European Structural and Investment Funds

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the way that the Welsh voted in the referendum probably gives some indication of what they think we are likely to do with things such as the shared prosperity fund. The Welsh have considerable faith in how this Conservative Government will direct resources from the fund. Again, the noble Lord will not expect me to give any guarantees at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if the Minister thinks the people in Wales have confidence in this Government, I suggest he thinks again. Several times today, he has said that he can give no guarantees. The European structural and investment funds have brought enormous benefit to the areas in receipt of them. So many times in this Chamber, we have heard about the cost of the EU as if all the funding has gone in one direction from this country to the EU, and that we have had no benefit. This is an indication of benefit that has been received by the UK. Will the Minister reconsider his answer? What guarantees can he give that these areas will not lose out by this country leaving the EU?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness should listen very carefully to my answers. The guarantees I was giving were about the future of the shared prosperity fund. I can give categorical guarantees about European structural funds for 2014-20. Those guarantees will continue to stand, as has been made clear by my right honourable friends in another place. They will stand in a no-deal scenario, and all projects that were signed up to before the Autumn Statement of 2016 will be guaranteed by the Government after the United Kingdom leaves the EU.

Manufacturing: Digital Technology

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

As the noble Lord will be aware, the report is quite big—246 pages. It was published on Monday. I arrived in the department on Monday, so I cannot claim to have read it from cover to cover at this point. No doubt he will criticise me for that, but I will start on it over the weekend. We recognise that this technology presents great challenges, including for raising productivity. The noble Lord is right to talk about the challenges of the fact that, in creating new, higher-paid and higher-skilled jobs, it creates a threat to other jobs—something we went through in the first Industrial Revolution when the spinning jenny and other things came in. It also creates opportunities for new jobs, which is what we want. I think he will accept that at this stage, with a 246-page report having been published only on Monday, it is a bit early for the Government to make any pronouncements on it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government may not want to make pronouncements, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity for a quiet weekend, and perhaps to snuggle up with a cup of cocoa and read the report. He mentioned the Industrial Revolution; he will be aware of the huge social unrest that followed it. While the report states the number of new jobs—a net gain of 175,000—jobs will change. Some people will lose their jobs; some will work shorter hours. The technology has to benefit those who are working, and not cause an increase in unemployment and reduce incomes. While I do not expect him to have read the report, will the Minister give some thought to how we ensure both that those people whose jobs change get the adequate training and support they need, and that those who lose employment get alternative employment so that we do not lose the income of those currently in work?

[Lord Henley]

I can only agree with everything the noble Baroness said, other than her comments on cocoa. I will read the report over the weekend. It is too early to say, but she will be aware that we have the industrial strategy coming out later this month. If she is a little patient, she will hear more from the department and my right honourable friend about what we plan to do, particularly on the challenges that these changes present to the United Kingdom and the Government—challenges that both she and her noble friend Lord Haskel have highlighted.

Public and Commercial Services Union: Strike Action

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

As my noble friend will be well aware, we have full contingency plans in place, just as we did on the other four occasions on which the PCS has called one-day strikes. On all those occasions we managed not only to secure the border appropriately but to prevent excessive queues. We hope to do that again tomorrow, but we hope that the PCS will see reason. Our doors remain open to negotiations until the last minute but, as I said, we are also taking legal advice on this matter.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, although we would all support an Olympic truce between the Government and the unions, I think the Minister does this House a disservice when he tries to imply that the leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, supports the strike when he has made it quite clear, as the Minister and other noble Lords will know, that he does not support the strike. We also recognise that there are real long-term issues about queues at border controls, particularly for non-EEA visitors. Yesterday the National Audit Office blamed the Government for cutting too many staff—more than even the Government planned—far too quickly. We now have a Bermuda Triangle of lost asylum cases being written off, mounting casework backlogs, and even fewer foreign criminals being deported. I appreciate that there are shorter queues at border controls for the Olympics, but can the Minister guarantee that, following the NAO report, the Government will treat this issue as a priority and ensure that there are enough staff and resources to do the job in the long term?

Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

That the draft regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I had understood from press reports and a Written Ministerial Statement last night that, in light of a Supreme Court judgment yesterday, immigration orders or regulations would be laid today. Can the Minister enlighten us as to what form those may take and when noble Lords are likely to have sight of them?

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

My Lords, I issued a Written Ministerial Statement last night in response to that judgment from the Supreme Court. I can give an assurance to the noble Baroness that we will be laying orders later today and that they will be available in the Printed Paper Office.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has done this Committee a service in degrouping his amendments. It is a broader and deeper debate than the one we had on the first two amendments. It has been extremely helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, hit the nail on the head when he described it as a useful debate with a lot of consensus. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said this was a polarised debate. I am not convinced that it is. This is less about what we expect the ISC to do and how we expect to do it than the structure that can best achieve those objectives. There seems to be a fair amount of agreement on the kind of objectives we are seeking. I wrote down a couple. The idea of a veneer of expertise has now been firmly laid to rest. I hope that we will not hear that expression again either in your Lordships’ House or outside. I was intrigued when the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned to the Minister the comments from civil servants. I felt the ghost of “Yes Minister” creeping into our debates. Civil Service Ministers sometimes have to make a decision and challenge civil servants on some issues.

The areas of broad agreement were the independence from the Executive and the issue of parliamentary privilege. I thought the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the power to take evidence under oath was a powerful one. Security of information caused considerable concern for those who are not keen on having a Select Committee structure but who also, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, want to protect security of information if there is any question on that. There is the same point even if the structures are different.

The issue of public hearings came up. I am not sure how relevant that is in terms of structure in that amendments have been tabled about the kind of public hearings there could be and what form they could take. My own view is that they are valuable. They certainly should never be automatic but we have that debate coming up. I am unclear whether a Select Committee would have to have public sessions unless the Committee wanted to have it. It is the best structure for achieving that.

We have also heard from a number of noble Lords about ensuring public confidence in whatever structure the Government decide to go ahead with. It was helpful that in the last debate the Minister, if I understood his words correctly, said he wanted to look at the best means of achieving these ends and consider all implications. I hope he can say that in the context of this debate as well. It has been a broader debate in that noble Lords have been thinking carefully about powers, independence and structure, and I hope the Minister finds that debate and those comments and views helpful.

Public confidence is an issue to take into account. It can be well served by public hearings or it can be badly served by public hearings, and we will debate that further today. Public confidence does have an impact on how sensitive or highly confidential information that is relevant to national security is dealt with. So I am interested in what the Minister has to say. I hope that he will take on board all the comments made in the last debate and in this debate. I hope that he is smiling because he agrees with me rather than because he is amused by what I said. I hope that he will say—as I hope I would say if I were sitting in his seat—that he will take this away and take into account not only the comments that were made in the previous debate but the wide range of views expressed in this debate. They are moving in the same direction and seek that, whatever structure the Government want to proceed with, the comments of the House should be taken into account to ensure that the Government get it right, protect national security, safeguard sensitive information and also secure parliamentary independence and public confidence.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I was smiling at the noble Baroness only because I thought that she was trying to write my speech, which was not necessarily her job at this stage. I agree with her about several things. It has been a very useful debate. The 11 speakers—12 including myself—expressed a range of views. As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, we are all heading in the same direction and all trying to ensure, as a number of speakers put it, that there will be an appropriate degree of public confidence in whatever we set up.

I was very interested in the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He talked about the position of many colleagues in his party in 1989. Many of them are now distinguished members of his party. He stressed that all of them, to a man and woman, were in favour of Select Committee status for what became the ISC in 1994 under the chairmanship of my noble friend, and what is now being developed by the Bill. I was looking forward to hearing the official view of the Opposition on whether Select Committee status was the appropriate road to go down, but I heard no answer on this from the noble Baroness later in the debate, nor on what the collective view of the party was. It might be that there are now different views, because 1989 is a considerable time ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the issues that have been raised are the very ones that I listened to the noble Baroness to hear as she moved her amendment and to try to see what the aim was. Her amendment does not mention public or private, although in her original comments she spoke of public hearings. It was not until the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, intervened that she conceded that there could be private hearings, which have more value than a public hearing would. I am no wiser and very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I assume that he will accept the principle. My favourite bedtime reading, the coalition agreement, includes a specific commitment to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments. I should have thought that this comes under the remit of a major public appointment. The noble Baroness might have done the House a service to tease out whether the Government intend to honour that part of the coalition agreement.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is right: there was that commitment. She also knows that pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon. Since 2008, Select Committees have conducted pre-appointment hearings for a number of posts, and there is Cabinet Office guidance on the process and on who should be heard. The important thing to note about the list of pre-appointment posts is that the posts concern public bodies, such as the chair of Ofcom and the chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The most recent one that my department had an interest in was Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. There is no suggestion that the pre-appointment process has been used to appoint civil servants. Indeed, the noble Baroness is not suggesting that before appointment each Permanent Secretary should go before the appropriate Select Committee.

The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are Permanent Secretary-level civil servants.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think that there is unanimity around the House about the questions that need to be addressed in connection with Amendment 24. Our concern is that the Government may have lowered the threshold for proving that information should be withheld. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will decide whether information is too sensitive to disclose or is of such a nature that it would not be proper to disclose it to a departmental Select Committee. However, where the Intelligence Services Act 1994 prevents the Secretary of State vetoing the disclosure of information on grounds of national security alone, now national security is just one of the conditions under which the Secretary of State may use their veto. I support the amendment of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, because I share their curiosity about what a consideration that it is not proper to disclose information to a departmental Select Committee would mean in practice, and why the provision of it not being proper to do so is seen as a necessary alternative to non-disclosure on the grounds that the information is sensitive and affects national security. I would be grateful if the Minister would look at this again.

Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, disallows the use of the ministerial veto on disclosure of information when it refers to conduct that would amount to a breach of international law. I am curious about how that would work in practice. Who would determine whether the conduct to which the information relates could amount to a breach of international law? I find it difficult to understand how a Secretary of State would make that judgment on the actions of her own Government. I understand the principle behind it but I am not clear how it would work in practice. If the Minister would explain what is meant by “proper”, that would be very helpful.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested that this amendment was similar to the previous one. He is right, but we have been allowed to have a one-hour break to have something to eat between that previous amendment and this one. It is similar to that amendment. He also said that he was somewhat confused by it. He is not the simple Scottish lawyer that my noble friend Lord Lothian is, but my noble friend also got it right when he said that it was possible that the draftsman had got it wrong. If that is the case, obviously I will ask the appropriate officials to look at it again to ensure that we have got the drafting right.

Before I come to the substantive part of the amendment, may I also make it clear to my noble friend Lord Lester that we will try to address his points about general aspects of dealing with Select Committees between now and Report? I cannot give any guarantee of that but I certainly hope to do so.

There are a number of very long-standing conventions that have developed in Parliament in the relationship between Select Committees and successive Governments. Those conventions recognise that there are categories of information that may, in certain circumstances, be withheld from Select Committees on grounds of public policy.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked for particular examples. All I can say at this stage is that examples of the type of information are given in the Cabinet Office guide Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees. Some noble Lords may know this guide by its other name, the Osmotherly Rules. I do not know those intimately but I look at the smile on the face of the noble Lord and I suspect that he was probably the one who drafted them some years ago. He shakes his head. But he knows them well. The categories of information set out in that guide include information about matters which are sub judice, information which could only be supplied after carrying out substantial research or at excessive cost, and papers of a previous Administration.

The sub-paragraph of the Bill that the noble Lords propose be left out and which my noble friend asks that we have the draftsmen look at again is a necessary part of the Bill. It provides a basis for withholding these categories of information from the ISC. If the relationship between the ISC and government is to reflect the relationship between a Select Committee and the Government, then it seems to the Government to be essential to have this significant aspect of the relationship.

The provision gives the Minister of the Crown discretion only to withhold material. In exercising that discretion the Minister would, of course, have regard to the provisions that the ISC has for keeping material confidential. For this reason, we would expect these powers to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. They have only been used sparingly in the past and we expect this to continue. However, it is important that those safeguards are retained.

My noble friend Lord Thomas also asked for the definition of “proper” in paragraph 3(3)(b). That is something I would ask that we look at again in relation to the concerns over the drafting of the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel it is not necessary to move his Amendment 24.

Amendment 25 would introduce a limitation on, or exception to, the powers of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown to withhold information from the ISC, under paragraphs 3(1)(b) or 3(2)(b) of Schedule 1. The exception would apply wherever the information requested by the ISC relates to conduct which may amount to a breach of UK or international law.

Various noble Lords spoke very strongly about this at Second Reading, and I know there are concerns to ensure that the new ISC can operate as effectively as possible in future. Other amendments would obviously have the effect of removing entirely the powers of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown—we discussed that in an earlier amendment—to withhold information from the ISC. This amendment is an alternative, therefore, to those amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this certainly seems a very sensible and practical group of amendments. Amendment 30 would remove the Prime Minister’s involvement in the assessment of whether a matter that the ISC wished to consider satisfied the criteria of being of significant national interest and not part of an ongoing operation. I fully support the extension of the ISC’s statutory remit to include particular operational matters; it is a function that the committee, in practice, already performs. We also understand the necessity of constraining this remit. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in speaking to his amendment, made that point, too. It is necessary to ensure that the committee’s work is focused on areas of significant national interest and does not jeopardise ongoing operations. The determination of whether an operation is of significant national interest and whether it is not currently ongoing are objective judgments. One is a decision about what is of interest to the public, which the committee is surely best placed to judge, and the other is a statement of fact, which would simply involve consultation with the relevant government agencies. It is not a process of negotiation with the Prime Minister.

It is unclear to me why this assessment cannot be left to the discretion of the committee without needing the involvement of the Prime Minister. If the key point of the reforms in this legislation is to establish a clearer independence of the committee from the Prime Minister and a closer connection with Parliament, then requiring the ISC to seek the permission and the agreement of the Prime Minister before determining whether a specific operational matter lies in its remit sends a completely wrong signal about the independence of the ISC.

