Europol Regulation: European Union Opt-In

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

We need Europol. The Government’s reservations are eminently addressable in negotiations. We can do that effectively only if we opt in, and I hope that is what the Government decide to do. I support the Motion.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, as a member of your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee, I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hannay and to follow the eloquent and powerful arguments put forward by him and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. They are experts in this area.

I wish to start by reading one of the committee’s recommendations on page 10, which states:

“If the Government were to opt in to the draft Europol Regulation and also exercise the block opt-out we urge them to opt back in to the Council Decisions which fall within the scope of the opt-out and which are connected with Europol’s continued operations, should this prove necessary”.

I do not quote that to criticise the committee, quite the reverse. However, this process of opting in, opting out and opting in again is like hokey-cokey politics in which the Government are indulging. They are dancing to the tune of UKIP and the Eurosceptic right in their party and putting our national security and the fight against crime in jeopardy as a result.

The Europol matter that we are discussing is complicated by the threatened block opt-out, as I said at Question Time today and as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was rather coy earlier when speaking about the differences of view between the two sides of the coalition in the discussions on this matter. We have a Conservative Minister replying to this debate and it will be interesting to hear his response. However, we get a very clear view of the position from the documents that were leaked to the Daily Telegraph, and I wish to quote briefly from one or two of them. A number of measures were binned, where we agreed not to seek to rejoin, which must cause concern.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that one of the documents refers to,

“37 measures identified by DPM”—

that is, the Deputy Prime Minister—

“as being of less importance”.

One of the measures that Mr Clegg identified as being of less importance was:

“Joint Action … on cooperation between customs authorities and business organizations in combating drug trafficking”.

How can that be identified as being of less importance? Then we come to measures that are undecided. The document states:

“48 measures for Immediate Discussion (Differing Views in the Coalition on Rejoining)”.

There were differing views on whether it should rejoin those measures, having exercised a block opt-out on 133. Should we rejoin the measure on combating child pornography on the internet? Is there any doubt about that? Why is there any discussion about it? Why does one side of the coalition think that we should opt in and another that we should opt out?

Another measure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, concerns,

“security in connection with football matches with an international dimension”,

where we have seen that police forces acting together have been very effective in passing on information about known troublemakers so that they can be dealt with on the spot. British police officers can go out to matches abroad and offer their help and police officers from other countries can come here and help with identifying troublemakers. However, all this is being put in jeopardy by what the coalition is considering doing because of the pressure of the 133 opt-outs. It is dancing to the tune of UKIP and the Eurosceptic right, which I know the Minister is not part of. I hope that he will take the opportunity to make that clear again today.

I now wish to consider the measures in detail. We are told—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, used this excuse earlier today—that each of them is being looked at and the reason the Government have taken so long to consider the other report of our Select Committee on the opt-out is that the measures are all very complicated. He also said that each one has to be looked at in the national interest. I always get a wee bit worried when the coalition talks about the national interest. It seems to me that it is often a case of what is in the best interests of keeping the coalition in power rather than what is in the national interest. When pressed to explain their thinking, Ministers have said that they look at the measures on a case-by-case basis as far as the national interest is concerned.

There are two key problems with the Government’s plan of action. The first is the cost to the United Kingdom of permanently opting out of some of the measures, with Europol a particular concern, as the report rightly says. The report expresses the view that,

“none of the concerns expressed by the Government … outweigh the benefits to the UK of Europol’s assistance to national police and law enforcement agencies in the fight against cross-border threats (including terrorism) and serious organised crime”.

Therefore, we are putting the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime in jeopardy through this opt-out. Rarely has an all-party report, unanimously agreed by all the members of the sub-committee and the committee, been so damning of the government line.

The second problem is the cost of what the Government hope to retain. Opting back in is not a straightforward process. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, having been secretary of the European Commission, will know only too well exactly what has to be done. There is no guarantee that negotiations to opt back in would be successful. We might find ourselves locked out permanently of key crime-fighting tools. Ensuring that this does not happen will require a large and wholly avoidable expenditure of diplomatic capital. Our experienced diplomats would have to spend their time persuading the other 27 countries of Europe, now that Croatia has joined, that we should be allowed back in.

The rewards that the Government hope to win by such a policy are largely intangible. The measures they hope to scrap are mostly technical points relating to the definition of certain crimes. What is really driving this agenda is the streak of destructive Euroscepticism that runs through some of the Tory Back Benches. In this instance, it is clear what they mean by the national interest. As I said, the national interest is the interest of a small, bullying minority. David Cameron is trying to paint himself as a national champion, but in fact he is having his arm twisted. It is a clever piece of political spin but it is a disastrous piece of policy that could leave all of us in the United Kingdom dangerously exposed to crime and terror. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government will have second thoughts in light of the unanimous report from our Select Committee.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am very glad indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as I find myself in a great deal of sympathy with the argument that he has put forward.

It always seems to me that if one set out to design a nation that was dependent on its relationships with the world in almost every sphere of our significant life in Britain, it would be difficult to think of a better example than the United Kingdom. We live in a totally interdependent world. I believe strongly that the test of political leadership in our country is to demonstrate that we are determined to look to the well-being of the people of these islands of the United Kingdom, but that that can best be done only if we are in a network of international co-operative relationships, of which the European Union is one. It is not a romantic debate about whether one is a European or a Briton; it is hard-headed practical common sense about how we look to the well-being of the British people. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, any thought that we should retreat into being a sort of free-floating raft off the mainland of Europe in the turbulent world in which we live, and that we will somehow then look better to the interests of our people, is a betrayal of the British people and should be dismissed as such.

These matters of security and international crime and the rest are paramount examples of this. We all know that crime is now internationalised on an almost unimaginable scale. We all know that security and terrorism and threats of this kind operate on an international basis. All the new technology at the disposal of the human race makes all this more acute. There is no way in which we can look to the security of the British people without the maximum co-operation of those who are seeking the same objectives for their people in Europe as a whole. Indeed, that should always be a stepping stone to maximum international global co-operation, because that is ultimately the indispensible solution that we must find.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the European Union Committee for calling this debate. I am pleased that we have had such a wide-ranging discussion, although some noble Lords have made a little bit of fun with expressions such as “hokey-cokey”. At bottom, the debate has been firmly rooted in the issues that the Government are having to consider and deliberate on. I think that noble Lords have taken their cue from the report and I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his committee for the clarity with which the report presents the issues before the Government.

I must say right now that the Government have not decided whether to opt in to the measure at this stage. The arguments are finely balanced. I do not feel that this decision has been overshadowed by any other decision which is also before the Government at this time. The point made in the committee’s report is that Europol and its future is an entirely separate issue. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Foulkes, referred to the importance of Europol in the fight against cross-border crime.

We also need to protect the independence of our own law enforcement agencies and there are elements in the draft measure which cause us concern. We therefore need to decide whether it would be better to opt in at this stage and use our vote in the negotiations to try to improve the proposal or to stay out for now and reconsider our position once the final text is agreed. Both options are open to us.

In saying that, I want to be clear that we strongly support Europol as it currently operates. As noble Lords have pointed out, we work very closely with it in tackling many serious offences, such as people smuggling and online child abuse. My noble friend Lord Sharkey gave some detailed examples of where Europol has been important in tackling cross-border crime affecting this country. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also recognised that point of view. Europol provides real benefits to our law enforcement agencies. It is an effective and well run organisation with strong leadership. Indeed, as noble Lords have pointed out, with a Briton as its director, the UK plays an important part.

