Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I am not sure whether I should come in now but I just take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her ministerial colleagues in the Bill team for their willingness to meet and engage in what have been constructive and helpful discussions on not only provisions that are in the Bill but also provisions that are not, since it is with the latter that most differences of view or approach have centred. I also thank my Front-Bench colleagues for their hard work, not least—although he is not in his place—my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who has not been exactly short of commitments in respect of other Bills as well. Finally, I thank the staff in our own office, not least Grace Wright, for their help and advice in navigating our way through this Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I echo those thanks to the Minister and the Bill team. As several people have said—most frequently the noble Lord, Lord Rosser —it is what is not in the Bill that has exercised us most. I can see an enormous amount of material for Private Members’ Bill in the next Session if we do not have government Bills that we can tack our—“demands” would be the wrong word—concerns on to. But the Minister has done an absolutely sterling job and I hope she gets five minutes to have a bit of a rest before she sets out campaigning. We have the luxury of knowing that we will be back to pursue these interests.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As always with Bills such as this, it is what is not in the Bill. Also, sometimes we should have gone further. But we have had a challenge in this Bill and in the main the challenge has been lack of time, not of consensus. I place on record my thanks to the Front Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Hamwee—and my noble friends behind me, who have kept me on my toes. I thank noble Lords for being so accommodating about having so little time to get through the business of the past 24 hours.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may look into that and let the noble Lord know because I am reluctant to make sweeping promises at the Dispatch Box without knowing exactly what the timescales will be. I will let him know, certainly before Report, what the expected timescales are.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Before my noble friend responds, the Minister referred to the Modern Slavery Act. I do not want to be overly pedantic but I do want to be a bit pedantic because this is an important point. She mentioned the requirement on certain companies to report on the steps that they are taking under Section 54 with regard to their supply chains. I think that she will agree that their statement as regards the steps they are taking can be a statement,

“that the organisation has taken no such steps”.

That would be regrettable. However, there seems to be a feeling that every organisation has got to report the detail of the steps when that is not quite the case.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I would say that the statement a company makes reflects the company, and if a statement of no effort is made, it will be for others to judge the efficacy of that company.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am looking for a yes or a no, but I do not think that I will get it, so I will write to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Kennedy. Mobile phone credits for cash? I have led a very sheltered life.

The Minister said that the problem was in the phrase “may be used as currency”. But it seems to me that one can know that only through experience. That is why betting receipts, gaming vouchers and so on have now been included. I am really not sure that I follow the argument, although I will think about it after this evening.

I mentioned bitcoins not because I was suggesting that they should be included but simply as an example of how some time ago we did not know what was coming.

One’s living expenses include the expenses of dependants—I think that is what the Minister said. She is nodding. It is not quite within the normal meaning of the words, but I will accept that, and I am glad that it has been confirmed.

I do not think that I adequately followed the argument about the term “exceptional circumstances”. The Minister said quite a lot about the rest of the clause and of course I shall look at that after this evening. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may intervene to say that the regulations will be affirmative.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 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 this excellent debate. We have had some very good contributions from noble Lords from around the Committee on the significant new powers of the unexplained wealth order. I will do my best to respond to all the points that were made. I apologise in advance if I take some time to do so.

As noble Lords will know, the measures in this Bill are largely focused on serious and organised crime, but it also provides important new powers to tackle terrorist financing. Last week’s horrific attack reminds us all of the very real nature of this threat. I would like to take a moment to pause and think about the families of those who have been killed and those who still lie injured in hospital. I again pay tribute to the men and women of the police and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies who are so committed to keeping us safe—to PC Keith Palmer, but also to his many colleagues who work in Parliament and across the country. We must ensure that they have the powers they need to investigate and disrupt terrorists and terrorist groups. The powers in Part 2 of the Bill, which we will come to later, will do just that.

I return to the amendments in this group on unexplained wealth orders—or UWOs. The UK is a world leader in the fight against global corruption and the UWO is a substantial new power that will assist UK law enforcement agencies to do so. I welcome the continued cross-party support for these measures. I remind noble Lords that a UWO is a court order that requires a person to provide information which shows that they obtained identified property legitimately. If the person provides information in response to a UWO, the enforcement authority can then decide whether to investigate further, take recovery action under POCA or, if they are satisfied, take no further action. If the person does not comply with a UWO, either by not responding or not responding fully to the terms of the order, the property identified in the order is presumed to be recoverable under any subsequent civil recovery proceedings.

There are a number of government amendments in this group and I turn to them first. These are, by and large, technical changes to the provisions to help them function most effectively, but I will highlight a few for the benefit of noble Lords. As regards trusts, we have tabled government Amendments 3, 4, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 30 to 32, 36, 38 to 40, 52, 53, 174 and 175. Perhaps the biggest addition to the provisions made by the government amendments are the measures to ensure that a UWO can be served in situations where property of interest is held in trust or involves corporate structures. This, I believe, picks up some of the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Faulks. The amendments will also allow subsequent UWOs to be obtained on additional individuals such as trustees in complex cases where this is necessary. The amendments are not a silver bullet in cases where trusts and corporate entities are involved. However, they are a significant improvement and will close a potential gap.

UWO thresholds are addressed by government Amendments 8 and 33, which would reduce the threshold for a UWO to be obtained from £100,000 to £50,000. Noble Lords rightly questioned how we settled on the balance. It followed representations from authorities in Scotland—including from the SNP during Commons consideration of the Bill—and Northern Ireland. It reflects the fact that the higher threshold could disadvantage law enforcement agencies in certain parts of the country where financial returns may not be as high or may be spread more evenly across criminal groups, and where property, in particular, has a lower value.

