Charities Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said in respect of the amendment in her name. I can only concur with and applaud it, because, in my view, the Bill as drafted, given the limitations of consolidation statute, was none the less a big elephant trap for any non-charity lawyer who waded into the same, not realising that the definition in Clause 2 was subtly but significantly different from the definition in Clause 11 of the same phrase. It may seem odd for a charity lawyer to have, as a near-passion, the wish to try and keep charity law as simple, direct and plain as possible; but that has always been my position. It was during the course of the Charities Bill in 2006, when I led for these Benches, and remains an abiding passion in an age that seems to get more and more complicated and trammelled by regulation and so on. Therefore, I am glad at least that we have got this in the Bill. I perfectly understand the limitations of these consolidation statutes and therefore cannot complain that something more has not been done. I am grateful that it will be on the agenda of my noble friend Lord Hodgson; whom I congratulate, if that is the right word, on being appointed to undertake this review. I am glad that I was the author of this review clause in the 2006 Act. The noble Lord can blame me.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I will.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sure. We will all assist him as best we can because I know that he, too, wants to try to make charity law as accessible as possible to the volunteers who are the heart and soul of the charity sector. We will have a lot of excitement when we come back to this House with a new Bill that will, I hope, do a bit of deck clearing. With that, I silence myself.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but I am very happy to confirm what my noble friend has said from the Front Bench. The terms of reference that I have been given are widely drawn. While obviously a lot of our time will be spent on the big issues that affect the sector, we shall want to make sure we do as much tidying up as we can of some of the more specific and technical points, of which this is one.

Already some of the professional bodies such as the Charity Law Association are in touch about some of the things they would like cleared up. I am sure there will be no shortage of views and things for us to do. I very much hope that we get a lot of input, not just from the usual suspects in the sector, but also views from the general public because it is important they should have some say in how their charity sector is structured in the future. Certainly we will make sure—I would be much too frightened not to—that my noble friend’s point is addressed some time between now and next July.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this may be one of the shorter Reports in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to the Minister for the considerable effort I know she has taken to accommodate concerns that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I note he says that charity law should be as simple, direct and as plain as possible. The “as possible” part is the catch-all phrase there because charity law is never simple, direct or plain. Therefore, when welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, to his post in the review of legislation, I do not envy him the position at all. He has been set quite a challenge.

It shows this House at its best that concerns were raised—when we spoke in Committee, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that I had to go back to read what had been said at Second Reading to get the gist, because the issue was so technical—and I hope the Minister and her officials have managed to accommodate them. As I say, it is the House at its best when an issue is raised and Ministers take it away and come back with a solution, which satisfies all. I am also happy to accept the Minister’s amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I give my strong support to the policy thrust behind this Bill. Of course the title, the “Protection of Freedoms Bill”, is a seductive one—who could possibly object to that?—but there is meat in here that is certainly worthy of our support. There is the destruction rule for fingerprints and DNA profiles, the proper regulation of CCTV cameras, and the proposal to give coherence to powers of entry which my noble friend Lord Selsdon has pioneered for a long time, and which I myself had reason to learn about when my flat was broken into by the gas company on the grounds that the neighbour smelt gas. When no gas was found, the gas company seemed to have little responsibility for repairing the door or, indeed, apologising for what it had done.

The Bill also rolls back some of the ineffective and disproportionate aspects of the vetting and barring regime. This has deterred many people from volunteering to help our fellow citizens. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for whom I have the greatest respect, chided my noble friend about this in her opening remarks. She painted the issue in what I can only describe as primary colours, but I will seek to persuade her that actually this is an issue which requires a more pastel and nuanced approach than she has shown so far.

If I have a concern, it is that we have not followed through the logic of some of the proposals in the Bill far enough. My noble friend has told us how it proposes a three-year retention period with a possible two-year extension for identification material taken from people arrested or charged but not convicted, and I thoroughly support that. However, perhaps I may draw my noble friend’s attention to the Elmer database. This database is maintained by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency. It receives reports about possible money laundering and other criminal activities under the Proceedings of Crime Act 2002 entitled “Suspicious Activity Reports” or SARs. It may surprise the House to know that there are now 1.5 million of our fellow citizens on the Elmer database and that this number is increasing by 200,000 a year. Almost 50 per cent of the entries are more than six years old. It is hoped—I repeat, hoped—to delete these by the end of 2011. But this gives rise to some serious civil liberty issues. People do not know that they are on the database, whether the information held about them is correct, and they have no right to find out.