However, we are worried that some aspects of the new proposals may risk making our law enforcement agencies accountable to Europol, which would be a different thing. Policing is a core function of a sovereign country and must remain a member state responsibility. Perhaps I may illustrate this with an example. I refer to the proposals on police training. I am pleased that the European Union Committee shares our concerns about the proposed merger between the European Police College and Europol. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, confirmed that in his opening speech. However, the Commission’s proposals go beyond the merger. They would give the Europol academy a much broader role than CEPOL currently has in police training, significantly expanding the EU’s responsibilities in an area that really should be left to member states.

We also have concerns about the stronger obligation to give Europol data, to which I shall perhaps return later in response to contributions. We accept of course that Europol needs good-quality intelligence from member states if it is to do its job properly. This country has a good record in that respect. But the new regulation goes far beyond specifying exactly what must be shared and in what circumstances. It does not allow us to withhold information that would threaten national security or harm an ongoing investigation. That worries us because it seems to undermine the control of member states over their law enforcement intelligence. Another factor we perhaps need to bear in mind is that it also risks overwhelming Europol with data provided by member states without regard to its quality simply to avoid being taken to the European Court of Justice.

Another concern is the provision that allows Europol to ask member states’ law enforcement agencies to carry out investigations. Europol already has some powers in this area but the new regulations strengthen them, which suggests a presumption that a member state will comply with Europol’s request. Any reason for not complying could be subject to challenge before the ECJ. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Sharkey acknowledged that this was a risk. We would have real concerns if that led to the European courts judging our policing priorities.

The committee has argued that we should opt into the text and negotiate out these provisions. That is an option, especially as opting in before 30 July would give us a vote in the negotiations. However, the proposal is subject to qualified majority voting, so if we did opt in we could still be out-voted. We would then be bound by the outcome even if we did not get the changes we were seeking.

It is right to bear in mind that the decision to stay out at this stage will not necessarily exclude us from Europol for ever. We would remain involved in the negotiations and would have another chance to take part once the measure had been adopted. That would give us the advantage of knowing exactly what the regulation would require of us before we signed up to it but with the offset of having no vote in the negotiations.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, while the Minister is going through these arguments, perhaps he could explain why he has had no support from his own Back-Benchers and why none of the people who gave evidence to the sub-committee supported his point of view? Why has he not been able to persuade anyone inside or outside this House?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am seeking to explain this particular case solely to those who are listening to me at the moment. As I have said, we are not coming to this debate with a set point of view. We are here to listen. We have had the opportunity of considering the report and we will continue to do so. The noble Lord will know that this debate will be looked at and the points made in it will be considered as part and parcel of the Government’s decision on whether to opt-in to the proposal or leave the decision and let the negotiations take their course. That is the Government’s position at this stage: that is what we are considering. This debate is very important because it will help to inform the Government’s decision. I have not come here with a point of view that will determine the outcome of those considerations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I imagine that I will be able to tell noble Lords that it is highly probable that a decision will be made before the other place rises, rather than before 30 July. The business of this House is a matter for the usual channels and I place myself in their hands. However, I would want to communicate any decision of this importance to the House and, indeed, to Parliament. I am sure that that will be acknowledged by my noble friends who occupy the usual channels.

My noble friend Lord Sharkey is correct to say that there are numerous examples of good co-operation. He illustrated the virtues of Europol and why, notwithstanding the discussions on whether to opt in or to let it run and then negotiate, it is such an important institution and we support it. I am aware that we share common ground with other member states on some issues, but there are no guarantees. The issues are subject to qualified majority voting and there have not been any detailed negotiations that have allowed us to gain a clear idea of how much support we have for our concerns. Should we not succeed in amending it, we would be bound by the final text, and that is a matter of concern to the Government.

Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I should like to highlight that there are two separate issues here: the block opt-out and the Europol negotiations. The two issues are not being confused and this debate is about the Europol regulation, not the opt-out.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am going to run out of time.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My notice said that the House would rise at 10 pm, so we have an hour and a half. I wonder if the Minister will think again because the two issues are related. The recommendation I read out indicates that they are related. If you opt in and there is a block opt-out, and then you have to opt in again, there must be a relationship between the two.

The Minister and I know a little about another member state of the European Union, la belle France. The French are just as concerned about their national interest, their policing and the other concerns that he has expressed. Why does he think that they do not have the same anxiety that this Government seem to be expressing?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is exactly the point that I have been trying to lay before the House and why the Government are deliberating carefully on this. It is a matter of common interest across European countries and of measuring that common interest. This is all a worthwhile endeavour but it requires the national interest to be taken into account. That is the background against which the Government are making this decision. Of course, there is a big issue about the general opt-out but this decision stands alone and is being considered by the committee and by the Government on its own merits. I have tried to demonstrate that this is an even-handed consideration of the issue.

I say to the noble Baroness that, whatever our decision, negotiations are important for us in ensuring the operational independence of law enforcement agencies and the security of our citizens. We expect there to be some common ground among member states, such as la belle France, if the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was referring to the interests that a number of noble Lords in the Chamber at the moment have. We are committed to ensuring the best possible outcome from these negotiations. We will need to consider the proposals in detail as the negotiations progress but we agree that strong data protection, for example, is important. The regulations here will need to reflect the data protection provisions being negotiated elsewhere. None is likely to change during the negotiating position. The noble Baroness asked how many other measures are awaiting an opt-in. I know of no others but will seek to find out and let her know if there are any.

This good-natured and deep-thinking debate, despite the hokey-cokey allusions, has considered the seriousness of this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the security of the country requires us to make sure that law enforcement agencies have the co-operation they need from other European countries. I stress that the Government still have an open mind on the issue. We will of course consider the view of your Lordships’ House and the arguments made by noble Lords here tonight very carefully before we make our decision. I assure the House that the Government will ensure that this House, and Parliament are kept informed about that decision.

Crime: Stalking

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to move on to the question of sentencing policy, but I want to emphasise that the Government take the offence of stalking seriously; so does my noble friend, who I know is a member of the Justice Unions’ Parliamentary Group, which published a very helpful report on the subject. I note what she said, but I ask her to remember that the Home Office is in continual dialogue with the Crown Prosecution Service on the way these new offences are being implemented.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, the Minister said that a lot of talking was taking place but he did not indicate what action was taking place. Did he answer the question of how many prosecutions there have been to date under this new law regarding stalking offences? If he did not, why not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Those data are not available.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Why not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry, but they are not collected and compiled until some time after the incidents have occurred. As I have said, the data will be available in May 2012—

Citizenship Test

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am always very happy to learn and would be delighted to meet my noble friend. However, I do not agree with his summary of the new handbook. I think that it contains relevant British history and culture, which is the whole purpose of the exercise: that is, to provide facts on which people can base a life of settlement and, indeed, citizenship in this country. Therefore, I disagree with the premise of my noble friend’s supplementary question but I am very happy to meet him.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, has the Minister tried to take the test himself and, if so, did he pass?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have a sample test here and it is very fortunate that the correct answers are given in bold type.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

I support Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, which proposes annual hearings. In Committee, it seemed clear that there was quite a concern around the House to consider in public what can be considered in public without danger to national security. I sensed an underlying view that this would enhance the reputation of the ISC.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that every year there is a debate, usually in the Moses Room, about the annual report? Has she been able to attend any of those?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, no, but I am aware of that. I am seeking to push the boundaries a little further. The noble Lord tuts quietly that I have not been there. Last year, I read the Hansard report when I began to take an interest in these matters. I sense a feeling that this would enhance the reputation of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Amendment 11 would be a broader arrangement than could take place in a debate in either House, whatever its venue, given that it provides for giving evidence before the ISC in a session open to the public. Therefore, it is more extensive.