The threshold, however, is still an important safeguard, together with the other qualifying criteria that must be met before a UWO can be made by the court. It remains our view that the orders should be used in the most complex cases, where obtaining evidence has proved difficult, and this will be reflected in the supporting guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, tabled a related amendment to push the threshold up rather than down. She helped us to reflect on the balance that must be struck in circumscribing the new power. However, based on our consultation with law enforcement agencies, I suggest that her proposed threshold of £500,000 would be prohibitive. It would stop the agencies using this power in significant cases involving serious and organised crime, and noble Lords have been clear that they want to see the most effective use of UWOs. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied that our approach strikes the appropriate balance.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I could repeat my question about the temptation to get at the low-hanging fruit and not use the orders to deal with grand corruption, as I understand it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is right that both ends of the scale should be tackled, so I hope that law enforcement agencies will use the orders in a proportionate way to tackle criminal activity at both ends of the scale. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness. She looks satisfied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, on that last point, I was not clear whether the Minister was saying that defendants’ living expenses were covered or not. I would be happy to discuss that with her after today. I raised it because I was aware that they are specifically referred to in other legislation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness is right: they are provided for because they are in line with existing powers in POCA.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The Minister said that it would be right to have everything dealt with in the same hearing. I questioned whether “proceedings” meant “hearing” because to me they are not the same thing. Did the Minister say “hearing”? That might require a tweak.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did say “hearing”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I recognise that the issue was considered in 2015. It is now 2017. I totally take on board what the noble Lord says. This issue is complex but I will go back to the department to see what is in the art of the possible before Report. I cannot promise anything at this stage other than that I will try to expedite it if possible.

Prioritisation and the allocation of resources are operational matters. The NCA already has processes in place to take tasking decisions and allocate its resources. It is very unlikely that a SAR would be the only factor taken into account when deciding whether to open an investigation. Putting this matter into legislation could, if anything, impose additional restrictions on law enforcement agencies, which already have the type of flexibility to prioritise cases that the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to achieve.

I hope that he is at least partly satisfied with my explanation. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, as regards the bad things in subsection (5), I would feel more comfortable if these were a matter of discretion for the court. However, if a court has to be satisfied about something, the provision goes against my instincts—of course, I do not have the experience of other noble Lords in this area—as it would not be in a position to hear arguments on the other side. I specifically mentioned there being no alternative provisions because, in another part of the landscape, we are accustomed to there being special advocates, although that may not be a perfect system and I am not sure that I want to go down that route.

I will have to read the Minister’s response on legal professional privilege. It did not immediately answer my questions. Clearly, we are not going to make further progress on that today but it may well be something that I would like to come back to on Report, which, as I understand it from the provisional arrangements, will be very inconveniently held on the day after the day that we return from the Easter Recess. Therefore, I may disturb somebody’s holiday. I am sorry about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know, which is why I will write to the noble Lord, if he is happy with that.

[Baroness Hamwee]

That will be helpful. As I understood it, the proposal was for regulations, and the further consultation has a limited number of questions to flesh out the earlier work. The Minister obviously has some more information.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have just had an answer from the Box. It will in fact be secondary legislation that is laid before Parliament.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps I should accept that it will be up to us to ensure that transparency and accountability are included in those regulations. I will set myself some more homework. I am grateful for the Minister’s responses. The story is obviously not ending here but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brexit: EU Nationals’ Right to Remain

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as we conduct our negotiations, it must be a priority to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe but also to allow British companies and British public services to employ people with the correct skills, and companies to trade with the single market in goods and services.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement in the recent CBI report that we need,

“a system informed by business rather than imposed on business”,

and that this is,

“essential to the future economic growth of the UK”?

Are the Government talking and listening to employers? What have they had to say about the £1,000 levy about which we have heard today?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that she wants to hear from all sectors and from anybody who is interested in the subject of Brexit. All opinions and cases made to her will be listened to, and she will form her views accordingly.

Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have made comments during this debate.

Following the public’s vote to leave the European Union and until exit negotiations are concluded, all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force and the Government will continue to apply and implement EU legislation. It is important to continue to make this point at the outset. At present, the rights of EEA nationals and Swiss citizens to live and work in the UK have not been affected by the referendum.

It is the free movement directive that mainly sets out those rights, and it is implemented in the UK through the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, as amended. These regulations were amended in 2009, 2011, twice in 2012, twice in 2013, three times in 2014, and in 2015 to reflect developments in immigration policy and to give effect to relevant case law. As noble Lords will therefore appreciate, this has resulted in a legislative framework that has become quite fragmented and complex.

The new 2016 regulations, which are the subject of today’s debate, do not significantly change the Government’s policy and legal position as set out in the 2006 regulations. Their main effect is to revoke and replace the 2006 regulations, consolidating the previous legislation, modernising the language used and simplifying terms, where possible, in line with current drafting practice.

The Government have also taken this opportunity to address issues concerning the practical application of the 2006 regulations and to clarify our approach in key areas such as criminality and the abuse of free movement. These changes are not about restricting the free movement rights of law-abiding EEA nationals and their family members who make a valuable contribution to society but about making sure that we are in the strongest possible position to deal with those who come here and do not abide by the rules.

