Offensive Weapons Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been quite a wide-ranging debate on an extremely serious subject, certainly in the shadow of the death of Mr Pomeroy only the other day. Of course, noble Lords have mentioned Dunblane and Hungerford. All noble Lords will never forget those times.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a very important point during her speech that this is not just about legislation, which goes to the heart of some of the frustration felt by noble Lords when they think that this or that should be in the Bill. As she said, we cannot solve this just by legislation. There has been work on county lines and the serious violence strategy, which I will mention shortly, on prevention, early intervention, and of course the all-important multiagency work that my noble friend Lady Couttie mentioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the consultation on the public health duty. That is at the heart of the Home Secretary’s approach. We have already started working with Scottish officials to develop learning from their public health approach. The Home Secretary chairs the cross-party, cross-stakeholder serious violence task force, together with the Mayor of London. There will be a consultation on the new legal duty that will underpin the public health approach to tackling serious violence. The Government will launch that consultation shortly. This approach is not before time, as many noble Lords mentioned.

A number of noble Lords questioned the legal certainty around the terms of the new offences provided for in the Bill, a point also raised by the JCHR, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is a member. Possession of corrosives in a public place requires a different approach from the sale of corrosives to under-18s. For the sale of corrosives, we have taken the approach of listing the specific chemicals in Schedule 1. However, for possession of corrosives in a public place an approach is needed that can be used operationally by the police. That is why Clause 6(9) defines a corrosive as,

“capable of burning human skin by corrosion”.

This definition would not capture most household cleaning products, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, posits, but it would cover some stronger drain cleaners and industrial cleaning agents.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham asked about the Schedule 1 list and the difference of approach we have taken to defining a corrosive product for prohibiting the sale of corrosives to under-18s and a corrosive substance for the purposes of possessing a corrosive. For the sale offence, manufacturers and retailers need absolute clarity over what they can and cannot sell, so we have listed the specific chemicals and concentration levels in Schedule 1. The relevant products will be barcoded—I hope that that answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—to help retailers avoid selling them to children. For the possession offence, we need a simpler definition that police can use on the ground because, of course, they are not chemists. We have used a definition based on the burning of human skin that can be tested by the police using a simple kit that is currently being developed, which I hope goes to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about car batteries. We are aware of the potential issue relating to sealed batteries used in cars and mobility scooters. We are looking at this further. I am sure we will return to it in further stages. Our intention is certainly not to cause unintended problems from the measures in the Bill on legitimate activities. The Bill is aimed at tackling violent crime, not restricting legitimate business.

My noble friend Lord Lucas asked why we have not provided a full list of banned corrosives. The corrosive products in Schedule 1 reflect the advice of the police and the government scientists. They are substances that are most likely to be used in acid attacks. The concentration levels reflect those that are likely to cause permanent damage if used in an attack. There is a delegated power to add further substances to Schedule 1 if further evidence shows that it is required.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about raising the age to 21, rather than 18, for age-restricted products such as corrosives and knives. The current universal age of a child is someone until the age of 18. Placing the age restriction on measures on corrosives in the Bill would set a precedent for other age-restricted products such as knives and alcohol. We need to consider proportionality. Knives and corrosives are not in themselves weapons. They have many legitimate uses. It would be wrong to say that an adult cannot buy drain cleaner or, indeed, a bread knife. A better approach is to challenge those who might look under the age of 21. This is something that responsible retailers already do.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the good reason defence for the purposes of Clause 6. The good reason defence has existed for some time for bladed and pointed articles and has been operated by the police with no issues. A good reason would include taking the corrosive home for its intended purpose, or use in the course of employment or academic study. As I said before, we do not expect the police to challenge shoppers as they leave supermarkets. It is intended to tackle those who have serious violent intent, acting on intelligence and reasonable suspicion.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of stop-and-search powers. As he will be aware, if an officer has reasonable grounds to suspect someone of carrying a prohibited article, such as a corrosive substance, with the intent to cause injury, the police already have the power to conduct a stop and search under PACE 1984. We have been consulting on extending stop and search to ensure that there are no gaps in police powers. Police officers will still need reasonable grounds to justify the use of these powers for the new offence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and another noble Lord asked about acid testing kits. We have jointly commissioned the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, along with the NPCC, to develop an effective and robust testing regime which will allow police officers to be able to safely test suspect containers and bottles for corrosive substances. It is our intention to have a viable testing kit available to the police before the provisions on the new possession offence are commenced. My noble friend Lady Eaton made the very sensible point that the testing kit needs to be cost effective. Of course it does.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about labelling, alongside the issue of barcoding. We considered labelling of corrosive products but chemical manufacturers were opposed to this. Their products are sold internationally and having specific labelling for the UK market would have been expensive. However, I know from personal experience that certain products are already labelled, particularly those that contain substances which can prove to be corrosive in their more concentrated form.

There was a lot of discussion on .50 calibre rifles. The noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Ramsbotham, all questioned the removal from the Bill of the prohibition of high-power rifles, although this change to the Bill was welcomed by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I assure all noble Lords on both sides of the argument that we have looked into these issues in great detail. It is apparent that they are more complex than they at first appeared, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out. This issue requires further careful consideration before deciding how best to proceed. We therefore feel that it is only right to consider the issue further in consultation with interested parties. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that will be in the next few months and probably after the passage of the Bill. In the interim, it would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of that work by including a ban on these weapons in the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Caithness talked about taking up the APPG suggestions. I shall certainly look at those before Committee. My noble friend Lord Attlee has put forward a helpful proposal. We welcome all these ideas and will consider this further as part of the wider consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and my noble friend Lord Robathan talked about Northern Ireland and the fact that some of the firearms used there are still not banned. We did consult fully, but the consultation options were limited to whether or not to prohibit them, not whether enhanced security, as has been suggested for the .50 calibre rifles, would be a factor in mitigating any threats raised by law enforcement. Public safety is our number one priority. In response to the points made on the security of such weapons, I can say that we expect owners to continue to take all reasonable security measures and ensure that the relevant level of security is in place, under existing firearm certificates.

There was a lot of support for shop workers and I totally understand where that point is coming from. The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out that shop workers are not only under strain but are intimidated by some customers. They asked how we can afford greater protection to those workers. The Government continue to consider the case for a bespoke offence relating to assaults on retail staff. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that last month my ministerial colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime hosted a round-table meeting attended by David Hanson MP, Richard Graham MP and representatives from the British Retail Consortium, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. It was a very productive meeting and we are currently considering how best to proceed.

My noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about manually activated release system rifles, or MARS as they are more commonly known. The firing systems in these weapons means that they can discharge rounds at a much faster rate than conventional bolt-action rifles. There are, no doubt, some shooters who can manipulate a bolt-action rifle very quickly, but we cannot ignore the fact that these MARS and lever release rifles are closer to self-loading rifles, which are already prohibited in civilian ownership. We have sought to point out, in the public consultation and subsequently, that potential misuse of these rifles presents an unacceptable risk. It is therefore appropriate that they should be subject to the most stringent controls. If individual owners wish to convert their rifles to a straight-pull action or to have them deactivated before the Bill passes into law, as my noble friend suggested, they will have that choice. If not, I can confirm that we will make arrangements for compensation to be paid to owners who choose to surrender their rifles instead. We will return to the subject of an amnesty and discuss it further in Committee.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and other noble Lords raised the issue of air weapons and the need for consultation ahead of any action in relation to them. The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service announced a review of the regulation of air weapons in October 2017, following the coroner’s report into the tragic death of Benjamin Wragge, a 13 year-old boy who was shot accidentally with an air weapon in 2016. The Government recognise that there are very strong views on the regulation of air weapons. As the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability said in Committee in another place, it is our intention to announce the outcome of that review shortly.

My noble friend also made a number of valuable points in relation to the medical suitability of firearms certificate holders. My noble friend Lord Bethell talked about modernising the processes for obtaining firearms licences, so that we can continue to command the public’s trust in the efficacy of the system. I assure my noble friend that the Government and the police, who administer firearms licensing, see the need to make progress in modernising the existing arrangements. As a step towards this, legislation was introduced at the end of 2017 to allow for the electronic submission of firearms and shotgun applications to the police. These changes were introduced to help pave the way for online processes and they mean that individual police forces can now accept applications electronically if they wish to do so. This is very much a first step, but it will help both the police and individual licence holders to begin to benefit from the efficiencies that digitisation will bring.

My noble friend also raised the issue of prosecution in relation to offences involving corrosive substances. I take his point about the need to do more to ensure that all offenders who use a corrosive substance are brought to justice: that is why the NPCC has been working hard to ensure that the policing response is effective and that training is developed for officers dealing with these attacks, including new first responder training and advice. Special investigative guidance has also been developed to help officers understand how to safely recover and handle any evidence at the scene, and the evidence required to build a case for prosecution. A number of high-profile court cases over the course of 2018 resulted in successful convictions and lengthy custodial sentences. That has sent a clear message that these horrendous attacks will not be tolerated. We think that sentences act as a deterrent.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about minimum mandatory sentences. The minimum mandatory sentence that applies in England and Wales for the offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place mirrors that which already exists for possession of a bladed article in public. We believe that corrosives should be treated as seriously as knives as a weapon, particularly for repeat offences. Under Clause 8 the court will have the flexibility not to impose a minimum sentence where it would be unjust to do so.

My noble friend Lord Bethell asked how measures in the Bill on corrosives will lead to successful convictions. We will be working closely with police and trading standards on the implementation of measures prohibiting the sale and delivery of corrosive products to under-18s and prohibiting the delivery of corrosive products to residential premises. This will include developing guidance to ensure that the new offences can be effectively enforced. In addition, we will look to work with retailers, through relevant trade associations, on the implementation of these measures, to ensure that retailers know which corrosive products are caught by this and that they will need to apply their Challenge 21 and Challenge 25 policies where appropriate. We have already put in place a set of voluntary commitments on the responsible sale of corrosive substances. These prohibit sales to under-18s, and a number of major retailers have signed up to them.

My noble friend also spoke about the need for prevention and early intervention, as did I. This goes to the heart of our efforts to tackle this terrible problem. I reassure my noble friend that we will use the research findings that we have commissioned to help us shape effective prevention and early intervention programmes that can be delivered in various settings, whether that is in schools, pupil referral units or youth projects. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked why the Bill does not cover the threat of fake acid attacks. Actually, threatening with an inert substance such as water which the person claims is acid is already an offence that can be prosecuted as common assault or as a public order offence.

I know I am running out of time, but I will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, about kirpans. What is now Clause 25 provides for a defence for the purpose of “religious reasons”, as opposed to the original wording, “religious ceremonies”. This ensures that the possession in private of large kirpans for religious reasons can continue, even when not in the context of a ceremony such as a wedding. It does not extend to the gifting of ceremonial swords with a blade of more than 50 centimetres in length, but I would be happy to meet the noble Lord, Lord Singh, ahead of Committee.

I shall finish by talking about police numbers, because a lot of questions were asked about this. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a point about the noble Lord, Lord Blair, and I am now going to make a point about the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. That points to the fact that the issue is complex: I am not saying that the police are not under strain, but of course other factors, such as the increase in drugs markets, have contributed to the rise in serious violence. Of course, overall public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in 2018-19.

Finally, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove, not only for all she has done to support victims but for some of the things she has been able to share with us today from her very tragic experience. I know that she is meeting my officials shortly. She has made every articulate point, as has the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the importance of support for victims. The Government are putting victims and survivors at the heart of our response. We want victims to feel confident in coming forward, so that the perpetrators of these crimes can be brought to justice.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she go back to her point about .50 calibre weapons? She said that this is very important and serious and that the Government want to consult properly and do not want to ban things before they have had a consultation. I see that train of thought—but she then said that the consultation will finish after we have considered the Bill. What will happen if the Government then decide to ban the weapons? Do we then need further legislation or is there a power in here that the Government could take? Perhaps she can come back to me on that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is a very fair point and I will come back to the noble Lord about just how that process will work.

If the House will indulge me for another minute, the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Storey and Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lady Couttie and others all talked about early intervention and prevention, and the balance between prevention and law enforcement. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said we are not funding some of the early interventions. We are providing £17.7 million over the next two years through the Early Intervention Youth Fund, about which I have spoken in this House. We also support early intervention and prevention through the new rounds of the Anti-Knife Crime Community Fund for 2018-19 and 2019-20. The fund for 2018-19 was recently increased to £1.5 million, which has funded 68 projects. Our continued focus on a multiagency approach is absolutely the right one to tackling serious violence. I shall leave it there. I will write to noble Lords about the higher education point, the definition of a bladed product, the points made by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and of course the Commonwealth Games, which I will take back.

[The Earl of Listowel]

Will the noble Baroness write to me about the future of youth work as a career—one which is stable over time and which does not face huge funding cuts every time there is a financial downturn? I welcome what she said about the large investment in the Early Intervention Youth Fund, but a secure career for youth workers would be such a boon in this area for the future.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is probably beyond my purview, but I will certainly refer it to either DCMS or MHCLG, as it is now called. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in the last few years we have seen a very concerning rise in the number of serious violent crimes in the UK. This includes an ongoing rise in knife crime, as well as the emergence of acid attacks.

Such horrific crimes seem to be increasing in not only their frequency but their severity, with ever-worse injuries for victims who are increasingly younger and younger. Tragically, the rise in knife crime has contributed to an increasing number of homicides, and the House will be aware of the tragic event last Friday where a father was fatally stabbed on a train from Guildford to London. I am sure the whole House will join me in offering our sympathy to the victim’s family and friends.