I am very much alive to the danger to which some noble Lords pointed that questions asked in public can be so feeble, as can the answers, that it can have the opposite effect of just appearing to be completely stage managed and uninformative. I believe that we should give the ISC the scope to do the job that it is doing, and is capable of doing, in private to take it as far as it can go.

I have tabled Amendment 12 about access to meetings and I am aware that I take a different view on this from a number of other noble Lords. That is not because I want all or very many meetings with the ISC to be held in public. My point is that it should direct its mind to the issue. At the previous stage, from those with experience of the current arrangements, we heard ideas of what might be considered in public. Those ideas included recruitment to the agencies, issues of diversity, language, and recruitment from all sections of society. I would add to that retention, which generally goes along with recruitment, and a number of human resources matters, such as sickness rates and diversity at different levels of seniority. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, told us that today the ISC had been considering certain of these amendments. It might have been quite interesting to hear some of that debate in public. As regards financial matters, the cost of the GCHQ facility was mentioned.

All those issues quite properly can be debated, with care that the mark into dangerous territory is not overstepped. I have confidence that that would be possible and that those debating the issues would be very alert to that. However, it also would be proper that issues of that sort—I am sure that there are others—should be heard and dealt with in public to add to the credibility of the committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, commenting on what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said at the end of her remarks, perhaps I may say that it was not today that the Intelligence and Security Committee considered amendments. The committee has not had the opportunity to consider the amendments she has put down. Therefore, in offering a comment, it will be personal rather than on behalf of the committee.

I have no objection to Amendment 9 because it is a permissive amendment. However, Amendment 11 states:

“The ISC shall each year call the heads of the Agencies and the Secretary of State to give evidence before them in a session open to the public”.

In principle, there is no objection to that. Indeed, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee says that it is the committee’s intention to have a public hearing. The arrangements for that are being considered at the moment. However, one would not want this to be a public hearing that is too staged, which would be worse than useless. I would counsel against passing an amendment which makes it compulsory for the Intelligence and Security Committee to have a public meeting each year. That may well be the outcome but there may be times when the work programme simply is not consistent with it. That is my only cavil against that.

I would not be in favour of Amendment 12, which states that the committee,

“shall conduct its proceedings in public, save when it determines that members of the public shall be excluded”.

There would be so many meetings for which that resolution would have to be moved that it would be a matter of public comment and derision, which would reduce confidence in the ISC rather than increase it.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I have made a mental note never to tut tut silently in future, especially since that silent tut tutting can be observed by noble Baronesses even about 10 yards away. So I will be careful. The reason why I asked whether the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had been able to attend the debates that we have had in the Moses Room is because, when I served, as I did for four years, on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I had the privilege of introducing and replying to those debates. We had great difficulty in encouraging people to attend and participate. If more Members of the House had attended and participated, it might have added to the information available in the debates that we have had at different stages.

A few years ago, when we had a Labour Government, before the Conservative Government came in, the Intelligence and Security Committee reported to the House on almost all, if not all, the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised—on diversity and all the other points that she raised. We had indications and reports about it, and people raised it during the course of the debate. Even all those years ago, we discussed holding hearings in public; we discussed that in the debate in the Moses Room, along with the problems and opportunities that might be available if we held them in public. I hope that I am not giving any secrets away in saying this, but I was in favour of moving towards holding a meeting or two in public if we could do that. It is the right thing to do.

It would help and inform the debates that we have on legislation if Members came along to the annual debate. I presume that either the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will introduce the report and reply to the debate. Noble Lords would find it a very interesting and educational experience.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, there are two issues covered in this group of amendments. The first is the process of appointment of the heads of the intelligence services and agencies and, secondly, the degree to which their proceedings are held in public. Amendment 9 refers to the possibility of the ISC—enshrined in the word “may”—considering,

“the proposed appointment of the following, including … the Head of the Security Service … the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service”,

and so on. I find that an attractive idea; I see no reason why it should impede, and many reasons why it might enhance, the appointment. It would be useful for the Prime Minister, before final ratification, to know the views of the ISC. It would be useful for Parliament to know that the proposed appointee had the endorsement, as it were, of the ISC, given that it will be elected on a wider franchise than Parliament and it contributes towards the ownership by Parliament itself.

The vagueness as to what happens with regard to the committee’s deliberations when such a discussion or questioning of the prospective appointee has taken place is an advantage and a serious disadvantage. I am not quite sure whether the proposal is permissive of communicating negative views on any appointment to the Prime Minister. Does it amount in effect to a de facto veto? It is delightfully vague on those issues.

There is another issue to consider. At the moment there is a relative independence of the heads of the security service and the ISC. If the ISC is being sought as an endorser of the appointment of a particular head of a particular service, in future it may feel more inclined to defend the action of the person that it has appointed. That is not a major concern; it would certainly not undermine the perceived benefits of such a system, which is used elsewhere in the democratic world to no apparent disadvantage—and to advantage with regard to the solidity of the appointment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord intervening but we are on Report. Therefore, I remind noble Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I agree with the Minister, who I think has made a good case, and disagree with my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan. Members of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy have already had a report that the line management of the heads of the various intelligence and security services is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary. That has been made absolutely clear to us. We raised some concerns about that point and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will comment on it. If the Permanent Secretary has that line management responsibility, it would seem strange if these post holders were considered for appointment by a committee rather than by the procedure that the Minister has described. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is a bit irritated at what I have said, but I am glad to say that on this side of the House we have the freedom to say what we think.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Although I am encouraged by what the noble Lord had to say, I should remind noble Lords that we are on Report and it would probably be as well if I was allowed to finish what I was saying. The key thing is that the coalition agreement expressly says that we want to strengthen the role of committees in scrutinising public appointments. The Government are committed to doing that. However, the coalition agreement does not refer to Civil Service appointments. The pre-appointment scrutiny process, which we have in place for public appointments, is not the same as appointments to the Civil Service. Therefore, although the Government have made important progress in meeting the commitment on public appointments, that is not relevant to these appointments if they are Civil Service appointments.

I know that the roles that the agency heads play are very important and the appointments must be right. That is why I hope that I have given the noble Baroness and the noble Lord the reassurance that the process that presently exists for appointing the heads of these agencies is appropriate to the nature of the posts. It would not be appropriate to adopt the pre-appointment process that exists for posts in public bodies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks will respectively see fit to withdraw their amendments.

I now address Amendments 11 and 12 which concern the ISC holding an annual hearing with the agency heads and the Secretary of State giving evidence before the committee in public. I can appreciate the intention behind the amendment but I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating a duty to hold annual public hearings. As noble Lords will know, The Governance of Britain Green Paper in 2007 made a series of reform proposals aimed at bringing the ISC as far as possible into line with other Select Committees. One of those proposals was for some hearings of the ISC to be structured to allow unclassified evidence to be heard in open session. Those sessions did not subsequently happen. Building on this, the Justice and Security Green Paper noted that while the ISC’s meetings will still have to take place, as a rule, in private, both the Government and the committee were committed to the concept of public evidence sessions where they can be held without compromising national security or the safety of individuals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke powerfully in Committee on the issue of public hearings and she has done so again today. We fully agree that they can be valuable but she noted that public hearings should never be automatic for the ISC but argued that they should become more routine as public confidence is taken into account. We fully agree that public hearings may improve public confidence in the ISC and its work.