I totally agree with noble Lords that it is undesirable to have regulations that are broad and open-ended in nature. That is precisely why we have made some of these changes. For example, the 2006 regulations stuck closely to the wording of the free movement directive, simply providing for a person to be expelled from the UK on public policy and public security grounds where their conduct represents a,

“genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”.

That wording clearly covers a wide range of scenarios and could be criticised as being too broad and overarching, possibly giving rise to a lack of certainty, either for individuals or for the courts, as to what behaviour might meet that threshold.

European Court of Justice case law in this area is clear: member states have a margin of discretion to determine the fundamental interests of their society. Therefore, the 2016 regulations are now significantly clearer by providing further descriptions and examples of matters of public policy and public security, and they provide more detail about what the Home Secretary considers to be in the fundamental interests of the United Kingdom in respect of taking such decisions under these regulations.

The changes clarify that we can take deportation action in a broad range of cases, including against those who abuse their free movement right by facilitating illegal immigration or engaging in immigration abuse—for example, through sham marriage—or those who undermine our public services through tax evasion or benefit fraud. The regulations also make it clear that it is not only high-harm criminality that threatens the fundamental interests of the UK but persistent low-level offending as well.

As noble Lords can see, the new regulations do not significantly change the legal position; rather, they spell out the detailed factors that decision-makers and the courts should take into account when considering whether the deportation of an EEA national is in the fundamental interests of society. The new drafting approach in the 2016 regulations merely sets out a fuller range of circumstances and interests that fall within the term “public policy”. However, this range always fell within the meaning of that term, even under the 2006 regulations, so there has been no extension of the term.

Clearly, there is a very broad and varied array of circumstances in which an individual may pose a threat to public policy concerns, so it is quite impossible to draft in a way that specifically deals with each possibility but still provides comprehensive coverage in a single document that is not excessive in length. To ensure comprehensive cover in a manageable document means it is inevitable that some of the provisions are somewhat broad in nature. Although I am all for improving clarity and providing extra detail, having to describe in legislation every possible circumstance would be neither practically possible nor indeed helpful, given the number of provisions this would need and the changing threats that UK society faces.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, queried the sorts of persistent low-level offending that will be aggregated to qualify a person for removal. As is very much the case now, and as is required under both the 2006 and the 2016 regulations, all decisions taken on the grounds of public policy and public security will be made in accordance with the principle of proportionality, will take into consideration the personal circumstances and will be based exclusively on the conduct of the individual concerned. For this reason, there is no prescribed list of offences, nor a threshold for the number of offences which must be committed in order for a decision to be made on the grounds of public policy or public security to combat persistent offending—a matter which is of significant concern to the public.

I note the noble Lord’s concern about the level of scrutiny that Parliament has been able to afford these new regulations. I hope that the reassurances I have given as to the modest evolutionary rather than revolutionary nature of the 2016 regulations will serve to explain why, as was the case with the 2006 regulations and their very many amendments, the Government considered that the negative resolution procedure was the appropriate mechanism. The noble Lord also raised the issue of consultation. We of course consulted other government departments where substantive policy changes were made; for example, implementation of the Upper Tribunal case of Sala, removing a right of appeal from applicants seeking recognition as an extended family member.

I understand the reasonable point made by noble Lords that it would have been helpful if the guidance had been published when we laid the regulations, to assist their scrutiny. We did publish detailed guidance on GOV.UK regarding Regulation 9 when it came into force on 25 November, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said. Detailed guidance on the remainder of the regulations will be published when they come into force on 1 February. However, I am afraid that we are not in a position at this point to provide additional information on the remaining regulations. The noble Lord also mentioned that the guidance on Regulation 9 relating to the genuineness of residence included several redacted sections marked “For Home Office Use Only”. As is usual with redacted sections of guidance, disclosure to the court will be considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements or court order.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that the new, more specific drafting gives rise to concern that a different approach would be adopted across the country due to the terms being somewhat general and non-exhaustive. As I think I have mentioned, the new drafting substantially improves on the drafting of the 2006 regulations, and in the 10 years they have been in effect there has been no complaint about differing geographical application even though, based on the above argument, surely the risk was so much greater given that all this was covered in one sentence in the 2006 regulations but is now covered by many times that number of words.

Schedule 1 seeks to replicate the existing position in the 2006 regulations but in a clearer way by providing extensive language to describe the scope of things such as the fundamental interests of society in relation to public policy.

The noble Lord also asked what the procedure was for acting on these reports and at what level. A parliamentary team will bring the various reports to the attention of relevant units within the Home Office, and the directors of those units are responsible for ensuring that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is considered and taken account of at the relevant time and in relation to future practice.

I hope that I have covered all points that noble Lords raised. I am sure that they will intervene if I have not.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I shall accept that invitation. This is not a point that I have raised before and I do not expect the Minister to have an instant answer, but I make a plea. I would not have found the guidance had I not seen a reference to the date when it was published. Even then, it took me some time to navigate the GOV.UK website to find it, by which time I did not have very much time to look at it. There seemed to be no cross-reference to the number or title of the regulations, and I think the guidance may well cover more than just these regulations. I really think that that website could do with the uninitiated doing some mystery shopping on it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly take that point back because, if the noble Baroness cannot find it, lesser mortals would really struggle.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the changes made in the 2016 regulations do not fundamentally change the legal position set out in the 2006 regulations and that the measures are proportionate. I hope with those words and with my explanation on the noble Lord’s questions, that he will feel free to withdraw his Motion.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 2) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I extend my thanks to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has informed the order. I also congratulate Dr Owen Bowden-Jones on his appointment as the new chair of the council, as announced in yesterday’s Written Ministerial Statement.

