those powers to safeguard against improper use. The codes of practice achieve this not only by clarifying the circumstances in which the powers may be exercised but by ensuring a consistent application of those powers. That is of vital importance given the broad range of law enforcement agencies to which the powers apply. When new powers are introduced the codes must be revised and scrutinised to ensure that the safeguards within are up to date. That is what these draft instruments and these debates provide.
These five draft instruments are necessary to deliver the Government’s objective to bring outstanding provisions of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 into force in Northern Ireland. We are determined to use every possible tool to trace and recover the proceeds of crime. The draft codes that we are debating ensure that those powers are used effectively, not only to deprive criminals of their ill-gotten gains but to help prevent further offending, therefore supporting our efforts to protect the public. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. So many questions were asked that I can hardly keep up with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about training for law enforcement, which is a perfectly reasonable question, because of course the powers will apply to them. The powers will largely be exercised by asset recovery specialists, who require little to no additional training; this includes officers of the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office. Our operational partners have a strongly embedded practice of supporting one another in our asset recovery endeavours. That can involve referring all aspects of the case to other agencies with particular expertise to ensure maximum proceeds of crime are removed from the system.
Noble Lords may also be aware that accredited financial investigators, individuals who support the traditional law enforcement agencies to disrupt economic crime, are trained, accredited and closely monitored by the Proceeds of Crime Centre in the National Crime Agency. Accredited financial investigators are subject to continuous professional development requirements and have their accreditation reviewed every two years. To ensure that recruitment, retention and training of financial investigators is robust and effective, an independent review of the current training provided by the Proceeds of Crime Centre—or POCC—was commissioned. It was completed in 2020, and we are working with the NECC and wider stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan for reform. That will ensure that the training offered to our financial investigators is among the best. To that end, we intend to have a multiagency approach to the reform of POCC, and progress will be overseen by the multiagency strategic asset recovery group of Ministers.
The noble Baroness is also right to make the point about resourcing; we understand those concerns and it is important that agencies have the required resources to implement the new powers, which is why a proportion of the proceeds of crime recovered by law enforcement agencies is reinvested into the system under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme. The more an agency recovers, the more it receives to be reinvested in law enforcement capability. It is also important to recognise that, although powers are necessary to keep pace with criminals’ ever-changing modus operandi, these new powers will not necessarily demand additional resource. For example, existing resource that may have been used exclusively to address criminal cash five or 10 years ago may now be better deployed across cash forfeitures and forfeiture of funds held in bank accounts.
The upcoming economic crime levy will also be used to drive reforms to the sustainable resourcing of economic crime and could be used to fund an uplift in financial investigative capacity. On the SOC review, it has always been our intention to publish its key recommendations and we did so on 16 March by releasing the executive summary. The full report will not be published because of its sensitivity, but we have made it available to the appropriate partners.
An impact assessment has not been prepared for the instruments because we have considered the overall impact of commencing the Criminal Finances Act in Northern Ireland rather than preparing separate assessments for each statutory instrument in this package. On what has delayed it, the EU exit statutory instruments —of which there were many—have to a large extent been impacting absolutely everything we have done for the last couple of years, so that is the answer.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is right to ask how the Act is working; I think it is working well. The Criminal Finances Act has been vital in dealing with just the sort of people that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke about—those driving around in big cars and you wonder where the heck they ever got the money from; that is absolutely right. On the utility of the regulations in Northern Ireland, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether we are going to bring in new legislation. Clearly, we will keep them under review, which is very important, and update legislation where necessary.
In Northern Ireland, civil recovery investigations enhanced by the use of unexplained wealth orders, where appropriate, could play an integral role in tackling organised criminality and, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said, paramilitarism, which is a key priority for the law enforcement agencies represented under the Organised Crime Task Force and the Paramilitary Crime Taskforce. Indeed, the Independent Reporting Commission recommended that the powers in the Criminal Finances Act were commenced in Northern Ireland as an utmost priority. Stripping criminals who are linked to organised crime and paramilitarism of their proceeds of crime can prevent those engaged in criminal activity benefiting financially or materially. This, in turn, will discredit them and prevent funding of other illicit activities.
On the thresholds that the noble Lord asked about, noble Lords may recall that the Criminal Finances Bill originally specified that only property valued in excess of £100,000 could be the subject of an unexplained wealth order and that that was then lowered to £50,000 after the Government tabled an amendment following representations from the devolved Administrations that the value of property varies considerably depending on where it is held in the UK. Having a value threshold as a qualifying criterion is considered to be a necessary safeguard against what is essentially an intrusive investigatory power.