We also give full support to Amendment 32, which would provide important flexibility to the committee’s powers to view specific operational matters. We have consistently argued that the ISC should be given the power to review specific operational matters, such as control orders, while recognising that limitations may apply with respect to ongoing operations where the committee’s work may jeopardise the integrity of those operations. An absolute ban on considering any ongoing operational matters seems to us to be unnecessarily heavy-handed. It is easy to imagine particular cases of significant public interest, perhaps where the majority of the operation has been concluded but there is still some ongoing activity that cannot be reviewed by the committee, even if the Government agree that there is no risk. Amendment 32 would be a highly sensible alternative to the blanket ban by allowing the committee, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to review certain ongoing operations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that there seems to be a drafting deficiency. I hope that the Minister can give a more positive response to this group of amendments than he was able to for the last one.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, if there are any drafting concerns about this Bill, as I hope I made clear at an earlier stage, we will be more than happy to look at them. This is what this House does very well and the debates that we have been having this afternoon are indicative of that. We will take these points on board and the similar drafting points made by my noble friend Lord Lothian.

Secondly, I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, tried to table an amendment earlier today but I think that he missed the boat. I suppose that he could still have put down a manuscript amendment—fortunately, he decided not to—but he will come back to that in greater detail on Report. Certainly we will listen to his remarks in due course about the Security Commission, which he said that he chaired and which was later chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I explain in some detail just what we are trying to do and what we think is wrong with the amendments. I hope that noble Lords will also accept that, as I just said, we are more than happy to look at matters relating to drafting again, because we want to get this right.

The Bill extends the ISC’s statutory remit and makes clear its ability to oversee the operational work of the security and intelligence agencies. This is an important and significant change and will be key to ensuring that the ISC continues to perform an effective oversight role. With this formalisation of its role in oversight of operational matters, we would expect the new ISC to provide such oversight on a more regular basis.

In the Bill, the ISC may consider any particular operational matter, but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that the matter is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation and is of significant national interest. The ISC’s oversight in this area must be retrospective and should not involve, for instance, prior knowledge or approval of agency activity. Consideration of the matter must also be consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding. We will discuss that again in due course.

Of course, the ISC is not the only body that oversees the operational activity of the agencies. The Prime Minister has overall responsibility within government for intelligence and security matters and for the agencies. Day-to-day ministerial responsibility for the Security Service lies with the Home Secretary and, for the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, with the Foreign Secretary. The Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament, and therefore to the public, for the work of the Security Service; similarly, the Foreign Secretary has his accountability.

The Intelligence Services Commissioner provides oversight of the use of a number of key investigatory techniques employed by the agencies and by members of Her Majesty’s forces and Ministry of Defence personnel outside Northern Ireland. The Interception of Communications Commissioner’s central function is to keep under review the issue of warrants for the interception of communications.

On Amendments 30, 31 and 32, the first amendment would have the effect of leaving it solely to the judgment of the ISC to decide when the criteria for considering a particular operational matter are met. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, is a current member of the Intelligence and Security Committee and, as such, speaks from a position of great knowledge. However, I hope that he would agree that the judgment as to whether an operational matter meets the criteria is one that should be for both the ISC and the Government and not just for one or the other. It is very important that we get this judgment right.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am reminded that the figure I quoted originally was £107 million, so we are talking about a difference of £5 million between myself and my noble friend, which is real money. However, I still promise to write to my noble friend on these matters and to try to bring her greater clarity.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister seeks to reassure me and I wish that he could. However, unfortunately, he has not. There are a number of issues. If, as he points out, it would be quicker, cheaper and easier for everybody concerned—the Government and all the applicants—for there to be no appeals process, why does everybody not welcome this with open arms?

As I pointed out in my earlier comments and as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it would be quicker, cheaper and less onerous if so many wrong decisions were not made in the first place. I imagine that those appeals that were not upheld were much easier decisions to make if the application was turned down and the appeal rejected. I am very concerned about those where a wrong decision is made and the appeal is successful because of the wrong decision. I know the noble Lord says that in many cases it is because new information is provided, but it would be very simple to make it absolutely clear what information is required in the first place. That would make the whole application process much quicker and more efficient.

The other problem with making new applications is that there is no opportunity for advocacy or for people to make representations on an applicant’s behalf. I made the point earlier that if somebody is refused and the decision-maker says that they gave inaccurate or wrong information, they can be barred for 10 years. The Minister says they can apply next year and the year after, but in those circumstances they will not be able to apply for 10 years. Even though the decision may be based on inaccurate information, and the person who has been refused a family visitor visa has been told the information they gave was wrong and misleading, there is no opportunity to appeal that and they cannot make another application for 10 years. That seems to be a gap in the noble Lord’s reasoning.

I wonder whether he is dealing with this problem from the wrong end. If we deal with improving the quality of decision-making, in some cases by making it easier, and so more straightforward, for applicants to know what is required of them, we would see this logjam that he talks about removed. To try to deal with the logjam by merely removing the right to appeal does not seem to me to be the right way round.

I was surprised that he drew any comfort from the chief inspector’s report. I think that it is quite damning. Basically, he says, “I make these recommendations, people accept them, but it does not get any better”. Before the Government take an action such as this, they should seek significant changes and improvements in decision-making. I do not lay it all at the door of poor decision-making. However, he tells me that every decision is reviewed by a senior manager, so clearly something is wrong when so many appeals succeed despite that. Something in the process is going badly wrong.

I will not press my amendment today. I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the deficiencies in my drafting but, despite his very brave attempts, I am not really reassured.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, before my noble kinsman decides what to do with his amendment—obviously, it is his decision—I want to pick up one point. The noble Baroness says that an awful lot of appeals are the result of wrong decisions. I accept that some are the result of wrong decisions, but as she would accept, an awful lot are the result of the wrong information coming forward, and that is something far better dealt with by means of a new application. Obviously, we might have to look at how to ensure that people get the right information into their original application so that the correct decision can be made. That is a matter of making sure that we have the right procedures in place and I will certainly be prepared to look at that. However, I do not think that she should imply that all the problems are down to bad decision-making; an awful lot are the result of new information coming forward. That is why there are so many appeals.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

If the noble Lord reads Hansard and looks at my previous comments and at what I have just said, he will find that I acknowledge that sometimes a wrong decision is made because the right information is not supplied. Indeed, I quoted the chief inspector as saying that in 16% of the cases reviewed, applications had been refused on the basis of a failure to provide information, but the applicant was not aware of what information was required. I acknowledge that important point. If the Minister were to take that back to the UK Borders Agency and act on it, that would be an extremely positive step, so that all applicants are made fully aware at the time of application what information is required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I, too, was sent a brief with the same information by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, which briefed the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on his amendments. There is a case here that is of interest. There is not much that I can add to what the noble Lord has said but I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, particularly to Amendment 148C. I am concerned about the arrangements for young people and children, particularly those aged under 16. My only comment is that I am willing to listen to the noble Lord’s response to those amendments.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will deal with the amendments in the same order as my noble kinsman did. Amendment 148C would create a right of appeal whenever someone is refused asylum but is granted any form of leave. It would also have the effect of providing for multiple rights of appeal against the refusal of asylum for a group of cases where no right currently exists, as there will be a right of appeal every time a fresh grant of leave is given. That is possibly an undesirable position.

The original purpose of Section 83 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which, again, the noble Baroness will well remember, was to provide a right of appeal where an asylum application has been refused but the applicant was granted more than 12 months’ leave. Normally when a claim for asylum is refused, there is a right of appeal against the subsequent removal from the UK rather than against the refusal of asylum itself. The appellant can raise asylum grounds as part of that appeal against his removal. However, where someone has been refused asylum but granted leave of less than 12 months, removal directions will not be set and therefore no appeal right arises. In these cases, the short duration of the leave necessarily means that the case will be considered again quickly, reducing the need for an appeal. Where there are no grounds to grant asylum but there are other valid reasons why someone cannot return to their home country, another form of immigration leave is sometimes granted. If leave is granted for more than 12 months, Section 83 of the 2002 Act provides for a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum.

Amendment 148C would remove the 12-month restriction and would create a right of appeal against the refusal of asylum, even where a short period of leave is granted. It is not unusual for these short periods of leave to be extended more than once, and recent case law means that the amendment would create a right of appeal against the earlier refusal of asylum every time further leave was granted. If a decision to remove the applicant from the UK was ultimately taken, a separate right of appeal would arise against that decision. The amendment would possibly undermine the intention of the existing asylum appeals framework, which aims to prevent multiple, fruitless appeals being used to prolong someone’s time in the United Kingdom, often at significant cost to the taxpayer.

My noble kinsman and the noble Baroness asked about the impact on children, particularly unaccompanied children, who are refused asylum. They are normally granted leave until they reach the age of 17 and a half. The 12-month restriction therefore means that some unaccompanied children will be refused asylum and granted less than 12 months’ leave, which means that they do not get an appeal right under Section 83 of the 2002 Act. Those children may not have their asylum considered by a court for more than a year after they first claimed asylum. That is an unfortunate consequence of the otherwise very sensible 12-month restriction, and I can assure my noble kinsman that we will review our policies concerning the length of leave granted to children to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the sort that he and the noble Baroness implied.

Amendment 148D concerns the Secretary of State’s powers to certify, under Section 94(7) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that removing a person to a safe third country will not breach his or her human rights. The effect of the certificate in such cases is that an appeal can be brought out of country only after that person has been removed. This provision is designed to prevent spurious appeals being used to delay removal in hopeless cases. When determining whether such persons may be removed, the third country must be a place from which the person will not be sent to another country other than in accordance with the refugee convention; we want to make that clear. If the certificate is challenged by judicial review, the court is required to regard the third country as one where the person’s rights under the refugee convention will not be breached. I believe, therefore, that Amendment 148D is unnecessary because the courts are already able to consider whether the person’s human rights may be breached by way of judicial review challenging the issue of that certificate. Once the person has been removed to the third country, an appeal may be brought and refugee convention issues can be considered. In light of that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, in the clause that my amendment seeks to address the Government are proposing to extend vastly the powers of the UK Border Agency’s customs and immigration officers. I do not necessarily oppose this in principle. We have to understand the very challenging nature of the work undertaken by border control. The nature of international and global threats is constantly changing and we have to pay tribute to the immigration officers. They have a difficult job, they work in a challenging environment, and they have suffered cuts to their numbers in the last couple of years. However, we need to look at two things.

First, such an extension of powers would need to be properly justified and explained to your Lordships’ House. Secondly, we need to ensure that those exercising those powers have the necessary skills, rank, and remit, in order to ensure public confidence in the UK Border Agency as well as confidence within it. Also, is it up to it? I do not in any way mean the individual border officers, but rather whether they have the resources, training and capacity to undertake those roles.

Clause 26 extends a number of powers to immigration officers, both under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Proceeds of Crime Act. Those powers are significant: the power to authorise the use of covert surveillance—“intrusive surveillance”, according to the Bill—and property interference such as wiretapping and installation of listening devices, as well as powers to authorise confiscation and detained cash and money-laundering investigations. These are serious new powers to give to immigration officers. They are currently only authorised by senior officers, and they are exercised by experienced and specialised professionals. Our amendments seek to ensure that if those powers are to be extended to immigration officers, they will be exercised with the same level of expertise and seniority.

When I first looked at the Bill it seemed to contain very wide-ranging powers, and there is a case for the Government to justify those. However, I looked at the Explanatory Notes, and the amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill what is in them. The Explanatory Notes are very helpful in this regard, because they make clear—I refer to page 64 and paragraph 380 in particular—that the intrusive surveillance available under RIPA should only be extended to officers working within the criminal and financial investigation teams. The paragraph says:

“The purpose of this amendment”—

which we are talking about, and which is in the clause—

“is to provide for immigration officers working in Criminal and Financial Investigation (‘CFI’) teams in the UK Border Agency … to be able to apply to exercise property interference powers equivalent to those already used by customs officials”.

It cites the Act and legislation under which they can use them, and states that:

“CFI teams have responsibility for investigating smuggling of drugs, firearms and weapons and organised immigration and customs crimes”.

If, as I understand from the Explanatory Notes, the Government intend these powers to be used only in the specific context of criminal and financial investigation by immigration officers, then it would be helpful to state that in the Bill and be very clear about it, rather than allowing the scope—as seems to be the case at the moment in this clause—for any immigration officer to exercise those powers. I am concerned about whether training and support could be available to all immigration officers, and whether it would be for all staff or only for those above a certain rank. That gives me some cause for concern, because if all immigration officers had that power, there is then the understanding that any immigration officer could exercise that power, even without the training or the appropriate rank or experience. What is in the Explanatory Notes is therefore better than what is in the Bill, though that may be an oversight in drafting.

Amendments 149CB and 153B, which follow Amendment 149CA, are intended to probe the Government’s justification for these highly specialised powers. These probing amendments remove Clause 26(4) and (5) and paragraphs 14 to 39 of Schedule 14, which extend to the UK Border Agency’s chief operating officer the ability to authorise immigration officers’ powers of investigation into confiscation, detained cash and money-laundering under the Proceeds of Crime Act. At present, the only individuals who can exercise those powers are accredited financial investigators, police constables or Customs officials, and in the case of confiscation investigations only SOCA officers—although SOCA has now been absorbed into the National Crime Agency. Notwithstanding police constables, all these individuals work within the specific field of serious financial and economic crime. I assume that once the National Crime Agency is up and running and fully established, it will have responsibility for those crimes.

The Government need to explain and justify for what purposes immigration officers also need such powers. What will be the relationship between the immigration officers who have this power and the National Crime Agency? Earlier clauses in the Bill refer to the relationship between the National Crime Agency and local police forces, and the powers of notification. If immigration officers are given new powers, there should be the same kind of co-operation and information-sharing between immigration officers, who have such powers, and the National Crime Agency, otherwise there will be a gap to fall through; both groups could end up investigating similar crimes or there could be an overlap of crimes. It would be helpful if the Government could clearly explain for what purposes immigration officers need these powers, and why, with the existing powers they have, there could not be co-operation with the National Crime Agency.

Paragraph 381 in the Explanatory Notes says that:

“At present, the UKBA is able to authorise applications from immigration officers investigating serious organised immigration for directed surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources … and the ‘senior authorising officer’ can authorise applications for intrusive surveillance”.