This order relates to methiopropamine, commonly known as MPA, as well as to its simple derivatives. This compound has been controlled under a previous temporary class drug order—a TCDO—which expired on 26 November 2016. If this order is made, MPA, as well as its simple derivatives, will be subject to temporary control under Section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 for a further 12 months. This will allow the ACMD to gather and consider more evidence in order to make a substantiated recommendation for permanent control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

MPA is a stimulant psychoactive substance which is similar in its chemistry to methamphetamine and has similar effects to that substance, such as stimulation, alertness and an increase of energy and focus. Side-effects reported include abnormally fast heart rates, anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction.

The ACMD has reported that MPA initially emerged as a replacement drug for the methylphenidate-based compounds which had been temporarily controlled under a previous TCDO. Of particular concern was the potential high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage due to MPA being injected.

The ACMD notes that the initial TCDO has been effective in halting the problematic proliferation of MPA since it was first introduced in November 2015. The effectiveness of the TCDO has been particularly evident in areas of Scotland where instances had been reported previously. Although anecdotal, the evidence indicates that the prevalence and the use seen prior to the TCDO seem to have abated, particularly in relation to intravenous injection. Notably, Police Scotland, which initially alerted the ACMD to the possible displacement of MPA from ethylphenidate has reported reduced instances of injecting MPA; the number of phone call and database inquiries to TOXBASE—part of the National Poisons Information Service, which provides NHS healthcare professionals with a 24-hour, year-round clinical toxicology information service—regarding MPA have reportedly decreased; and there has been a reported decrease in the availability of MPA in online markets.

Parliament’s approval of this order will enable UK law enforcement to continue action against traffickers and suppliers of temporary class drugs while the ACMD gathers evidence. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially to young people, that these drugs carry serious health risks. We know that the law cannot, on its own, deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the TCDO to continue to have a notable impact on the availability of and in turn the demand for these drugs.

As well as our legislative response, we continue to take action to reduce the demand for drugs and ensure that those who become dependent have access to the support that they need to recover. We will continue to update our public health messages to inform the public of the harms of new psychoactive substances using the latest evidence gathered from early warning systems. With that, and apologies for the use of so many acronyms, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have one concern, which I did not expect to have until I read the Explanatory Memorandum. This is of course the second temporary order in respect of MPA, and the memorandum tells us:

“The Secretary of State has received a recommendation from the ACMD that an order should be made on the basis that this substance is a drug that is being misused”—

we have heard about that—

“and that the misuse is having harmful effects”.

However the Explanatory Memorandum goes on to report the ACMD’s,

“difficulty in finding any significant data relating to harms, seizures and prevalence”,

of MPA since the first order. Can the Minister comment on that? I do not of course advocate the use of any drug, but if the ACMD has not been able to show evidence of harm, is there a danger that by banning this drug we might be pushing people towards harm from another drug that is used instead of it, rather than protecting them from it? It seemed an interesting pairing of comments, if you like, in the Explanatory Memorandum. Since we are talking about temporary orders, and the first temporary order has not apparently provided the opportunity to do what we would have expected it to do, it would be helpful to have a comment on that on record.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of the order, which we support. As has been said, it replaces the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015. That order provided for temporary controls on the drug methiopropamine, known as MPA, which made it an offence to produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply it. The 2015 order expired after 12 months. This order replaces that 2015 order and continues the controls for another 12 months.

As has been said, the Secretary of State has the power to make a temporary class drug order as long as two conditions are met: first, that the drug is not yet classified as a class A, B or C drug, and, secondly, that the Secretary of State has consulted with or received recommendations from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and has determined that the drug in question is being or is likely be misused, has harmful effects and should be subject to controls.

MPA is a psychoactive substance similar to methamphetamine. Controls were placed on MPA at the recommendation of the ACMD. The ACMD’s assessment was that MPA was dangerous and had side-effects including anxiety, panic attacks and difficulty breathing, and had apparently been implicated in 22 deaths between 2012 and 2015. The ACMD also reported that MPA had become an injecting drug of choice. Following 12 months of temporary controls, however, the ACMD has reported anecdotal evidence that usage has declined. Police Scotland has reported reduced instances of injection, and the ACMD has pointed out a number of other reasons for believing that its use may be in decline, to which the Minister has already referred and which I do not intend to repeat.

The ACMD has also reported that currently there is insufficient evidence on harms, seizures and prevalence of MPA for it to make a permanent recommendation. That is why it has recommended that the drug, in all its variations, be subject to another 12 months of temporary control to allow it to gather and consider more evidence before it makes a substantive recommendation.

I hardly imagine that the point I wish to make is one that the Minister will be able to answer, but I will raise it nevertheless. We support the order, as I say, but we do not appear to have been provided by the ACMD with any reason why it believes, since sufficient evidence has not come to light in the first 12 months of an order, that sufficient evidence is likely to come to light in the next 12, which this order would cover. I merely put that point to the Minister but I imagine that, quite justifiably, she will say that that is something for the ACMD to comment on. Still, it seems a slight weakness in the letter from the ACMD to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, which contains its recommendation, that it remains rather silent on why it believes that that evidence may become available in the next 12 months, bearing in mind that it has not been available in the 12 months to date.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 3) Order 2016

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 15th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her careful explanation. I will not oppose the order, but this is a moment for reminding ourselves of the distinction between distasteful and, in a non-technical sense, offensive speech and the promotion of terrorism and other actions which are the criteria for proscription. In that connection, I would like to remind myself and the House of the importance of freedom of speech.