I underline the point that I made to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the statistics demonstrate that the Proceeds of Crime Act powers are having a good impact. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, they are of course always kept under review.
I think I have answered all the points that noble Lords put to me and, with that, I beg to move.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2021.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsTuesday 27th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 194-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments and reason - (27 Apr 2021)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41C.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, to recap, Amendment 41B seeks to lift the no recourse to public funds condition for migrant victims of domestic abuse until the conclusion of the support for migrant victims scheme. The amendment also provides that, within two months of the scheme’s conclusion, the Secretary of State must consult the domestic abuse commissioner and specialist sector, and publish a strategy for the long-term provision for victims who do not have leave, or have leave subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. I am conscious that after two full debates, in Committee and on Report, along with our consideration last week of the Commons reasons, we are all likely to be well versed in the points that I have highlighted and will highlight now, and those which proponents of Amendment 41B will outline. For that reason, I will try to make my points relatively short.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester knows how much I respect her, and I share her commitment to providing protection and support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. But I still do not believe that Amendment 41B represents the appropriate course of action. The other place likewise disagreed with this amendment, again on the basis of financial privilege. Waiving the no recourse to public funds condition for 12 months—double the six months provided for in the earlier Amendment 41, which sought an extension to the DDVC—would clearly involve a significant charge on the public purse.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for championing this issue.
Again, I will boil this down to its essence. The refusal of the Government to offer equal protection to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, which is the effect of their rejection of the Lords amendment, is a clear breach of the Istanbul convention. As I said when we considered these matters last time, this Government cannot claim that this is a landmark Bill when they continue to treat those with irregular immigration status less favourably. These are some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse.
We are unable to take this matter further today, but the Government cannot avoid ratifying the Istanbul convention much longer without serious reputational damage.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her work on this Bill. I hope I have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill, including in my introductory remarks today, that people—women mostly—who are victims of domestic abuse should get the support that they need when they need it.
On the Istanbul convention, as set out in our latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of it, published last October, the position on whether or not we are compliant with Article 43 of the convention, to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59 relating to resident status, is under review, pending the findings of the evaluation of the support for migrant victims scheme. We will consider compliance with Article 59 in parallel with Article 43. As such, it also depends on the outcome of the support for migrant victims scheme. Far from not being compliant, we are working towards that compliance. I hope that noble Lords are content with what I have set out today and in previous stages of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 42D, 42E and 42F, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 42G, 42H and 42J in lieu.
“Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a document setting out a strategy for—
(a) detecting, investigating and prosecuting offences involving domestic abuse,
(b) assessing and managing the risks posed by individuals who commit offences involving domestic abuse, including (among others) risks associated with stalking, and
(c) reducing the risk that such individuals commit further offences involving domestic abuse.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may revise it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises the strategy, the Secretary of State must publish a document setting out the revised strategy.
(4) In preparing or revising a strategy under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the strategy if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the strategy are insubstantial.
(6) In this section, the reference to “risks associated with stalking” is to be read in accordance with section 1(4) of the Stalking Protection Act 2019.”
“( ) section (Strategy for prosecution and management of offenders);”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for the very constructive discussions that we had on this matter at the end of last week and this morning, to make some final adjustments to what I think we all agree is a very good Bill.
Amendment 42D, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to provide for a new category of offender to be managed under multiagency public protection arrangements, known as MAPPA. The intention is then that such offenders are recorded on ViSOR—the dangerous persons database—although this is not set out in the amendment. The new category would cover perpetrators who have either been convicted—and “convicted” is the operative word—on two or more occasions of a relevant domestic abuse-related or stalking offence, or have been convicted of a single such offence and have been assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm.
The elected House has now disagreed with noble Lords’ amendments on this issue for a second time, and again by a substantial margin. That said, we agree that more needs to be done, but we do not think that this amendment is the right way forward. Many have asked why the Government will not support the amendment, and the simple and honest answer is that we do not think it will be effective in securing the changes that we all want to happen. As I have said before, if we did, we would have no hesitation in supporting it. When the Bill was last in this House, I set out in detail our concerns surrounding the amendment and I will not go through them again. In essence, I do not think it adds anything substantial to the current legislative landscape around MAPPA.
Much has been said during the course of our debates and in the media about what this amendment will achieve. An example of this is that it will create a register; it does not. In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and others have said that that is not what they wish to achieve. Equally, it does not address the issue of perpetrators not being charged and convicted of the offences they have committed. We should not lose sight of the fact that MAPPA is a framework for the management of convicted offenders, and a good number of the cases cited of failures to intervene relate to perpetrators who had not been convicted of an offence. I want to take a moment to place both these points on the record, because any miscommunication on this highly important issue feels deeply unfair to victims. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, would not want any such misunderstandings to take root.