When the committee of your Lordships’ House of which I am a member inquired about this of the SOCA authorities, they said that they might tell us, but they might not. Some entries are inadvertent, access to the database, at least historically, has not been well controlled, and there is no de minimis level of returns. For some years I was head of the compliance committee of a building society. We made several hundred returns every year, none of which was ever for more than about £200 or £300. So I offer to my noble friend the thought that if regulatory principles are that they should be proportionate, accountable, targeted, transparent and consistent, there should be some amendments to bring the Elmer database under much tighter control than we have had it so far.

I turn next to Part 5 covering the vetting and barring regime, and I begin by saying that I understand absolutely the repulsion—it is not too strong a word—that people feel about the abuse of children and vulnerable adults; any parent would. But there is a really important balance to be struck. I prepared for the Government a report looking into what deters people from giving time and money in volunteering in order to help the charity sector. It was called Unshackling Good Neighbours. The evidence we received from across the country was that many of our fellow citizens are put off volunteering by what they see as a lack of trust and a lack of judgment. This must ultimately damage the welfare of children and vulnerable adults. We had evidence from a doctor in the north of England. She was aged 67 and had retired from the health service. She offered to give some time to the Alzheimer’s Society to deal with patients suffering from Alzheimer’s. The society insisted that she be CRB checked because “frequent and intensive” contact, the level we have at the moment, means one visit a month. She said, “The state has an audit trail for me going back 40 years since I became a doctor. If the state doesn’t trust me, I am not going to do the work”. That was not unique; there were lots of cases like it.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, with the utmost respect for her position, that the whole CRB industry has become institutionalised. If you take evidence from charities and voluntary groups, they bring their CRB teams along. Of course they are going to argue that more CRB checks are needed because that is their job. The Charity Commissioners and Ofsted ask charities whether they have carried out their CRB checks. I understand that this is important, but the CRB is a matter of law. The Charity Commissioners are concerned with charity law and Ofsted is concerned with educational standards. They might as well ask whether they ensure that teachers drive at 30 miles an hour when they come to school in the morning.

The police child protection officers ask intrusive and difficult questions of volunteers and there are commercial companies doing CRB checks who like the extension of it because it means more fees for them. Perhaps I may briefly give the House a flavour of this from a letter we had from a lady in Manchester:

“About 8 years ago I decided to get involved in a local Manchester Drama group, whose members range from 7 to 80 years old. A number of us assumed responsibility for teaching the children and preparing them for the annual pantomime and other productions. Naturally, we were CRB checked—a process I had no issue with and wholeheartedly support.

However—having been CRB approved, we were invited to a session with the local child protection officer. I came away from that meeting with a number of very serious questions as to whether I should get involved with this sort of group. The talk left me feeling I would potentially be placing myself in situations of real risk”.

There are many cases which repeat these concerns about the lack of trust and judgment. If you ask some of the other experts, they can explain where the vulnerable points are: they are outside the school gates and on the social networking sites. That is where the grooming takes place, and all too often they are outside any remit of the CRB. I hope that my noble friend will stand firm against any attempt to push back this issue, and I hope also that he may be inclined to think about whether we cannot find another place where the balance can be struck.

I should like his reassurance—I think he gave us one in his opening remarks—that the portable passport is now coming into being. Can he let the House know what the charge for this passport will be? There has been a lot of concern in the sector that there will be a substantial charge. Could he also let us know what the definition of “frequent and intensive” contact will be in the future? If it is to be in new regulations, it would be helpful for us to know this when we come to debate these clauses in Committee.