The Minister described some of the activities of National Action. I have read of its advocacy that, when it assumes power, those who promote liberal values, tolerance and multiculturalism will be “in the chambers”. She referred to photographs taken in what had been gas chambers. It has used the phrase “Hitler was right”; it is quite clear what it means by “the chambers”. When one of its members was jailed for a series of anti-Semitic tweets against the Member for Liverpool Wavertree, National Action led a campaign to have him freed. It clearly supports violence to achieve its political goals and has gone well beyond the bounds of free speech, into advocating violence and engaging in acts to “compel, coerce or undermine” the Government, which is engaging in terrorism.

However, that is a stronger definition of terrorism than in the current legislation. This definition was first advocated by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew in 2008, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It was supported by David Anderson, the current reviewer, in 2014. National Action clearly falls within both the legal and recommended definitions of a terrorist organisation, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything in her brief about these recommendations. David Anderson also recommended that proscription should be for a limited period and subject to renewal. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether this order is time-limited or in some way subject to review.

As the Minister said, this is the first order against a right-wing organisation that advocates terrorism. I understand—I think these figures are from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—that the number of far-right referrals to the Prevent programme increased from 323 in 2014-15 to 561 the following year, which must be the most recent year for which we have figures. Does the Minister have any comments on that?

These Benches support freedom of speech and this proscription, and it has occurred to me, listening to this debate, that an organisation such as this infringes the right of free speech for the rest of us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the freezing of funds. As I outlined in my speech, it is entirely possible and we freeze assets, but we do not comment on whether individuals are being considered for an asset freeze. If that were the case, it would be an operational issue for the police and the Treasury.

On how easy it is to get round the order if an organisation is renamed or a new organisation is set up, if organisations change their name, they remain proscribed. We can, of course, also lay a name change order to clarify that they remain proscribed. We most certainly keep extreme right-wing groups under review, as we would with any other type of proscribed organisation, but we do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is under consideration. I hope that answers noble Lords’ questions. I thank noble Lords for their comments.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for bringing this forward and drawing attention to what is a very important issue. Exploitation of, and offences against, children, whether online or offline, are appalling and this Government are committed to tackling such criminality very robustly. The internet has opened up a wealth of opportunities for young people, but it has also exposed them to new dangers.

The Government are committed to improving the safety of children online and have a strong track record of working with the internet industry and the charitable sector to achieve it. However, we also recognise that our understanding of the scale and nature of the problem is far from complete, and in many ways we almost feel that we are running to stand still.

Our starting principle is that what is illegal offline is illegal online and criminal offences typically apply in both environments. However, recognising that the picture is less clear in relation to offending online, the annual data requirement on forces includes a requirement to flag offences where the reporting officer believes, on the balance of probability, that the offence was committed, in full or in part, through a computer, computer network or computer-enabled device. This online flag has been mandatory since April 2015, and all 43 forces in England and Wales have provided data since then.

The NCA’s annual strategic assessment of child sexual exploitation and abuse, published in August, found that the visibility of the threat was improving, but that there remained significant intelligence gaps in relation to the overall scale and prevalence of the threat. The NCA works continually to improve our understanding of the threat. I reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that our response to the threat is rightly robust and includes law enforcement agencies taking action against online offenders, developing new capabilities to find and safeguard victims and working with the internet industry to remove illegal images.

For example, all UK police forces and the NCA are now connected to the Child Abuse Image Database—otherwise known as CAID—which reduces the time taken to undertake investigations and identify the victims. A new victim identification suite has been established by the NCA with access to CAID. In 2015-16, UK authorities identified over 450 victims from abuse images, more than double the number of any previous year and, in a recent case, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection command of the NCA was able to use CAID to review one of its largest ever seizures within six weeks. Based on the case size, before CAID this would have taken a minimum of six months to review.

In 2015-16, the NCA received £10 million of additional investment for further specialist teams to tackle online sexual exploitation. This enabled a near doubling of its investigative capacity to tackle child sexual exploitation. An NCA and GCHQ joint operational cell has also been established to target the most technologically sophisticated offenders. In 2015, 2,861 individuals were prosecuted for offences involving indecent images of children—a 27% increase on the previous year.

I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that we are working to improve our understanding and our response to the threat and that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, to add to what I said before, I think that there is a very important role for the Home Office, working in conjunction with the police and many others, on the consistency of the data, to which this amendment refers but perhaps a bit obliquely. It seems to be an issue that comes up time and time again. Yesterday a report was published by ECPAT and Missing People on young people going missing from care and one of the recommendations was about achieving consistency of data.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It might please the noble Baroness to know that I have become the Minister for data and therefore anything that she can feed into the job that I will be doing will be most appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I can sum up my comments really as, “as above”. The points I made on the previous amendments are relevant, although the report I have just mentioned called Heading Back to Harm is particularly relevant here. There are so many associated issues that I would prefer the focus to be on practice—I will add it to my point about data—including trust in authority. In some situations, lack of trust in authority is a big component in young people who have been rescued going missing again. I do not underestimate the importance of the issues at the heart of this. Can the Minister give the Committee any information about the success of child abduction warning notices, where they apply, now, before we seek an extension?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 220 would create a new offence of abduction of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17. The offence would be in addition to the existing offence in Section 49 of the Children Act 1989, which already makes it an offence to abduct a child in care, including those aged 16 and 17. The new offence would also be in addition to Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, which makes it an offence to abduct any child under the age of 16. The new offence would extend only to children aged 16 and 17 who are considered to be vulnerable and therefore in need of additional protection.