The Bill does not need a specific provision for this; the existing ISC, created by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, has power enough to determine its own procedures and that is sufficient for its purposes—the ISC is provided for in the Bill. In that way, there is actually very little difference between the position that we take on the Bill and the position proposed by the noble Baroness. However, there are significant practical issues that have to be addressed before public evidence sessions can take place. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate introducing public evidence sessions for a committee whose work is mostly concerned with sensitive and highly classified information. That will be challenging.

The Government remain committed to making public hearings work better in practice, and are currently in discussions with the committee about how to do so—for instance, on issues such as appropriate subject matter, timing and having appropriate safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Lothian, a current member of the ISC, made the valuable point that public hearings would be counter-productive so far as public confidence in the committee is concerned. If either the majority of the questions posed are met with a response, “I cannot answer that”, or the subject matter for the hearing is anodyne and the process completely rehearsed, I am sure that noble Lords will feel that the process has not been worth while. The ISC will already have the power to hold public hearings with agency heads and with relevant Secretaries of State without any of these amendments. Leaving it to the ISC’s discretion to determine when and how frequently to hold such meetings will enable it to make the best use of its available resources. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that that is the right approach. I hope, on the basis of this information, that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will withdraw her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Marks will not move theirs.

Police: Working Conditions

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

If I heard my noble friend correctly, he asked whether we would be happy to give evidence. Of course we would.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Could the Minister make it absolutely clear—I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminds me to keep my hands behind my back—that, where we have the Army, G4S and the police working together during the Olympic and Paralympic Games, it will be the police chief who has ultimate responsibility for issuing orders and dealing with disorder, and not G4S or the Army?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I made clear the other day, security is ultimately a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, in the event of there being a major incident, it will obviously be the police who will take charge of operational matters at that stage.

Immigration: Detention of Children at Heathrow

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

All I know is that the UK Border Agency and BAA have had considerable discussions about these matters over the years. Obviously I cannot give evidence about the precise detail of those discussions, but we know that they are aware of the problems because we have also discussed the matter with BAA. The important point to remember is that we will do what we can to improve things. We have only just received this report, which came in two days ago. We will be responding to it within the appropriate period of six weeks. We know that things are not entirely satisfactory but we are talking about holding people only in the very short term while a decision is made. We hope that that will not be longer than 24 hours. If it is, as I made clear, we have other facilities, such as Tinsley House, available.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

This matter was raised during the time of the Labour Government and the Liberal Democrats attacked us, understandably, about the detention of young children. They promised that once the coalition took over, the detention of children would be ended immediately. Now, two years later, children are still being detained. This is yet another promise—one put forward particularly by the Liberal Democrats—that has been reneged on.

[Lord Henley]

Dare I say that the noble Lord makes a very silly point, and not for the first time, as my noble friend the Deputy Leader says? We are talking about getting rid of detention. We are not talking about detaining children; we are talking about detaining people for as little as 24 hours in this facility.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

You are still detaining children.

[Lord Henley]

Is the noble Lord suggesting that they should be removed from their parents and sent somewhere else? That strikes me as even worse. This is complete nonsense. We think that the children should stay with their parents for that short time in the holding facility. If they cannot go there, they go to Tinsley House—a place that we have all accepted as being perfectly acceptable for children and their families to go to.

Abu Qatada

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the current position regarding the deportation of Abu Qatada.

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

My Lords, we await the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on whether to accept Qatada’s referral request. We wrote to the Strasbourg court to ask that it reject this application both on the merits of the case and on the timing of his request. Qatada, meanwhile, remains in detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, let us forget the shambles of last week. Will the Minister explain exactly how and when this terrorist is going to be deported?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot give a precise answer on when he will be deported because that matter is in the courts. However, I do not accept what the noble Lord says about there being a shambles last week. It was quite clear from all the advice and all the precedents that the three months for making the referral expired at midnight on 16 April. My right honourable friend made her decision on that basis. We now await to see what the courts are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the point I was making, if the noble Baroness would be fair enough to listen to me, was that we had been in regular contact with the court on these matters. It was quite clear from precedent and legal advice that the case that I have put forward is the right one. Therefore we were satisfied that we were right to consider that the last possible moment for referral was 16 April at midnight.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, this is a serious question—with respect to those opposite—and the Minister has still not answered the questions about the future. What are the Home Office’s plans for dealing with this man and when can we expect him to be deported? Please can I have an answer?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, and like the previous Government—who tried to do something about this for 10 years—I and all other noble Lords would like to see this man deported as soon as possible. He represents a very real risk to this country, and this has been going on for 10 years. However, we must abide by the rule of law and we must wait until the court makes its decision. I do not know when the European court will deal with this referral case. As far as I am concerned as a very simple lawyer, this looks like a pretty simple case that the court could deal with pretty quickly, if for no other reason than that it is obvious that he is out of time in his referral.

Education Bill

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I understand noble Lords’ desire to ensure parity between the rate of interest charged to students and that which is borne by the Government. However, I would be reluctant to introduce the stringent cut suggested by the noble Lord.

Let me first respond to why RPI and not CPI. We have always taken the view that there is no single measure of inflation that is appropriate for all purposes, but the RPI is commonly used in private contracts for uprating of living costs, payments and housing rents, so it is more appropriate than CPI for student loan interest as it takes account of, among other things, changes in mortgage interest and council tax—typical expenses for graduates that are not included in the calculation of the CPI.

Historically, RPI has always been used for calculating interest on student loans. This means that over a period of years the rate of interest on student loans has been consistently applied on a widely recognised and adopted measure of inflation.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am getting very confused. Why is it that RPI is appropriate for repayment of student loans but CPI is appropriate for increases in pensions for retired people? Could the Minister explain that? I do not quite understand, from her explanation, why there are differences between the two.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the costs for older people are different. It has always been the case that most measures have been taken under RPI. If the noble Lord is not satisfied, I am quite happy to meet him outside the Chamber to further the discussion, but I think I can offer him this one response only. If he is not satisfied, I am quite happy to take the question outside the Chamber with other noble Lords. We can discuss it in further detail and, hopefully, come back with a more detailed response. I do not think I can offer the noble Lord anything other than what I have just offered him: that it is normally the case that it is measured by RPI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The purpose of us coming along here today is to discuss this and get explanations from the Minister, who presumably had a very extensive briefing before coming along, and presumably inquired of her officials these kinds of questions. She must have anticipated that they would come up.

RPI is being charged to the student when they have to pay the Government, but CPI is being applied when the Government pay me and other retired people. So it is all right that when you take money from other people you charge RPI but, when you give increases to people to pay for all the extra costs of energy and everything else, it is only CPI. Would the Minister take a minute to explain?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Before the Minister stands up, perhaps I could try to be helpful. This is a key question. My understanding is that the only circumstance in which RPI is lower than CPI is when mortgage interest rates are falling and that is relatively unusual, although we have experienced a bit of that recently.