Violent crime can have a devastating effect on communities and can blight the lives of young people. In 2018, 134 homicides were recorded in the Metropolitan Police area, 79 of which involved knives. The Offensive Weapons Bill is born out of the necessity to tackle this serious issue. Violent crime must be reduced and its perpetrators brought to justice. Tackling serious violence will require a united approach from the Government, working with key partners on the ground, be they police officers, parents, teachers or charities. That collaborative approach is at the heart of the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy, which was published in April 2018. The strategy sets out a comprehensive programme of action and looks to multiagency working to deliver real results on our streets and in our communities. A crucial part is its focus on early intervention and prevention to stop young people getting involved in violent crime in the first place. We have established a serious violence task force to oversee this work, which consists of members of the police and community groups, the Mayor of London and government departments.

The Bill is a key part of the Government’s response to serious violent crime and will create new offences as well as provide additional powers for the police. Legislation alone can never be the complete answer to such complex problems, but it is an important component of the wider government response to serious violent crime. The Bill covers three main areas: acid attacks, knife crime and the risks posed by firearms. On all of these areas we have engaged widely through consultation and close collaboration with the police and other interested parties, to make sure that we are providing the powers that they need. The measures contained in the Bill aim to stop under-18s getting hold of particularly dangerous acids and purchasing knives online, and will give the police the powers they need to take action when people are in possession of dangerous weapons in private.

Acid attacks have life-altering consequences and there are no reasons why industrial strength corrosives should be sold to under-18s. The Bill will ban the sale of highly corrosive products to under-18s, both in stores and online. It will also make it an offence to possess a corrosive substance in public without a good reason, which will enable the police to directly tackle the issue on the streets, extending their powers to perform stop and search for the confiscation of corrosives.

The sale of knives to under-18s is already illegal, but too often knives are still finding their way into the hands of young people, with tragic consequences. In particular, it is too easy for under-18s to acquire knives from online retailers, including those operating overseas. The Bill will mean that online sellers in the UK need to meet certain conditions when they sell knives online. It will also prohibit the delivery of bladed products to a residential premise or locker. We are making it an offence for a delivery company in the UK to knowingly deliver knives to a person under the age of 18 where these have been bought online from a seller overseas.

The Bill makes it an offence to possess certain offensive weapons in private. This will mean that the police can act on intelligence concerning people possessing shocking weapons such as zombie knives and knuckledusters, designed only for violent purposes. It also extends to further education premises the current ban on possession and threatening with bladed articles and offensive weapons in schools, and makes it an offence to threaten with an offensive weapon in private.

Turning to firearms, the Bill bans the possession of rapid-firing firearms, as well as bump stocks, which have been specifically designed to circumvent existing prohibitions and are often marketed as such. Due to their higher rate of fire, these weapons pose a heightened risk to the public if they were to fall into the wrong hands.

There has been much debate in the progress of this Bill on the prohibition of high-power rifles. This has been shown to be a particularly complex issue requiring further consideration before we proceed with legislation. It is for this reason that the House of Commons removed from the Bill the clause prohibiting such weapons. However, the Government are committed to further public consultation on this issue, including with the law enforcement agencies and the target-shooting community. I am sure that noble Lords will also want to debate this issue and I welcome the contribution that they will bring to our further consideration of the appropriate regulation for these weapons.

The public want violent crime to be dealt with now, and rightly so. This Bill will help to do that—I therefore commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I have just been given notice that the health Statement has now started in the Commons. We have a difficult decision to make. With the will of the House, we will continue the debate and finish it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No—the Urgent Question.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I see. We will continue with the Urgent Question then hear the Statement after that.

Migration: International Students

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interests as set out in the register.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the independent Office for National Statistics, which follows best international practice, produces the migration statistics. The Government do not seek to influence that. The Migration Advisory Committee also recommended that students should not be taken out of the net migration statistics. There is no plan to limit the number of genuine international students who can come to the UK, and university-sponsored student visa application numbers are at a record high.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

My Lords, the United States, Australia, France and Germany have all achieved greater growth in the numbers of international students. In the light of that, does my noble friend believe that we have the right strategy? What is happening across Whitehall to ensure that we really grip this issue and make sure that, when it comes to international students, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the brightest and the breast—the brightest and the best—choose Britain?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Well, my Lords, to keep abreast of the international growth figures, I think we should measure our success by the number of students applying for visas and coming here to study. There has been a 26% increase in visa applications since 2010-11, so we are certainly not deterring students coming here to study; indeed, the UK is becoming an increasingly popular place to come to for study. Perhaps I may quote from the MAC report. It states:

“Part of that joint action”—


in terms of improving the country’s image—

“would be to talk less about students in the net migration target as it is possible that the repeated discussions of students in the target is itself contributing”,

to the perceived problem.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the MAC report. That report says very clearly that the number one reason why international students do not choose Britain as their number one choice is the lack of post-study work opportunities. Does the Minister agree that we are losing out in growth rates? Should we not bring back the two-year post-graduation work visa so that we can compete with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, let alone the EU countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord might like to know that the number of student visas granted to students from India, a country he often asks me about, has increased by 33%, so there are certainly no problems there. Indeed, we have gone further than the MAC recommended on post-study leave to remain and increased it to six months for graduates, and we will increase it to 12 months for postgraduate students.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, why are the Government having such difficulty getting people to believe their position on international students?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have just explained that in my reply to my noble friend Lord Holmes: we whip this question up although the facts before us belie it. I simply do not believe that a 26% increase in the number of visa applications represents a country struggling.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned India. Did she hear the fascinating series of programmes, “As Others See Us”, on Radio 4 last week? A speaker from India asked—it was a rhetorical question—how we expect India to strengthen its ties with Britain without relaxing visa restrictions. He cited the period allowed for post-study work as being too short. He said, “You cannot take from us a free trade agreement without lowering the immigration restrictions which keep us out”. Are the slight extensions to post-study leave adequate to answer that question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

To answer that question, look at the number of Indian students who are not just applying for but succeeding in getting student visas. How others see us, in terms of how Indian students see us, is as a country which they wish to learn from and study in. I know there is an issue about visa relaxation with India, because I was in Delhi last year, but the figures do not bear that out. Indian students are applying to universities in this country in droves.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does not my noble friend accept that if we reflected on the wisdom of the question of my noble friend Lord Holmes and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, our vital statistics would certainly improve?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I made the point that our vital statistics have improved massively in the past eight to nine years. There is no cap on the number of students who can come to study here and, as the future immigration White Paper showed, have great prospects here.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, since 2011, the number of international students enrolled in UK universities has risen just 3%, compared to a 40% increase for the United States. It is the number of students, not just the visa applications, that is important. Given the immense economic and social benefit of international students, does not the Minister agree that the Government should take further steps to increase our global market share of international students?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the fact that there is no cap on student numbers is all to the good. People want to come to this country to study, they are doing so in increasing numbers and, as I pointed out just before we broke up for the Christmas Recess, the increase in post-study leave is to be welcomed and will benefit students.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is, I believe, saying that we want to encourage international students to come to this country. The confusion arises because they feel that our net migration objectives run counter to that. Would it not be simplest to identify the students coming to and leaving this country separately in national statistics?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are following the advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee. Similarly, the ONS takes that view of migration statistics. Indeed, we are in line with many countries in the world which do the same. In fact, because there is no limit on the number of students who come here, there is no disbenefit to students being counted in those figures.

Future Immigration

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the UK’s future border and immigration system after we leave the EU. We all heard the public’s concerns about immigration in the run-up to the EU referendum. These were concerns held by many voters, on both sides of the debate. The result of that referendum was clear, and the UK will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. This means we can end freedom of movement, so that for the first time for more than 40 years, we will be able to say who can, and who cannot, come to this country. This is an historic moment.

But let us be clear. The United Kingdom has a proud history of being an open and welcoming nation, and this will not change. As the son of immigrant parents, I know full well the contribution that they, like many other migrants, made to the community that I grew up in. We recognise and value immigration and the contribution that it has made to our society, culture, economy and communities, and this cannot be overstressed. It has helped to deliver vital public services. It has brought new perspectives, expertise and knowledge, stimulating growth and making us the more tolerant, outward-looking nation we are today.

Britain is going to stay open for business. We will continue to welcome talented migrants from every corner of the globe. And we have been very clear to the 3 million EU nationals already here: we value hugely the contribution that you have made to this country. Deal or no deal, we want you to stay, and we will protect your rights.

The future system is about making sure immigration works in the best interests of the UK. We are absolutely not closing our doors. We are simply making sure that we have control over who comes through, ensuring, as we committed to do in our manifesto, that we are able to bring annual net migration down to more sustainable levels.

Today we published a White Paper setting out the Government’s proposals for doing this through a single skills-based immigration system that will seize the unique opportunities enabled by the end of free movement. Copies are available for honourable and right honourable Members in the Vote Office. I would like to highlight the key proposals and principles in it to the House.

First, free movement will come to an end. Tomorrow we will introduce the immigration and social security co-ordination (EU withdrawal) Bill to implement this. It will make EEA and Swiss nationals, and their family members, subject to UK immigration control. It will protect the status of Irish nationals. This means that everyone other than British and Irish citizens will need to get UK permission before they can come here.

Secondly, it will be a single immigration system for all nationalities. The existing automatic preference for EU citizens will end. This approach will give everyone the same chance, regardless of where they are from, levelling the playing field to welcome the most talented people from anywhere in the world.

Thirdly, it will be a skills-based system, giving priority to those with the skills that we need. We are taking this approach to ensure that we can attract the brightest and best people to the UK—those who will help our economy flourish. This follows advice commissioned from the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of European migration on the UK economy and society. We believe this is fair and it will help drive up wages and productivity across our economy.

Following these three principles, we are acting to make the future immigration system work for those coming to our country, businesses, our public services and the UK as a whole. Our approach will maintain protections for British workers while cutting bureaucracy. Fundamental to this will be a new route for skilled workers to ensure that employers can access the talent that they need to compete on the world stage. There will be no cap on numbers and no requirement for the highest-skilled workers to undertake a resident labour market test, and there will be a minimum salary threshold.

We are also creating a time-limited temporary short-term workers route to ensure that businesses have the staff they need to fill jobs as they adapt to the new immigration system. We will ask the MAC to keep this scheme under review, so that it ensures a smooth transition. This route will be open to seasonal and low-skilled workers, along with high-skilled workers who need to come to the UK for longer than the current business visitor visa rules allow. Those who arrive under this scheme will have no rights to access public funds, settle or bring dependants. The White Paper sets out our initial proposals to allow these short-term workers to come to the UK for 12 months at a time, followed by a year-long cooling-off period to prevent long-term working. We will be engaging extensively with businesses and stakeholders on the length of the stay and cooling-off period to make sure we get this right.

These proposals will give protection to British workers, but we have recognised that immigration alone cannot be the solution. So we will continue as a Government, working in partnership with business, to invest to improve the productivity and skills of the UK workforce.

Our world-class universities will also benefit from the proposed new system. There will be no limits on the number of international students, who we will continue to encourage to come and study here. We will make it easier for the graduates to stay and to work. This will widen the talent pool for businesses and boost economic growth.

Our plans are about opening Britain up for business rather than creating new red tape, so the future immigration system will be quick and easy to use. We will introduce a streamlined application process for those visiting, or coming to work or to study, and this will use the latest digital technology. This will improve the experience visitors and travellers have crossing the border. We will also make it possible for more people to use e-gates. At the same time, we will improve security at the border by introducing an electronic travel authorisation scheme and phasing out the use of insecure national identity cards.

We are proposing a single skills-based immigration system that will be fit for the future—one that is flexible to accommodate the trade deals that we agree with the EU and other countries. It will operate from 2021, but will be phased in to give individuals, businesses and the Government the time needed to adapt. This means that individuals do not need to make immediate changes and businesses do not need to rush through plans based on guesswork about the future system.

The immigration White Paper outlines proposals for the biggest change to our immigration system in a generation. However, it is important to note that it is not the final word. Rather, it is the starting point for a national conversation on our future immigration system. I am pleased to announce that the Government will be launching a year-long programme of engagement across the UK to ensure that a wide range of views are heard.

I am confident that all the measures I have outlined today will ensure that the UK continues to flourish outside of the EU; that the future immigration system is geared towards controlling who can come here and for what purpose, reducing net migration while ensuring the brightest and the best can work and study here; and that it will boost our economy and benefit the British people. We are building a fair and sustainable immigration system that answers the concerns people have rightly had about free movement—an immigration system that is designed in Britain, made in Britain and that serves our national interest. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It says that,

“for the first time for more than 40 years, we will be able to say who can, and who cannot, come to this country”.

Can the Minister confirm that, currently, EU citizens and their families who want to stay for more than three months must have sufficient resources if they are not working so that they are not a burden on the state, and that EU citizens and members of their family can be expelled from the UK on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health? Can she also confirm that the UK can refuse, terminate or withdraw any free movement rights in the event of an abuse of those rights, or fraud? In other words, does she accept that we have considerable say over who can and who cannot come to or remain in this country as a member of the European Union?

The Statement says that the new policy will bring annual net migration down to more sustainable levels,

“as we committed to do in our manifesto”.

The Conservative Party manifesto promised to cut net migration to below 100,000, but the Statement also says:

“There will be no cap on numbers”,


for skilled immigration. Do the Government think immigration will go up or down as a result of a “no cap on numbers” immigration policy?

How can the future immigration system make sure, as the Statement says, that immigration works in the best interests of the UK when the policy is determined by the Home Office? Surely the number of doctors and nurses needed, and of those needed to work in social care, should be determined by the Department of Health and Social Care, for example, and not by the Home Office?