The criteria for being considered vulnerable are set out in subsection (2) of the new clause and cover a range of circumstances defined in the Children Act 1989 and Housing Act 1996. These criteria potentially encompass a wide range of individuals and raise concerns that they would have very wide effect. For example, as drafted, the offence would cover all disabled young people of that age. The children it extends to are often in need of services such as housing and education but are not necessarily in need of special protection, as opposed to others of that age.

The Government completely share the objective of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness of ensuring that young people are protected from sexual exploitation and other abuse. That is why, in March last year, we introduced new civil orders to protect the vulnerable and disrupt offending at the earliest opportunity. We believe that providing the right powers to the police is the way forward. Our priority is to prevent offending, so making better use of these orders is a more precisely targeted response than creating a new criminal offence.

As noble Lords will be aware, a similar new clause was tabled in the House of Commons and there have been amendments to previous Bills on this issue. We remain unpersuaded that the proposed new abduction offence is the way forward. Young people aged 16 and 17 are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and of exercising their free will, notably on sexual matters. As noble Lords have said, we therefore need to achieve the right balance between additional protection for young people in this age group and recognition of relevant rights and responsibilities. Creating a new offence would raise difficult issues about where we draw the line, and it would not help young people who are older than this age group but are also very vulnerable.

That is why we believe that sexual risk orders provide appropriate powers for the police. I do not have the figures or any information on how the child abduction warning list is working; it might be in my pack. I apologise—I am getting quite tired at this stage of the day. I will write to the noble Baroness. The preventive civil orders are relatively new and we will therefore keep under review whether they fully address the kind of predatory behaviour to which the amendment refers.

Turning to Amendment 222, it is very important that we get the right balance in national reporting of data. This Government have already introduced a new mandatory requirement for all forces to collect data on child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation offences as part of the police annual data requirement, and from next April we will be expanding that requirement to include non-crime incidents related to CSE as well. This means that for the first time, we will have all child sexual abuse and exploitation-related crimes and incidents recorded by the police. This will allow for all sexual offences against children to be identified; for example, it was previously not possible to identify obscene publication offences that are specifically related to victims aged under 18.

We are working closely with the police to monitor and review the use of the new sexual risk orders, as well as child abduction warning notices, in order to ensure they are effective in protecting children who are at risk of sexual harm. I think that is precisely the noble Baroness’s point. As child abduction warning notices are part of an administrative process, the police do not regularly record the number issued. This means that, in practice, this amendment would place a significant and disproportionate new burden on the police manually to interrogate their systems.

We agree on the need to do all we can to disrupt predatory behaviour before it causes lasting harm to children and young people. The Government remain unpersuaded that the approach proposed in these amendments is the right way forward. In order better to understand the issues raised and to create an evidence base for the use of existing powers—that is the important thing here—we have set up a working group that will monitor the use of sexual risk orders so that we can fully evaluate whether there are gaps in police powers to disrupt at the earliest opportunity. I expect this group to report to Ministers in the autumn of next year, and we will consider its findings very carefully.

I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister introduces Amendment 203K, which is about extending the period for considering an application for the renewal of a certificate, can she say whether this is being proposed because there are problems generally or in particular forces? In other words, are there just a few difficulties or is this a widespread issue, in that the police do not find eight weeks sufficient? I raise this because of the concern that 16 weeks might easily become the norm, given the opportunity to extend.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining his amendments. As he suggests, I will first explain the government amendments in this group.

Amendments 203J and 203K respond to amendments tabled by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown at Commons Report stage. They seek to make two improvements in the operation of the licensing arrangements under the Firearms Act of 1968. Amendment 203J would remove some of the unnecessary administrative requirements that currently apply to the possession of expanding ammunition.

Expanding ammunition is designed to expand predictably on impact and was prohibited initially in relation to pistols in 1992. In 1997 the ban was extended to all such ammunition, even though it is in universal use for pest control and is required for deer-stalking under the Deer Act and Deer (Scotland) Act.

The current legislation does allow for expanding ammunition to be possessed, in order to carry out specific activities such as the lawful shooting of deer, estate management, the humane killing of animals or the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans. However, the legislation also requires that the individual possess a suitably conditioned firearm certificate for these activities.

The amendment would allow for the possession, purchase, acquisition, sale or transfer of expanding ammunition for rifles where the individual is in possession of a valid firearm certificate or a visitors firearm permit. The effect is—and I hope this goes some way toward answering the noble Baroness’s question—that the police will no longer have to include additional conditions on a certificate or permit, thereby removing some of the administrative burden that the current regime places on them.

Amendment 203K is intended to address the issues that currently arise with an application for the renewal of a firearms certificate that has been made prior to the expiry of the certificate but has not been determined by the police in time. Police forces have developed two different approaches in these cases. The first is to allow the applicant to remain in possession of the firearm, shotgun or ammunition, which means the applicant is in breach of Section 1 or Section 2 of the 1968 Act until the application has been processed. The second is to issue a temporary permit using the power in Section 7 of the Act.

I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for certificate holders to be at risk of arrest and prosecution for an offence under Section 1 or Section 2 because the police have failed to process applications in time. Equally, it is not appropriate for the police to issue temporary permits to individuals whose substantive applications may subsequently be refused. The issuing of such permits also places an increased administrative burden on the police.