When the Chancellor made his announcement about making the shift from Rossi to CPI, he was honest enough to say that it was to save money—it would save £6 billion to the Exchequer. Would it not be easier for the Minister to have the same sort of honesty as her right honourable friend in the Government and say, “It’s to save money”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

Yes. And the noble Lord knows that I would be the last person here to make sure that people of low incomes could not get fair access. That is why it is so important that those who can afford to pay more do so, because they benefit more from higher education. Those families on low incomes will actually be able to be better protected. That is the key to this.

I am sorry that the noble Lord shakes his head. There will never be an ideal measure, but we have to have a measure. The previous Government did it and we are carrying on doing it. Anything to do with higher education will be coming up in the higher education White Paper, which we are consulting on at the moment, and of course that will be a wonderful opportunity to get the sort of questions posed by the noble Lord asked and responded to.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

It would help us to understand it better if the Minister could reply to the question put by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara about the threshold. Is his calculation right, that the payment would begin at about £15,000, which I think my noble friend said? If that is the case then that is at a very low level of income, and it would be very interesting to know what the Government calculate the threshold income to be.

[Baroness Verma]

I should like the noble Lord to allow me to make a little progress, but it is £21,000 and not £15,000. It is higher—if the noble Lord will allow me—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

But the repayments are written off after 30 years.

My noble friend Lady Sharp asked about the sale of student loans. The student loans Act makes clear that the borrower will not be affected by the sale. Their loans will be subject to the same terms as those that remain unsold. Nothing in the Bill changes that position.

I would like to finish on Sharia law. In relation to issues around Sharia compliance, the noble Lord mentioned the meeting between the Minister for Universities and Science, my honourable friend David Willetts, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies—a body that represents students from the Muslim faith—and the National Union of Students to discuss the issue. We accept the importance of the concerns raised by those organisations and have an ongoing dialogue to see how we can best ensure that student finance is not impacted on through the systems that we are bringing in. However, it would be better for me to write to the noble Lord on the outcomes after we have made sure that the consultations have been fully gone through.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

There is one point that the noble Baroness has not dealt with in relation to my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s introductory speech, which said that the Deputy Prime Minister—who we know is well versed in the issue of student fees—reckons that about 60 per cent of the loans will not be repaid. Is that an official statistic on behalf of the Government? Is that the estimate? Is that how much will not be repaid out of all of this expenditure?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is not 60 per cent. The estimate is about 40 per cent.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

How can the Deputy Prime Minister get it so wrong? Has he got a different brief from the Minister?

[Baroness Verma]

No, the Deputy Prime Minister has not got it wrong; maybe the noble Lord has got it wrong. It is 40 per cent. This is why the threshold for repayment is being increased to £21,000 and why repayments will be taken at 9 per cent above that level. This, hopefully, will mean that individuals will repay less. There will be less opportunity for them not to pay their loans off because we have made it easier for them to repay their loans. The noble Lord makes faces. I am sorry that I am not satisfying him. But I think he will agree, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, that I am laying out a very clear, comprehensive way of making sure that we are protecting most those on the lowest incomes and giving them an easier way of repaying so that there will be less opportunity for them to default and hopefully more students, rather than fewer, repaying the loans that have been taken out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I would like to respond to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and of my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Sharp, in turn. I know that many noble Lords, like me, welcome the extension of loans to eligible part-time students studying at publicly funded institutions to cover the full cost of their tuition. Upfront tuition costs were identified by Lord Browne in his independent review of higher education as the primary barrier to students who want to study on a part-time basis and we have removed that barrier.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson for introducing his amendment, which raised a debate in this Room about the extension of loans to part-time students. The introduction of caps on tuition charges for part-time courses is an important part of our higher education reform. It will enable the Government to provide, for the first time, loans to eligible part-time students to cover the full cost of their tuition at publicly funded institutions, just as it does for full-time students. The Government agree with the overarching principle of Lord Browne’s independent review that those who benefit most from higher education should make a larger contribution to its costs. This holds true for those who choose to study part-time as much as those who pursue it full-time.

The Government’s reforms mean that while the teaching grant for the Higher Education Funding Council for England is being reduced or stopped completely for some subjects, universities will have access to a steady income stream from subsidised tuition loans and will get the future of sustainable funding that they need. We would be reluctant to limit to £1,000 per year the amount that institutions can charge for part-time courses. Such a limit would pose a serious risk to the financial sustainability of the part-time sector, as it would restrict a now primary source of funding. This would place part-time students at a significant disadvantage to their full-time counterparts and I am sure that the noble Lord is not advocating that.

Amendment 148 seeks to ensure that the amount of interest that could be charged on loans for part-time students should not be higher than the rate charged for full-time students. My noble friends raise an important point and one with which I agree wholeheartedly. Part-time students should be treated in exactly the same way as full-time students in the way in which interest is applied to their loans. We have never intended that full-time and part-time students should be treated differently in this respect. I hope that the indicative regulation published when this clause was in the Commons will also reassure my noble friends on this point. The regulation showed that student loans will bear interest at RPI plus 3 per cent until the individual becomes liable to repay. From this point, we will introduce a progressive system whereby low earners—again, regardless of whether they studied full-time or part-time—will be protected and accrue interest only at the rate of inflation. Those with an income of £21,000 or less—below the repayment threshold—will not need to make any repayments and will accrue interest at RPI only, which will maintain the value of the loan in real terms. For anyone with income greater than this, the rate of interest applied will increase gradually with their income, reaching a maximum of RPI plus 3 per cent at an income of £41,000. Those with incomes of £41,000 or more will accrue interest at a rate of RPI plus 3 per cent.

I hope that that has reassured my noble friends on those points. As it is our intention to apply our proposals to both full-time and part-time students and the individual’s mode of study has no impact on how the rate is calculated, it is therefore unnecessary to set this out in primary legislation.

Moving to the second point in this amendment, I understand the concern about the date that part-time students become liable to repay, though it is important to remember that whether they will actually have to begin to repay will depend on their income. Under our current proposals, part-time students become due to repay on 6 April following the third anniversary of the start date of their course, even if they continue to study. We have chosen this date as an equivalent to the time when a full-time borrower studying a three-year degree course would reach their repayment date. However, it is important to remember that no one will have to repay if their income is below £21,000. The added benefit for those part-time students who have incomes less than £41,000 is that they will at this point see a reduction in the interest that they are charged. Once part-time students become liable to repay, their interest will be dependent on their income, whereas students who have not yet reached their statutory repayment due date will be charged interest at RPI plus three per cent.

I know that some higher education institutions feel that delaying the repayment point by a further year would benefit their students, particularly those studying the equivalent of a three-year course part time over four years. I can see that this might be the case at least for those part-time students earning more than £21,000. However, the converse would be true for many other part-time students, particularly those earning under £21,000. They would be charged a higher interest rate for a further year but would not be required to repay during that year. However, I have listened to the argument very closely and I think that it would be prudent of me to go back to my right honourable friend David Willetts and raise these points with him again and commit to writing to noble Lords about these concerns. This is a very valid point and one that we need to consider very seriously.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

On that particular point, the Minister has been very helpful. But I am not absolutely clear about whether she will go back to the Minister with a view to accepting this amendment. What I understood by the very eloquent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was that the administrative scheme that has already been promulgated anticipates the legislation even though the legislation has not yet gone through this House, which is a very serious situation. There is no point in going back to David Willetts if this has already been decided by an administrative scheme.

[Baroness Verma]

I can reassure the noble Lord that it has not been set in stone. I have listened very carefully to the argument today. It is a very valid argument. It would be a great benefit to go back to my right honourable friend and raise with him genuine concerns. While I cannot commit to the exact amendment as it is, it is worthy of a revisit with my right honourable friend.