If immigration is to be restricted by salary level only, what about the thousands of immigrants who work in the construction, hospitality and social care sectors, and in the NHS, on low salaries? Highly skilled does not necessarily mean highly paid. Do the Government expect EU countries to prevent British workers earning less than the equivalent level of salary working in the European Union?

What is the estimated cost to the public sector and industry of having to engage with the visa system compared with the current visa-less system of employing EU nationals?

The Statement says that the policy will operate from 2021 but will be phased in to give individuals, businesses and the Government the time needed to adapt. Does that mean that the policy will operate from 2021 or only parts of it? If so, which parts?

How many years will it take for the Home Office to recruit and train the additional staff to implement the new systems required? By how much will the Home Office have to expand to grant permissions to EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members before they can come to the UK? How many people did this amount to in the last year for which the Government have figures? How many EEA and Swiss nationals do the Government anticipate will be refused entry under the new scheme to help reduce net migration?

By how much will the Home Office have to expand to process applications and enforce the temporary 12 months-on, 12 months-off scheme for low-skilled and seasonal workers? How many of those workers, who will not be able to access any benefits despite paying British tax and national insurance, will be put off by the new arrangements, not least by the fact that they will not be able to return to the UK for 12 months? What is the Government’s impact assessment? Can the Government confirm that there is intended to be no low-skilled immigration in the future and what the impact will be on public services and UK businesses?

It is clear that this White Paper has not been thought through. It is impractical, unnecessary and cannot possibly be implemented in full for many years to come. Like Brexit, immigration policy based on this White Paper will be damaging to our economy, to our public services and to public confidence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I contrasted the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with those made by the shadow Home Secretary in the House of Commons, who said that, whether you are a doctor from Poland or a doctor from Pakistan, a single immigration system will work for you. The noble Lord then went on to say that he supported a single immigration system based on skills and not on where you are from.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why it had taken so long to get to this point. Noble Lords will remember that the MAC reported just in September. It was important to hear its advice. Moreover, the immigration White Paper suggests a change in the immigration system that we have not seen for a generation—more than 40 years—so it is important that the White Paper discusses all the various aspects that will affect the new system.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about UK citizens working in the EU. Clearly, the EU will have its own arrangements for UK citizens, but we have tried today to outline the system for anybody in the world who wants to come to work and live in the UK.

Both noble Lords mentioned the target. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear this morning that we are committed to our manifesto pledge of controlling immigration to sustainable levels and that we favour a skills-based system that meets the needs of the UK economy.

Both noble Lords talked about the £30,000 salary threshold. That was a suggestion that will go out to consultation. We will hear various views on that figure from businesses across the country. The noble Lords also mentioned NHS workers. Nurses and certain medical practitioners are already on the shortage occupation list, which will continue to operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the disincentive to students. Far from this country providing a disincentive to students, we have seen the number of students from outside the EU grow year on year. So I do not accept that point.

Both noble Lords talked about temporary workers, be they construction workers or other types of temporary worker. We will keep that under review: of course it is important that people who come here for a short period, even if it is to fill gaps in the labour market, meet the needs of the economy. We expect a full review from the MAC on that in due course. In the interim we will be listening to businesses about what their needs are and what their experiences have been during that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about EU citizens, who must currently have sufficient funds to come here and can have those rights curtailed. Therefore, we have control of our migration system. However, free movement rules under the current system are quite broad and we need to take back control of our borders. We will not be in the European Union, although we fully view ourselves as being in Europe. He asked about additional staff. We will ensure that we have the staff to meet our future needs. Announcements have been made in the last couple of days about providing additional resource for Brexit and I am sure that, as time goes on, we will have more detail on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about the numbers of Swiss and EEA nationals refused. Under free movement we have very limited ability to refuse Swiss and EEA nationals who want to come to the UK, but in future they will have to meet the UK Immigration Rules, which will be the same for the whole world.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that very many people who voted for Britain to leave the European Union were not driven or heavily motivated by concerns about immigration? This was not a consideration for very many of them and if we end up with a plan B for Brexit—that we remain in the European Economic Area with the attenuated form of freedom of movement of people that that involves—that should not be considered to be a bar to going down that path. Does she also accept that, in the system that she has helpfully outlined to the House, it would be essential for the system to operate in a way that is unbureaucratic, smooth and efficient in the issuing of consents to immigrants to this country and in the way the borders actually operate? What assurances can she give the House that the implementation of this by her department will be a bit better than it has frequently been in the past?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for that question. When he says that not everyone who voted to leave the European Union was driven by immigration concerns, I totally agree. I was one of them and as an immigrant I can hardly complain about immigrants. He suggests that we perhaps adopt a model such as Norway. I cannot say what the House of Commons will do and I would not like to predict what will happen, but I think Parliament needs to work through the whole process in a way that meets the result of the vote of the people of the UK.

My noble friend is absolutely right to mention the smooth and unbureaucratic processes that people should experience as they go through the border. We have already talked about opening up the eGates to additional countries: the Five Eyes plus Japan, South Korea and Singapore. I think that that will make the journey through the border a lot smoother. As for a lack of bureaucracy, the Home Secretary has also talked about a more digitally friendly immigration system. That is important, as we are not trying to complicate the system but we are considering the whole world in our future immigration system.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister may know that I have been engaged in immigration policy for 18 years. I am actually quite astonished by this White Paper because it could be described as cloud-cuckoo-land. The Opposition spokesmen have already poked a couple of dozen holes in it and I fear that the Minister will have a lot of difficulty later with all the points that arise from it. Does she realise that the key point is that, far from reducing immigration, it is very likely that it will actually increase net migration, and might increase it considerably? Does she appreciate that that would be seen as a slap in the face for the roughly 38 million people who want to see immigration reduced? Finally, I will make only one point because the Opposition have raised many of them: can she assure the House that the sudden introduction of an uncapped route for unskilled workers for up to a year is not merely an attempt to fiddle the immigration statistics and that these people will be included in the numbers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the noble Lord’s second question about fiddling the numbers, the suggestion is that the uncapped route is up to one year. The reason we have had the row about students so many times is that the people included in the immigration figures are those who stay for more than a year. Therefore, one would not include in the immigration figures people who are on a three-month holiday. We have to set the level somewhere and I do not think that anyone has argued about where one sets the time limit for being included in those figures. As for increasing net migration, we are suggesting the introduction of a system that is based on skills to meet the needs of the UK economy. Obviously, the idea is that the net migration figures should go down ultimately, but the system we are proposing today is the subject of consultation which will run for a year. I am sure that many views, such as those of the noble Lord, will be expressed on the future system.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Cavendish Coalition of health and care providers says it is extremely concerned that these new visa proposals will not allow the number of care staff needed to sustain services. These are the providers of services commenting on the White Paper today. Such staff are not on the labour shortage list— physios, paramedics and other professionals allied to medicine. Can the Minister give an assurance that the new proposals will sustain health and social care services? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure that patients and the most vulnerable get the services from EU staff that they have been receiving for many years?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of healthcare workers—the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, have already raised it. I talked about the NHS staff who are already on the shortage occupation list, but he is right to raise the other staff. A salary of £30,000 is the suggested level. Clearly, these things will be worked through in the next year as we have an extensive consultation period and the Government will be very pleased to hear the views of NHS workers and managers of healthcare trusts on where we have got it right and where we have got it wrong.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could clarify something and then answer a couple of questions. The Statement talks about an “electronic travel authorisation scheme”. Can she explain what that is? Is it an ID card for people coming into the country or is it something else?

My two questions are these. First, the Statement says that,

“in future everyone other than British and Irish citizens will need to get UK permission before they can come here”.

Will the process of getting that permission be showing a passport at, say, Heathrow, or will it be a matter of getting some sort of visa or other authorisation? The danger is that other countries will reciprocate and then the easy travel that we used to have to France and elsewhere long before the EU existed will no longer apply.

Secondly, the Statement also talks about,

“a streamlined application process for those visiting, or coming to work”.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that we will end the arbitrary decision-making and have a fairer, more balanced system? I think of the difficulties that people have faced in trying to get here, such as the Libyan doctors who went to Tunis to get permission to come here for a week for training in dealing with medical trauma, but, having waited in Tunis, were arbitrarily refused and had to go back to Libya.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord’s last point perfectly illustrates the type of bureaucracy that we are trying to unlock, such as for the Libyan doctors trying to come here. I assure him that we intend it to be a far more streamlined system. We accept that on occasion it has been tricky and has taken too long to get those authorisations, which can eat into the time that the NHS might need those doctors for.

The Irish will be treated like UK citizens—no question about it. On the ETAs—electronic travel authorisations—anyone who wants to come to the UK, apart from the British and Irish nationals I just talked about, needs to apply for permission to do so. That will be either an e-visa for those coming to work or study or for tourists from visa-national countries, or an electronic travel authorisation for tourists from low-risk countries. I think it will be very similar to the ESTA that the Americans insist on.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, even if one accepts the need for some immigration control—and I do not—does the Minister not accept that the White Paper is fundamentally flawed with regard to setting a salary level? One size does not fit all. The average salary in London is £37,000, in Wales it is £27,000 and in Northern Ireland it is £24,000, which means there are different criteria for different areas. Paragraph 6.23 of this document says that,

“£30,000 is the level of household income at which an average family … starts making a positive contribution to public finances”.

Surely that is a different matter; £30,000 as a household income is different from £30,000 as a salary level. That is a fundamental flaw in the document.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I repeat that £30,000 was a suggestion from the MAC. There will be a year-long period in which people can engage with the consultation. The figure is not set in stone. It is a salary that was suggested by the MAC.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to explain how this can be described as taking back control, when the largest proportion of immigration to this country, from outside the EU, is rising inexorably and the proportion coming from the EU, on which controls are now to be put, is dropping? Is that taking back control? Perhaps she can also explain why the Home Secretary is so pessimistic about the Prime Minister’s deal going through. The only circumstances in which free movement will end on 29 March is if there is no deal. If there is a deal, it does not end until the end of December 2020.

On students, while it is welcome that the post- study period is being relaxed a little, does the Minister recognise that the figures given for the relaxation still leave us at a disadvantage to all our main international competitors, which give longer post-study periods of immigration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The UK is a very attractive place for students to come and study. I mentioned earlier the rise in the number of students coming here. We have never capped student numbers and students continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The system we have in place is certainly not putting off students. They will come here because we have some of the best universities in the world.

On the Home Secretary being pessimistic about the future, this House and the other place would rightly criticise him if he did not plan for all eventualities. Therefore, he is absolutely right to plan for a deal or no deal. If we had a deal, I am not sure how different the White Paper would look.

On taking back control, we will take back control of our borders when we leave the EU on 29 March, and this is the first step.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to Chapter 4 of the White Paper, on border control. First, I expect my noble friend will agree that one of the consequences of the new system will be a pretty crucial change to the common travel area with Ireland. Currently, people flying from Heathrow to Dublin have their passport checked. People flying from Dublin to the UK go straight to baggage collection and do not go through immigration at all. That will have to change; otherwise, it will not be possible to check those people in the plane who do not have the entitlement that the Irish and British people have.

Secondly, does she agree that when she refers to the American ESTA system, crucially, this is based on using biometrics and involves the matching of eyes and fingerprints? Will she therefore ask those in her department who so cavalierly dismissed on Monday my attempt to introduce a national identity number linked to biometrics as being against civil liberties to think again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

One thing I have to admire my noble friend for is that he very cleverly weaves in some of his issues. I am not going to revisit the issues we discussed on Monday. Of course, the common travel area existed long before the EU did—that is the point I was making to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—and it will continue to exist after we leave the EU.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the statement this afternoon by the Federation of Master Builders? It says that the proposals the Government have announced today in the White Paper,

“would devastate the construction industry”,

and,

“would make it impossible to meet the Government’s house building targets”.

This all relates to the definitions of lower-skilled and higher-skilled and the figure of £30,000 that has been mentioned. I ask the Minister: what detailed sectoral analyses have been undertaken on the impact of this White Paper? Surely we should not be in a position in which the Federation of Master Builders has to point out that this White Paper would devastate the construction industry.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I say, this is purely the beginning of a journey, which is the consultation process. These measures will not come in until 2021. Of course, we will be working with the construction sector and others towards the implementation of the immigration system.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement saying that international graduates will be allowed to work in this country, but it is disappointing that it does not say whether or not there will be a cap on how long they can be employed. Perhaps we will hear about that later. I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the minimum salary level of £30,000 is for consultation. I hope that the Government will listen to the consultation and not ignore it. I say this because, like the construction industry, the professional organisations in science research, such as the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the MRC and many others, have grave concerns about our ability to recruit technicians—who do not earn £30,000. They are crucial to research. The same applies to PhD students and post-docs, who are the workhorses of biomedical research. If this is implemented, our science research will be absolutely devastated.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally get the point that the noble Lord makes about technicians, particularly in research and science, because they are traditionally paid a lower salary. We will work through all this in the next year in getting towards the final suggestion for the salary level which, as I said earlier, is a suggestion from the MAC and not an intention from the Government at this stage. Regarding graduate students, if an undergraduate secures a graduate job the salary will of course be lower. At the moment, I think it is about £20,600. That remains the case but I hope that in the course of the consultation next year it will all be worked through. Please do not take it as a figure set in stone, my Lords.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

What account have the Government taken of this policy’s impact on their own aspirations for housing development and infrastructure? Many of these projects last for longer than a year but we are talking about scarce construction workers, who are highly skilled but low paid, being able to stay only on a temporary 12-month work visa and then having to go home for a cooling-off period of at least a year. Yet these projects depend intensely on the continuity of their labour force, and about 30% of construction workers on projects in London alone come from the EU at the moment. This policy kicks the legs out from under the Government’s aspirations to provide better houses for people in this country and create major infrastructure to promote productivity.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness strikes to the heart of one of the Government’s major priorities—as did the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—which is to build the number of homes that this country needs for people to live in. As I said, we will be working with the construction sector and this is purely a consultation period. Nothing has been decided fully but of course we want construction workers to be able to be here to build the houses that we want. I should mention one other thing: as a nation, we want to upskill our own workers to work in these sectors, as we proceed towards our exit from the European Union.