I want to leave the debate with one further thought. It is a small issue, but one that is growing in importance. In future, how are we going to ensure the accuracy of information placed on social networking websites and who will be responsible for this? This is a freedom which is increasingly going to need protecting. Two sites in particular have given rise to public anxiety: Facebook, which is well known, and a site called TripAdvisor that gives recommendations about holidays and other leisure sites. The importance of these and other social networking websites will surely continue to increase. A situation can now arise where people and their businesses can be irredeemably damaged by completely inaccurate statements that are put up on these websites and for which they can obtain no redress. Last week a case was reported on the radio of a plumber in Southampton whose business was wrecked by the fact that it was alleged that he was a paedophile, and destructive messages are published about leisure sites by rivals to try to ensure that they get a greater part of the business. People are entitled to some clear way of challenging these statements and, where appropriate, of obtaining redress. I would be interested to hear whether my noble friend has any policy developments under consideration to deal with this issue, one that is surely going to increase in importance in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it was a real anger and it was quite right that something should be done about it. I think he is wrong, though, to imply that people welcome more and more cameras on every single occasion.

Obviously, we have got to get this right, so I was very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for example, welcomed the fact that we were going to have a code of practice and a new commissioner. Again, she said it was important that further things should happen. I think she saw that there was insufficient provision for complaints to be made and she also suggested that there was not—I think I have it right—sufficient oversight. I will certainly look at that, and these are obviously matters that we can examine in Committee.

The last point that I should pick up on is that made by my noble friends Lady Miller and Lady Doocey, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, when they talked about the number of commissioners and considered whether there could be a merger of commissioners. I appreciate that the number of commissioners seems to be growing, but their roles are distinct. Again, that is a matter of detail that we should be able to consider in due course in Committee.

Turning to powers of entry, my noble friend Lord Goodhart, who generally welcomed the Bill, for which I was very grateful, raised the issue that it includes a number of Henry VIII powers. Whenever that expression is mentioned, I think back to what was almost the first Bill that I handled at this Dispatch Box, which related to statutory sick pay, which was one of the earliest modern reintroductions of Henry VIII powers. I remember the savaging that I received from the then good friend of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, Lord Russell, and the problems that we had with the Bill. When I die, no doubt Henry VIII powers will be found engraved on my heart. However, the noble Lord accepts the fact that it is possibly appropriate here, in removing powers of entry, to use those Henry VIII powers. I stress—in particular, to my noble friend Lord Selsdon—that that power is only for the repeal of powers of entry. Clause 41, which allows amendments to be made to powers of entry, makes it quite clear that those powers can be used only where they do not reduce the protection for the individual. Again, I pay tribute to all the work that my noble friend Lord Selsdon has done over the years in trying to reduce the number of powers of entry. In due course, I will write to him with further details on the code of conduct.

Turning briefly to wheel clamping, that is a matter for Committee on which I know that my noble friend Lord Attlee, who has great expertise in the area, will be able to deal with it. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, this is something that we need to look at with very great care, especially access to the DVLA database. I shall also consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, what we need to do about ticketing and abuse in that area. I have also noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, did not have to say about the abuse of blue badge parking, which concerns all of us and which we should address. However, clamping in a disabled parking area is not the solution to that problem, because once you have clamped a vehicle in that area, you cannot use that area. There are other, better ways to deal with that problem.

Moving to counterterrorism and the questions raised about the reduction to 14 days, I note that most noble Lords are happy with the reduction from 28 days to 14 days, but I note the concern about the measures that would have to be used to raise that 14 days to 28 days if we were in a difficult situation where we needed to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was very honest when he said that it was difficult to see how we could get from the 14 days back to the 28 days. We have to look at that. At the moment we have Clause 58 and the powers in the Bill as set out, but certainly we will want to look at those again very carefully. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, had to say, that he thought that we had not gone far enough in what we were doing, and that it would be too difficult to do it. He would certainly want to try to extend Clause 58, as I understood him, to allow the Home Secretary to extend the period in other circumstances where appropriate. I was grateful that he made it quite clear that he hoped she would never have to make use of any of those powers.

I come now to vetting and barring, and again that expression I used at the beginning about getting the balance right is more important here than in virtually any other field. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, put it, our first priority must be the protection of children and young people, and that will remain our priority. However, we obviously have to have the right balance, as was stressed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, though others thought that we had got this wrong and thought more protection ought to be brought in. As I said at the beginning, I want to stress that if you bring in too great a control and too great protections, there is the danger of encouraging a tick-box mentality, which might not provide the better protection for children and young people that we want. Again, I will look at that as we discuss these matters in Committee.

I would say to my noble friend Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, but more particularly to my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint, who all spoke about sporting issues, that I would be more than happy to see a delegation of sports bodies if she would like to bring them to see me in due course.