This is a very sensitive and difficult issue and there is no easy solution to it. However, I want to stop focusing on—and noble Lords will know I have done this the whole way through the Bill—where we do not agree and instead put our focus on the many areas where we do agree. Everything I have heard during the passage of this Bill continues to lead me to the firm belief that the issue we need to address is not the legislative framework but how offenders are brought to justice and, once convicted, how MAPPA operates on the ground to ensure that agencies actively identify those offenders who pose the highest risk and then manage them effectively.
I reassure the House that we are undertaking a substantial programme of work to tackle this issue from multiple angles to make a real difference to the outcomes for victims. I will take the opportunity briefly to go over these again and to provide some further updates on developments. We will refresh and strengthen the MAPPA statutory guidance to make it clear that convicted offenders who demonstrate a pattern of offending behaviour that indicates either serious harm or an escalation in the risk of serious harm, related to domestic abuse or stalking, which is not reflected in the charge for which they were actually convicted, should be considered for category 3 management. The guidance will set out the importance of being mindful of the totality of an offender’s behaviour in domestic abuse and stalking cases. I know that this is an important point for the noble Baroness.
The strengthened guidance will ensure that all agencies involved take steps to identify offenders who are domestic abuse perpetrators whose risk requires active multiagency management and take action based on that risk, no matter what the category. The guidance is statutory, which means that agencies must have due regard to it. It is in no sense voluntary. I should add that the updated guidance will be dynamic. We will keep it under regular review to ensure that it reflects developing good practice.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, to take the words that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just spoken, I would expect the House to be back if the measures that we have put into the Bill and the accompanying guidance and practice around them were not working. He asked what it was about this Bill that would change things. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has said that this last bit is the hard yards, because it asks the question: where in practice will what is in the Bill change things? That is absolutely the right thing.
In no particular order, I shall go through the various questions that noble Lords have asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about domestic abuse and stalking in category 1. The revised guidance will address the management of domestic abuse perpetrators at level 1 for category 1 sexual offences. In addition to guidance, and to ensure that there is maximum accessibility and clarity, we will, as I have said, publish a succinct thresholding document to guide practitioners in deciding on the most appropriate level of management. The different levels of management under MAPPA are set to ensure that resources are directed to, and properly targeted at, those offenders who pose the highest risk and are the most complex to manage. However, we need to ensure that action is taken where there are indicators of escalating harm, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, for those managed at the least intensive level. HMP Prison and Probation Service will therefore issue a policy framework for its staff setting out clear requirements for their management of all cases at MAPPA level 1.
On the question about a person not being sentenced for something, and therefore where the information is, the guidance will make very clear that convicted offenders who demonstrate a pattern of offending behaviour that indicates either serious harm or an escalation in the risk of serious harm relating to domestic abuse or stalking but which is not reflected in the charge for which they were actually convicted—I think this is what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was referring to—should be considered for category 3 management. The guidance will set out the importance of being mindful of the totality of an offender’s behaviour in domestic abuse and stalking cases. The noble Baroness reiterated her points, and I know this is an important issue for her. She wanted me to say it again, and I hope she is happy with that.
On MAPPA category 3, there is no minimum sentence for those who can be managed under that category. On commissioners monitoring the impact of the actions that I have outlined, they are independent but I am certain that they will be monitoring the impact of those actions, because one of the first things that will be on the commissioner’s desk when she is formerly in post is the Domestic Abuse Act and the implications and practices arising out of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the very important issue of the sharing of information. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill specifically clarifies that information can be shared with non-duty-to-co-operate agencies—for example, specialist domestic abuse organisations—if they can contribute to the risk management plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, talked about the job description for the head of MAPPA. He said that whoever does it will need a breadth of knowledge and a broadness of mind. Perhaps they might refer to Hansard for inspiration from the passage of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether stalking was covered within and outwith domestic abuse. The answer to that is yes.
The last thing that I must talk about is funding. Funding was set out in the Budget but MAPPA is clearly a set of arrangements for managing high-harm offenders and, as such, is resourced from within the existing budgets of responsible authorities. However, the Government are committed to an additional 20,000 police officers, of which 6,600 have already been recruited. As I have already said, we are investing £25 million in additional funding to tackle perpetrators in 2021-22. We will continue to work with specialist domestic abuse organisations and the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that that funding is spent effectively. We will continue to push to maintain that investment in perpetrator programmes as part of the next spending review.