Asylum Seekers: Removal

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to halt the removal of failed asylum seekers to countries to which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office advise against all travel for British citizens; and if not, why not.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s travel advice to British nationals is not the correct legal test to determine whether a person qualifies for international protection or whether to remove a foreign national with no right to remain in the UK.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

I am delighted to wish the Minister a happy Christmas. I only ask her: when will I be able to do that to those who have indefinite detention in the UK under the present immigration law? That is my first question. My second question is: when are we going to end deportation to Congo, Afghanistan and Somalia of those who have come from there? Our people are not encouraged to go there at all; they are advised not to go there, and yet we keep on deporting people. We have deported 700 to Afghanistan, nearly 100 to Somalia and many more to Congo in the last couple of years. Is it not time the Minister stopped trying to defend our humanitarian policies, when all they are doing is sending people into war zones where many face the death penalty?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a gross exaggeration of the fact. The noble Lord conflates two things, which are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s advice to people travelling for holidays and other reasons and our obligations under the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. He asks about indefinite detention. There is no indefinite detention. Most cases are sorted out within four months. As for people being deported, the FCO does not advise against travel to the whole of the countries the noble Lord mentions—Congo, Somalia and Afghanistan. It only advises against travel to parts of those countries. Also, when we send people back who have no legal right to be here, we do so with the humanitarian considerations that I have outlined in mind.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on her comment about humanitarian considerations. How is an assessment of individual safety undertaken if someone is being removed to another country? I refer in particular to their political activities, their gender or their sexual orientation. When someone is returned to another country, what follow-up is undertaken to ensure that they are indeed safe?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, the UK bases its decisions on two conventions, the 1951 convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. If, for example, an LGBT person was to be sent back to a country or to an area in a country where they would be persecuted for their sexuality, we would not send them back.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, how does the Minister define the word “indefinite”? In my dictionary, it means that there is no fixed time limit. We are unusual in this country in having no fixed time limit for detention. It does not mean that people are held in detention for ever, as she seemed to imply in her response to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

People are not held in detention for ever. As I said to the noble Lord, the vast majority of cases are determined within four months of someone being held in detention. I do not know of anyone who has been detained indefinitely.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, do not these questions highlight the extremely sensitive judgments that caseworkers in her department have to make? Would she consider arranging for Members of your Lordships’ House to visit caseworkers to hear from them about their experience, how well they are supported and how much time they are given to make these very important and delicate decisions?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with the noble Earl that these decisions are incredibly sensitive, in particular when it comes to the things mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, such as political activities, sexuality and even religion, which has been mentioned many times in this House. I will be happy to meet the noble Earl. I do not know if I will be able to arrange for him to visit caseworkers, but I will be happy to outline for him the framework in which we make decisions.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister confident that the Home Office’s country policy and information notes are always accurate and reliable? I understand that information is taken from a number of sources and that that can include newspapers from the country of origin. However, they may be countries where the regime interferes with press freedom.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we are mindful of our human rights obligations. Our caseworking decisions go through three lines of scrutiny, and over the past few months we have indeed improved the scrutiny and decision-making processes. I am confident that the system we now have in place is far better and more humane than perhaps is the case with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Home Office in the past. The Windrush episode has reminded us carefully about how we should treat people who come to this country.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I apologise for coming back to the noble Baroness, but this is a point for clarification. I do not have a dictionary to hand, but I think that she has confused the word “indefinite” with “for ever”. All the word “indefinite” means is that there is no time limit. Does that mean that she is now willing to set a time limit so that detention would not be indefinite?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The word “indefinite” means for all time.

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is not defined by time. What I would say is that we endeavour to determine applications as quickly as possible and we would certainly not want anyone to be detained indefinitely on our estate.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 33A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has considerable merit. It proposes the collection of this data, including what is set out in subsection (3) of the amendment, and laying a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of the considerable powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act during the year in question. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. If they are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope they will give a full explanation of why this is not deemed necessary or acceptable.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I agree with the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of communities. They are important in assisting the police and security services in countering not only terrorism but extremism. Amendment 33A would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament each year setting out how the ports powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to this Bill have been exercised.

Reiterating some of what I said earlier, the Government agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is unnecessary. We entirely agree that transparency and accountability are appropriate in governing the exercise of the new hostile activity ports powers, as is the case with the existing counterterrorism powers. I reiterate, however, that such mechanisms are already in place through the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation with respect to Schedule 7, and the future role of the IPC for Schedule 3. Part 6 of Schedule 3 already requires the IPC to review the use of the powers by making an annual report. We envisage this working in a very similar way to the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who reports annually on the use of counterterrorism powers under the Terrorism Act, including those in Schedule 7.

Noble Lords should be reassured that the commissioner, like the independent reviewer, will be afforded full access to any Schedule 3 record on request and information on how the powers have been exercised. The scope and content of these reports will be at the discretion of the commissioner, as they have been for a number of years regarding Schedule 7. The annual reports by the independent reviewer are augmented by the quarterly statistical bulletins, published by the Home Office, on the operation in Great Britain of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The latest bulletin was published on 6 December and, incidentally, recorded a further 25% decrease in the number of Schedule 7 examinations compared with the previous year. The number of Schedule 7 examinations has now fallen by 79% since the data was first collected in the year ending 30 September 2012. The published data already includes information about the ethnicity of examinees and the number of detentions.

As I said earlier, we are considering with the Home Office chief statistician the appropriate arrangements for publishing statistics on the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers, but we would expect to publish equivalent statistics to Schedule 7. The statistical reports in respect of Schedule 7 do not currently identify the religion of examinees, but we are ready to explore this with the Home Office chief statistician, the police and others. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. What comes across to me in her response to this and other amendments is that there is a degree of transparency and accountability, in that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will look at the Schedule 7 powers and the IPC, presumably, will examine those under Schedule 3. It is all very well for the Government, the independent reviewer or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be satisfied that these powers are being used appropriately, but they are not the people who need to be convinced that they are being used fairly: it is the communities—particularly the Muslim community—that need to be convinced. Publishing the religion of people being subjected to these powers is crucial if we are to get the Muslim community to work with us to defeat terrorism.

As I said when I introduced the amendment, people, or groups, can switch almost overnight. For example, the attempted bombings on 21 July 2005 were a carbon copy of those on 7 July, which did not go according to plan. They were supposed to involve four bombs on the Underground, and the copycat attacks on 21 July involved three on the Underground and one on a bus because of what happened on the 7th. That is how quickly the first attack was copy-catted by another group. It is the friends, neighbours and close associates of these lone wolves and groups of friends who will pick up on the changes in their behaviour that show they are moving from being radical to being violent and potentially deadly. It is therefore absolutely essential that we do everything we possibly can to win the trust and confidence of the communities from which these people come.

I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the Home Office statistician will be looking at the issue.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The Minister said that the Government will be looking at this with the chief statistician and the police. Can she give a timeframe for that? If she cannot do so now, can she come back to the House before too long with an idea of when we might expect some further information on this work?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing.

[Lord Paddick]

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises the same issue that the noble Lord led on in Committee. The noble Lord quite rightly raised the issue of the words “hostile act”. The words are far too wide and give a disproportionate power to the relevant authorities. The noble Lord spoke in Committee about these strong coercive powers.

To their credit, the Government have listened to that debate and I know that they have been in discussion with a number of noble Lords around the House, as have government officials. I have found those discussions very helpful and I am persuaded that the amendments put forward by the Government in this group address the concerns raised previously, so I am content to support the Government and their amendments in this group.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, with this group of amendments we return to the question of the proper scope of the powers in Schedule 3. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has again argued that police powers of this kind should only be available to the police to tackle criminal behaviour. As I highlighted in Committee, and would like to stress again, these new powers to examine persons at ports and the border area are specifically designed to mitigate the threat from all forms of hostile state activity. Limiting the scope of these powers would limit the range of threats that we would be able to detect, disrupt and deter, thereby leaving the country vulnerable.

The noble Lord is correct that many of the activities we are concerned about may be criminal in nature, including offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, not only is this legislation generally recognised to be outdated and not fit for the modern age, but not all hostile activity would fall within scope. The noble Lord is right that we need to consider modernising the law in this area, and the House is aware that the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal law surrounding the protection of official data, which includes all the Official Secrets Acts, but this work will necessarily take some time to come to fruition and, until we know the outcome, it would be wrong to narrow the scope of the provisions in Schedule 3. To do so would necessarily inhibit our ability to counter hostile activity, as the police would naturally err on the side of caution when conducting stops, given the risk of challenge about whether the stop or subsequent questioning was clearly for the purpose of determining whether the examinee is, or has been, involved in serious crime.

I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns that the breadth of the power could encompass activities which are not considered crimes. If such activity threatens the safety of our citizens, our democracy and our national security, it is only right that we afford the police the powers to investigate, prevent and discourage these acts in order to protect us. Some hostile activity would not be considered criminal activity under the law as is stands—for example, the proliferation of disinformation. We know that certain states routinely use disinformation as a foreign policy tool and have seen evidence of this happening elsewhere.

In recent years, some states have attempted to influence opinions online by using human and automated troll farms to establish fake social media profiles or spread disinformation. One can imagine a scenario in which a member of one such troll farm, controlled by a foreign power that has been observed attempting to influence public debate in the UK, travels to the UK. The act of sowing discord through proliferation of disinformation is not a crime in the UK, but you can imagine a scenario in which it would threaten our national security. Under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, police officers at ports would be rightly unwilling to ask about these activities, as they are not illegal.

Interference operations are not restricted to the online space. Suppose an individual with suspected links to a hostile foreign intelligence agency travels to the UK, with the intention of meeting parliamentarians under a benign pretext, but with the real intention of influencing them to support a particular position which would be of benefit to that state. This type of activity is not illegal in the UK; the individual is not obliged to disclose that they have an ulterior motive of seeking to influence parliamentarians, but noble Lords understand that this activity is a threat to our national security and risks undermining our parliamentary democracy. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, as this type of activity would not be classified as a crime in the UK, police officers at ports would be unable to ask questions of a sufficiently detailed nature to provide the level of insight necessary to properly understand, assess, further investigate or disrupt the threat that this activity would present.

Some individuals may not even be aware that they are acting on behalf of a hostile actor. They may think they are working for a charity or a friend. Many of the serious crimes that we would consider linking to Schedule 3 require an intention element on the part of the individual.

We have reflected carefully on comments made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the scope of the “threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom” limb of the definition of a hostile act. There were concerns that legitimate business ventures would fall within scope of the power. This limb of the definition is intended to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts such as damaging the country’s national infrastructure or disrupting energy supplies to the UK. It is not our intention that these powers are available to examine those travelling only to conduct legitimate business.

To address these concerns, I have tabled Amendment 34C, which narrows the scope of the “economic well-being” limb. This amendment will provide that an act is a hostile act under this limb only if it threatens the economic well-being of the UK,

“in a way relevant to the interests of national security”.

The other government amendments in this group make consequential changes to other references to the economic well-being of the UK in Schedule 3.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked whether the IPC will have the resources needed to review the use of Schedule 3. The Government are committed to ensuring the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the resources that he or she needs to fulfil all their functions, including Schedule 3 when these provisions come into force. However, I should emphasise that we expect the use of Schedule 3 powers to be very low, certainly far below the number of Schedule 7 examinations conducted in 2017.

At this point, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Home Office is reviewing whether there is a need for new counter hostile state activity legislation. I have already mentioned the Law Commission review of the Official Secrets Acts, but our work is not confined solely to that area of criminal law. Of course, any reforms to the Official Secrets Acts or any other new offences will require further primary legislation and, in taking this work forward, I can assure the noble Lord that we will examine as part of the work whether there are any changes that we ought to make to Schedule 3.

In taking this wider work forward, we will also have the benefit of the annual reports on the exercise of Schedule 3 powers by the IPC. I am confident that in reviewing this, having all the resources he needs in place, the commissioner will adopt the same robust approach as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. He will not hold back from making recommendations if he considers that, in the light of the experience of operating these powers, changes should be made to Schedule 3. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill will be subject to the normal five-year post-legislative review.

I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment. I have explained the need to maintain the current scope of the power subject to the narrowing of the “economic well-being” limb.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

34C: Schedule 3, page 39, line 6, after “Kingdom” insert “in a way relevant to the interests of national security”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises important issues with these two amendments, and I am happy to give my support in principle. As the noble Baroness said herself, I am not convinced that these amendments, as written, are correct, though they certainly raise issues the Government should look at and support. All of us here would, I hope, support journalists, and a free and responsible press.

The issues raised by the amendments need looking at; I hope that the Minister will do so when she responds. Perhaps we can find a way forward, possibly at Third Reading, to address the concerns here. It is about getting the balance right between protecting our country, protecting the rights of journalists and keeping ourselves safe and secure. We need to get those issues right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree totally with noble Lords that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and getting material that is not conducive to this country’s well-being. The amendments reflect concerns about how Schedule 3 ports powers apply to journalistic material and sources. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke passionately about that issue in Committee; I hope to assure her that Schedule 3 includes a number of safeguards to protect confidential material, including confidential journalistic material.