I would also like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said that he was not happy about what might happen to volunteering and the risk to volunteers, that he look at some of the briefing provided by Volunteering England, which states:

“However, we would not want to see this wording tightened up by use of terms such as ‘close’ or ‘constant’ supervision, as has been suggested by other organisations, because it could further restrict the involvement of volunteers. If the requirements for supervision are too prescriptive, organisations may be put off from involving volunteers and potential volunteers deterred from volunteering”.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Will my noble friend give way momentarily? One of the questions now is: what is “frequent and intensive” when dealing with children and vulnerable adults? Are we going to have a new definition of it, and if there is a new definition of it, will it be available for discussion in Committee? Clearly, there is a wide range of opinions around the Chamber about how we should tackle that.

[Lord Henley]

How you would interpret those words is really a question of fact and degree. I will have a further look before we get to Committee to see whether I can write in greater detail on that. If I cannot, I am sure that it is something that we would want to discuss in greater detail in Committee and at later stages.

Finally, I come to freedom of information and data protection in Part 6. I will touch on this only very briefly because I understand the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill and Lady O’Loan, about the publication of research, particularly early publication. I accept that there is a genuine concern coming from Universities UK.

Passenger Name Records: EUC Report

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I have the honour of being a member of Sub-Committee F, the home affairs sub-committee of the European Union Select Committee of your Lordships' House. We are, as your Lordships have heard, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who marshals us so efficiently and delicately that most of the time we are not really aware that we are being marshalled at all. He has laid out the case made and the conclusions reached in our report with the skill that I have come to expect. I do not want to repeat all the comments that he made, but there are a couple of issues that I should like to raise. However, I should first say that I firmly support the conclusions that our committee reached in the report, and I shall urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to tell us that the Government intend to opt into the proposal.

I should begin by underlining, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the issue of principle. It is excellent that we are taking the first steps in creating an established procedure for enhanced scrutiny of opt-in decisions, for, whether we like it or not, there is concern in the country at large about what is often seen as encroachment by European institutions on areas of our national life. I make no judgment on whether that is right or wrong, but enhanced scrutiny, which brings with it greater transparency, gives the opportunity for more searching debate, and so to set the issue in context is an important way of defusing, for better or worse, public concern. Thereafter, the cards of public opinion must fall where they may. I add my thanks to those offered by our chairman to the Government for having made time for us to have this debate today.

Perhaps I may raise a couple of issues about the proposed directive. The first is the information that it is proposed will be collected under the PNR agreement, which is listed in Appendix 2. There are there nine categories of API data and 19 further categories of PNR data. Some of them are duplicates; for example, the name is required under both sets. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some of them and quite rightly picked out those that are most salient and important: the address and contact information, the billing address, the baggage information, and the number and other names of travellers on the PNR. My concern about the list, as it is printed in our report, is that it looks like a shopping list drawn up by a committee, with everyone adding their own bits, with more and more marginal ideas and marginal pieces of data being requested. Why do I worry about that? I worry about it because I think it means that there is a lack of focus. The key data get lost. We are looking for needles in haystacks and the less the amount of background information we have to sift through, the more we shall be able to focus on the intensive and important points that we need to collect about people who are travelling. I hope that my noble friend’s officials will make an effort to try to keep the data to the minimum so as to achieve the maximum effect.

The second point is the extent. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has pointed out the advantages of the directive applying to flights within, as well as into, the EU. I share the view of the committee that we should support the Government’s proposal to extend this, but I am less convinced about the arguments for it. I regard this as a nice-to-have, not a must-have, principle. Why do I think like that? I think that as we are going to collect yet more data, which may or may not be analysed properly, we run the danger of failing to see the wood for the trees. On the issue of cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there are three times as many flights within the EU as there are coming into the EU. There may also be inconvenience for travellers, although I am not sure how the procedure will work. Finally, potential criminals and terrorists are not foolish; they will merely shift their travel patterns to reflect the way that the PNR data are collected. That is not to say that we should not try to impede them—we should—and undoubtedly the Government are right that, if this is extended to internal flights, it will make their work more difficult. However, Europe is sufficiently small and the road and rail transport networks sufficiently good that you can drive from one end of Europe to the other in 36 or 48 hours and, therefore, I am not sure that the capture of airline data will add enormously to what we are trying to achieve. Therefore, I regard it as a nice-to-have principle, not a must-have principle, and the advantages probably do not outweigh the various costs.