I would like to finish by responding to a couple of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the loans available to part-time students. I think I have covered it in my presentation. I will reiterate in case it has not been made clear. Part-time students will meet the amount charged subject to the passage of this clause. The introduction of regulations to cap fees at the level the noble Lord has indicated means that there may be institutions that do not choose to raise fee-charging to the maximum level. We are making an assumption that that is what is going to happen, but we must not because there may be institutions that do not follow that path. For equivalent and lower qualifications, my right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Skills has in the past indicated his regret that loans cannot be offered for a second qualification.

I am sure that, when the noble Lord’s party was in Government, they also had the same regret. But, unfortunately, budgets are limited. We have to work within our means so that those who have not got a first-time qualification are given that opportunity. The noble Lord’s Government agreed with that principle; we are following it through. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured—as my noble friends are—that we have taken this very seriously. I have promised to take away what my noble friend Lady Brinton has raised. We hope to come back to it on Report with some findings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

My name is also on Amendment 146 and I very much support what my noble friend has said. I shall add one or two other arguments to the powerful arguments that he has already made.

My noble friend said that losing some of our good students to go abroad for their studies might be a good thing. Yes, it would be good for a few. International education, whether at undergraduate or graduate level, is a well established tradition among the brighter and best students, and that is a good thing. But it is a very foolish country that stands aside and watches a very large number of its brightest and best students being lost, particularly since those who go to the United States tend to stay. There are good statistics showing this. We lose some of our best talent if we allow them to go and finish their undergraduate and postgraduate study there and then be snapped up by American companies.

The other argument that has always seemed to me quite powerful is that we have and recognise in this country, without much debate, that we have private schools as well as state schools. We know perfectly well the way in which private school fees have been accelerating in recent years. Many parents are now paying £12,000 or £13,000 per year for day schools, if they are lucky—some more than that—and, for boarding schools, at least double that. It has always seemed very strange that those same parents whose children go on to higher education are suddenly released from what many of us see as the burden of school fees to a very much reduced sum of money. I have many times dwelt with friends on one anecdote from my time as head of a Cambridge college. One of my fresher students came bouncing up to me in the first week of term and said, “Oh, come and look at what my daddy has given me as a present for coming up to university”. It was a brand new BMW 7 Series, which would have accounted for at least three years of fees at £9,000 a year plus, or her maintenance. I thought, yes, Daddy is celebrating because he does not have to pay your very high school fees any longer. I am sure that my college and university could have done with that money and made good use of it.

It seems quite extraordinary that we do not allow parents—who could very well afford to continue to pay the fees—simply to opt their children out of the entire loans company system and, therefore, to have their children treated like overseas students, where the university can set their fees and they are outwith the quota for those eligible for loans. Putting these very bright students off-quota and giving them the encouragement and opportunity to go to our best universities would be to their benefit and hugely to the benefit of the country. Therefore, I wholly hope that the Government will seriously consider this possibility of having private students who would be off-quota but who of course would have exactly the same entry requirements as those who are eligible for loans. As my noble friend says, we do not expect an answer today. This is not a backdoor route for people to buy their way into higher education. Their access arrangements and entry requirements would have to be exactly the same. But it would enable us to keep some of those very bright young people here in British universities.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to refer to what has been the most discriminatory and unfair decision in relation to student fees ever, anywhere in the United Kingdom. This is the decision by the Scottish Government to charge students domiciled in England, Wales or Northern Ireland who choose to study at Scottish universities fees of up to £9,000 a year. As the professor, my old principal, will know—though he was not principal when I was a student; he is not that old—if the Scottish Government are allowed to go ahead with what they are planning, English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will have to pay £36,000 for a four-year degree course at a Scottish university. It is really outrageous. It is particularly outrageous because of the rules of the European Union, whereby students coming from other countries in the European Union—whether it be Lithuania, Poland or any other country in the European Union—will get a free education just like Scottish students. I do not understand how anyone in England can sit back and accept this. I do not know why people are not rioting in the streets at this kind of discriminatory decision.

However, there will be an opportunity to put it right. I have tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill, which means that this sovereign United Kingdom Parliament would make it illegal for the Scottish Administration to charge discriminatory fees. We are still the supreme Parliament. The Scottish Parliament is a devolved Parliament. I hope that all noble Lords will talk to their colleagues and that, for once, I might get support from all sides of the House—that would be a novelty—so that we can end the discrimination that is being proposed by the SNP in the Scottish Parliament.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I remind the House that we are moving into Report and that nothing may be resolved at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed out that the Opposition have always said that they would complete Report today. That is part of a firm agreement. It was also for the convenience of the Opposition Front Bench that the exchange on Lords consideration of amendments on the EU Bill was moved to today.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not going to take an intervention from anybody in the Chamber at the moment. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could sit down because it is a courtesy of this House that two persons do not stand at the same time. I would have thought that somebody who was a Member of another place and of another Chamber might be aware of that. I am pointing out—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

You stood up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I take that, in the end, as a very positive intervention by the noble Baroness the Government Chief Whip. I am more than happy to have some discussion off the Floor of the Chamber because it is pushing it to start a day as late as this. The noble Baroness is quite right to remind the House that we certainly signed up to try and complete Report in four days. I do not think that anybody expected the European considerations to go on for as long as they did. We tried to play our part in keeping them as short as we possibly could, but it is unreasonable to expect the House to debate serious issues such as universal jurisdiction, or issues that are a passionate concern for some, such as licensing, and the rest. As it happens, we have tabled only four or five groups of amendments for this stage of the Bill. We have tried to keep our opposition to the Bill within reasonable bounds and have done so. We have kept to our side of the bargain but, particularly on a Wednesday—and with a Thursday sitting starting at 11 am and a Friday sitting at 10 am—it is not right to keep the House beyond reasonable hours.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, I will make two points. First, it is my understanding, in terms of procedure, that in this House as well as in other Houses if a noble Member wants to intervene in the speech of another noble Member it is appropriate to stand, and for the other Member to consider whether or not to give way. I am sure even the Government Chief Whip would recognise that that is the normal procedure.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we have just carried out that procedure correctly, because I did not stand until the noble Lord gave way. I made it clear I was not taking interventions. The noble Lord and I have exchanged views on that on other occasions. This is continuing a debate which leads nowhere. Discussions outside can be fruitful; discussions by the noble Lord continuing now may jeopardise the success of those discussions. Perhaps we might continue in the proper manner in a House that takes its procedure seriously.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I was making two points. I made my first point and I gave way to the noble Baroness, as appropriate. The second point I want to make—it is open to Members to make these points and I say that to my own Front Bench as well as to other Front Benches—is that when my noble friend the Chief Whip agreed that we should discuss this today it was on the basis that the day started at 3.35 pm. That is, if I can work it out right, five hours ago. Therefore we are not getting a full day in any sense. That is why I agree with noble Members opposite, particularly from the Liberal Democrats, who have indicated their deep concern. If concern is expressed by the Labour Opposition and by the Liberal Democrats I would have thought the Government should take account of that.

[Baroness Paisley of St George's]

My Lords, I would like to add my voice and appeal that we leave this matter until tomorrow. At this late hour, no one can make guarantees. Although speeches may be short, when there are interventions it lengthens the thing out far too long. Those of us who are past our green years need to get home and get a bit of rest before coming back early in the morning. We will then have a fresher mind and more patience than we have at this hour of the night.