Schedule 3 is a counter-hostile state activity power. With that in mind, it is vital that ports officers are equipped to deal with the means and methods of those engaged in such activity. I spoke in Committee about the very real threat we face from foreign intelligence officers and their agents who actively use the cover of certain professions including journalism, the law and others. That is why Schedule 3 introduces new powers to allow for action to be taken where an article that may include confidential material could be used in connection with a hostile act, presents a threat to life or could lead to significant injury.

Amendment 34E would undermine the ability of ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors as it would allow a person simply to refuse a request for documents or information, including sources, where they claim that it consists of journalistic material, as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, or is subject to legal privilege. That would prohibit the examining officer verifying that the material in question is confidential or journalistic and would require the officer to take the examinee at their word.

I have spoken before about why that would be problematic when faced with trained hostile actors who will seek to exploit any possible loophole in our legislation, yet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are precisely why the new retention powers in respect of confidential information require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who must be satisfied that certain conditions are met before granting that authorisation. This approach protects the work of legitimate journalists and lawyers and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Schedule 7 case of Miranda, to which the noble Baroness referred. In that case, the court said that,

“independent and impartial oversight … is the natural and obvious adequate safeguard”,

in examination cases involving journalistic freedom.

Amendment 34F would extend the statutory bar—which prohibits answers or information given orally by a person during an examination being used in criminal proceedings—to any information or documents given where the material is considered journalistic. Noble Lords will know that the purpose of this important safeguard, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is to protect an examinee against self-incrimination where they must respond to questioning under compulsion and so do not have a right to silence. The amendment would extend the statutory bar into territory it was not designed or intended to cover. It could prevent evidence of a hostile act from being used in criminal proceedings where it had been acquired through the legitimate examination of confidential material on the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Accepting this amendment would undermine the ability of the police and the CPS to prosecute hostile actors, either those who have used journalistic cover to disguise their criminal activities or those whose activities might be evidenced by confidential material in the hands of a third party.

Although I do not agree with the amendments, for the reasons I have explained, I recognise the force of the noble Baroness’s arguments on the need for strong protections for journalistic material that is not confidential. I will therefore ask my officials to consider if any additional protections may be introduced through the Schedule 3 codes of practice. I can undertake to keep the noble Baroness informed of progress with this work, and of course a revised version of the draft code of practice will need to come back to this House to be approved before those provisions come into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the House another opportunity to debate the appropriate safeguards for journalistic and legally privileged material under Schedule 3. In light of my undertaking to do this additional work, I hope she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

34G: Schedule 3, page 44, line 16, at end insert “so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

44: Schedule 4, page 90, line 2, at end insert—
“38A_ In Schedule 14 (exercise of officers’ powers), in paragraph 4 after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) A person may be specified in an order under this paragraph only if the person exercises public functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom).””

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

45: Clause 26, page 26, line 3, after “16” insert “, (Persons detained under port and border control powers)”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the House will recall that on the first day on Report, a new clause was added to the Bill to strengthen the rights of persons detained under Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to consult a solicitor in private. Amendment 45 is consequential upon that new clause. The amendment will provide that the new clause will be commenced by regulations, rather than automatically coming into force two months after Royal Assent. This will allow time to update the code of practice under the Terrorism Act 2000 before these provisions are brought into force. I beg to move.

Amendment 45 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Stunell, for their points. All I can say on the back of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is: thank God we do not live in the 17th century.

I start by making it clear that when the Government refer in the various documents mentioned by the noble Baroness to Prevent applying to “all forms of extremism”, that means that Prevent applies to far-right extremism as much as it does to Islamist extremism—and, indeed, to Sikh-related extremism, Northern Ireland-related extremism, et cetera. This is a relatively new change, as the Prevent strategy pre-2011 applied only to Islamist extremism. This was clearly inequitable and not reflective of the threat, so it was changed. What is not meant by that expression is that Prevent should apply to all degrees of extremism. All our guidance has tried to be clear that Prevent is of relevance only where the extremism is such that there is a risk of people being drawn into terrorism. That is how the duties are framed in statute, and the point is made many times throughout the two pieces of statutory guidance: the Prevent duty guidance and the Channel duty guidance. I accept that there are occasions in those documents when the full formulation is not used for the sake of brevity and style. However, we believe that, when read as a whole, and in conjunction with the 2015 Act, the true meaning is clear.

I also emphasise that we have not seen any evidence to suggest that practitioners are misinterpreting the guidance documents to try to apply them to those forms of extremism which do not risk drawing people into terrorism, but I appreciate the example provided by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I would be grateful if he would forward it to me. Certainly, the rigorous assessment within the Channel process ensures that no one is likely to be offered support unless that connection to being drawn into terrorism is there. We must not forget that, in any event, Channel support is entirely voluntary.

All guidance reaches a point where it needs to be updated, and we are committed to doing so when the time is right. Since the Prevent and Channel duties were introduced, there has been much good practice and many case studies which a new version would look to contain. Noble Lords may also be aware that just last week the Court of Appeal heard a case relevant to this matter and the Government eagerly await its judgment, which may well have implications for how a future revision of the guidance is drafted. But we do not know how long it will be before the judgment is handed down and it would be a mistake to attempt to revise the guidance beforehand. In addition, the drafting process, collecting good practice and going out to public consultation is likely to take several months.

The process of revising guidance is not a quick one if we are to get it right. The Government accept that it will become necessary to do so at some point in the not too distant future, but it would be damaging to what we are trying to achieve with Clause 19 should implementation of that clause be delayed while new guidance is drafted. The almost inevitable outcome, should such an amendment become law, is that the production of new guidance would be rushed so as to limit that damage, resulting in an inferior product, with much-reduced consultation and input from practitioners. Given that the guidance must be approved by Parliament before being issued, your Lordships’ House would be required to debate an inferior product that I would not wish to lay before it.

While I would not wish to commit the Government to a specific timeframe for producing new guidance, I can say that in any event the guidance will need to be reviewed as part of the post-legislative review process that takes place five years after enactment. The fact that the Act in question received Royal Assent in 2015 means that a review and revision of the guidance will happen no later than 2020. When we revise the guidance, we will be sure to take on board the comments that the noble Baroness has made and make it clear exactly what kind of extremism is covered by the Prevent duty and the guidance, and what is not. Prevent is not and never has been any form of thought police, nor has it been about suppressing dissent. It is of course, as I said earlier, about safeguarding vulnerable people.

I hope I have been able to allay the noble Baroness’s concerns and that she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. I thought when I was speaking that I got an indication that there would be some action within 12 months, but as she spoke I became rather more worried by the time that everything is going to take.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Twelve months from now brings us virtually into 2020.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

All right. That is reassuring—to everyone, I hope.

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I thank the Minister herself for what she has said to us all. I certainly hope that the nature of the problems that we have highlighted during this debate is such that rather more detailed consideration might be given to bringing the whole timetable forward. That would certainly be a great help. The sooner it is done, the better, even if the timetable is really around the 12-month timing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that Muslim communities in this country are extremely diverse. They come from many different countries and backgrounds. Within them, there are many points of view, theological opinions and so on. Having said that, I can give some indirect evidence on this matter. I am a trustee of an English charity which, for the last 12 to 13 years, has been working with Muslim communities up and down this country. It has helped them to build bridges with all levels of authority, from local authorities up to the Home Office. It has tried to give them greater self-confidence in dealing with authority. However, the evidence is that, over this period, the Prevent programme has made relationships much more difficult. I think that it is a question of perception. The existence of the programme and the way in which it has been administered have led many Muslims to feel that they are being discriminated against and that the weight of government is falling on them disproportionately.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

Does the noble Lord agree that it would possibly be better to talk about this in the next amendment? This amendment is about transparency of data. If he wants to talk about it now, I am perfectly happy to hear what he has to say, but it is actually the subject of the next amendment.

[Lord Hylton]

I will conclude what I was saying. I believe that this amendment is modest and necessary and will be helpful. It will provide statistics with which future judgments can be made, so I support it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, this issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee and again today on Report. As he told the House previously, in 2016-17, 6,093 people were referred to the process, but only 6% of them were referred to a Channel programme. The ethnicity and religion of those who are referred are missing from the data. That omission denies the Minister, officials and others important and valuable data.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was clear in Committee that the Government wholeheartedly agreed with the intent of the amendment, but she was not convinced that it was needed to achieve the intention. When she responds, will she update the House on the work that is being done by the Home Office chief statistician, who, we are told, is looking at this issue?

To conclude, I support the aims of the amendment. It will provide valuable information for the Government. It would be welcome if the Minister could update the House on whether what has been asked for could be done through other means.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I will be happy to update the House on some of the work that is going on. The Government agree wholeheartedly with the principle that activities under the Prevent strategy are made as transparent as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned the Prevent oversight board. I am pleased to hear that it met just the other day. However, there is great interest in the operation of the Channel programme, and the publication of statistics on it has already added to that transparency, dispelled some of the myths which surrounded its operation, and provided useful substance to debates in this House. We have so far published data on referrals to Prevent, and the progress through the Channel system of those referrals, covering in detail 2015-16 and 2016-17 and, in lesser detail, the previous years from April 2012. The latest set of statistics, covering 2017-18, was published last week.

The published data covers the numbers at different stages of the process from initial referral, through discussion at Channel panel, to the provision of support. It includes, among other things, the type of extremism which led to the referral; the age, gender and regional location of the person referred, and the sector which made the referral. It also looks at how successful the programme is.

The data is still at a relatively early stage in its development and is therefore classed as experimental statistics. Feedback from users is very important as the dataset develops, and it is clear from noble Lords’ comments that additional categories of data, such as the religion and ethnicity of those who are referred—as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said—would be a welcome addition to the current set. As I indicated in Committee, working through the Home Office chief statistician, we would be happy to explore including this data in future publications. At this stage, that would depend on the quality and completeness of the data.

I mentioned in Committee that currently at least half of the records supplied to the Home Office do not include ethnicity or religion. The publication of such variables could therefore be misleading at this stage. There will clearly be more work which officials can do to ensure that this data is captured and recorded in an accurate and nationally consistent manner.

I return briefly to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, in Committee. He was interested in whether referrals made by the police were more or less likely than others to end up being discussed on Channel panels and offered support. I promised at the time to look at the underlying data to see if such an analysis were possible, and I am happy to confirm what my noble friend Lady Barran said on that occasion—that this data already forms part of the published data set and can be found in accompanying tables available on the GOV.UK website.

On the understanding that the Home Office chief statistician is looking at the issue raised in this amendment, I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

That is the point. When Prevent has been applied correctly and has been led by and with the community, it has made real progress. When you speak to practitioners on the ground—those who have ignored much of national policy; those who have ignored the rules on engagement and disengagement with British Muslim communities and have spoken to whom they want, when they want and how they want—you find that they have built really strong relationships which have allowed sections of the policy to be implemented properly.

Even if you speak to officers like Mr Neil Basu, who was referred to earlier, he himself will say that the biggest challenge for the police has been operating Prevent within a policy of disengagement with British Muslim communities whereby more and more individuals and organisations are simply seen as beyond the pale and are not engaged with. There is a challenge when large sections of the British Muslim community are disengaged and distrustful of a policy that will not be independently reviewed. I can tell my colleagues in government that if it were independently reviewed, it would enjoy more support and therefore would be more effective.

The noble Lord suggested that I believe that the British Muslim community is monolithic. I say to him as someone who is a Muslim and now 47 years of age that I am acutely aware that the British Muslim community is not monolithic. If he would care to read the first four pages of chapter one of my book, he will see that I explain that British Muslim communities are black and brown and Asian and Persian. They come from all over the world and have different theological beliefs and practices. They dress, eat and behave differently. He would then realise that I am a huge advocate of a diverse British Muslim community from many backgrounds. It is therefore wrong of him to attribute to me on the Floor of this House something which I have simply not said.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, the Prevent programme is one of the core pillars of the strengthened Contest strategy which was published in June of this year. The strategy was developed taking into account views across the breadth of delivery. The Prevent programme serves as a key pillar in our response to the heightened terrorist threat we face now and in the coming years.

The programme is designed to safeguard and support those vulnerable to radicalisation, both on the far right and Islamist, as my noble friend Lady Warsi said. It is designed to stop them becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said, we should have no qualms about doing so, just as we should safeguard them from sexual exploitation. That point is often forgotten but it is very pertinent. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, expressed her concern about freedom of speech and civil liberties, but terrorism is an infringement of civil liberties of the severest type. I am also sorry to disappoint my noble friend Lord Marlesford, but the Government remain firmly of the view that an independent review of Prevent of the kind envisaged in this amendment is not necessary at this time. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain why.

As has been said, Prevent is a safeguarding programme that works. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has described how Prevent is the only show in town and the intention is to help those who are vulnerable and are being targeted and exploited by radicalisers. Sir Rob Wainwright, the former head of Europol, has described Prevent as the,

“best practice model in Europe”,

for tackling extremism.

In Committee I outlined how Prevent was not the beginnings of state surveillance, as it has been portrayed sometimes; rather, it is a locally driven programme that works with communities to deliver resilience-building activity and prevent some of the most vulnerable in our society becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, challenged a number of noble Lords to identify a specific local Prevent project which had given rise to concerns. It was very telling then, as it is now, that no noble Lord has yet identified such a project. The noble Lord talked about how private and public NGOs are now working on Prevent projects. Moreover, to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, about the proportions being delivered by each, while I do not have the exact numbers, perhaps I may write to him.