On costs, my major concern is the civil liberties aspect. I instinctively dislike Governments collecting information about their citizens for unspecific reasons. I refer to central government, local government or governments of whatever colour. I have a principled dislike of it. When we negotiate the details of this I hope that we shall be looking very carefully at the rules for data collection, retention and disposal. They need to be carefully prescribed and carefully enforced.

In the earlier report that we produced on the EU/US passenger name record, which applied to the US, paragraphs 160 and 161 drew attention to some of the dangers. Paragraph 160 states:

“The principal risk of error in using PNR data seems to us to arise, not from the quality of the data, but from the erroneous interpretation of the data”.

One of the problems is that we have considerable concerns about how that might be interpreted and whether individuals about whom data has been collected are able to be assured about its accuracy. Paragraph 161 states:

“It is important that intending passengers should be aware of who will receive their personal data, and subject to what conditions”.

Those two recommendations of an earlier report need to be reflected when we come to the final directive on this occasion. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should opt in, despite those tactical reservations.

Last summer I was rather disobliging to my noble friend when we were discussing the European investigations order. I was extremely concerned about it then because I felt there were no agreed standards on evidence gathering and handling, no minimum basic procedural safeguards, no coherent data protection regime and no agreement on important areas of proportionality, extra-territoriality and double jeopardy. I suggested to my noble friend that we might have done better to stay outside until the shape of the final directive became a bit clearer. She told me very firmly then that we were going to opt in because we could better influence events and shape it if we were inside having opted in than from the outside. On this occasion we have a much better structured directive, with a final shape in place—although not the final details as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made clear. If she felt that we should have opted in to the much looser investigations order last summer, I cannot see the logic of why we should not opt in to this one now.

Extradition: Gary McKinnon

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I have not had any discussions with the Americans and I cannot, without notice, answer for other members of the Government.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the timing of the Scott Baker review. Clearly, this is an increasingly urgent matter, given this and other sad cases. The latest parliamentary Answer that the Minister has given is that it will take place in late summer, which is a fairly broad date. Could we have an update on the timing? Does the Minister not share my regret that this unbalanced treaty was slipped—not passed—through by the previous Labour Government without any parliamentary scrutiny at all?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I would hope that the legislature had done its proper job. As regards the review being conducted by Sir Scott Baker, he has indeed been asked to report by next summer. The reason for that is to allow him to conduct a proper review. If I might say so, there is a general feeling that some of the provisions need looking at. If they are to be looked at, they need to be looked at thoroughly. They include such matters as the breadth of the Secretary of State’s discretion; the operation of the European arrest warrant; whether we should commence the forum bar; whether the UK-US extradition treaty is unbalanced; and the whole question of whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence. This is a long and substantial list of items. I am sure the House will agree that it is right that those conducting the review should be able to do a thorough job.

EU: European Investigation Order

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to opt into the European Investigation Order.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a patron of Fair Trials International.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has today made a Statement in the other place to the effect that the UK has today formally indicated to the President of the European Council that the UK wishes to opt into the EIO.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response, but I hope she will forgive me if I ask her to recognise that many people were very disturbed by this decision. Is she aware that at present, inter alia, there is no agreed basic standard across Europe for pre-trial evidence gathering and analysis, no implementation of basic minimum procedural defence safeguards and no coherent data protection regime? As a result there is a widespread view that there is likely to be an inequality of arms between defence and prosecution, and that will cover important areas such as proportionality, extraterritoriality and double jeopardy. Given this, would it not have been better for us not to opt in, bearing in mind that we cannot opt out once we have opted in, until we saw the final shape of the document and could be certain that its contents would provide satisfactory safeguards for our civil liberties? Otherwise, are we not signing, or have we not signed, a blank cheque?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I have to disagree with my noble friend. We believe that opting into the EIO is in the interests of justice. It does not transfer any jurisdiction, which is what many might have feared, and we actually believe that the system of mutual legal assistance, which is already operating, deserves to be improved by one of the main innovations that will take place as a result of the EIO—setting deadlines for the receipt of evidence that is sent from one country to another. That is one of the current defects of mutual legal assistance. In other respects, the EIO does not change the present regime.