Amendment 203K will bring greater clarity in such circumstances by automatically extending the validity of firearm and shotgun certificates past their expiry date for a limited period of up to eight weeks. This will apply only where an application for renewal has been received by the police at least eight weeks prior to the date of expiry of the certificate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the problems were widespread or localised to particular forces. There were different levels of performance across different forces, and performance varies across some forces, meaning that some are better that others—so this is force-led.

Amendments 234A and 234B are consequential amendments to the extent clause.

I trust the Committee will agree that the two new clauses make sensible changes to the firearms regime and in doing so reduce the administrative burdens on the police without compromising public safety.

As my noble friend explained, his amendments relate to Clause 114, which strengthens the controls on deactivated firearms and thereby enhances public protection. I was pleased to meet my noble friend to discuss his concerns about this clause and I know that he has had a useful follow-up meeting, as he explained, with officials and one of the proof houses.

My noble friend has pointed to some of the difficulties that have been identified with the EU deactivation standards. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and some of the most robust deactivation standards in Europe. The need for consistent, robust deactivation across member states has been the driving force for EU implementing regulation.

While the new EU deactivation specifications have been introduced, we have recognised that we need to strengthen deactivation measures for certain firearms. We now require additional measures that will align the EU standards with the exacting standards for deactivated weapons already in place in the UK. We have agreed this position with the European Commission. Moreover, the Commission has set up a small group of technical experts to help interpret and, if necessary, revise the standards, and the UK is represented on this group.

Some noble Lords may argue that, following the referendum result, we should drop this provision from the Bill. However, on leaving the EU we will still want to ensure that individuals comply with the relevant deactivation standards that we have in place. To that end, I am ready to explore future-proofing the definition of a defectively deactivated weapon as used in the clause.

I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend that the offence in Clause 114 is necessary to strengthen our firearms controls, and that, having aired this important issue, he will be content to withdraw his amendment and support Clause 114 standing part of the Bill—and the Government’s amendments in this group.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment can be dealt with very quickly. It takes us to the provisions for live links with people in detention and, in particular, the definition of a “vulnerable adult”. When I read the definition, I was unsure whether the phrase,

“may have difficulty understanding the purpose of an authorisation”,

extended to understanding its implications or outcome. It seemed to me that the word “understanding” was rather narrow.

I was asked yesterday by the Bill team whether I could explain what I was getting at. Once I had a look at the drafting, I realised that I had put the words in the wrong place, and I apologise to the Committee for that. However, I was assured that the wording in the Bill extends to understanding the implications or outcome of a decision, and I am moving the amendment simply in the hope that the Minister can confirm that from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Amendment 188A would amend Clause 73 to alter the definition of a “vulnerable adult” in new Section 45ZA of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That new section would enable a superintendent to authorise the extension of pre-charge detention using a live link, rather than being physically present in the police station. In the case of a vulnerable adult, consent to the use of a live link must be given in the presence of an appropriate adult, and the amendment seeks to alter the definition of a vulnerable adult for those purposes.

I understand that the noble Baroness is seeking an assurance that the definition provided for in the Bill would include a person who had difficulty understanding the implications or outcome of a decision by a superintendent to authorise the extension of pre-charge detention from 24 to 36 hours. I am happy to provide such an assurance and, on that basis, I hope that she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Indeed, my Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the underlying thinking here ties in quite closely with the debate on the previous group, and I am not sure that anyone said then that losing the word “Independent” from the title was particularly significant because of the very fact that it will be a change—more significant than if one was creating a new organisation and not having the word in its title from the start. That thought is part of the reason for our Amendment 158A in this group, which in fact the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained to the Committee. It would also mark a change so that all the members of the body, if I can use a neutral term, could not be appointed from those who are—summarising around a third of a page—cops or ex-cops. That change would be a significant one, and again it is about the perception of independence as well as actual independence. We may hear that there are some practical reasons, or reasons of experience, that has caused the Government to move in this direction in their decisions on the structure and this part of the body’s governance, but I do not think that it is a good direction to go in.

As regards Amendments 157 and 158, in our view it would be wise to have a geographic spread, but if there is going to be a truly independent “Office”, it should be allowed to sort out its own arrangements, although anyone with any sense in the organisation would want to be sure that the regions of England, as well as the nation of Wales, are heard loudly and clearly.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Bill provides for the existing commission to be replaced by a single executive head, the director-general, and for corporate governance to be provided by a unitary board with a majority of non-executives. These reforms address the recognised weaknesses of the existing commission model, under which most of the commissioners are engaged in operational activity and in the governance of the organisation. This has resulted in blurred lines of accountability. The commission itself recognises the need for change and there was clear support for the new director-general model in the response to the public consultation on the proposed reforms.

As the single executive head, the director-general will be accountable for the efficiency and effectiveness of the reformed organisation. That is why the legislation provides the director-general with the flexibility to determine the executive structure of the organisation, including the composition of his or her senior team. The director-general needs the freedom to shape the organisation in the way they see best to deliver high-quality, timely and independent investigations into police conduct, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 157 would tie the hands of the director-general as it would require the corporate structure of the Office for Police Conduct to include a minimum of four regional directors plus a national director for Wales.