However, this amendment takes it one stage further, so there needs to be a little more justification and understanding. I can understand the issue around the crimes, but I am not clear why any immigration officer could have those powers—which appears to be the case in the Bill, though perhaps not in the Explanatory Notes. Why is it not sufficient to extend the powers of current specialised officers, or to work with them and the National Crime Agency? I would also be interested in some information on the training that would be given to the specialised officers. Would there originally have been any expectation that they should have any specialised skills, or would it have been something that any immigration officer could take on if they had had the appropriate training?

Finally, does the UK Border Agency have the capacity to take on this role? The following amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which we will discuss shortly, covers a number of issues including queues at Heathrow, where we have seen enormous pressures put on the staff. Given the current wording of the Bill, and in particular that it would seem to apply to any immigration officer, I worry about giving very wide-ranging additional powers and responsibilities to a border agency that, as we heard earlier, is struggling to maintain its current responsibilities. It has had to draft in officers from the Ministry of Defence and civil servants from other parts of the Government. I want an assurance that anybody drafted in on a temporary basis—to help out with extended queues at Heathrow, for example—would not be given the powers of entry and surveillance as outlined in the Bill.

It would be helpful if the Minister could give some answers to those questions. The new powers given to the UK Border Agency are very extensive, and it would be interesting to know the Minister’s justification of them, and how he imagines that they will operate.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for setting out what she is trying to do in these amendments, which I take it are merely probing amendments, as I believe she said. I am also grateful that she paid tribute to the very difficult job that immigration officers do. However, she probably used rather unfortunate language when she asked whether they were quite up to it, although she qualified what she meant by that. She then said that she thought that the Explanatory Notes were possibly better than the Bill itself. Sadly, we do not have legislation by Explanatory Note. However, I am always more than happy to look again at the wording of individual clauses, should it be necessary. Again, as always, we have any amount of time to deal with these matters between now and Report and the further stages as this Bill proceeds through Parliament.

Put very simply, the noble Baroness is asking what Clause 26 is about and why we think it is necessary. The proposed extension of powers is saying that it is necessary for the United Kingdom Border Agency to have extra powers to respond robustly to serious and organised crime. Customs officials within the UK Border Agency are already entitled to apply for intrusive surveillance under RIPA and for property interference under the Police Act for the purpose of investigating customs offences. This clause will rightly extend these powers to immigration officers for the purpose of investigating serious and organised crime.

I turn to the amendments and, in doing so, I hope that I will answer some of the points. I suspect that the noble Baroness has not quite got the wording of the amendments right because Amendment 149CA achieves the opposite effect to the one she wants. It would require the authorising officer, who is responsible for authorising applications to interfere with property under Section 93 of the Police Act 1997, to be a senior official who is working within a criminal and financial investigation team of the UK Border Agency. Although I suspect it may not have been the intention of the noble Baroness, the effect of this amendment would be to restrict and potentially lower the grade of the authorising officer.

Clause 26(1) already limits the role of the authorising officer to a senior official within the meaning of RIPA who has been designated for that purpose by the Secretary of State—that is, the Home Secretary. Within the police, the relevant rank for an authorising officer would be a chief constable. Under the UK Border Agency’s structure, this would be the current director of operations and deputy chief executive. No one working in the criminal and financial investigation teams would be senior enough to equate to that grade. I am sure that the Committee and the noble Baroness share our view that an authorisation to interfere with property should not be approved by anyone less senior than that level. I should also note that the director of operations and deputy chief executive of the UK Border Agency already effectively authorises applications under Section 93 of the Police Act 1997 with regard to customs investigations.

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment but, in short, it would weaken rather than tighten the controls on the exercise of these intrusive powers under Part 3 of the Police Act 1997. All that said, the noble Baroness made it clear that she is seeking to give effect to our commitment that we will limit the exercise of these intrusive powers—that is why she wanted to know why we are seeking extra powers—to specially trained immigration officers in the UK Border Agency’s criminal and financial investigation teams. We do not, however, consider it appropriate to include such an express provision in the Bill given the existing safeguards in the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. We do not have such specificity for customs officials, and the aim is to provide parity for immigration officers.

As the noble Baroness will be aware, Section 28 of RIPA provides that for a senior authorising officer to grant an authorisation for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance, they must ensure that the activity is proportionate and necessary for preventing or detecting serious crime or in the interests of national security or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The Police Act 1997 also imposes similarly strict controls over the authorisation of property interference.

I appreciate that Amendments 149CB and 153B are probing amendments. They would remove the powers sought for immigration officers in relation to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These powers have been sought for good reason in an attempt to improve the effectiveness of the UK Border Agency’s investigatory capability. Providing access to the relevant Proceeds of Crime Act powers will ensure that the UK Border Agency’s immigration officers are able to play their part in dealing with the proceeds of organised immigration crime.

Moreover, these provisions will place immigration officers on the same footing as their police and customs counterparts and reduce their reliance on outside bodies such as the police. At present, only the UK Border Agency’s customs officials are able to use the full range of Proceeds of Crime Act powers and even then only in relation to customs offences. Immigration officers presently have to rely on the very few accredited financial investigators within the UK Border Agency or on seconded police officers to conduct those investigations. This is clearly a weakness in the UK Border Agency’s ability to fight organised immigration crime. The Bill ultimately ensures that the UK Border Agency can take action to deal with the proceeds of all the criminal offences in its remit, whether commodity smuggling or serious immigration and nationality crime.

The noble Baroness sought an assurance that, where civil servants and others are drafted in to help, we will be able to maintain the border appropriately and that they will have the extant powers. I can give an assurance that any civil servants brought in to help check passports will not be given the powers being sought. They would obviously not have the training that the noble Baroness and we think is appropriate to do so. In any case, those who are brought in to assist with the management of queues are being brought in specifically for that purpose and not to investigate criminal activity.

I do not know what the usual channels and others are thinking about the timing of these matters or whether the noble Baroness will have to keep going for another three minutes, but I hope that, with those assurances, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment. It may be necessary for me to write to her with further detail. I have explained why I think Amendment 149CA is defective. I leave it to the noble Baroness to consider what to do with her amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am puzzled about my amendment being defective. I know the noble Lord has enjoyed explaining that to me on a number of amendments. I always say they are about the intention behind the amendment and that we will come back on Report with one that satisfies him.

I understand that the Explanatory Notes are not part of legislation, as the Minister pointed out to me the other week—I am rather long in the tooth in regard to some of these things—and I am sure that they are not intended to be misleading. They state:

“The purpose of this amendment is to provide for immigration officers working in Criminal and Financial Investigation … teams in the UK Border Agency … to be able to apply to exercise”—

and then they go on to say what those powers are.

I will have to read very carefully what the Minister said in Hansard to make sure I fully understand what he is saying about it not being exclusively those officers—even though the Explanatory Notes say it would be—but that it would be other officers of a certain grade and level.

I said at the very beginning that we are not opposed to the extension of powers in principle, but we just need to understand the Government’s justification and to have some explanations and clarifications. I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard to clarify the position for myself, but I wonder whether he is talking about slightly different things. At some point, he may have been talking about the authorisation of the action, while I am talking about the officers undertaking the surveillance as well. I hope we have not misunderstood each other. I want an assurance that the officers undertaking very intrusive forms of surveillance—perhaps phone tapping, as it says in here—will not just be authorised by a senior officer, but will have the appropriate skills, experience and training and that safeguards for the public are built in. This is a probing amendment but it may not remain one. We want to look at this a bit further and in more detail, but I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to explain some of the measures. I will look at what he has said in Hansard and I may come back to him on the point about who will have the powers and what training will be provided and I shall also look for an assurance that it will not undermine the skills of existing police officers.

One area on which the Minister did not respond was the relationship between such officers and the National Crime Agency. Given the debates that we have had earlier during the passage of the Bill, it would be helpful to explore the relationship that border officers, who deal with organised and serious crime issues as regards immigration and border control, have with the National Crime Agency, which is a national police force for organised and serious crime. We need to explore that further. I would be happy for the Minister to write to me on that point. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister’s alcohol analogy is a useful one, although the caution that I would place on that is that testing for alcohol is testing for one drug. As he said, there is an almost unlimited number of drugs to be tested in this case. His comments have reassured me that the matter is being taken seriously and that he recognises that it is a work in progress. However, I am always slightly concerned—alarmed is too strong a word—when the Minister refers to matters coming back to this place and says that we do not have to worry if we do not get it completely right because it then goes to the other place as well. I am glad that he is shaking his head. That is not what he meant, but it has happened a couple of times in the course of this Bill. There is an obligation on us to get it as right as we possibly can. I know that we are not experts—I do not think that I am an expert in anything—but we are legislators or we are advising on legislation, and it is incumbent on us to ask the kind of questions that have been raised today. We need assurances that we will have the answers to those questions before the legislation goes to the other place. If we had answers to those questions before we pass legislation through both Houses, and when this House passes its advice to the other House, we could in all confidence say that we know that we have the procedures in place for this offence to protect people as we think it should.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I put the matter in the terms described by the noble Baroness, I should not have done. We want to get it right and we shall try very hard to do so, but we need that expert advice. That is why I hope that we will have the beginnings of the expert advice from the expert panel before Report stage. At this stage, I was trying to make it clear that it was the beginnings of a discussion on a very simple idea, although it does not sound simple. The noble Baroness is right to say that we have had it very easy with alcohol, because it is just one drug and we have just one limit. We are now talking about lots of drugs—controlled, legal or illegal—and where we put the limits. It is going to be very complicated, so we want to listen to the experts and have further discussions.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

The two matters are not related; the Home Office has the appropriate expertise to deal with these matters. I was regretting the tone of voice that the noble Lord carefully used to make it clear that he did not think that there was the appropriate expertise in the Home Office to deal with these matters. We believe that that expertise does exist.

I was about to deal with the issue of the new information communications technology company which will be owned and controlled by police and crime commissioners. It will be led and funded by its customers, who will determine the services it provides. It will be responsive to local operational needs, offering forces a route to better value for money and innovation in the delivery of police information technology services. The company will ensure a more efficient approach to police information and communications technology provision and aggregate demand to exploit the purchasing power of the police service to get a good deal for the taxpayer.

The police professional body will directly support police officers at all ranks and police staff to equip the service with the skills it needs to deliver effective crime-fighting in a challenging and what must be a leaner and more accountable environment. The body will ultimately be independent of the Home Office. It will have a powerful mandate to enable the service to implement the standards that it sets for training, development, skills and qualifications. Its core mission will be to support the fight against crime and safeguard the public by ensuring professionalism in policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was also keen to discuss timing and allegations that we had not met our targets. I appreciate that this frequently happens and that there can be slippage. I have known this throughout my career. There have been a number of times when one has announced that something will come out later in the spring and “later in the spring” has turned out to be July. However, we are on track to transfer the functions of the NPIA by the end of 2012. We began a phased transition of functions last year, with the non-ICT procurement moving to the Home Office. In April 2012, the following functions moved to SOCA: the Central Witness Bureau, the National Missing Persons Bureau, serious crime analysis, the Specialist Operations Centre and crime operational support. Obviously, more needs to be done and there are challenges, but I am more than happy that we will reach the target and do that by the end of the year. If we have any further problems, no doubt we will be the first to let the House know.

The noble Baroness was worried that the transition from the NPIA risked a loss of expertise. Giving staff certainty about their future is key to retaining their expertise, of which we are very proud. That is why we have been making announcements about this for some time and will continue to do so. Again, we are on track to complete those functions by the end of 2012. As a result, the majority of the NPIA’s staff will transfer to its various successor bodies by December 2012. Any reduction in staffing levels will arise from the already agreed budget reductions, which were part of the 2010 spending review.

Having looked at timing, rationale and other matters, I hope I have answered most of the questions that the noble Baroness and others asked. Obviously, we will have to say more later, particularly about the future of Bramshill and Harperley and the police professional body. Announcements will be made at the appropriate time. I hope that the noble Baroness will now accept that the abolition of the NPIA is a necessary part of the changes that we are making and of the Bill. Now is not necessarily the time to revisit what has, in effect, been a long-standing commitment, ever since the first announcement by my right honourable friend. Given the advanced state of wind-down of the agency and the transfer of its functions, now is the time to press on with our reforms, instead of looking back. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to go through many of the points and concerns I raised. Despite his efforts, he has not alleviated all those concerns. He called the closure of the NPIA a timely opportunity. It is an opportunity the Government created because they wanted to close the NPIA. I can certainly take on board some of his points. I can understand wanting to streamline the agency and the functions that he thought were better placed with other organisations. My amendments never suggested that there should be no change, but given the change that the NPIA itself had made, full abolition seems unnecessary. I am still not satisfied that the way in which it has been undertaken has not been piecemeal, as and when the Government think a part of it can be moved somewhere else. The Minister will have understood the concerns from around the House on this, not just on these Benches. I wonder whether he has read Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland? It may have been some time ago, but I will refresh his memory. There is a trial scene and the comment is made: “Sentence first—verdict afterwards”. That is what has happened with the NPIA. The Government decided that the NPIA was to go and then had to work out where all the functions went. They are still doing this. Yes, it was big for one agency; it grew like Topsy, because new functions came along that were best undertaken there; there was room for improvement and change; but the baby has gone with the bathwater.

On timing, the noble Lord says that all these arrangements will be in place, I note originally, by spring 2012. He may have been relying on typical British weather, but it still does not feel like spring 2012 even now. They are now expected at the end of the year. I expect we may see a further spring—perhaps snow again—before these bodies are in place. The police professional body has no chief executive, no chairman and no board. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, the new IT company does not have all the processes or financial arrangements in place to enable a smooth transfer. This is an issue that we will have to return to, in order to fully understand and be assured that all the “t”s have been crossed and the “i”s have been dotted. When I looked at the new landscape of policing and what the Government said back in 2010 and 2011, it seems that the goalposts have moved. All we had then was a broad outline. Now we have some detail, but the flesh is not on the bones. I would understand if the Minister said the timescale cannot be met and we are re-examining it. He has not said that, so we will return to it on Report and look at some of the functions and how they will be carried out. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but that was an extremely unsatisfactory answer. I hope I misunderstood him when he said that he hopes to have an outline of the framework document by Report. I think he misunderstands the point that I am trying to make. I am not merely making the point that we want the document to have parliamentary scrutiny, important though that is, but that the framework document will inform our debate on the rest of the Bill. Not having it hampers our debates and our ability to scrutinise. This is not an isolated point about parliamentary scrutiny. Had we had the document here now, as we should have, our discussions on other aspects of the Bill would be easier and better informed because it seems to me that a lot of the information that the framework document contains is relevant to the discussions we are having. I hope the Minister understands the point I am making.