While Prevent is successful at safeguarding individuals from becoming radicalised, it is not always well understood. I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, about promoting the safeguarding aspect of Prevent. It also supports partners to run a programme of engagement events with their communities. These events seek to engage members of the public and provide opportunities to hear at first hand from practitioners and community organisations about Prevent delivery, as well as acting as an open forum for discussion about its implementation. Further, Prevent does not target any one group, as is often said. It helps to address the growing and pernicious threat from the far right and to provide support for those referred due to concerns about Islamist extremism, among a range of other extremist beliefs. Indeed, the latest statistics, published just last week, show that of those individuals who received Channel support in 2017-18, near equal numbers were referred for concerns relating to far right extremism and to Islamist extremism.

On the positive impact of Prevent, I would remind the House of what Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of the Met police, said in June in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Everything the noble Baroness is saying supports the importance of Prevent, which I think all noble Lords would agree with. That is not really the issue. What we are saying is that, given that it is really important, does it not make sense to have a review to look at whether we can make it even better?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If the noble Lord will indulge me, I was about to explain how the Prevent programme is evolving and being scrutinised, including through Contest. Perhaps I may go back to the comments made by the Commissioner of the Met:

“There is an awful lot of very, very good work that has gone on under Prevent in relation to all forms of extremism, not forgetting extreme right-wing, which takes up a big part of it. There have been hundreds of people who have been turned away from violent extremism by their engagement with Channel and other aspects of Prevent, and that is all positive”.


Prevent is not about restricting debate or free speech, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, might suggest. On the contrary: as the Government have said previously, schools ought to be safe spaces in which children and young people can understand and discuss sensitive topics, including terrorism and extremist ideologies. An independent study of education professionals found that almost three-quarters of them believe that the Prevent duty has not stifled classroom discussions of extremism, intolerance and inequality.

Since it was launched in 2011, Prevent training has been completed more than 1.1 million times to enable front-line practitioners, including teachers, to recognise the signs of radicalisation so that they know what steps to take, including, where appropriate, how to make a referral to Channel. This has positively supported teachers in discussing the risks of radicalisation with those in their classes. To our knowledge, no event or speaker has ever been cancelled or banned as a result of the Prevent duty. It is about upskilling individuals, not curtailing them. The Government believe that it is imperative that young people learn how to challenge dangerous beliefs which are all too easily accessible online. Since February 2010, some 300,000 pieces of illegal terrorist material have been removed from the internet.

In addition to the examples of increased transparency that I outlined in Committee, which included the annual publication of Prevent and Channel data and increasing the number and geographical reach of community round tables, there is increased cross-party engagement, led by the security Minister. Also, as mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on 28 November the Home Secretary chaired the latest meeting of the Prevent oversight board, which brings together other Secretaries of State, operational partners and independent members to review delivery and to provide the strategic challenge noble Lords have talked about. I therefore understand the concerns of noble Lords.

[Lord Stunell]

Is the Minister able to tell us when the preceding meeting of the oversight board was held, and what the gap was?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not, but I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, can.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I can. The previous meeting—and the noble Lord is making a fair point—took place 18 months previously. During that period, I for one requested meetings take place on a regular basis. At least two meetings were cancelled during that time, dates having been set and put in diaries. I happen to be a member of the Prevent oversight board, so I am aware of the calendar. One of the points made at the most recent meeting was that, if the board is to be effective, it must meet more frequently. One of the reasons why there was such a long delay—and the noble Baroness may confirm this—was because it had been established that the Prevent oversight board should be chaired by the Home Secretary. That has been a difficulty, but on the most recent occasion, if I remember rightly, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor were present, along with a number of other Ministers.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I think that is right. If this debate has done nothing else, it has probably given the impetus to ensure the oversight board meets more regularly, and I shall take that back.

There needs to be evidence of systemic failures to justify a review. I will take back the point about the oversight board meeting more often. Prevent should be subject to proper scrutiny, but I hope I have already outlined a number of mechanisms for this. It is also open to the Home Affairs Select Committee to conduct an inquiry into Prevent, should it wish to do so. Furthermore, the fifth anniversary of the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 does offer the opportunity to undertake the normal pre-legislative review of the provisions in Part 5 of that Act, providing the legislative framework for Prevent.

I hope my explanation has provided some comfort to noble Lords. I suspect by the gathering crowds it has not.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but can the Minister also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford? It was suggested that the Home Office contains officials who do not really focus on Prevent. Could she confirm there is a strong Prevent group within the Home Office, chaired by an experienced and competent person who does a great deal of conceptual thinking in this area and is open to discussion with any Member of your Lordships’ House who shows some understanding of this issue and cares to discuss it with him or his team, which is now frighteningly large?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and that team is growing. I think my noble friend Lord Marlesford is concerned about the Home Office in general, but I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this issue was also looked at in detail in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises an important issue concerning groups that have been added to the list of proscribed organisations and that have, to all intents and purposes, stopped engaging in the activity or activities that led to them being added to the list in the first place and the risk to individuals getting caught up in that.

I have listened carefully to the issues raised in that previous debate and in today’s debate and reflected on them, but I have come to the conclusion that I am not persuaded that the change proposed by these amendments is necessary or right at this time. The first duty of government is to protect the public. As we have heard, the 2000 Act already provides a mechanism for an organisation to seek deproscription: there is detailed in Section 4 and further in Section 5 an appeals process to the Proscribed Organisations Appeals Commission. Further, on a point of law, organisations can go to the Court of Appeal.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that there is a process already in place and further, on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made regarding Northern Ireland, I am not persuaded that these amendments are right today. That is not to say that the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, could not be considered to be introduced at some point in the future, but I am not convinced on the merits of the case at this time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments return to an issue raised with some force by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in our earlier debates. I am conscious that I was unable to persuade him of my view that the well-intentioned amendment he tabled in Committee would not be in the public interest. I am grateful to him for the further amendment which he has tabled, which would operate in parallel to his original proposal for annual reviews, and which he has explained is intended to address some of the concerns the Government have with that proposal. On careful consideration, regretfully, I cannot agree that it does do so and the Government are not able to support it for reasons I will come to shortly.

Before I come to the detail of the amendments, I should be clear that the Government consider proscription to be a necessary power that plays an important role in protecting the public. Organisations are proscribed for a good reason: because they are terrorist in nature, and because it is in the public interest to prevent them being able to operate or to gain support in the UK. This plays an important role in protecting the public from potentially very dangerous organisations, as well as more generally in maintaining public confidence and, where relevant, supporting our international partners in the struggle against terrorism. The Government also consider that the power’s impact is proportionate to that purpose.

In forming this view I have in mind that, beyond restricting the ability of an individual to engage in the specific activities covered by the proscription offences relating to the particular organisation which has been proscribed, the power does not otherwise impact on their ability to conduct a normal day-to-day life. The impact of proscribing an organisation is not, therefore, overly intrusive or unavoidable from the individual’s perspective.

Police Funding Settlement

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Policing Minister. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I would like to propose to the House a provisional police funding settlement for 2019-20. I do so at a time of real pressure on our police system, with demand rising and becoming increasingly complex and response-intensive. Across the country, police officers and staff are working exceptionally hard in very demanding and often risky conditions. They have, I know, the respect and thanks of this House, but they need more than that: they need additional support to help them do the job.

Last year, Parliament approved a funding settlement that resulted in £460 million of additional public investment in policing. That included £50 million more for counterterrorism and £280 million more for local forces from the precept. This meant that every force’s funding was protected in real terms this year, and overall public investment in policing this year is more than £1 billion higher than three years ago.

As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance front-line policing. I also indicated last year that our intention was to provide a similar settlement in 2019-20, subject to improved efficiency, productivity and financial transparency. I am very pleased to confirm that the police have met those conditions. There is an agreed plan to deliver £120 million in commercial and back-office savings by 2020-21. Forces are developing digital plans, including deploying mobile technology more ambitiously to use police time more productively, and every PCC has published a financial reserves strategy. However, the Government recognise that two things have changed since I stood at the Dispatch Box a year ago.

First, cost pressures have risen. Public sector inflation has increased and the police are facing challenges in meeting new costs, such as forensics and increased employer contributions to safeguard public pensions. More significantly, demand pressures have risen. There has been a major increase in the reporting of high-harm, previously hidden crimes such as child sexual exploitation. The challenge from serious and organised crime networks is growing. Through the serious violence strategy, we are bearing down on the worst spike in serious violence and knife crime that we have seen in this country in a decade. Digitally enabled and online crime is a major challenge for our police. Meanwhile, as we are all aware, the threat from terrorism has escalated and evolved.

The first role of government is to protect the public. As crime changes, so must the police. We are determined to make sure that the police have the powers and resources they need to respond to changing demand. So the Home Secretary and I would like to go further than I indicated last year. As the Home Secretary has signalled over the course of the year, police funding is his number one priority, so he and I have been working closely with our colleagues across government to agree a comprehensive settlement. We are proposing today a settlement that could see public investment in policing rise by up to £970 million in 2019-20, depending on the actions of police and crime commissioners.

Let me break down that very large number for the House. First, instead of the flat cash grant that I indicated last year, we want to increase government grants to police and crime commissioners by £161 million. Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms. This package includes £14 million to recognise the specific extra costs and financial challenges of policing London. On top of this, we will allocate additional grant funding of more than £150 million specifically to help the police to manage unexpected increases in their contributions to public pensions costs since the 2016 Budget.

We have also listened to requests from PCCs for more flexibility around the levels of police precept. So this settlement empowers PCCs to raise council tax contributions for local policing by £2 a month—£24 a year—for a typical household. If this flexibility is fully utilised, the result will be just over £500 million of additional local investment in local policing. We do not take that decision lightly because we know that money is tight for many people. The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs, and they will have to make a case to their electorate and be accountable for the delivery of a return on that public investment.

On top of the proposed increase in the core grant and a doubling of local precept flexibility, we propose investing more in the fight to protect our constituents against terrorism and serious organised crime. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget, funding for counterterrorism policing will increase by £59 million next year to £816 million— £160 million more than we planned at the last spending review. We also intend to match the new serious and organised crime strategy with £90 million of much-needed resources to tackle threats including economic crime, child sexual exploitation, fraud and cybercrime.

This settlement combines increased central funding with increased local contributions to local policing. It enables the biggest investment in front-line policing since 2010 and the start of the journey to get this country back to living within our means. It will allow PCCs to manage their costs while maintaining their plans to recruit and fill capability gaps, not least with regard to detectives. It will strengthen our capabilities in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism.

Alongside this increased investment in the front line against crime, we will also maintain our existing level of public investment in building national police capabilities and upgrading police technology for the benefit of local forces. We will invest £175 million in the Police Transformation Fund next year, supporting the police to make the most of the digital opportunity to improve contact with the public and use police time more effectively. We are also developing the first national programme to support stretched front-line officers. We will also support Police Now, which is recruiting fresh talent into policing and detective roles.

Alongside the Police Transformation Fund, we will invest £495 million in technology programmes that will upgrade critical infrastructure such as police databases and the emergency service communications network.

Taking everything together, this settlement means that, as a country, we will invest next year up to almost £14 billion in our police system if all PCCs use full precept flexibility. That would represent increased public investment of about £2 billion compared to 2015-16. With increased public investment comes an increased responsibility to improve efficiency and effectiveness and show the public what difference their investment is making in greater deterrence to criminals, better outcomes for victims and safer communities.

To make the most of the new investment we are announcing today, we will work with the police on four key areas next year to drive efficiency and effectiveness: delivering on the police’s ambition to procure efficiently and share back-office services; working more productively, including through digital mobile working; filling the major capability gaps that the independent inspectorate has identified in detectives and investigations; and making sure there is greater co-operation in the work to tackle serious and organised crime. Of course, support for our police is not all about spending taxpayers’ money. We are also supporting the police through new powers and working on a cross-party basis to strengthen legislation on offensive weapons, just as we worked on that basis to strengthen protections for emergency services workers.

Let me be clear: our commitment to supporting the police to deliver for the public is for the long term. Come the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government will be prepared to invest appropriately in police capacity, capability and professional confidence, but this must come with greater local accountability of directly elected PCCs and a commitment to accelerate the pace of change that is needed to make sure that British policing remains the best in the world. As we have indicated, this settlement is the last before the next spending review, which will set long-term police budgets and address the issue of how resources are allocated fairly across police forces—I know that is of great interest to many Members across the House.

This Government’s priority is the safety of the public. We understand that our police are facing increased demands. We are determined to respond to the threats from terrorism, organised crime and serious violence. We are today announcing a major investment in the capabilities that the police need to respond, and rightly challenging the police to spend that money well and continue on the path of reform and modernisation. I wish to end by expressing my gratitude to our police forces around the country for their exceptional attitude, hard work and bravery. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should declare an interest as, having been a police officer for more than 30 years, I am a police pensioner.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has increased the amount that police forces have to contribute to police pensions? According to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, that will amount to £165 million in 2019-20 and £417 million in 2020-21. The Government are providing £153 million to assist with increased pension costs, which is a shortfall of £12 million in the next financial year, and there is nothing in this settlement for the year after. How are police forces expected to plan ahead when they will potentially have to give back an additional £430 million to the Treasury for police pensions?

In a letter today from the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, the Government say that they are increasing the government grant to PCCs, which is,

“the first real terms increase in the Government grant funding since 2010”.

Yet the Statement that the Minister has just repeated says:

“Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms”.


Which is it: protected or increased? If it is the latter, by what percentage in real terms is it being increased? Can the Minister confirm that since 2010 central government funding for the police service has fallen by 30% in real terms, according to the National Audit Office, with overall funding down 19% in real terms, taking into account the police precept?