As a House of Lords, we have come a long way with this Bill. We have revised it for the better. The Government have acquiesced to virtually all that noble Lords have asked in order to make this the excellent Bill that it now is. I hope that noble Lords will not divide on this matter and that they wish to see this Bill pass. The test will be the difference it makes to the lives of so many women and children.
Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this vital debate. I also thank the Science and Technology Committee for its very thorough inquiry into forensic science, and for its subsequent report. If I may, I will go through the tenets of the report and the questions arising from it today.
The report was clear—my noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke enthusiastically about this—that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice needed to provide joint leadership in forensic science, and that the governance needs to inspire effective collaboration and co-operation across operationally independent bodies. As a direct result of your Lordships’ report we created a steering group, jointly chaired by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It soon became an official sub-group of the criminal justice board, reporting to the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General. The sub-group is delivering a vital reform programme, which I will come to later, but this spirit of co-operation has strengthened over the last two years. Its work is ongoing and it meets every six weeks.
To reiterate, this Government are committed to protecting the public and keeping our streets safe. Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools for investigating crime. The successful prosecution of county lines drugs gangs, sexual offences and violent crimes often depends on high-quality forensics, including digital forensics and DNA analysis. We should always remember the Stephen Lawrence case. It was only because British scientists were able to detect and analyse a drop of blood measuring less than 1mm in diameter that his family was finally able to achieve some measure of justice.
Despite everything said this afternoon, this country has some of the world’s best forensic scientists, both in public law enforcement and within the private sector. Every day, their expertise is deployed to solve crime and deliver justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about comparators with other countries, particularly across Europe. When compared to nine other networks of forensic science institute state labs across Europe, the turnaround time in England and Wales using comparable metrics is world-leading. The turnaround time for drugs casework in England and Wales is 21 days; elsewhere, it is 24 days. For DNA casework, in England and Wales it is 10 days; elsewhere it is 43 days. We really should commend our forensic scientists here in the UK on their ability to turn things round.
I also welcome the significant efforts made by those involved in this work to markedly improve turnaround times. As noble Lords have pointed out, however, forensic science has faced challenges in recent years, including constrained resources—as I think all noble Lords have said—and an exponential growth in the volume of new sources of evidence, such as digital material. To answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others we have taken steps to address this by investing over £28 million in 2020-21 in the Transforming Forensics programme and a further £25.6 million in 2021-22 to continue to strengthen forensics services for policing, including digital forensics, which the noble Lord, Lord Mair, spoke about. We helped to set up the police-led Forensic Capability Network and our investment in it is bringing some much-needed stability to the commercial market.
When it comes to quality, the former forensic science regulator worked closely with all partners to establish standards for the collection, analysis and presentation of evidence. These are established in the regulator’s codes of practice. Adherence to these codes, whether partners are employed by police forces or privately contracted, plays a key role in ensuring that the evidence used in investigations and presented to court can be relied on—which noble Lords have underlined this afternoon.
The former regulator rightly highlighted in her most recent, and final, annual report, as well as in discussion with my department, that the inability to enforce those standards has resulted in slower progress towards compliance with quality standards across the forensic community. I agree. That is why we fully supported legislation to give the regulator the power to enforce quality standards as a last resort, and to take action when it has reason to believe that substandard forensic science activities are creating a substantial risk to the course of justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked about the Randox case. Obviously, it is subject to an investigation at the moment so I will not talk about it. But the legislation we supported is a very specific improvement that I know the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the Committee, will agree with. I know that there are noble Lords and others who think that the legislation did not go far enough. We do not claim that giving the regulator these important statutory powers will, on their own, be enough to address all the issues currently facing the provision of forensic science—not at all. Nevertheless, it represents a significant milestone in the delivery of quality forensic services in England and Wales. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for successfully stewarding the Bill though the House.
To address the point the noble Lord, Lord Fox, made, there is of course more to do. That is why we are working with the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator, policing, the Attorney-General’s office and other key stakeholders to deliver our forensic science reform programme. That programme was agreed by the Criminal Justice Board in July last year. It will make good on the commitments set out in the joint review of forensics provision implementation plan published in 2019, and will go some way to tackling the issues identified in the committee’s excellent report. The reform programme is organised around four pillars to deliver strategic oversight and leadership across the criminal justice system for the future of forensics.
The first pillar is police capabilities. In 2021-22 we are providing £25.6 million in funding to the police-led Transforming Forensics programme, as I said, so that it can continue to build the Forensic Capability Network to provide specialist support functions to forces such as increased capacity in digital forensics, particularly in child sexual exploitation investigations.
The second pillar is regulation of provision. I have already spoken about the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. We are also providing a clear legal framework for the extraction of information from digital devices belonging to victims and witnesses through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. We will provide guidance on the use of this power through a statutory code of practice. We will also consider the legal framework for suspects through the response to the Law Commission report on search warrants.