I take on board the comment by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about an order being inadequate. I entirely agree with her, but I think that anything that we are able to do at this stage is wholly inadequate because we want to have the document with us now. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we will have an outline for Report. I do not think that we can pray in aid that this is an early stage of the proceedings and that the Bill is going to go to the House of Commons. This House has a duty to do its job, which is to scrutinise legislation. It is being hampered in doing so by not having the documents. The fact that they will be available to the House of Commons is not enough. I appreciate that the Minister has tried to be helpful, but he has not satisfied me on this point. I shall not press this matter to a vote today, but the Minister will recognise that there is unease around the House, not just on our Benches, on this point.

[Lord Henley]

I appreciate that the noble Baroness feels that it is important that there should be an order. Should we accept her amendment and have an order, it would not produce the framework document, or even an outline, any earlier. I am saying that we will get that outline during the passage of the Bill. If the noble Baroness were purely to rely on her amendment, she would not get it until after the Bill. That is my understanding of how her amendment works. I have given her an assurance from the Dispatch Box that we will get an outline by Report that will assist our discussions later on. I hope that is hopeful to the noble Baroness and I appreciate that she is going to withdraw her amendment. It would at least allow her, with luck, to discuss these matters on Report.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Again, I think the Minister is trying very hard to be helpful. I think I said that any proposal we put forward at this stage is inadequate. I withdraw the amendment at this stage, but this is a subject to which we will be returning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will deal first with the various points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and then move on to the rather more complicated question about paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2 and its relationship to sub-paragraph (1), as raised by my noble friend who, as always, bowls googlies of a sort that are designed to get behind one.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, would remove the requirement for the Home Secretary to obtain the consent of the director-general of the NCA before issuing the framework document. I am faintly unclear as to why she seeks to remove this provision. Does she want that framework document imposed on the director-general? That is what would happen under the amendment—there would no longer be that consultation. As I have indicated, the framework document will set out the relationship between the Home Secretary—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise for intervening. The noble Lord said that my amendment would result in there being no consultation. I am not trying to prevent consultation. Paragraph 4(1)(a) says:

“The Secretary of State must … consult the Director General”.

I am entirely happy with that; it is completely appropriate. It is the reference in paragraph 4(1)(b) to obtaining the consent of the director-general that I am concerned about. I am sorry if I was not clear.

[Lord Henley]

Therefore, there would still be consultation but there would be no need for consent. However, as I said, that would imply that the Home Secretary could impose that on the director-general. We believe that the document is designed to set out the relationship between the Home Secretary and the director-general and, as I said on an earlier amendment, how the NCA will operate, including its governance, management and transparency arrangements. Therefore, the director-general will have a proper interest in making sure that it reflects his or her operational view of the NCA. Since the director-general will ultimately be accountable to the Home Secretary for delivering the NCA’s priorities, it is absolutely right that his consent should be gained to crucial decisions about how the agency is administered. It is right that we should stick to that process. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the framework document should be agreed between the two, with both consultation and consent.

I turn now to the trickier question—the googly that I referred to—that my noble friend asked as regards paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 2, which states:

“The Director General’s duty to have regard to the annual plan in exercising functions does not apply in relation to functions under sub-paragraph (1)”.

I think that that is relatively clear, although my noble friend obviously does not. All it does is remove the director-general’s duty to consent from those under paragraph 1(1)(a), which refers to,

“ways in which NCA functions are to be exercised (including arrangements for publishing information about the exercise of NCA functions and other matters relating to the NCA)”.

I could go on with the rest of that paragraph. I am hoping for advice to come through at this stage.

The important idea to get over is that the framework document and the annual plan are different and have to be dealt with in different ways. The framework document sets out the relationship between the Home Secretary and the director-general of the NCA. The annual plan allows the director-general to set out the activity planned for the year ahead and must take account of the arrangements set out in the framework document. Therefore, in his role in respect of agreeing to the framework document, he cannot have regard at that stage to the annual plan, which comes out later. I hope that that makes matters clearer to my noble friend. I see a faint degree of nodding from her as well as a faint smirk on her face. I hope that it is a smirk of agreement. I will sit down and hear whether my noble friend agrees with what I have said.

[Lord Henley]

From my noble friend’s confession, I think that her sporting career at school was possibly somewhat similar to mine in terms of its disastrous nature but I shall leave that as another matter. I am grateful for her acceptance. I think I got that right and that I have satisfied the point that she makes. Therefore, I await to see whether the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, wants to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I suspect that I had a slightly more successful sporting career at school than either noble Lord; many an ankle has been bashed with my hockey stick.

I remain puzzled on this matter. The Minister has said several times that the framework document sets out the relationship between the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State and the director-general. But nowhere in the schedule does it say that about the framework document. In part, our discussions are hampered by not having the document, which we look forward to seeing in due course.

The Minister made the point about the relationship between the framework document and the annual plan and how the framework document came first. However, it might not always come first because, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, the Home Secretary can reissue a framework document at any time, in which case the annual plan may already exist when a new framework document is published. It could get even more confusing. I shall take this away and ponder, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will equally do.

I still do not accept that it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to seek consent. Consultation, if it is genuine and takes note and not just an exercise for the sake of it, would be the adequate and proportionate way forward. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, if I can assist my noble and learned friend, the point we were trying to get over is that the actual designation of the director-general is a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. She will make an assessment of the director-general’s suitability and capability to exercise the operational powers in any given case. It might be that the advisory panel, through its chair, could then assess whether the director-general was adequately trained to exercise those operational powers and if, as experts—as we hope they would be—they were satisfied that the director-general met the requirements for exercising his designated duties. But it might be that the Home Secretary was satisfied about the director-general’s suitability and capability to exercise those powers, in which case there would be no need for the board.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate that the noble Lord was trying to be helpful but I am now more puzzled than ever. He has spoken to the confines of my final Amendment 51 and yet the reason for putting forward all these amendments is a broader issue. If it helps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the advisory panel would be set up whenever there was to be an appointment of a director-general. That is where this clause is so confusing. The panel’s chair decides the question of the adequacy of the director-general’s training. I can fully appreciate that a new director-general might not have the expertise in all the areas dealt with by the National Crime Agency. I do not have an issue with that part. It then says:

“produce a report containing recommendations as to the operational powers which the Director General should have”.

That implies that the operational powers change depending on who the director-general is. Surely what we expect the director-general of the National Crime Agency to do should be set in stone. You cannot keep changing the operational powers of somebody in this kind of role depending on who applies for the job. There have to be certain criteria for key operational powers that have to be undertaken. I do not understand that part of the clause at all.

On the issue of there being an advisory panel, the reason for taking out paragraph 5 in Part 2 of Schedule 5 is that if paragraph 4 says that the Secretary of State must appoint an advisory panel, clearly there is good reason for doing so. Given that the panel reports on the adequacy of training and the operational powers, why would we then have a paragraph which says that the Secretary of State does not need that? I cannot understand under what circumstances a Secretary of State or an advisory panel would say that a particular director-general would not have full operational powers or that this one will not have the operational powers undertaken by a previous director-general. If we are saying that the operational powers of a director-general are flexible, we are talking about a very different kind of organisation. My understanding was that the framework document would set out exactly what the National Crime Agency would do, what was expected of it and how it would be run. Now we find we have a degree of flexibility in what the agency does because of a panel of experts advising the Secretary of State on what the director-general does.

The noble Lord is looking through his folder, as I have done on occasion. If he is fully honest with me, I suspect he is thinking, “Give me a note quickly. I seek inspiration”. It may be that inspiration on this one does not come to him quite quickly enough this evening, but I think this is a matter we want to pursue. It is a bit odd because the Government have already appointed the first director-general without the advisory panel so presumably they know what operational powers that director-general will have. However, I find this situation completely unsatisfactory as it stands.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is an old hand, as I am. She is a very young old hand but she is long in experience. She need not blush. She has stood at the Dispatch Box in Government on many occasions and she knows the process. This is a wonderful process that we go through with these Bills, as a result of which we hope to make them better. She is quite right to point out in paragraph 4 of Schedule 5 what she thinks is an odd process. This is obviously something that I must reflect on. That is why we go through this process. I will be more than happy to do so and I will write to her. Again, it is one of the joys of the process that we are going through that there is a considerable amount of time between now and Report. We want to get this right. I am not going to try and bluff my way through as I have done on many occasions in the past, and as I am sure the noble Baroness has done. She has caused me some problems with paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 5. All I can say is, I want to get this right and I will try to make sure that she gets a proper answer or that we make the appropriate changes.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is not the first time he has been this helpful. He was similarly helpful just last week. The fact that he is going to reflect on this and come back to me and to the House is very useful. On that basis I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

UK Border Agency: Visa Applications

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will look very carefully at this. I cannot believe that someone who is being endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or, for that matter, by any right reverend Prelate, could be turned away. I would want to look at that and at the particular circumstances to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. Certainly, we would not want that to be the case.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as the Minister has accepted in his responses to my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the findings in this report impact on the Government’s proposals on family visa applications and appeals in the Crime and Courts Bill. What concerns me most about the report is when John Vine says that despite his previous recommendations to help improve the agency, he has seen little progress in a number of areas. He says:

“This is especially frustrating considering the agency has adopted the recommendations, and yet I continue to identify the same issues”.

The quality of decision-making appears to be a key issue. The Minister says he wants to act as fast as he can, but have the Government identified the reason why so little action has been taken to correct problems found in the past? Is the problem a lack of will or a lack of resources?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it is neither a lack of will nor of resources, and we are still trying to push these things on as fast as we can. The noble Baroness quite rightly refers to the Crime and Courts Bill; we are in the middle of its Committee stage and we will discuss those provisions when we get to them some time in July. However, it is right to make the point that we think we will be able to provide a better service to a number of people by withdrawing those appeal procedures as a result of them then being able to apply again.

I want to make clear, as I made clear in my original response to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell is that we take these findings very seriously indeed and we will continue to push them forward. However, the chief inspector produces four or five different reports a year and it takes time to push them forward. He is talking about issues that he looked at back in February, obviously changes have occurred since then and we hope things are better as a result of actions we took following his report. Obviously some things have moved on since then.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as the Bill makes clear, it is quite obvious that we want those key stakeholders to be involved. How formalised that should be is another matter. I would hope that the noble Lord would be prepared to wait for the framework document and how we consider it. It will be for all of us to decide how formal, formalised or informal that is, and what is the right balance—again I use that great Home Office word. It is getting the balance right.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful regarding the framework document. However, I hope that he understands how difficult it is for your Lordships’ House to consider properly the governance arrangements when we are told that we are going to get a lot of the information later, probably at Report. He said that we will not complete the Committee stage until after we return from the Summer Recess, with his great sacrifice of missing his party conference. The only reason the Committee stage is finishing so late is that in another part of the Bill the consultation, which will inform the clause in the Bill, has not yet been completed. As I said at Second Reading, I wonder whether this Bill should have come before your Lordships’ House at this stage or whether it would have been better, in order to consider properly the governance arrangements and the later clauses on community sentences, to have had that information with us now. We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Harris of the difficulties of trying to make suggestions and looking at exactly what the Government are proposing when we do not have a lot of the information with us today. I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response because even without the framework document being available to noble Lords he dismissed the idea that there could be a more formalised structure for involvement in a governance board, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, said, before we had even had a chance to look at and consider the framework document.

I have listened to comments from around the Committee and there seem to be several points of agreement. There is a general recognition that the NCA is a big beast, taking on what the Minister called a “demanding mission”. It is clear that noble Lords want it to succeed in tackling some of the worst and most difficult crimes in our country. The only reason why we would discuss governance structures at all is not to make the Minister’s life more difficult or deny him the opportunity to attend his party conference, but because we want those structures to reflect the importance of the organisation and ensure that it has the best possible information, advice and governance to be adequate to the task that it faces. As other noble Lords have said, nobody is wedded to any specific structure, but there has to be some recognition that it is not really satisfactory to have a relationship whereby the director-general responds and reports to the Secretary of State, who sets the guidelines that the director-general works under.

The Minister mentioned some kind of advisory body. There is provision in legislation for that, but with a very limited capacity. That is not particularly clear, either. My noble friend Lord Harris referred to the importance of the relationship between the director-general of the NCA and policing bodies and PCCs across the country. The power of direction in the legislation is something that the Minister has said will be used in exceptional circumstances and that agreement would be sought at all times. Surely, if there is a board or some kind of body of which the director-general is part and to which he reports, which involves the police and the police and crime commissioners, among other people whom the Secretary of State may choose, that makes those relationships and understanding of the work of both much better and, therefore, more effective.

I take the Minister’s point about bureaucracy, but I do not think that that should be an excuse to remove good governance processes and practices, which have proved themselves in other regards. As my noble friend Lord Harris said, the Minister gave the example of the Food Standards Authority, which has a board. I asked what the benefits were of the NCA not having a board, why it needed to be accountable directly to the Home Secretary and what the model was for the organisation. I did not really get an answer to those questions in the Minister’s reply.

I have another point that I would like the Minister to think about a bit more. He said that one concern that he would have if there was a board was that the response from the director-general would be slower, and that it would be more bureaucratic, when he had to respond quickly and decisively to any threats. The role of the board as we see it would not be an operational one but strategic and about giving advice. I would not expect the director-general to consult the board every time he thought that he or his colleagues had to respond to a specific threat. That would clearly be unacceptable. We are talking about the role in the legislation that the Minister and the Government intend for the Secretary of State, and our suggestion is that it should be the board’s role. When the Government create bodies such as police and crime commissioners, we have to look at how they are brought into the general architecture of how the police and other law enforcement services work. It is unhelpful to good working practices to sideline them as they are in this Bill.