The Statement says that this year every force’s funding was protected in real terms. A more accurate picture can be given by looking at the picture since 2015. The number of police officers has fallen a further 4%, the number of community support officers has fallen by 18% and the number of special constables has fallen by 27%. Partly as a result of public spaces now being devoid of uniformed officers, knife crime is up 62%, firearms offences are up 30% and homicides are up 33% over the same period. Demand is rising and becoming increasingly complex, as the Government admit. There are crucial capability gaps, particularly in detectives and investigations, and the government response to this crisis is woefully inadequate.

Instead of making real progress in reversing the devastating cuts that this Government have imposed on the police service, they push responsibility for any meaningful increase in police funding on to police and crime commissioners and council tax payers. They say:

“The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs and they will have to make the case to their electorate and be accountable for delivery of a return on that public investment”.


In other words, the Home Office is saying, “Don’t blame us for increases in council tax and don’t blame us if you don’t notice any difference”.

Meanwhile, the Government are wasting millions of pounds propping up the existing out-of-date emergency service communications network while a new network, which relies totally on a commercial mobile phone network, is years behind its planned implementation. What would have happened to our emergency services if the new communication system had been in place by now, as planned, and had been based on the O2 network, which lost all 2G, 3G and 4G connectivity last week?

The police service and the brave officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us are at breaking point. When will the Government realise that the police service needs a substantial real-terms increase in central government funding and a guarantee to cover all unexpected increases in pension costs in order to avert a crisis?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the Government’s own part in this situation—that is, the funding position that we find ourselves in—and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the very similar point that we had caused a crisis in public safety. I have to say to both noble Lords that 2010 saw the advent of the new coalition Government of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems after one of the worst economic crashes that I have known in my lifetime. Any responsible Government would have had to have taken measures to take that in hand and control it. Both noble Lords are right that funding has been tough, but I could not say that the blame should all be laid at this Government’s door. We have tried to live within our means as opposed to overspending and ultimately creating problems for the next generations through public debt and the deficit.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about how the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Lord Blair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I apologise, it was the noble Lord, Lord Blair, who explained how he had a lot more money. Yes, he did; 2010 saw the start of reductions in public spending to try to get our spending under control. It was the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who eloquently explained to us how from 2011 to 2013 knife crime actually went down, as did stop and search—and as did his budget. He talked about how police forces can work together, take a much more local approach and engage with communities to understand the problems. He explained that it was not all about funding, although we had got to a point—as I, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister acknowledged—where funding was becoming tight and demands on the police were rising, particularly in the past one to two years, with some of the unprecedented pressures arising from things such as terrorism.

The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, asked about the pensions position. Yes, it will rise to £160 million in 2019-20. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked whether the increase was £59 million in relation to counterterrorism funding. I can confirm that. It rose by £59 million to £816 million, which was £116 million more than announced at the previous spending review. It is complicated and I apologise to noble Lords for that, but that is the position.

Both noble Lords asked about certainty beyond that: the eternal question, which I was always frustrated about as a local authority leader. Of course, we cannot give any certainty beyond the next spending review, but the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister have said on a number of occasions that police funding will be an absolute priority, so I can give that certainty to noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked the very good question: is the protected funding just protected or increasing? I can tell him that for 2019-20, government grant funding for all PCCs will be protected in real terms compared to 2018-19 but, separately, the total funding increase of up to £970 million across the policing system is the largest increase in funding since 2010.

Both noble Lords talked about local taxpayers and the impact that this will have on them. I must say that this Government—and, indeed, the coalition Government —have taken a record number of people out of tax altogether, with the basic allowance starting at a much higher level. I think that we have taken 1.74 million people out of tax altogether because of the £12,500 personal allowance, and the national living wage is now £8.21 an hour, which will benefit 2.4 million workers in total. There has been a cut in income tax for 32 million people. I appreciate that local taxpayers will have to pay this increase, but of course their local taxes will go to local services and the tax situation for so many millions of people has been much improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the pension costs in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Obviously, we are providing a comprehensive funding settlement for 2019-20, but the revised total pension pressure is £330 million, and this settlement provides up to £970 million of funding to cover pressures and provide investment. As I said, 2020-21 will be covered as part of the next comprehensive spending review, which we expect next year.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about the comms system. He made a very good point about when O₂ was down. I cannot give a definitive answer about precisely when the new comms system will be on board, but I totally get his point—it is a much more efficient system—and, if I may, I shall write to him with any updated position about it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this welcome investment in policing at strategic and local level, because both are important. I very much endorse her words of gratitude at this Christmas season for brave police men and women in our country.

I have two questions. Does my noble friend agree that better use can be made of digital techniques and information sharing in the fight against crime and in improving value for money in policing? Good digital methods can help to make money go further. Secondly, can she accelerate the cross-party work that she mentioned on offensive weapons, given the appalling incidence of knife crime that we see up and down the country and in the newspapers far too often?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for those questions. Her first point was about better use of digital techniques. In all the efficiency discussions that we have had with the police, that is one of the most important things. The advent of new technology means that the police can spend more time out on the streets fighting crime. As more efficient police services engage with this type of technology, we will see that realised in more police time.

My noble friend makes a good point about a cross-party approach to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which I look forward to discussing across the House. I know that we will have a constructive discussion about that before we debate the Bill and I look forward to hearing from her at Second Reading and beyond, and to her engagement in the process.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she said about the rise in the policing precept. She seems to admit that, on the one hand, the Government are giving by reducing income tax levels for people, on the other, passing on the cost of policing to local residents. One is based on ability to pay, but council tax, with the policing precept, is a very regressive tax, so there is an inherent unfairness in that system. I raise the particular consequences for West Yorkshire residents and those in my own borough of Kirklees, and I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. In Kirklees last year there was a 7.9% rise in the policing precept, and the rise this year is predicted to be 14.7%. That is a 24% rise over two years, not based on anybody’s ability to pay. Will the Minister reflect on whether that is a fair way to raise taxation to pay for policing?

Secondly, police and crime commissioners are supposedly accountable to local people, yet there is no direct way of creating that accountability. I have a suggestion. Currently, the policing precept is an add-on at the bottom of the council tax bill issued by local authorities. Local people obviously just look at the bottom line of what they have to pay. To increase accountability, can the policing precept be billed separately, albeit within the same envelope or digitised method, so that it is clear to residents how much they are paying for policing and how much the Government require them to pay in addition?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She mentioned giving with one hand and taking with the other. I talked about general taxation and people being taken out of tax— 32 million people are paying less tax—but there is also the government grant to PCCs, which will be £161 million. I reject her idea that costs are passed on to local people. We all pay tax. I for one am happy to pay local tax, knowing that it will go to my local police in Greater Manchester. She asked about the police precept being billed separately; I put it to her that she would then pass the cost of additional billing on to local people. Different areas can decide how to do things in their own way but an extra bill, even if put in the same envelope, will incur additional costs.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, in the Statement she repeated, the Minister made it sound as though the sunlit uplands have come into view. That is not the way we see it where I live. The Statement says:

“As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance front-line policing”.


In Colne, the town I come from, the people I represent on the local council ask me, “Why are we paying more for the police when we are having our local police taken away?” Lancashire was in the forefront of developing neighbourhood policing 20 or 25 years ago, and Pendle and east Lancashire generally were in the forefront in Lancashire. We were pioneers. This year, half the community beat managers—the constables who are the actual neighbourhood police officers—are being removed. There are still some PCSOs, but half the police officers on the beat, in the ward and on the street, are being removed. The Minister referred to police officers on the street getting more technological devices and being more efficient; that is no use if they have gone.

What do I say to people when they ask me, “Who is to blame if not you?” I tell them I am not to blame, so they ask me, “Is it the Government, the police commissioner, the police constable?” Who is it? There is no local accountability at all.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that. The investment in front-line police—whether in neighbourhood or any other kind of policing—is up to the local force. He made the point that technology is no use if the police are gone; he is not incorrect in that, but the savings made from investing in technology can be invested in front-line policing. I hope the settlement, which I think is very generous, means that the police will have more scope to invest in the areas they want to invest in while still looking at efficiencies in procurement and technology.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Since our police and crime commissioners vary so greatly in quality and efficiency, how can the Government be sure that they will use their significant additional resources effectively or provide the greater accountability for which the Statement explicitly calls? In particular, can they have confidence in Cleveland, where Mike Veale, discredited by Operation Conifer in Wiltshire, is now chief constable? Can they have confidence in the Wiltshire PCC, with whom they are at odds over an inquiry into Operation Conifer?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Regarding accountability, particularly for efficiency and effectiveness, HMICFRS tests that across police forces and, ultimately, the public test their PCCs at the ballot box.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before we move on, I should of course have mentioned in my previous intervention that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I normally remind the House repeatedly, but in this instance I completely forgot.

Religious Hate Speech

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 remains in force, and if so, what is the basis in statute for the offence of religious hate speech.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 relates to hatred against persons on religious or sexual orientation grounds. Section 29J provides that Part 3A should not be interpreted in a way that prohibits discussion or encouragement to cease practising of particular religions or beliefs. There is no criminal offence in the UK of hate speech.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, I fear that we are on our way to losing our freedom of speech in this area. I repeat a question I put a year ago, which the Government refused to answer: namely, whether a Christian who proclaims that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God can be arrested for hate speech if a Muslim feels insulted and complains to the police. By the same token, can a Muslim be arrested for preaching the supreme divinity of Allah if a Christian takes offence?

Secondly, can the Government assure your Lordships that they will not follow a new judgment from the Strasbourg court, which upholds Austria’s criminalisation of a lady who said that Muhammad was a paedophile? Or are we to have a new blasphemy law that prohibits discussion of Islam?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a hypothetical question in an unspecified situation. The CPS and the police agreed definition of hate crime is used for the purposes of identifying and flagging only. The definition is: any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. When flagged as a hate crime, the police will be satisfied that an offence has been committed and will then investigate evidence in support of the appropriate charge, as well as the aggravated element of hostility. It would not be appropriate for me, as I have just said, to confirm whether this is an example which would constitute a hate crime. That would be an operational decision both of the police and the CPS based on the specific circumstances.

On the Austrian situation, the judgment does not raise any issues which require any further consideration by this Government at this time.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was going to tell us that, like Mr Farage, he now found UKIP so awful that he, too, was leaving its ranks. Section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, which was added, I understand, by this House during the passage of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, states:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents”.


In the light of those references to “insult or abuse”, do the Government intend to reconsider the appropriateness of those two words in Section 29J in the current climate, which seem to conflict to some degree with the objective of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and its protection for individuals from hatred and the fear of violence and harassment?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we need to be careful to balance the two issues. I know why the noble Lord picked “insult” and “abuse” because they sound quite strong words, but insult and abuse and hatred are quite different things. I take the noble Lord’s point: on the face of it, they seem quite strong words.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I was the police spokesperson after the 7 July bombings in 2005 in London when 52 innocent people lost their lives. I was asked in a press conference whether I felt that it was the result of Islamic terrorism. I said that I thought that the phrase “Islamic terrorism” was a contradiction in terms. I went on to say that I believe that the UK is a much better, more law-abiding country because we have a strong Muslim community. I believe that now as much as I did then. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do agree with the noble Lord that the conflation of Islamism and Islamic is widespread. Not only should we understand where the two terms come from—Islamism, of course, comes from the collapse of the Ottoman empire—but that Islam itself is a peaceful religion and Muslims in this country contribute to the variety and diversity of our country.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that all faiths should be treated equally, and does she deplore the present practice of resources going to those who shout the loudest? There are no comparative statistics on hate crime for different faiths.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that all religions should be treated equally. The premise of some of our hate crime legislation absolutely underpins that equality in society. No one should feel that hate should be meted out on them because of their religion, the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their disability.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is now far too much hatred in the world, affecting all ages, such as the tragic incident that occurred recently with the Syrian refugee? The total pervasiveness of social media is an opportunity to spread hate in different directions. Will she comment on the approach that could be taken to tackle that particular challenge that we now have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend raises an important question about the proliferation of hate crime online; of course, what is a crime offline should also be a crime online. We will be taking our online harms White Paper through Parliament shortly. He is absolutely right to point out the case of that poor Syrian boy, but I should also like to point out that sometimes out of such awful situations comes great kindness. I understand that the British public have raised a lot of funds for that family to support them through the terrible time that they have had.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. We on these Benches have for some time had a concern about the so-called conveyor belt theory that radical, non-violent, extreme views necessarily lead to radicalisation and violence. Many groups in this country hold what most of us would consider to be extreme views, such as fundamentalist Christian groups and ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, where we have no concerns at all that their extreme views will lead to radicalisation and violence.

There are other factors at play that receive no consideration as far as the Bill’s measures are concerned. We also express our concern that the Bill would tend to put people off debating extreme views, during which the counternarrative can be expressed, peoples’ dangerous views can be openly debated and their ideas shown to be false. The Bill and other measures like it are likely to close down that debate. Ultimately, a battle of ideas is the way to address the underlying issues rather than the approach the Bill takes.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their explanation of these amendments. One of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, challenged the Government on was the rationale behind our counter- terrorism work. Perhaps it would be useful to set out some of that for him.

As stated in Contest, government and academic research has consistently indicated that there is no single sociodemographic profile of a terrorist in the UK, and no single pathway or, indeed, “conveyor belt” leading to involvement in terrorism. Terrorists come from a broad range of backgrounds and appear to become involved in different ways and for differing reasons. Few of those who are drawn into Islamist terrorism, for example, have a deep knowledge of the faith.

While no single factor will cause someone to become involved in terrorism, several factors can converge to create certain conditions under which radicalisation can flourish. These include background factors such as aspects of someone’s personal circumstances that might make them vulnerable to radicalisers, such as being involved in criminal activity; initial influences such as people, ideas or experiences that influence an individual towards supporting a terrorist movement; and an ideological opening or receptiveness to extremist ideology.