--- Later in debate ---

The matter could be addressed in other ways. The Government could have come forward with proposals that would have enabled a deputy to the directly elected police and crime commissioner to be elected to fulfil those functions. They chose not to do it. They could have created a clear, corporate structure around the directly elected individual that could have taken on this responsibility—but they chose not to do it. Therefore, the problem is of their making. They must not tell the House that it is not an important problem, because it is vital. I wait to see what will be the reaction in local communities the first time an acting police and crime commissioner—an appointed official—sets the precept and the level of local taxation, because there should be no taxation without representation.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I might ask whether he has given any thought to the situation of a police officer in the force who has received money from tabloid journalists. Would that be the responsibility of the chief constable or of the commissioner? If it would be the responsibility of the commissioner, how would someone standing in from the panel be able to deal with that?

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

If such a circumstance were to exist—and clearly this is all very much in our minds at the present time—I suspect that the first people who will recognise the level of public concern that is going to exist are going to be individuals with a personal, direct elected mandate in an area. Under the Government’s model, where you have an elected police and crime commissioner who has not been disqualified, removed from office or incapacitated, then maybe that works and that individual would express concerns.

There is a fascinating article by Daniel Hannan, who I know is of enormous influence within the Conservative Party. He complains, incidentally, that the Government have got the nomenclature wrong; they should not be called police and crime commissioners but should be called sheriffs. He points out that there is a historic British tradition of the local sheriff, who is not the guy with the five or six-pointed star badge, but an ancient, semi-feudal office. The City of London has sheriffs, so it must be all right, because it is the same medieval construct that brought us corporations themselves.

In those circumstances, the directly elected individual —and this again is the point of the Government’s proposals—is going to be the person who will sense that this is something of deep concern to the public and that something should happen. In the circumstances of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment, the point about it is that, rather than have some official who has never had to face an electorate making those judgments and decisions, it would at least be someone with a personal electoral mandate, albeit not for the whole force area, but for a part of it, who would be reflecting the public concern about such matters and taking the appropriate action in those circumstances.

Again, I think the Government’s arguments are flawed and they really need to address what is actually a very serious problem, which would manifest itself most seriously in circumstances where something is seriously going wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dear]

If an allegation of corruption or any other crime is made against someone, whoever the officer might be, the procedure is well laid down, and I do not think that the Bill would change it in any way. The complaint is made to the chief officer of police, who has to record the complaint, which is automatically notified to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC can take over the inquiry or supervise it, and discipline remains a matter for the chief officer. If, in the doomsday scenario, the chief officer does not deal with the complaint properly, then it is for the police authority or, in this instance, the police and crime commissioner, to step in. I do not think the procedure would be changed by the Bill.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I fully understand. That was an exceptionally clear explanation. However, if the commissioner was not there, and someone was standing in for the commissioner, would it be appropriate for the member of the panel who is standing in for the commissioner to deal with the issue in the same way as the commissioner would?

[Lord Dear]

In the theoretical instance cited by the noble Lord, I do not think it would work that way because the chief officer of police would have to demonstrate that he had not dealt with the complaint properly, and that would take some time. We are talking about six months plus two months before an election, so by the time that doomsday scenario occurred, you would have an elected individual in place as the PCC, as I understand it.

--- Later in debate ---

When I have listened to senior police officers, they say that there are a number of building blocks for anyone to understand how this legislation will work. One of those building blocks is the memorandum that we have seen—the Minister has promised us that she will come back to us on whether that will be part of the Bill. Another key building block is what is going to be contained in the strategic policing requirement. Until we see that, we cannot see what will be the balance of responsibilities for chief officers of police. I hope that we will at least see a draft of the strategic policing requirement before the Bill goes to Third Reading. I had understood that something was due to be published some while back for consultation. As far as I am aware, unless it has appeared very recently, nothing has yet been published.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My noble friend served with me on the Joint Committee on the national security strategy. Will he help the House and contemplate how the strategic policing requirement might fit in to the national security strategy? Would it be part of it or relate to it in any way? It has certainly not been mentioned, as I am sure my noble friend would agree, in our meetings on the national security Joint Committee.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

The Government are trying to square the circle of putting a very high priority on national security—the national security strategy, the creation of the National Security Council—and their policies on police and crime commissioners. Clearly, the potential danger with police and crime commissioners elected with a local mandate to articulate the concerns of local people is that some national priorities will not be given the same priority at local level. Now, I am sure that no sensible police and crime commissioner would say, “I am not interested in anything being done on counterterrorism”, just as no sensible police and crime commissioner would say that they did not want to see anything done on serious crime. However, when there are 41 directly elected individuals, some of whom will fight very fiercely contested local elections, or be facing fiercely contested re-election, the question of whether the same priority is given to national security matters as is given to other matters becomes a real issue.

Because of our particularly slow progress as a House on other matters before we arrived at the Bill tonight—we are making rapid progress compared to the progress earlier—I had the opportunity of listening to a presentation downstairs from Professor Dave Sloggett, a nationally known expert on counterterrorism issues. In a rather chilling 15-minute tour d’horizon, he simply spelt out the sorts of threats that we face, which are contained in the CONTEST strategy, and the context in which that is taking place at the moment. Yes, Osama bin Laden has been killed, but that does not mean that al-Qaeda goes away. We are actually seeing a fragmentation and each of the different affiliates going their own way, each presenting slightly different threats.

We have Gaddafi in Libya, who has made an explicit threat of suicide bombers in European cities; and there is the changing situation in Northern Ireland, where we have just seen two nights of sustained rioting and serious disorder. Again, the fact that that has not impinged significantly on the rest of the country makes it all the more likely that there will be an aspiration for it do so. We have the challenges of the Olympics. In moving her amendment, my noble friend Lady Henig referred to issues around cybercrime, and it is interesting that the CONTEST strategy for the first time refers to the cyberterrorist threat. These are issues in which local police forces have got to play their part; they have got to raise their game. They are not necessarily issues which will immediately emerge as the priority for the elected police and crime commissioner in every part of the country, yet every part of the country is potentially affected.

Let us consider the way in which Roshonara Choudhry self-radicalised herself, dropped out of her university course and, having listened to speeches and read material on the internet, decided that an appropriate thing for her to do to take forward the cause would be to assassinate a British Member of Parliament. She then researched Members of Parliament on TheyWorkForYou.com and purchased two kitchen knives. Fortunately for Stephen Timms, a Member of Parliament in the other place, she decided on the day that it was easier to conceal in her clothing the shorter of the knives. That is an example of the kind of threat we face.

Not so long ago an individual in the south-west of the country seriously injured himself in an attempt to blow up a restaurant in which families with young children were having meals. Again, he was an individual who, as far as we know, was not significantly connected to any of the networks.

It will be the responsibility of local policing, local special branches and local intelligence to pick up on these issues. If you get to a stage where this is seen as not the responsibility of a local police force, your ability to combat these threats will be severely weakened. That is why the strategic policing requirement is so important.

It is also important in the context of serious and organised crime because we all know that if you do not maintain consistent and strong pressure on the issues around serious and organised crime, gradually the quality of community life in all kinds of areas will begin to deteriorate—and yet this will not be an immediate priority for many police and crime commissioners.