I would like to take this matter away and reflect on it. I do not intend to pursue it further at this stage. There may be more opportunities as we go through the Bill and debate other clauses around the issue of governance. At some stage, we will have a framework document, but I hope that it comes some time before Report. This House cannot do its duty of scrutiny as well as it should when we do not have such information. To suggest that it will be there for the Commons stage and that therefore we do not need it is unsatisfactory. I am sure that we will return to the issues of governance and, depending on how things go in the course of the debates in Committee, we will decide whether or not to return to them at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I quite understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and we understand that very difficult decisions have been made by different police forces up and down the country about where they are going to rein in expenditure, just as all agencies of the Government of one form or another are having to make very difficult decisions, but we believe that the cuts that they face are manageable. We also believe, and I think this is something to get over, that merely throwing money at a problem does not necessarily, as we discovered before 2010, solve problems, and increasing budgets does not always bring improvements in the service that the public have a right to expect from all services that the Government and taxpayers provide in one form or another.

It will, no doubt, be difficult for the NCA, which, like SOCA, will have to live within its budget and the review settlement. The NCA’s budget will be based on the budgets of the precursor organisations. It will have to deliver that wider remit through enhanced intelligence, tasking and co-ordination arrangements that I hope will make more effective use of its resources—its own assets and those of others. Creating the agency will also provide opportunities to rationalise some functions, remove duplication in others and generate efficiencies.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and her question, in effect, about the responsibility of the Home Secretary, the important point is that the Home Secretary is ultimately accountable to Parliament for public protection. She has a vested interest in ensuring that the National Crime Agency has sufficient resources to deliver the priorities set for it. The Home Secretary will want to make sure that sufficient resources are therefore provided for the important work of the NCA when she negotiates with colleagues in the Treasury. The noble Baroness knows exactly what this is like and I look at other Ministers who have negotiated these things in the past. Sometimes those negotiations can be difficult, but it is something that the Home Secretary will have to address after the next spending review.

Importantly, she will remain responsible and answerable to Parliament after those decisions have been taken for making and setting the strategic priorities for the NCA. Again, the Home Secretary will consult others, whether it is the director-general of the NCA or whomsoever. The director-general will be able to provide that operational understanding of the resources required to deliver in this area. He will also need to ensure that the resources are allocated in the most effective and efficient manner. The important work of the NCA will need to be delivered within the budgets of its precursor bodies in those first years of operation. The budget constraints for the remainder of this Parliament will obviously continue to remain challenging. That means that the NCA, like many other bodies, will look closely at identifying duplication of effort and maximising opportunities for savings. I believe it will be able to ensure greater efficiencies by more effective prioritisation and smarter use of its own assets and those of others.

It is in the interests of the Home Secretary to work with the director-general to ensure that there are adequate resources for the National Crime Agency. The fact that my right honourable friend is answerable to Parliament means that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able on this occasion to withdraw it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister, but I wonder whether saying that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament is adequate. He will recall that I asked him a question about Essex police. Obviously he is accountable to Parliament, but he told me that it was the responsibility of the chief constable. If the Home Secretary is questioned about funding not being available or adequate to the task, will she merely say, “That is an operational matter for the director-general”? Allocating funding within the organisation would be a matter for the director-general, but it is the overall envelope of funding that puts pressure on him. I am encouraged by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Condon, which I share, that he is reassured by the intelligence and commitment of those who will be involved in running the NCA. However, the Minister has said that it is going to be difficult. Hearts must sink when people go into a new organisation, really wanting it to succeed, but they are told that it will be difficult to make it work within the budget.

I am also disappointed by the Minister’s comments that we cannot just throw money at a problem. I do not think that anyone has suggested that money be thrown at a problem, but there could well be a problem if the resources for the NCA are not adequate for the task that it has to undertake. If the NCA starts by struggling for funds and not being able to fulfil its obligations, it will lose credibility. I understand the point that he makes and I do not think that he is going to concede as regards looking at the funding or funding additional responsibilities that the NCA will take on. I wonder whether there is a case for reviewing the expenditure and operation after one year. Perhaps a Select Committee could undertake that role and we might return to it. For now, I take on board what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I hope that I can deal relatively briefly with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. I can assure her that in moving the amendment she was, as always, her usual moderate self, for which I am very grateful. Perhaps I may deal first with Amendments 9 to 13 and then deal with Amendment 8 in more detail. Since Amendments 9 to 13 deal with discussing these matters with the chairman of an NCA board and so on, and since we have already dealt with an amendment on which I made it clear that we are not minded to have an NCA board—the noble Baroness will no doubt want to come back to that on Report—it seems somewhat artificial to discuss this issue at this stage. In the absence of a board and the absence of our desire to have a board, discussing such matters is possibly, dare I say, a waste of time.

As regards Amendment 8, I repeat again that the Home Secretary is ultimately accountable for public protection. She will account to Parliament for the progress made by the National Crime Agency. It is therefore right that she should be responsible for appointing and, if necessary—although I hope that it will not happen—dismissing the director-general. She will make any appointment on merit following a fair and open competition and will consult, as the Bill makes clear, her counterparts in the devolved Administrations, reflecting the fact that the NCA will be a UK-wide agency. Under Amendment 8 the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the selection and appointment of the director-general is subject to scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee, which in this case would be the Home Affairs Select Committee.

We accept that there is a place for departmental Select Committees to undertake pre-appointment hearings for certain key public appointments but we do not believe that this is one of them. I should remind the noble Baroness that the Liaison Committee considered this issue in its July 2011 report on public appointments. It argued for a role for Select Committees where the post exercised one or more of three types of function, including,

“scrutiny of government over matters of propriety, ethics and standards in public life … uphold and defend the rights and interests of citizens; and/or … stand in the shoes of Parliament by exercising direct scrutiny or control over the activities of Ministers”.

None of those criteria apply to the NCA. Perhaps I may add that, for example, the director-general of the Serious Organised Crime Agency was not on the Liaison Committee’s list of appointments to be subject to Select Committee scrutiny.

The Home Affairs Select Committee obviously will have a role in scrutinising the work of the agency in the same way as it has scrutinised the work of SOCA. I believe that it is in that capacity that they can best contribute. But in line with the advice of the Liaison Committee, we do not believe that it is necessary for the Home Affairs Select Committee to have a role in the appointment of the director-general. That is a matter for the Home Secretary. I repeat, and I will probably have to repeat it again, that the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament and it is right that she should be. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw Amendment 8.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. When we put forward Amendments 9 to 13 it did not occur to me that he would not accept our amendment for an NCA board with open arms. We thought that it would be a welcome suggestion and that we were being very helpful to him. We may return to those particular issues as I am disappointed with his response.

There seems to be ambiguity in Schedule 5 regarding the skills and abilities required of the director-general and those requirements can change. Given the provisions of Schedule 5, to which we will come later, some oversight by a Select Committee would be helpful to a Home Secretary in making appointments. I take on board what the noble Lord has said at this stage. Perhaps we may return to it when we discuss Schedule 5. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is a probing amendment to clarify and understand the role of specials in the NCA and what they will do. When I read this clause, I thought I understood the role of specials. I went to my favourite police force—Essex—and looked at its website and at the government factsheet on specials in the NCA to try to tie the two together.

The government factsheet says that volunteers will be,

“similar to the police Special Constabulary”,

with,

“some or all of the policing powers available to”,

the NCA. It describes specials as,

“civic-minded volunteers in … public protection work … who may have particular specialist skills … in the fight against serious, organised or complex crime”.

Yet in all the information that I can find regarding the recruiting of special constables in the police force, not one mentions specialist skills or experience. In fact, it talks about special constables being unpaid volunteers and says that they are,

“a manifest sign of partnership between the public and the police”,

with key responsibilities of, for example, performing,

“police duties at public events eg. airshows, concerts and county shows to complement the regular police provision”,

and in emergencies performing,

“additional police duties to assist regular officers”.

It talks about how they have a range of skills, but mainly it is about having more visible policing on the streets.

I would like an explanation of how this translates into specials with the National Crime Agency. Will the agency seek to recruit only specialists—and, if so, what kind of specialist, and how would it seek to recruit them? Surely the work of the NCA is very different to that of a local police force. It is investigative and is to do with serious organised crime, with very complex issues. Police specials have to do a minimum of four hours a week; it is quite difficult to understand how a special in the NCA could fulfil any meaningful function in that time. The Bill refers to part-time specials, but then paragraph (14)(3) says that they can be “otherwise than … part-time”—and the only definition that I know of that is full time. I am not clear why someone would be regarded as a special if they were seconded or taken on a full-time role.

I am happy to be reassured and am looking for reassurance, but I am slightly uneasy as to how this would look across a range of functions and different commands within the NCA—with border control, for example, or CEOP. Did any of the constituent bodies previously use volunteers or specials in this way? Did CEOP do so, for example? Those who wish to abuse children are sometimes very cunning and intelligent in many cases in trying to get to the place where they can get information. Have volunteers been used in the past—and if an NCA special volunteer worked in one area, would that volunteer be allowed to undertake work across the range of NCA functions and responsibilities? What will they do exactly? Also, given the relationship with the PSNI, has there been a discussion with the Northern Ireland Executive on this part of the NCA’s work there? I am a bit puzzled as to how this would work in practice, and any information that the Minister can give would be greatly appreciated.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness pays tribute to her favourite police force in Essex, so I will say a word or two in relation to specials in Cumbria. I mention them in the other end of the country purely to make a point. Two Saturdays ago, I went with them to Appleby for the horse fair, where a very large number of the travelling community descend on a very small town and there are quite serious public order issues. It is the biggest issue in the Cumbrian police force’s annual list of events; from a very small police force it has to provide something like 200 officers over the course of that week on duty to make sure that things remain under control. As a result, I am very proud to say, they make enormous use of their specials in Cumbria, as I am sure that Essex would do in its events. We should all pay tribute to those who give their efforts unpaid and voluntarily as special constables for the work they do and how effective they can be. The role of the NCA specials will be somewhat different than for ordinary specials—if you can call them ordinary—in Essex or Cumbria or wherever.

It may be useful if I set out in some detail how we see the specials developing and the NCA recruiting its own cadre of NCA specials. Enabling the recruitment of NCA specials will build on the approach that has worked effectively for many years in the Police Service. Like ordinary police specials, NCA specials will be unpaid and part time. But we expect many to be recruited on the basis of particular specialist or technical skills that they can offer, such as an understanding of complex financial products to aid the NCA’s counterfraud efforts or expertise in information technology and the internet to help tackle cybercrime. This is not that different from how reservists are often used in the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness will know that there are many specialities that it would be impractical for the Armed Forces to keep in large numbers, in full employment the whole time. But it is worth while having reservists that they can bring in to act as doctors, as they do in Afghanistan.

Like other NCA officers, NCA specials would be able to be designated with operational powers to play a full role in the agency’s work to tackle serious, organised or complex crime. Again, like other NCA officers, NCA specials would be required to be suitable, capable and adequately trained before being designated with the appropriate powers, which, for NCA specials, will be limited to the powers and privileges of a constable, in England and Wales only. NCA specials will not have operational powers in Scotland or Northern Ireland. So there is a distinction there.

The terms and conditions of NCA specials will be for the director-general to determine, but the Bill sets out some core principles. Although NCA specials are NCA officers, they will not be covered by every provision applying to other NCA officers. It will not be possible for the director-general to delegate his or her functions to an NCA special, and they will not form part of any group of NCA officers provided by way of assistance to another law enforcement body. That means that NCA specials will always operate under the direction and control of the NCA director-general. An NCA special will also not be able to form part of the advisory panel designating the director-general with his or her powers.

As unpaid volunteers, NCA specials will not be provided with a wage, a pension or allowances, and will not be covered by the no-strike provisions, which no doubt we will deal with later, for paid NCA officers. They will not form part of the Civil Service. But they will be reimbursed for expenses, and provided with the necessary subsistence, accommodation and training needed to perform their role. They will be able to receive payment to compensate for loss of salary in the event of injury or death resulting from the performance of their duties.

Finally, we have provided for the powers of an NCA special to be ring-fenced so that when a person is both an NCA special and a special constable or Northern Ireland reservist, any powers conferred on him or her as an NCA special cannot be exercised when acting in the latter roles.

We believe that these measures on NCA specials will represent an attractive opportunity for individuals who want to volunteer and to contribute to protecting the public, as well as bolstering the expertise of the National Crime Agency across its remit. The idea behind it is to bring in expertise that might not otherwise be available. They will form an important part of the agency’s stronger co-operation with the private sector, harnessing skills that exist, and are constantly refreshed, in the private sector.

I hope that that explanation is sufficient for the noble Baroness and that we will in due course see them performing as valuable a role as specials in the rest of the police force, although obviously that will be rather a different role bearing in mind their expertise and the nature of the NCA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

As I said, they will be unpaid in exactly the same way as existing specials are. We hope that we will find volunteers but the NCA is looking to find people with the relevant expertise. Until I came to this job I was not aware that specials were unpaid. I presumed that they were in exactly the same position as my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has had long and distinguished service in the Territorial Army, where he would have been paid for the days that he served and the weeks and months of service when he was on Operation Telic and other such matters. However, the specials have always been treated differently; they are unpaid. We are leaving them in the same position. Just as the ordinary police—I should not say “ordinary”—can manage to get specials who will do this work unpaid, for which we are very grateful, we believe that the same will be true of the NCA. The NCA will be looking for the specialist expertise that it needs which some people—for example, those who are experts in IT—might feel that they can offer in their spare time. That is much the same process as happens with specials at the moment except that they are not offering that expertise.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I still have some doubts that this process will work although I hope that I am wrong. It might be helpful if the director-general includes in the annual report something about the role of specials. I hope that the noble Lord will write to me on the following question, which he did not answer: namely, whether any of the organisations such as SOCA or CEOP have had specials working in this way. I understand that specials are unpaid, a bit like shadow Ministers in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, I am happy for him to write to me on the other point as well.

[Lord Henley]

I can give the noble Baroness a partial answer. There is no comparable scheme within the Serious Organised Crime Agency. However, I understand that some police forces have made use of specialists as specials; for example, the City of London police do so for some fraud inquiries. I think that the same is true of the Metropolitan Police e-Crime Unit, which makes some use of specials in this way: that is, in bringing in expertise. However, as I said, within the precursor organisations, SOCA certainly has not had the ability to do that. I do not know about CEOP and others but I will find out and write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I appreciate that. CEOP is the body about which I have the most concerns and queries. However, given the Minister’s explanations and his offer to write to me, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, with some care. As noble Lords know, I have maintained an interest in Northern Ireland issues, having spent a number of years as a Minister there. I find it very difficult to understand how the Government can proceed with issues that affect Northern Ireland, particularly in this area, if there is not agreement from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or discussions have not been held with David Ford, the Minister for Justice.