The third pillar is criminal justice system capabilities. The MoJ is working to increase the transparency of expert witness credentials and ensure that defendants have equal access to experts. To answer my noble friend Lord Griffiths’ question, the CPS and Judicial Office, together with other key stakeholders, are helping to oversee and deliver on this important strand through their membership of the forensics subgroup.
The fourth pillar is research and development. Home Office Science and the Forensic Capability Network are working together to identify current and future research needs and to design and implement a research and development model to meet the needs of the sector. Home Office Science has developed strategic mapping of potential funding routes for forensic science research and development. In addition, the Forensics Capability Network has developed working groups across the sector to inform the research strategy and development of capability road maps for forensic disciplines. Taken with the legislation to give the Forensic Science Regulator statutory powers, we think that this reform programme represents a joined-up and concerted effort to address the issues facing forensic science in England and Wales.
Those are, basically, the tenets of the report; I now turn to specific questions. If I do not get to any of the questions that noble Lords asked—there were quite a lot of very sensible questions—I will follow up in writing, as I usually do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about training, and I agree with her. But, of course, the police are operationally independent, and we cannot dictate on this as a Government. However, the statutory regulator can investigate labs, including police labs—which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned—that fall short of standards.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked about the accreditation of services; this is tied up with powers for the regulator. By having statutory investigatory powers, she will be able to take action against providers who fail to get accreditation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, asked about the procurement model. The forensics subgroup has representation from the Association of Forensic Science Providers and the commercial arm of policing’s Forensic Capability Network so that market issues and procurement are discussed.
On my noble friend Lord Griffiths’ question about police provision, again, they are operationally independent. It is for them and the PCCs to decide what is best, and they can best determine what is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about the national institute. I will write to provide a more fulsome response, if he is okay with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made absolutely the right point about evidence being as accurate as possible—we do not have an effective criminal justice system if it is not. I think that giving the regulator statutory powers will drive up quality standards and help ensure the accuracy of evidence. The MoJ is leading on work to ensure that forensic science is properly presented in court. On the budget, we will work closely with the regulator’s office to ensure that it gets the resources it needs. We assess the stability of the market via the subgroup, and the Home Office and the MoJ are accountable for this. I will write on some of the other points that the noble Lord made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, alluded to the Forensic Science Service that closed in 2012. They did point out, of course, that it was losing £2 million a month of taxpayers’ money. While that is not a reason for its closure, there were repeated failings in addition that led to multiple case reviews and retesting programmes. The move has brought benefits. Commercial provision has had a significant positive impact on the delivery of forensic science, including increased resilience, faster turnaround times and reduced costs. I read the report thoroughly and I noted that the committee did recognise that a return to the FSS was not a desirable way forward, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out. We are now more joined-up than we were in 2019.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Rosser, referred to budgets continuing to be under pressure while the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of its requirements continue to grow. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referenced the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talking about this at last month’s Second Reading of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill. Our forensic science reform programme recognises that the demand for digital evidence and the complexity of its requirements continue to grow. That is why I am pleased that the NPCC published its Digital Forensic Science Strategy last summer, and that we invested more than £28 million in 2020-21 in the transforming forensics programme, with a further £25.6 million to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the cost to defendants of getting a second opinion on forensic evidence being greater than the legal aid budget will fund, meaning that there is the potential for unsafe convictions as evidence cannot be effectively challenged in court. Legal aid regulations prescribe the maximum rates that are payable to forensic scientists and other experts, but these rates can be exceeded in exceptional circumstances. The Ministry of Justice is currently working to increase the transparency of expert witness credentials and ensure that defendants have equal access to experts.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I think another noble Lord on the committee talked about the regulator working 3.75 days a week. The regulator is currently defined as a part-time role, but we recognise that they will have a higher workload as a result of the legislation, and there will be additional recruitment to the regulator’s office to meet this need.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who raised concerns about unqualified individuals being able to pass themselves off as experts in court when their credentials may be in doubt. I agree with her concerns, and the powers contained in the Forensic Science Regulator Bill will enable the regulator to publish lists of those unsuitable to be instructed as experts.
There was a final question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel: where in the Government does accountability lie for the quality of provision of forensic science services to assist the justice system? It is a joint effort by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, but, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about who the buck ultimately stops with, it stops with the Home Office: that is the straight answer to a straight question.
Before I finish, I will just thank Gillian Tully—other members of the committee have also done this—for her excellent work and dedication to the role. I hope that her replacement will be just as good as she was.
I thank the committee and I will follow up any questions I have not answered in writing.