The Government have, properly, written into the Bill a strategic policing requirement. However, they have not specified how it will be enforced and how they will make sure that it is met in every force area. My noble friend Lady Henig has tabled an amendment which would require Her Majesty’s Inspectorate to produce a report on an annual basis and lay it before Parliament to assess how the strategic policing requirement is working. My amendment has a different focus; it seeks to consider what happens in each individual force area. It does not specify that the report should be laid before Parliament because sometimes the content of that report in relation to the strength, willingness and effectiveness of local forces in combating terrorism and serious and organised crime would best not be publicly shared.

I know that the Home Office does not want to be top-down on all kinds of issues, but on these issues it needs to be top-down, which is why it has postulated a strategic policing requirement. This will give the Home Secretary a snapshot for each police force area and a national overview, if you take the position that has been put forward by my noble friend Lady Henig, of what is going on and where there may be weaknesses. Whether that will result in a formal intervention by the Home Secretary or a less formal intervention with the chief officer of police and the elected politician who leads those areas applying pressure, I do not think really matters. What is important is that the Home Secretary has that information and has it as a tool. Further, it is important that the locally elected individual—the police and crime commissioner or the MOPC in London—is aware of where they stand in terms of meeting the strategic policing requirement. They may well have a rose-tinted view of what the level of problem is or what needs to be done. This gives them that information and the opportunity to decide. I find it extraordinary that there is nothing in this Bill about monitoring how the strategic policing requirement is to be met, how it is to be achieved and what is to be done about it.

These amendments are put forward in a genuine attempt not just to assist the Government to achieve their objectives, which as you know are constantly at the forefront of our thoughts on this side of the House, but because it is critically and crucially important for the national security of this country and indeed for our ability to deal with serious and organised crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, is saying about the risks of overprescription. However, we are talking about strategic policing requirements. This is a matter of national importance. My noble friends have argued very well for their respective amendments.

No election will be won by a police and crime commissioner on issues to do with national policing. They will be won on local manifestos. Almost every candidate will promise more police on the beat. The question will be an auction over just how many police will be on the beat at any one time. That is fair enough and clearly responds to a general view held by many members of the public, who like the police to be visible. I do not argue with that. However, it will have some consequences. It will put the squeeze on the specialist units that the police forces have developed. It will also put the squeeze on each force’s responsibility to the national policing requirement. In some way or other, without being wholly prescriptive, we need to find a way in which to reassure Parliament that the national strategic policing requirement will be carried out as effectively as possible. It is not just terrorism; it is also about serious organised crime. My noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Foulkes were absolutely right to develop the argument about the threats that we face. We are in no position today to be complacent about those threats.

In their approach to the Bill the Government have really rather pooh-poohed the current tripartite relationship. They have criticised police authorities for a lack of visibility—although I have yet to hear any conclusive evidence put forward on why they ought to be visible. Furthermore, they believe that the tripartite arrangement is at fault because Home Secretaries have indulged in too much target-making. There will be a debate about targets and their place but there should be no doubt that in the end the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament and ought to be accountable to Parliament for national policing strategy and the effectiveness of police forces in making a contribution to that strategy.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, about the implications of the national crime agency. I also agree with him that some tension will be constructive—but tension could also be destructive. In the Bill we see that the requirement in relation to the strategic policing requirement is placed on chief officers of police. In exercising the functions, they must have regard to the strategic policing requirement. In other words, they can ignore it, because “have regard to” is a very weak use of parliamentary language. They have to have regard to it, alongside other matters that are placed in the Bill.

We then look to page 2 of the Bill and see that in Clause 1(4) that the,

“police and crime commissioner must … hold the chief constable to account for”,

a series of actions, but also,

“the exercise of the duty under section 37A(2) of the Police Act 1996 (duty to have regard to strategic policing requirement)”.

All we have in statute is a requirement on the police and crime commissioner to hold the chief constable to account. Then we find that the actual requirement is simply to have regard to. What if the police and commissioner does not effectively hold the chief constable to account? What if the chief constable has regard to but does not take the necessary action? Where are the safeguards and sanctions? There are none. That is really our concern.

The amendments seem to be helpful and constructive. My noble friend Lady Henig asks for a report to be prepared assessing the extent to which the strategic policing requirement has been met in each police area. That does not seem overprescriptive; it is simply giving an assurance to Parliament that there will be a process by which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has a means of looking at each police force area and reporting on how they are doing in their contribution to the strategic policing requirement.

My noble friend Lord Harris has another constructive amendment around the inspection programme. In our first debate the Minister was very helpful, although I did not really follow her arguments. She was very constructive in being willing to engage in the area of the acting police and crime commissioner. Nothing is more important than the national strategic policing requirement. I hope that the noble Lord, who, I suspect, is going to respond to the amendment, will be able to be as constructive as his noble friend.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, before the Minister replies to the debate, he will recall that nearly an hour and a half ago the government Chief Whip indicated that she would return speedily with a new timetable for this Bill to propose to the House. We are now approaching the normal time of rising of this House. I hope that the Minister will give an indication as to when the government Chief Whip will do us the courtesy of returning to indicate what the new timetable for this Bill will be.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

As always, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is immensely helpful in his contribution to debates. I well recall his many constructive contributions to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in an earlier period.

It is part of the intention of this Bill to build in some constructive tensions between the local and the national—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am grateful to the Minister, but this is a serious point. A number of Members of this House have an interest in subsequent amendments and are genuinely concerned that there should be a proper debate on the Bill because some very serious and important amendments are coming up. They do not know what is going to happen. They do not know whether these amendments are going to be considered at three o’clock, four o’clock or five o’clock in the morning or, more sensibly, on another day when they can be properly considered by this House. It is the normal role of this House to give proper consideration to these amendments, and I hope that someone will find out when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will return, as she promised an hour and a half ago, and tell the House what the programme is going to be. If not, people are hanging on here without any knowledge about what is going to happen.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will do my best to get that information to the House as soon as possible.

As I said, it is part of the intention of this Bill to build in some constructive tensions between the local and the national. We all understand that policing is a constant dialogue between local, regional and national, although I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that things have changed a great deal in the last 20 or 30 years. Certainly when I was a candidate in Manchester many years ago, there was a small Special Branch that dealt with the IRA, but there were not the cross-cutting collaborative units that we now see across the north of England—drugs units, organised crime units and counterterrorism units, which are now part of the network in which our police forces co-operate with each other. My perspective on policing is a West Yorkshire one, but the Yorkshire Post, the Bradford Telegraph & Argus and the local radio stations do not simply focus on local crime, partly because local and national issues, such as parades by the English Defence League and drugs heists in which the drugs have just been imported from some other country, are very much part of the local scene. Therefore I think that the widespread fears suggested by the noble Baroness may be exaggerated.

Clause 80 sets out the strategic policing requirement, which is an update of the Police Act 1996, as noble Lords have said. That strategic policing requirement is now being extensively consulted on by the Secretary of State, ACPO, the Association of Police Authorities, the Metropolitan Police service and others. Clearly that is going to be a major part—

Asylum Seekers: Democratic Republic of Congo

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, why are the children of failed asylum seekers still held in detention in spite of Mr Nick Clegg’s promise that the coalition would end it?

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, we take very seriously the question of children. It is a matter that, coming new to this brief, I particularly wish to focus on. We will do all we can because we realise that the wider family, and children in particular, are particularly affected, and it is very important that while we carry out the procedures that are necessary to assess asylum seekers’ status, we take a humanitarian approach to the younger children.