This is a sensitive area and I appreciate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, these things can take some time to resolve when the Executive in Northern Ireland meets. Decisions by the Executive may not always be speedy, but the passage of the Bill will not be speedy either in that the Committee stage will continue after the Summer Recess. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, which we support. We think that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should have an opportunity to comment on this and I hope that some agreement can be reached prior to moving forward with these clauses.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there are possibly two issues here. The first is the wider one on the order-making power in Clause 2, to which we will come later when we deal with whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I trust that that will happen after we have broken for dinner, which may be convenient because I suspect that, in the light of the Constitution Committee’s report published today, it is a debate on which a number of noble Lords will want to speak and one on which we may want to take a reasonable amount of time.

The duty of the Home Secretary to consult Northern Ireland Ministers before laying before Parliament a draft order on counterterrorism functions is important. I hope that I can give some reassurance about the consultation that we are undertaking, who we have discussed these matters with and where we are at the moment. I am sure that my noble friend knows as much as I do about where this is with the Executive at the moment.

I recognise that the amendment seeks clarity on the relationship between the NCA and arrangements in Northern Ireland if a decision is made in the future—I stress if such a decision is made in the future—that the agency should have that counterterrorism function. That has been at the forefront of our consideration of these arrangements, not just for the order-making power but in relation to the agency as a whole, balancing the need for an effective United Kingdom response while respecting the important accountability arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland.

We recognise the particular sensitivities of the arrangements in Northern Ireland which is why in this clause we have already provided specific arrangements that recognise the responsibilities of the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who has operational responsibility for the police response to terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely vital that we are clear about the relationship between the NCA and the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the event that the agency were to take on the counterterrorism function. That is why Clause 2(2) provides such clarity by stipulating that the agency may carry out counterterrorism activities in Northern Ireland only,

“with the agreement of the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.

Furthermore, any draft order will be subject to the super affirmative process, which includes a requirement for the Home Secretary to consult those persons whom she considers will be affected by the draft order. Again, we will discuss that in somewhat greater detail when we get to Clause 2 stand part, which it would be appropriate to leave until after dinner, if everyone is happy with that suggestion.

Seeking clarity on the consultation requirement in relation to Northern Ireland is understandable and the broad nature of the consultation requirement in Schedule 16 could, of course, include the devolved Administrations—that applies to Scotland as much as it does to Northern Ireland—as well as operational partners, government departments and others. I do not think that we have a gap there.

As the House will be aware, under the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, national security is an excepted matter and the National Crime Agency will be a reserved matter. A duty to consult on excepted and reserved matters therefore sits uncomfortably with the devolution settlement as it relates to counterterrorism matters. I recognise that counterterrorism policing in Northern Ireland cannot be divorced from the generality of policing which is, of course, a transferred matter. Indeed, the National Crime Agency itself will undertake a mix of reserved and devolved activity in relation to its serious and organised crime remit. That is why the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill will require the Northern Ireland Assembly to adopt a legislative consent Motion. That is also why there are provisions throughout the Bill which provide for the necessary checks and balances to reflect devolution at certain points. Obviously, there needs to be consultation with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

I understand that the Justice Minister and the Justice Committee of the Assembly—I am sure that my noble friend knows as much as I do—have agreed in principle to take forward a legislative consent Motion, and officials in the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland are seeking to secure the agreement of the Executive Committee before proceeding to the next stage. Any legislative consent Motion needs to be adopted by the Assembly before the Bill reaches its last amending stage. Although things have not been proceeding quite as quickly as we might wish them to have done, since we know that the Bill is designed not to proceed as quickly as sometimes Ministers wish Bills to proceed and we will not complete the Committee stage until October, there is a considerable chance that we will get to that stage before the Bill gets on to the statute book.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Alderdice will accept that we are making progress. We will continue to do more and continue to discuss this with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and others. We will carefully reflect on my noble friend’s points between now and Report, which will not happen until some time in late October or thereabouts.

I will quickly say a few words about Amendment 21. It seeks to limit the extent to which an order under Clause 2 may be amended or otherwise modified by the Crime and Courts Act and other enactments. I can give an assurance that Clause 2 is already limited purely to counterterrorism functions. While that is not restated expressly in subsection (4), the effect of that subsection when read with the clause as a whole is to limit the power to make amendments to primary legislation to those that are consequential on conferring counterterrorism functions on the National Crime Agency. Again, I suspect that that is a matter that we will discuss in greater detail when we come to the Clause 2 stand part debate. It was considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee made no recommendation in respect of that power in its report. In fact it went so far as to state that the idea of adding to a statutory body’s functions by subordinate legislation subject to parliamentary procedure is well established. I hope that my noble friend will feel that her Amendment 21 is therefore not necessary.

Going back to the original amendment of my noble friend Lord Alderdice, I hope that what I have said gives him the appropriate reassurance. We fully understand the sensitivities in this area and I hope that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment on this occasion.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s contribution because the strategic priorities seem to be a bit of a puzzle. A key part of what the NCA does must be that the public and everyone else can understand the strategic priorities of this organisation. When you look through the Bill to see what the role of the NCA is, the description is extraordinary broad. It has the function of,

“gathering, storing, processing, analysing, and disseminating information that is relevant to any of the following … activities to combat organised crime or serious crime”,

and,

“activities to combat any other kind of crime”,

or “exploitation proceeds investigations”.

That is an extraordinarily broad area. It covers all kinds of crime, yet the strategic priorities are a very small part.

I looked to see whether there was something about the strategic priorities within the framework document. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I could not see it there. I am not questioning the right of the Secretary of State to determine those priorities: the Secretary of State should have that strategic oversight. But I am not clear what scrutiny there is and what form of publication there will be. Clause 3 states:

“The Secretary of the State may determine strategic priorities”,

including whether he or she wants to have priorities or not, and will consult strategic partners, the director-general and anyone else the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. It is extraordinarily broad.

If we then look at operations, it is clear that the strategic priorities play an enormous role in what the director-general then sets out in the annual plan of what the organisation is to do. I feel that we need more information about this. Will the Minister say something about the relationship between the strategic priorities of the NCA and the framework document? I am not clear how the two work together. If we look at Schedule 2, the framework document seems to describe the,

“ways in which NCA functions are to be exercised”,

and the,

“ways in which the NCA is to be administered”,

but that will depend on what the strategic priorities are. Some guidance and enlightenment from the Minister would be useful.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I hope that I can help and can be relatively brief. The important thing for my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to do is to look at Clause 3 and Clause 4 together. If they do that, things become somewhat clearer. The amendment would place a duty on the Home Secretary to lay a report before Parliament following her determination of the strategic priorities. Clause 4 of the Bill already requires that the agency’s annual plan be published and include a statement of the strategic priorities determined by the Home Secretary. That is clear in Clause 4(2)(a), which refers to,

“any strategic priorities for the NCA (see section 3)”.

This is a new way of drafting that makes these Bills a lot easier to understand. The draftsmen are moving ahead. So there is a mechanism in the Bill for ensuring that the strategic priorities are published.

Moreover, the Bill also provides for the agency’s annual report to be laid before Parliament and for such reports to include an assessment of the extent to which the annual plan for the year has been carried out. So this again provides a mechanism for informing Parliament of the strategic priorities and how the agency is delivering against them. It would then obviously be a matter for both Houses to determine in a way that I do not understand but I am sure the noble Baroness does. We were discussing the usual channels much earlier in the Chamber. They will decide how these matters will be debated and discussed and how the Home Secretary will be held to account on these matters in both Houses. That is something that will happen in due course.

Given those provisions, I do not think that it is necessary to have a further procedure for laying the strategic priorities before Parliament as provided for in this amendment since Clause 3 interpreted with Clause 4 and read backwards again seems to do exactly what is sought. I hope that my noble friend will feel that the matters that appear in her amendment are covered by what is already there. I hope that I have also dealt with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this amendment would remove the requirement on the director-general to gain the consent of the Secretary of State for the annual plan. The amendment suggests that it should be undertaken by the National Crime Agency board. I know that the Minister will say that there is no board and no response to be made. However, I want to explore the broader issue. I am somewhat puzzled as to why the Secretary of State would sign off and have to give consent to the publication of an operational document. There has been no question or disagreement in the House that the Home Secretary should retain the ultimate strategic oversight and overview of the NCA. At the same time, it is vital to preserve the operational independence of the National Crime Agency and the director-general from government.

I believe that that is the Government’s intention but there are several places in the Bill where that is not as clear as it should be and it becomes a little confused. There are lots of documents and we are unclear about what they contain. There is a framework document that we have yet to see; there are strategic priorities that the Secretary of State will publish; there is the annual plan which the director-general will publish; and then there is the annual report which gives an indication of how far the director-general has been able to achieve the annual plan in that year. There will be some overlap and there needs to be clarity as we proceed.

The director-general has a statutory obligation to ensure that the annual plan meets the strategic priorities as determined by the Home Secretary. However, the annual plan itself seems to give operational effectiveness and direction to the strategic priorities. So the strategic priorities are for the Secretary of State and the annual plan will be for the director-general. Yet, the clause states:

“Before issuing any annual plan, the Director General must obtain … the consent of the Secretary of State … the consent of the Scottish Ministers … the consent of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland as it relates to activities in Northern Ireland”.

I do not understand it. If we could remove the consent of the Secretary of State or politicians to the annual plan, that would make it clear that there is no political interference in the operational determinations of the director-general. The Bill is unclear as it stands and allows for the opportunity for political interference in operational matters, which I know the Government are keen to avoid.

This is not directly related to the amendment, but the clause states:

“The Director General must arrange for each plan to be published in the manner which the Director General considers appropriate”.

We may wish to give more guidance to the director-general over a matter that he thinks is appropriate. From our previous conversations, the Minister will know of my concern that it might end up on the website and not be seen by anybody at all, so we will have come back to that one. This is a clear case of the Secretary of State having to give consent and thereby being involved in operational decisions. That is not what Ministers have said throughout debates and discussions on the Bill or indeed at Second Reading. I beg to move.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I should first make it clear that there is no board, but we discussed that at an earlier stage and will no doubt do so again in due course. The proposed amendment would remove the requirement for the Home Secretary and the devolved Administrations to consent to the annual plan. I shall briefly address why the plan should be subject to their consent. The noble Baroness said that she wanted to get rid of what I think she referred to as “political interference” in these matters; I would refer to it as the Home Secretary being accountable to Parliament.

The annual plan will be important to ensure that the agency is open and transparent. Together with the annual report, it will provide the key mechanism by which Parliament and the public can hold the agency to account. Foremost, however, it is the place where the director-general will set out how he intends to deliver the NCA’s objectives for the coming year. It will be against those plans that the NCA’s performance is assessed, not least in the annual report at the end of the year.

As such, the annual plan must accurately reflect the strategic priorities which the Home Secretary has set for the NCA, as well as the wider national picture on organised crime and policing. The Home Secretary will ultimately remain accountable to Parliament for the national response to serious and organised crime and, indeed, for the performance of the agency.

It is therefore important that the NCA’s success is measured against the objectives that the Home Secretary has set for it. The requirement for the Home Secretary’s consent provides the most appropriate means of ensuring consistency between the annual plan and her strategic priorities. It also gives reassurance to Parliament and the public that she is content with the director-general’s approach to delivering those priorities.

The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland will also play an important role in shaping the fight against organised crime, and will therefore be consulted by the Home Secretary when she is setting the NCA’s strategic priorities. Given their accountability to their own electorates for the fight against organised crime, they will rightly have a role in agreeing those aspects of the annual plan which affect Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The annual plan will be an important document in measuring the effectiveness of the NCA. It is important that its contents are agreed—not, as the noble Baroness put it, interfered with politically—by those who will ultimately be accountable for that fight against organised crime at the national level. I appreciate that the noble Baroness put down the amendment to probe, but I hope that she will feel happy to withdraw it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I hope—and thought—that I said that the amendment would remove the potential for political interference or any suggestion of it. I still think that that is a danger in the way that the clause is drafted. I fully accept the Minister’s explanation that there is no intention for there to be operational control or involvement by the Home Secretary; but by having to consent to the annual plan, she would have an oversight role in operational matters.

I do not intend to press the matter at this point. Lots of consultation and reports will occur as a result of the Bill—I wonder how bureaucratic one Bill can get. I will listen to what the Minister says on this and other clauses but, for now, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, again, I have some sympathy with these amendments. I have resisted the temptation of putting forward amendments on different issues that should be included in the framework document, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Doocey, are right that not having the framework document and having only very limited information about what will be in it means that, at this stage, the Committee has to seek assurances about things that we consider it important should be in the document. So far I have resisted the temptation, but if we got to Report and did not have the document, that temptation may be given free rein.

The issues that have been raised are extremely important and perhaps these amendments do not go as far as we would have gone. They talk about protocol relationships, which is slightly weaker than some of the things that we would have suggested, in terms of how the relationships would work and what should be in the framework document. However, I say to noble Lords that if they do not want to accept these amendments, they have only themselves to blame. We really need to see this framework document as a matter of urgency. Debating this Bill without it means that we will be having some debates not once but two or three times, because not only will we have to debate the issues now but when we get the document we will want to debate them again. It is in the interests of good governance and good progress of business in this House that we have the framework document as soon as possible.

I am also interested in what the Minister has to say about Amendment 46A. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I inferred from that that the fact that the Secretary of State would be making decisions and regulations on the equipment to be used seems a highly operational matter. I am not convinced—though the noble Lord may have information to the contrary that will convince me—that it is an appropriate involvement in operational details of NCA work or why the Secretary of State wants that power. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that amendment. On the other amendments, we need to ensure that these kinds of issues are going to be determined in the framework document. Any enlightenment that he can give us would be extremely helpful.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for all that they have said on this group of amendments. My noble friend is right to draw attention to the need for the agency to work closely with its law enforcement partners. Obviously such co-operation will be essential. The conduct of the agency’s relationships with other law enforcement agencies, however, is already underpinned by the clear provisions of Section 5 and Schedule 3 to the Bill. This includes the two-way duty to co-operate in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. By contrast, the purpose of the framework document—I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others are still waiting to see it—is to set out clearly and transparently how the Home Secretary and the director-general will work together and the ways in which the NCA is to be administered.