Most individuals who experience this combination of factors will not go on to become involved in terrorism because there are protective factors that safeguard against their doing so. These range from having no opportunity to develop extremist contacts to having other, more important priorities in their lives, such as their family, career or community. A small number of people who lack these protective factors may become radicalised. In these circumstances, a range of social and ideological influences can combine to intensify commitment to a terrorist cause and provide opportunities for them to act.

The process of radicalisation is driven by universal psychological needs for identity and belonging—those words are very important in this context—meaning and purpose, and, of course, self-esteem. Where these are met by constructive sources radicalisation will not flourish, but we also know that as a person deepens their involvement in terrorism this process will typically include voracious consumption of online propaganda. When in a group, further engagement in terrorism is also likely to include the individual isolating themselves from non-extremists and participating in low-level activity such as the radicalisation of others, or facilitation, fundraising, et cetera. There is some research to indicate that lone-actor terrorists have a higher incidence of certain mental and developmental health conditions than the general population, but I must stress that no one should assume that a terrorist suffers from a mental health condition or that a person with a mental health condition is a terrorist.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

27: Schedule 1, page 28, line 8, at end insert—
“(ca) the cases in which a person “holds” an account include those where the person is entitled to operate the account;”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, helpfully proposed an amendment in Committee to close a gap he had identified on accounts which a terrorist offender is entitled to operate but does not hold in their own name—for example, because they are an authorised signatory to the account of the relative or employer. I recognised then that there might well be merit in the amendment and committed to take it away to consider it further. I have just done that and find myself in agreement with the noble Lord that this is indeed a gap in the current Bill and that his suggestion will close it and improve the Bill.

Amendment 27 therefore implements his suggestion, for which I am very grateful, and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, but I cannot possibly claim credit for the amendment: it is actually the work of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That having been said, we are very grateful that she listened to our arguments. We hope that noble Lords will realise that we on these Benches look to be hopeful, not necessarily negative about legislation. We hope that closing this loophole shows that we are working together to try to improve legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, Clause 13 confers on police the power to enter and search the home address of a registered terrorist offender, under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice, for the purpose of assessing the risk the offender poses. Amendment 28 would narrow the purpose for which the power of entry and search may be operated, limiting it to assessing whether the offender is in breach of the notification requirements. There was a good debate on this in Committee, so I will not detain the House by setting out again the underlying purpose of the terrorism notification requirements, and their importance in helping the police to manage the risk posed by those convicted of serious terrorism offences. However, it may assist your Lordships if I briefly rehearse the purpose of this power, and why it is needed in its current form.

The purpose of the power of entry and search, as currently drafted and as intended by the Government, is to allow the police to assess the risk posed by a convicted terrorist who is subject to the notification requirements. The police consider that home visits are an important tool in managing and risk-assessing registered terrorist offenders during the time they are subject to the notification regime. Such visits allow them to ascertain whether the offender does in fact reside at the address they have notified to the police, and to check their compliance with other aspects of the notification regime. Home visits are also helpful, as they allow a broader assessment of risk to be made. They allow the police to identify any other factors that might contribute to the overall risk an offender poses to themselves or their community, and their risk of reoffending. This might include their general living conditions, as well as any signs of mental health decline, or of drug or alcohol misuse.

It seems an entirely appropriate purpose for the police to wish to keep in touch with a registered terrorist offender. Indeed, given that the police are charged with protecting us all from such serious offenders, it would surely be irresponsible to do otherwise. However, Amendment 28 would mean that the new power could not be used for that purpose. The police will, of course, always seek to conduct such visits on a voluntary basis and the clause requires that this approach must be attempted at least twice before a warrant is sought. A positive and co-operative relationship is always preferable, and leads to more effective management of risk. However, a power of entry and search is needed because this is not always the reality, and registered terrorist offenders will often not comply with such home visits voluntarily. They will often be generally unco-operative and refuse to engage constructively with the police in conducting necessary checks.

In previous debates, I have highlighted that an identical power exists in relation to registered sex offenders. It was introduced by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, by the then Labour Government. Indeed, the then Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said at the time in reference to sex offenders that,

“we are now of the view that further powers are required to enable the police to gather all the information they need about a small but, it has to be said, determined group of offenders who, while in apparent compliance with the notification requirements, do all they can to frustrate the risk assessment process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/06; col. 678.)

I can only echo the noble Lord’s words.

The police report that their experience with registered sex offenders, as a result of this power being available, is that the offenders will normally comply voluntarily and that they are able to build a far more constructive relationship with them. This is simply because those offenders know that if they refuse to engage on a voluntary basis the police will be able to return with a warrant. We anticipate this power bringing similar benefits in the management of registered terrorist offenders, who are equally in a particular category of risk, such that monitoring of this kind is appropriate following a conviction. I cannot see that there is a rational argument for why the police should have less effective powers to monitor the risk posed by registered terrorist offenders than they do for registered sex offenders. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in light of this explanation.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can explain whether she is saying that, if there is no rational basis for providing this power in a different way from the way it was done in the case of sex offenders, the TPIM Act 2011 was not rational in how it approached the issue, and what does she say about that parallel with the TPIM Act?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would not like to say that the TPIM Act was not rational. I can write to the noble Lord to outline the significant differences here, but I think that the parallel with sex offenders that I posed is pertinent.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

29: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Persons detained under port and border control powers
(1) Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (detention) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(4) A detained person must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”(3) In paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) A detained person must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”(4) In paragraph 9—(a) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) This paragraph applies where a detained person exercises the right under paragraph 7 to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may direct that the right—(a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detained person’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detained person’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”, and(b) omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).(5) In paragraph 16—(a) in sub-paragraph (8), omit “Subject to paragraph 17,”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (9) insert—“(10) A detained person must be informed of the rights under sub-paragraphs (1) and (6) on first being detained.”(6) In paragraph 17—(a) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) This paragraph applies where a detained person exercises the right under paragraph 16(6) to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer not below the rank of superintendent may, if it appears to the officer to be necessary on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), direct that the right— (a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detained person’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detained person’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”, and(b) in sub-paragraph (3), in the opening words for “(1)” substitute “(2)”.”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group make a number of changes in response to the debates in both Houses regarding the ports powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. They also respond to the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, and to representations from the Law Society and others.

During the course of the previous debates, there has been much focus on the important topic of a detainee’s right to consult a solicitor in private, and on the exceptional power that would allow an officer to overhear that consultation to mitigate concerns that the detainee might pass on a message to a third party. While this power was not without safeguards—for example, it could only be authorised by an assistant chief constable where the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences—the Government have heard the concerns raised and are prepared to take a different approach.

Amendments 37 to 39, 41 and 42, would replace that power and instead allow an officer, in the situation that I have just described, to require the detainee to choose a different solicitor. The detainee will then be reminded of the right to free legal counsel from an approved duty solicitor who has met the standards and competence of the Law Society’s criminal litigation accreditation scheme. This approach, which will apply to both Schedule 7 and Schedule 3 ports powers, will mitigate the concerns regarding the detainee’s first-choice solicitor but will still allow the detainee to receive private legal counsel—in all likelihood, with a trusted solicitor from the duty solicitor scheme. It mirrors the provisions in PACE Code H with regard to the detention of terrorist suspects as proposed by the Law Society in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, and aligns with the proposals of the shadow Security Minister and noble Lords in this House.

The new power will also be subject to important safeguards. For example, it can only be directed by a superintendent and only where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences: for example, interference with evidence or gathering of information; injury to another person; alerting others that they are suspected of an indictable offence; or hindering the recovery of a property obtained by an indictable offence.

Amendments 35, 36 and 40 concern the points raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding the information provided to a detainee about their right to access a solicitor. During that debate, I drew the House’s attention to the draft Schedule 3 code of practice which, like its equivalent for Schedule 7, is clear that a person who has been detained under either power must be provided with a “notice of detention” that clarifies their rights and obligations. The examining officer must also explain these rights and obligations to the detainee before continuing with the examination. Furthermore, at each periodic review of the detention, the examining officer must remind the detainee of any rights that they have not yet exercised.

While the Government are satisfied that all the safeguards that the noble Baroness asked for are already in place through the codes of practice, Amendments 35, 36 and 40 will make it explicit in the primary legislation that a detainee has to be made aware of his or her right to access a lawyer at the moment of detention. We are in complete agreement that any person who is detained under these ports powers should be informed of their rights before any further questioning takes place.

Amendments 43 and 44 will address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with respect to the scope of the regulation-making power in what is now paragraph 60 of Schedule 3. This power would allow the Secretary of State to specify additional persons who may be supplied with information acquired by an examining officer. The power mirrors an equivalent in Schedule 14 to the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to information acquired through a Schedule 7 examination. These regulation-making powers are an important means of future-proofing the mechanisms to share information with government bodies and operational partners. Currently this information can be shared, if needed, with the Secretary of State, HMRC, a constable or the National Crime Agency.

We recognise the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the powers as drafted could allow sensitive information to be passed to any organisations, including those in the private sector. That is not our intention. The Government are clear that such information should be held and managed responsibly and should not be made available to any person or organisation. Amendments 43 and 44 would ensure that the Secretary of State, in relation to either power, could specify a person to be supplied with this information only if the person exercised a public function, whether or not in the United Kingdom.

I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government have listened to a number of concerns raised during the debates and have acted to improve this legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The shadow Security Minister in the Commons, it has been said, proposed that a list should be drawn up of lawyers properly regulated through the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who would be available to give legal advice and thus overcome the Government’s concern that a person detained under the hostile activity ports powers might seek the service of a rogue solicitor to give legal advice but, in reality, use that person to pass on information to a third party with potentially damaging consequences.

The Government in the Commons said they would consider this proposition and, as the Minister has just said, they have now tabled an amendment that takes out the reference in the Bill to consulting a solicitor,

“in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer”,

and instead provides for a senior officer to be able to require a detainee to consult a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing. In her letter of 27 November setting out the Government’s amendment, the Minister has said that in practice a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing is likely to be the duty solicitor. Can she say what will happen if the further different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing is also deemed unacceptable? Will, in effect, the detainee be told either that they choose the duty solicitor or they will not have a solicitor to consult? It would be helpful if this point could be clarified in respect of persons detained under the port and border control powers.

We support the amendments and recognise that the Government have endeavoured to address the concerns expressed in the Commons by the shadow Minister, as well as the similar concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we too support these amendments and recognise the steps that the Government have taken. Perhaps I may put on the record a couple of comments made by the Law Society on this general area. Unfortunately, its briefing arrived too late for us to build on it by way of amendment, but it comments on legally privileged material being retained for use as evidence or for deportation proceedings. It gives the view that:

“Legally privileged material should not be retained for any purpose other than a potentially urgent need to prevent death, injury or a hostile act”.


It also comments on:

“The process by which material can be identified as constituting legally privileged material”,


and asks who is responsible for making the determination, as that is not,

“explicitly clear in the Bill as drafted”.

It continues:

“It is important that this determination is made by a legally qualified person who is capable of accurately assessing whether a given article is subject to legal professional privilege”.


As I said, I thought that it was worth putting those comments on the record.

My noble friend Lord Marks is sorry not to be able to be here this evening and asks that his thanks to the Minister for building on the indication given at the last stage is recorded. He too asks about what he calls an “unacceptable, dodgy solicitor”. I think that any dodgy solicitor is unacceptable—you do not have to fill two criteria. If an unacceptable dodgy solicitor is selected for a second time, he and I assume that the senior officer might give a further objection. My noble friend also asks whether the Government intend to issue a further draft code of practice relating to the considerations that senior officers should take into account when considering making these directions.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what happens if the detainee chooses another solicitor, who is then of concern. I am trying to read the writing here. If concerns still exist, the superintendent is within his or her right to direct that the detainee should choose a different solicitor, and that applies not just to the first-choice solicitor. The point about confidential material—

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate the difficulty with reading writing. I cannot read my own, let alone somebody else’s. Does it mean that if the detainee chooses an unacceptable second solicitor, they will then be told, “It’s the duty solicitor or you don’t have a solicitor at all”?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

From what I understand, a panel of approved solicitors is available to detainees—I am sure that the Box will fly over with a piece of paper if I am wrong about that. However, if, for whatever reason, the first solicitor from the panel is given to the detainee—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

May I make an effort to help out the noble Baroness? There was a time in my professional life when I used to be instructed by duty solicitors at London Heathrow Airport and London Gatwick Airport. The fact is that the duty solicitors at ports of entry are accustomed to dealing with all kinds of issues that arise there. Indeed, the quality of work that emanates from being a duty solicitor in significant ports of entry is high. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that one is getting not any old solicitor but a solicitor who has some understanding of the kind of work that can arise in that setting. There is also some training available, and it is usually done very co-operatively. Has that given the Minister enough time to be able to read the writing—or she may wish to just agree with me?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do agree with the noble Lord; that is absolutely brilliant. But I have just received another piece of information: if the detainee is still not satisfied, they can consult a solicitor by phone, so that is a third arm of the options for detainees. Between us, we have got there.

As for who approves the access to confidential material, it would be the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.

[Lord Rosser]

The reason for my asking the question is that, as I understand it, sub-paragraph (2)(b) of Amendment 41 states that the right of the detainee,

“may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing”.

I have nothing at all against duty solicitors and hold them in high regard. However, if the detainee then chooses another solicitor who is unacceptable—presumably not one of the duty solicitors—we are fairly clear that the detainee will then be told to use the duty solicitor or have no solicitor at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

He or she will be perfectly entitled to consult a solicitor by phone.

Amendment 29 agreed.