The document is expected to include the agency’s corporate governance arrangements, the high-level arrangements for financial accounting and reporting, and how the agency will discharge its duty to publish information and promote transparency, including the cost of information that will be published by the NCA. That framework document, when it appears, will set out the relationship between two people: the director-general and the Home Secretary. They are the only people required to have regard to the framework document. This duty will not apply to others and, given the nature and purpose of the document, we do not consider it to be the appropriate place to go into the minutiae of the operational relationship between the NCA and other agencies. I recognise that there may be a need for detailed operational protocols between the agency and its law enforcement partners, but we would expect these to be agreed separately between the director-general and the agency or agencies concerned. I accept the principle behind Amendment 27A, but I respectfully suggest that the framework document is not necessarily the right place for such detailed operational protocols.

I also note the particular reference to including a protocol regarding integrating training and interoperability between the NCA and its partners. Obviously these are matters that the director-general should consider when looking more broadly at how they can deliver the NCA efficiently and effectively and how they can work well with partners. I also agree that the agency will need to ensure that its IT and communications systems are interoperable with others. I should also note that the NCA is taking on many of the assets of its precursor agencies and, as such, is not starting from a clean sheet. Also, it is expected that the director-general will focus the training and equipment requirements of the NCA to ensure that it is fully capable of delivering its priorities, working with others such as the new police professional body. The director-general needs flexibility to make the right operational decisions about these issues to address the ever-changing threat from serious crime. However, I am sure that considering best practice as well as the requirements and assets of partners will inform the decisions that he takes.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Codes of Practice for the Exercise of Stop and Search Powers) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for information on the four orders before us today. For most of my research on this matter, I felt at a distinct disadvantage. I hope that the comments that I am about to make do not become a regular feature of our debates in Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House, but I have to say that the Home Office website really is a disgrace. I understand that it has not been accessible since we returned from Recess. I have been unable to access via the website either the codes of practice or the consultation; nor have I been able to respond to the consultation. My questions will therefore have to reflect the paucity of information that I have been able to obtain.

I know that the Minister likes to be helpful and his private office contacted me to say that it would look into this matter, for which I was grateful. I was grateful, too, to the parliamentary adviser at the Home Office, who was able to send some information to us. However, he was unable to access it until today—it came over at 1.55 pm. There were 356 pages. I can read pretty fast, but not that fast. I hope that the Minister can take my comments back, because it would have been helpful to have information on the significant changes being made, albeit in a digested form, and a summary of responses to the consultation. It would be helpful to have that information always made available if it is not going to be available on the website. I hope that some mighty experts will resolve this matter; otherwise, as I have threatened previously, I will phone the Minister on a Sunday afternoon to get the information that I need while I am working on these issues.

We agree with tighter restrictions on stop and search. As I think the Minister knows, and as my colleagues have said in the other place, the powers were being used more widely than originally intended in the legislation. Indeed, former Home Secretary Alan Johnson had already taken some action in that area and provisional data had shown quite a significant drop in the number of stop-and-search cases from 2009 to 2010. We support sensible measures that will bring the legislation more closely into line with the original intention behind stop and search.

I have some specific questions—as I said, I was unable to obtain a copy of the consultation and have only the Explanatory Notes to work from. If the Minister does not have answers to them, I will be very happy for him to write to me with the information. The noble Lord said that there were 11 responses in the Explanatory Notes, of which the majority were in favour. Who were these responses from, since some but obviously not all of them were listed, and which organisations were not in favour or had objections to the changes being made? What issues did they raise with their concerns and what changes were made to the draft order following the consultation responses that came in?

Turning to the other two orders on counterterrorism and video recording, again, can the Minister say something about the issues raised in the consultations? I have the consultation responses on the code of practice on Codes C, G and H but not specifically on video recording, although there is some information in there. There is obviously a crossover. However, if other issues were raised, by whom were they raised and what changes were made to these two specific orders on video recording as a result of the consultation responses?

On the Police and Criminal Evidence Act order, I would like to commend those who were able to get some good information for the shadow Ministers who are looking at these issues. I was pleased to see a number of points being taken on board, particularly when potentially vulnerable people are being questioned and on mental health issues. A lot of the representations that were made in response to the consultation were taken on board. I hope the Minister understands that I feel rather limited, given the lack of information available. If that could be resolved for future orders and if he can answer my questions either now or in writing, that would be appreciated.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I start with an abject apology on behalf of both myself and the Home Office in response to the noble Baroness’s complaints about the website. I have raised it within the department but I will now go back to it. The first thing I had better do is find out which of us five junior Ministers has responsibility for the website, if any at all, and make sure that one of us looks personally at these problems to ensure that we can sort it out. Obviously, the noble Baroness should not have to wait until 1.55 pm today to get the information that she needs to deal with these matters.

It might also be worth my while offering the noble Baroness my home and mobile numbers so that she can get hold of me in Cumberland on a Sunday afternoon. I will tell her whether I will be available on future Sundays on an ad hoc basis, so that she can occasionally discuss these things. Again, I hope that the noble Baroness will get hold of me in my office whenever she is going to have specific problems because, as she knows from her own extensive experience in government, these matters can very often be resolved by talking about them beforehand. Similarly, if she comes through my office I am always more than happy to arrange a briefing for her to make sure that these things happen. This is a complete apology with my and the department’s mea culpa. We will try to resolve these matters.

Having said that, I was grateful for what I suspect is her and the Official Opposition’s general support for the line down which we are going on these matters. However, I appreciate that she has a number of fairly detailed questions about how we adjusted things as a result of the consultation, who was in favour and who opposed and, on the video recording, the responses to the consultation and what changes we made. On stop and search, the changes were limited as we had previously consulted on a similar remedial code of practice order. These changes related to removing references to random searches, and there was further advice on photography issues.

At this stage, it would probably be better for me to offer to write in greater detail to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, giving fuller, further and better particulars of these matters so that we can get all this right. I note the Official Opposition’s general support for what we are doing, but obviously we have to resolve many more detailed points. Having said that, I hope the noble Baroness will allow me to move this order, and to offer, first, my apology again and, secondly, the guarantee that I will write to her with fuller and better details on the consultation.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Prescribed Criteria) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I put on record my comments from the previous debates, and I am grateful to the Minister for his offer of briefings from his department. Those would be very helpful, particularly on some of these more complex orders. I also find it difficult when going through an order if many of the references are to other legislation and you have to hunt through that legislation to find out exactly what they relate to. The Explanatory Notes are quite inadequate to address the issues that have been raised. However, his department has been quite helpful. I have spoken to officials at the Home Office and received some more information that has helped me with the comments that I wish to make today.

The issue covered by the first order was a contentious one during debate on what is now the Protection of Freedoms Act, and we were pleased by the government concessions that were made. I think that originally the Government had intended that there would be no automatic barring but that there would be an application and a process by which people could be barred. The Government changed that, and the process by which there is an automatic bar but a right to appeal is a better one.

During debate in your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made it clear that the Government had,

“listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and by organisations such as the NSPCC”,

and had,

“concluded that where someone has been convicted of a crime on the list of the most serious offences—that is, an offence that leads to an automatic bar without the right to make representations—the Independent Safeguarding Authority should bar that person whether or not they … intend to work in regulated activity. An automatic bar without representation would apply to convictions for the most serious sexual and violent offences, such as, in the case of the children’s barred list, the rape of a child. In these cases, there are no conceivable mitigating circumstances—that is why representations are not permitted—and there can be no question that the person is a risk to vulnerable groups”.—[Official Report, 15/2/12; col. 804.]

That seems to be saying that the test for someone who has been automatically barred to have the right of appeal to that barring could be mitigating circumstances. I asked the Home Office for a list, as there has to be a strong justification for removing someone from automatic barring through a process by which they can be barred but may appeal against that barring.

My understanding of the current position is that if someone is automatically barred, they have a right of appeal and the bar can be removed. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act, it is the other way round. If someone is going to be automatically barred, they have a right to appeal first and must do so within a period of eight weeks. That appeal has then to be considered. If the information that I have been given by the Home Office is correct, there could be a considerable period before someone who was subject to an automatic barring with appeal could be given that barring order.

I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for providing me with a list of the offences that are changing. I am pleased to say that rape, sexual assault by penetration, the rape of a young child and sexual assault on a young child by penetration all remain offences that will be subject to an automatic bar. Where I struggle is with offences that, although they are said to be subject to an automatic bar, have a right of appeal. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, has said in the House on a previous occasion that there would have to be mitigating circumstances for an appeal against the bar to be allowed. Can the Minister explain what he or his officials think is a conceivable mitigating circumstance that would allow someone to appeal against the bar?

One of the offences is in Section 20 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009: sexual assault on a young child—that is, a child under the age of 13. I am told by officials at the Home Office that, although only sexual assault is referred to, it has to be sexual assault with penetration. I find it difficult to understand any conceivable circumstance where someone who has been convicted of a sexual assault against a young child with penetration could be allowed to appeal against a bar. I presume, because the offence has been included in the list before us today, that the Government think that there are mitigating circumstances.

The same goes for an offence such as causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity. What conceivable mitigation can there be for someone to appeal against a bar if they were convicted of that offence? The list also includes: causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent; trafficking people for sexual exploitation; and even female genital mutilation—an individual convicted of that offence would be allowed to appeal against the bar. I struggle to understand why that should be so. Given, as I have said, that the Protection of Freedoms Act allows a person to appeal against a bar being imposed in the first place, there could be a period of several months where someone convicted of some of the most serious sexual offences against adults or young children under the age of 13 might not be subject to a bar.

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions, because I remain dissatisfied. I may have the wrong information or have misunderstood something, so if the Minister is able to reassure me, it would be helpful. If he is not, I may want to pray against the order so that we might tease out further explanation from the Government. At the moment, on the basis of the information that I have been given, the order gives me enormous cause for concern.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by addressing the problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has had with the way in which orders are dealt with generally. I appreciate that it is often difficult for the Opposition to cope with difficult orders such as this, which require a lot of cross-referencing from one to another. Even as a lawyer, I find all these things, particularly when one is amending one Act that has consequences on another, always very difficult. As an anecdote, I can tell the noble Baroness that the late Lord Underhill, whom she will remember fondly, had a wonderful technique whereby, if in doubt on some difficult order, he would read out the Explanatory Memorandum and say to the Minister, “Now explain that”. It worked quite well, causing great confusion for a number of Ministers who thought that they had grasped everything but had not looked at the simple Explanatory Memorandum, which was probably not as simple as it should have been. I note what the noble Baroness says about that. If noble Lords come to us in advance to let us know, we will, as always, be happy to offer briefing. I also take up the point that I made earlier about the Home Office website, which is probably going to be engraved on my heart for many years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

That was why I referred to Section 28 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, which concerns having intercourse with an older child where the ages of the perpetrator and victim are very close and it is marginal.

I was trying to say that if you take the more extreme example, rightly given by the noble Baroness, of sexual assault on a younger child, it is very difficult to see where there might be mitigating circumstances but, in law, one must accept that there might be. I would rather the noble Baroness did not ask me to explain what they might be. It is possible that there could be mitigating circumstances, although it is very unlikely, other than in the sort of case to which the noble Baroness refers. In those circumstances, we ought to leave the law as it is, because it would be for the appropriate authority to decide whether there were or were not mitigating circumstances. The noble Baroness wishes to intervene.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister. He tried very hard to think of mitigating circumstances and has been unable to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, refers to the age difference. I am very well aware of that. As the noble Lord said, Section 28 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act refers to sexual intercourse with an older child. If someone is convicted, we are not talking about a borderline offence where the police do not know whether to prosecute. If someone is convicted of sexual assault on a young child with penetration, I cannot understand what mitigating circumstance there could be.

There are other offences here, such as causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent or trafficking people for sexual exploitation, where I do not understand what the mitigating circumstances might be. Given that regulated activity is now more tightly drawn, we should be more careful to ensure that those who are convicted of such serious sexual and violent offences cannot work with vulnerable people. Female genital mutilation is another example where I find it hard to conceive that there could be mitigating circumstances in which that person could undertake a regulated activity. It is not just violent and sexual offences; there are others. I wonder whether the balance has moved too far. I understand that the Government did not want so much automatic barring but we seem to have moved a little too far in the wrong direction. I entirely accept the Minister’s comment that there are greyer areas where there may be some mitigation, but there are others where I struggle to understand what the mitigation might be.

On the other point I raised about the changes under the Protection of Freedoms Act—that people can appeal before they are barred—that creates an additional delay before the barring takes place. An individual convicted of such an offence has up to eight weeks to lodge an appeal against being barred. I understand from the Home Office that, once they make that appeal to the ISA—or the Disclosure and Barring Service, as it will become—that will take some time and the ISA may have to go back for additional information before it can make a decision. Therefore, we could be talking about several months before someone is barred. The current position, as the noble Lord rightly stated, is that the bar is immediate and then there can be an appeal against it, which seems to me a much fairer way to proceed. Given that the Government have changed from that to the new position, where there will be a delay, every caution should be taken to protect young and vulnerable people from those who are convicted of serious sexual offences. I am not convinced that the order gets the balance right. That is my concern.

I appreciate all the comments that the Minister has made, but he has not really done enough to satisfy me that the correct balance is reached. If there is anything else that he can say, I shall be happy to hear from him, but there are a number of offences here. He has the same list that the Home Office helpfully supplied to me, and I look at it and worry that there are people convicted of these offences who will not be subject to a bar because they have the right to appeal.

[Lord Henley]

I suspect that we are again getting into detail that might be more easily discussed in a meeting with the noble Baroness and possibly others. For example, she went into the various offences in the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009, and we talked about Section 20 concerning sexual assault on a young child. My understanding, certainly under the English rules, is that the sexual assault of a young child with penetration is auto-barred without representation—that is in draft regulation 3(3)—but sexual assault involving sexual touching is with representation and therefore is treated slightly differently.

At this stage there is a danger of getting into a state of confusion about this, which is why I am saying: “Can we go ahead with this Motion at the moment?”. In due course we will have to put it to the House because that is the proper process, but before we do that it might be worth the noble Baroness having a further conversation with me. I assure her that there is no need for her to pray against the Motion; these are affirmative regulations so there is nothing to pray against as the Motion has to go to the House. However, we could delay the next stage until we have a further discussion about this, which might be the proper way to go ahead. I want to give the appropriate assurances to the noble Baroness that her concerns are being dealt with. Would that meet her requirements? We move this at the moment so that the Committee has considered it; we put off the next stage for a week or so, otherwise we will be moving it next week; and we have a meeting and make sure that we get things straight in such a manner that the noble Baroness is happy with what we are doing and there are the appropriate safeguards that she wishes to see.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister for the offer. I think it would be helpful to meet before this goes before the House. I had already suggested to the Government Whips Office that they might not want to put it before the House tomorrow because that would be rather too soon, but the opportunity to discuss the areas of concern in detail is very welcome and I am grateful for that offer.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, since we seem to have reached a degree of agreement on this, I will formally move the regulations at this stage and then move the order.

Police: Reduction in Numbers

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the reduction in the number of police officers.

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

My Lords, what matters is front-line services—that is, how effective the police are at fighting crime. The Government are clear that the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but on how well it deploys its resources.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is an interesting but slightly disappointing response from the Minister. Can I give him an example of the impact of these cuts? Twenty police stations in Essex, 28 in Hampshire and a staggering 34 in Devon and Cornwall are no longer open to the public. Across the country, we are losing police officers—500 in Sussex, 438 in south Yorkshire and more than 1,900 in the Met. I would never argue against any cuts.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That has been the Labour Party position consistently. We are not against cuts. But even the HMIC and the Audit Commission warned of dangers of cuts in the police of more than12%. The Government are cutting around 20%. What evidence is there that cutting so much above 12% would not lead to an increase in crime victims, and what estimate can the noble Lord give of any increase or decrease in crime in the next 12 months?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for at last saying that she and her colleagues are not arguing against making any cuts. The noble Baroness will accept that we inherited the toughest fiscal challenge in living memory and therefore we had to make cuts—cuts that the noble Baroness’s own party would have made in the unlikely event that it had won the election. We have been clear that it is necessary to make cuts and that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels. We want to make sure that we get the right people in the right place at the right time in the front line, doing the right job.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey]

My Lords, I will be very brief. This is clearly a sensible precaution. It is very necessary and I very much welcome it. In view of the very nasty and harmful effects of what is known of this drug—which I am not even going to try to pronounce—it is, if anything, overdue, and I think it is a splendid idea.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. We welcome and support the order. The purpose and the benefits are quite clear. I will not follow in his footsteps and try to pronounce it. I am told the street name is “mexxy”—MXE—and I will stick with that because it is far easier to pronounce.

I have a couple of concerns, not around the specific action taken here but about the process and time it takes to get to this point. Both Switzerland and Russia have already banned MXE. I have a slight concern over whether the processes in place are quick enough to respond to the changes that are made. I know that the Minister is aware of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a key role in detection and assessment of new drugs within the EU. There is a recognition that these “legal high” drugs require very rapid action across Europe.

Since the Government came to power, the EMCDDA has identified 90 new substances during 2010-11, but I am concerned that the Home Office early-warning system has only identified 11. I am not clear why there would be a discrepancy between the two. If the Minister was able to say something about that, it would be helpful. It may be that the processes that we employ here in the UK mean there are others in the pipeline—perhaps they are with the ACMD, I do not know.

It would also be useful to know when the Home Office became aware that MXE was a drug on which action should be taken. If the Minister can say anything about the work with the EMCDDA, that would be helpful. It seems quite clear that the EMCDDA is very much ahead of the game as to what is happening across Europe as a whole.

I was quite shocked when reading about this SI—and the Minister reiterated the point—by the easy availability of these drugs via the internet. That does not confine itself to national boundaries. Also, the number of internet stores selling MXE increased in a very short space of time. In January 2011 there were 14 online stores; by July, within six months, this had risen to 58 online stories selling MXE. Any delay in banning such drugs allows them to become established very quickly. How is it possible to monitor such internet sites? Is this the responsibility of SOCA, which is to become the National Crime Agency? How are these sites monitored to ensure that they do not take hold in the same way?

One of the things that the impact assessment said was that there was a risk that a minor chemical change in the drug could make a new drug that would then be legal and unaffected by the order being made today. Are the Government looking at this issue? If they are not, we could have a constant flow of temporary orders each time there is a minor chemical change in the drug.

Finally, the impact assessment and briefing notes from the Home Office highlighted the importance of education in drugs awareness. Young people hear about the drug, but think that it is a legal high and do not realise the quite devastating implications and consequences. At the moment, we have the Drug Education Forum, which brings together 30 high-profile, high-quality and knowledgeable organisations across the UK, including ACPO and the NSPCC. Unfortunately, the Department for Education has withdrawn the funding from this body. My colleague Diana Johnson, Member of Parliament and shadow Minister for the Home Office in the other place, has written to the noble Lord about this and I think that it would be helpful if the Government were able to look at this again. Clearly, by their own analysis, education is key to young people understanding the dangers of such drugs. It would be very sad to see good action in one part of the Government being undermined by action in another part that makes it more difficult to tackle this problem. We certainly support the order but would be grateful for responses to these questions.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I reiterate that this is the first time that we have used this new order. The point behind it is to act much more quickly than we ever could in the past when we see new drugs being developed. That is why we created this system, which allowed me to refer this at a relatively early stage to the ACMD, get its advice and then bring in this temporary order, which will remain in effect for a year while the ACMD does further work on deciding whether this is right or proper.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, will know from some of the questions that were put to my honourable friend in the debate in the Commons, there is this faint danger, particularly with the way these things are developing, that we are constantly chasing after new drugs as new things develop. That is particularly the case when, as she put it, you can have a very minor change in something that creates a new drug that is not covered. We therefore obviously have to consider whether some more generic approach might be more appropriate in the future.

Police (Collaboration: Specified Function) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey]

I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; I am losing my voice. I have no problem in principle with the order. As a former chair of finance of the Metropolitan Police Authority, I am very much in favour of anything that can be done to make economies of scale and efficiencies. However, I have a number of concerns. Wearing the hat of somebody who sat for eight years on the Metropolitan Police Authority, I emphasise that my knowledge and experience is of the Met rather than of police forces nationwide. Therefore, with that caveat, I know that there are various concerns in the Met, and I wonder if the Minister can help to allay some of those concerns, particularly about the issues of governance and structure as set out in the draft agreement.

The strategy board has got quite a lot of power: it can approve annual capital budgets and determine the direction of the service. However, there is no representation on the board for PCCs—and in the case of London, for the MOPC—other than from the lead force. Can the Minister tell us how these people will be consulted, as the introduction of PCCs is clearly one of the key parts of the government legislation, and what proposals and process will there be for considering any concerns that emerge?

I appreciate that the Minister talked in his introduction about issues being resolved locally. However, I have a slight concern that if there is not quite a good steer from the Government on how these issues can be resolved, that might be a major problem down the line. I think that it would be helpful to address those issues now.

I have another concern. Although having an integrated strategy for the air service is clearly sensible, how will this affect the local accountability of local police forces? I wonder if the Minister could address that point as well.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I welcome the principle of what the Government are seeking to do here—I do not think that there can be any disagreement on it. However, like her, I have some concerns. I am sure that the Minister can help allay those concerns when he addresses the questions.

I was interested when the Minister spoke about the consultation that took place. He quoted the parts that were in the impact assessment, which was very helpful. As I mentioned to the noble Lord previously, I tried to access the Home Office website to get more information on the consultation responses. I hope that my complaints about the website do not become a familiar theme in these Committee sittings or when I discuss Home Office matters. However, I find it the most difficult website to access that I have ever used. It has crashed on me something like six times in the past week, which is as long as I have been in this post. I therefore felt at a disadvantage on this order by not being able to read the consultation responses. I take on board entirely, and accept the Minister’s explanation, that none of the responses was directly opposed.

However, the situation with the website makes this slightly more difficult. I would have liked to know the difficulties that have prevented voluntary implementation from taking place. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has been very helpful in using her experience with the Metropolitan Police to outline some of the issues.

The Minister says that there have been discussions for some time, that no one is directly opposed to it and that everybody seems to think that it is a good idea—and yet it does not happen. So, what is the precise nature of the difficulties? One wonders whether those difficulties, depending on how practical they are, can be removed simply by implementing legislation. If they are practical difficulties which the police are trying to resolve, putting legislation in place will not make them go away. One question—if we can legislate to change things—is whether he thinks that the police are simply being difficult by not reaching a voluntary agreement on the issues of concern which have prevented voluntary collaboration to the degree that the Minister would like. As the police, presumably, will still have to agree the details of the arrangements being put in place, it would be helpful to have a little more information about the difficulties and how they will be overcome by legislation.

I appreciate that savings have to be made—I am not querying that. I would never deny the need to make savings. Indeed, I am one of those who look for genuine efficiencies to save money. However, when police forces are fully under the budgetary cosh in many ways, collaboration can become more difficult for them—understandably, it makes it that little bit harder to co-operate. If the Minister can say something more about the agreements that need to be put in place, and the discussions taking place to make that happen, that would be welcome.

Perhaps I may also say something briefly about savings versus efficiency. Where crime prevention and crime detection are concerned, efficiency savings are one thing, but cuts in service, or reduction in the quality of service, is another.

I am seeking assurances from the Minister, because the impact assessment is perhaps slightly woolly on this. It says that in some areas it is expected that the collaboration will be resolved by some increases in response times for air support. It goes on to state the positives, including that a 24-hour service will be available to all forces. Will the Minister quantify what those increases in response times will be? Will they be significant? Which areas will be affected the greatest? Assurances from the Minister on that would be most welcome. In principle, the direction of greater co-operation and collaboration between police forces is welcome. I should be grateful if the Minister will address the issues that I have raised.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the failings of the Home Office website. We have to admit that it is not the most perfect website. No doubt it can be improved, and in due course we will look to improve it to make sure that the noble Baroness can access information as and when she would like. That is why my noble friend Lord McNally and I made it clear when we met yesterday to discuss other matters that we would provide hard copies of certain information, to ensure that she does not have to go through this problem again.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord’s offer. However, as I said to him yesterday, he might not appreciate a call on a Sunday afternoon when I am working at home. I appreciate his going back to the Home Office to try to resolve this matter.

[Lord Henley]

I certainly would not appreciate a call from the noble Baroness on a Sunday afternoon. I might not be available and I would not have access to the papers either. Obviously we have to improve this website, because we all want to use it on a Sunday afternoon. That is the point of having an efficient website. It is why all of us, in a whole range of departments, have been subject to such complaints. We take that on board and will look at the website to see what we can do.

As regards the noble Baroness’s request for access to the consultation responses, my understanding is that it was a very limited consultation and the responses were not published on our website. Therefore, that is probably one of the reasons why the noble Baroness could not get them. If they are available, I will make sure that she gets them.

I should have made clear in my opening remarks how much I welcome the noble Baroness to Home Office matters. I saw her dealing with that rather extraordinary debate we had on the Queen’s Speech, which covered a whole range of departments. On that occasion, I did not have the opportunity—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Unfortunately, I was unable to speak during the Queen’s Speech debate, but we crossed swords across the Dispatch Box at Question Time.

[Lord Henley]

In whatever way, I am at fault in that I have not welcomed the noble Baroness to the Home Office brief. I do so with great warmness and I look forward to many debates. She also asked about having to look at the savings that are coming about and what we are trying to achieve. Perhaps I may remind her that the exercise goes back to 2009 when her own party was in government. It sensibly started because police forces—some 43 of them plus the British Transport Police—vary in size enormously from the Met to, say, in my own area, Cumbria, which is a very small police force. Therefore, it is very difficult for some police forces to provide the same coverage as others. That is why we are looking at much more working together of all police forces and rationalisation of the services provided, and into which individual forces could buy in as necessary.

As a result, quite obviously, one would be able to find appropriate savings and produce a better service for the different police authorities. In the process, I would be able to guarantee that even a force such as Cumbria, which obviously would not be able to afford such a thing on its own, could provide helicopter coverage 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, in a way that the Met, which obviously is a much bigger police force, would be able naturally to do on its own. That is what we hope we will be able to do. Obviously, it is very difficult for all of them to get together. That is one of the reasons why it was important to give a general shove to the forces, to try to deal with these matters. The noble Baroness particularly asked what exactly had impeded that agreement. I can say that there has been general agreement on the principle. The order provides the imperative since my noble friend announced his intention to make the order. It gives that extra shove from the centre, just to make sure that the things asked for will happen in due course.

Immigration: Controls at Airports

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is right to point to the need for better training. I am sure that the border force and the border agency will take that on board. But it is more than that; there are other matters that we can deal with to improve service in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, does the noble Lord find it humiliating that the queues at Heathrow are the butt of Twitter messages and jokes around the world? Does he accept the strong criticism from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that the problems at Heathrow are caused by massive cuts of 15% of the staff, at the same time as massive organisational changes and a massive lack of good management; or, does he agree with the Immigration Minister in the other place, Damian Green, who says that since May 2010 there has been the wrong kind of wind?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is very selective in what she says about my honourable friend’s evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. That is not surprising. I say yet again that all we get from the Opposition is that this is due to a reduction in numbers of staff. It is nothing to do with reductions in numbers of staff.

Police: Station Closures

Debate between Lord Henley and Baroness Smith of Basildon

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend makes a very good point indeed and I will certainly take it on board. It is quite right that we should make use of the expertise that we have to make sure that policemen who are still available for front-line duties can do them and are not wasted behind the doors of the police station doing bureaucratic jobs.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister, who said that he does not know how many police stations have closed. In my county of Essex, seven police stations have closed, but, worse than that, we now have no more 24-hour police stations, and most police stations are open only between noon and 6 pm. Given that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary said that a 12 per cent cut in police budgets was the most that could be saved, how can the Government justify a 20 per cent cut in Essex? What impact will this have, and why did they not listen to the chief inspector?