The Government expect the Office for Police Conduct to have a regional presence, as the IPCC does, but as with the IPCC now and since its creation more than a decade ago, the Government do not see the need to legislate for a regional structure. A requirement for a specified minimum number of regional and national director posts would limit the director-general’s future flexibility to respond to the changing needs and circumstances of the organisation. In addition, this particular amendment would put regional directors on the board. That would undermine the core strengths of the new governance model and risk replicating the blurred lines of accountability within the existing commission structure.

I turn now to Amendments 158 and 158A, which relate to positions in the Office for Police Conduct that should not be open to those who have worked for the police. The Government recognise that public confidence in the independence of the organisation relies on certain key decision-making roles not being open to those with a police background. That is why there will be an absolute bar on the director-general from ever having worked for the police. We do not think that there should be statutory restrictions on those who are members of the office—in effect, the board of the reformed organisation. The core functions of the office are set out clearly in the Bill and include ensuring the good governance and financial management of the organisation. These functions are quite distinct from the functions of the director-general. The director-general, as the single executive head, will be solely accountable for all casework and investigation decisions, not the board. It is not right that a suitably qualified individual could not be appointed to a corporate governance role as a member of the board simply because he or she once worked as a police civilian, perhaps for just a short period many years previously.

With regard to employee roles, the Bill provides the director-general with an express power to designate functions and roles that are restricted, including senior operational and public-facing positions. The power means that the director-general will be able to ensure that the OPC has the right mix of staff, including those with valuable policing experience, while also having the power to place restrictions to help bolster public confidence in the OPC’s impartiality and independence. However, as I said, it is important that the director-general can secure public confidence in the work of the Office for Police Conduct. The Bill recognises the need for transparency in the director-general’s decision-making and places a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment.

To conclude, we believe the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance by placing core aspects of the OPC’s governance in the legislation while ensuring that there is flexibility and transparency in appointments. On that note, I hope the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are reassured of the Government’s intentions and that they will be content not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think what I outlined in my speech to noble Lords was that the director-general would need to outline how he proposes the board will work and his position in it. The Bill recognises the need for transparency, as the noble Lord pointed out. It places a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment. I imagine that if he decided to have a board full of former police officers he would want to explain why, in his particular case, this was necessary.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Would the Minister accept that the bit the public will be aware of—like the change from an organisation with the term “independent” in its title—is the change from a board structure where there is a bar on all members of the board having been police officers or involved with the police service to a situation where there need not be, not the detail of the report of the director-general explaining the fine detail of their thinking? It is a much broader issue than the Government are acknowledging.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and the Minister for her response setting out what the Government’s position is and the thinking behind the Government’s wording in the Bill. Issues have been highlighted in the debate about the potential implications and the extent to which one could end up in a situation where very few people indeed in the public face of the organisation and its senior decision-makers had not worked for the police, since the terms of the Bill do not preclude that happening. It precludes it only as far as the director-general is concerned.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have explained, in most instances, the FRA would accept a request, and it would be in the interests of good working, good faith and collaboration for it to do so. As to the process if it refused such a request, as I understand it—I will write to noble Lords if it is any different—if it refuses it, it refuses it, and there is no recourse thereon in.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps I should make it clear that the deletion in the amendments of the transparency provisions, as the Minister described them, were consequential—or possibly presequential. I am not sure about the point on voting. That was not really the thrust of our amendments. I am not comfortable about this. She described the amendments as being anti-collaboration, but collaboration by its very nature requires two parties—not merging the parties into a single authority. However, we are where we are, certainly for tonight, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained, these amendments relate to the process for adopting the single employer model by a combined authority mayor. I will take each amendment in turn.

Amendment 93 removes the requirement for a mayor to request that the Home Secretary approves an order implementing the single employer model. In effect, it enables any person to make such a request of the Home Secretary. As I explained during our consideration of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, we considered that directly elected combined authority mayors provided that strong, clear accountability necessary to exercise the wide-ranging powers that were devolved to an area. The processes in the Bill reflect this, giving the mayor the discretions and powers to be exercised locally that it is right for the mayor to have, given their own local mandate and direct accountability locally through the ballot box. Mayors should be able to take the big decisions that they are elected to make, with appropriate safeguards. Where a mayor is responsible for police and fire functions, we believe that the mayor should be the person to make such proposals to the Home Secretary about how these functions are run. Adopting this amendment would be counter to this devolutionary approach, whereby powers and duties usually exercised by Whitehall have been devolved to the mayor.

Amendments 94, 95 and 98 require a mayor seeking to put in place the single employer model to carry out a public consultation on the proposal. The Bill already requires the Home Secretary to consider whether a proposal for the mayor to put in place the single employer model is in the interests of economy, effectiveness and efficiency or public safety before approving it. These provisions do not prohibit a mayor from consulting locally on a proposal. Should the mayor wish to do so, the Home Secretary would be required to have regard to any responses to the consultation when considering whether to give effect to the proposal. Where powers have been devolved to an area, it is for the directly elected mayor to decide how particular proposals, be they for creating a single employer model or any other exercise of powers, should be taken forward. It is important that any proposals brought forward by a mayor are properly scrutinised. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate them, as orders to implement the single employer model under a mayor will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 97 seeks to lower the threshold for triggering an independent assessment of a proposal to implement the single employer model under a mayor, while Amendment 96 takes the further step of requiring the Home Secretary to order an independent assessment of a proposal, regardless of whether there is local agreement. The amendment would also require a mayor to submit to the Home Secretary any representations made by elected members of the combined authority about the proposal and the mayor’s response to those representations.

It would not be proportionate to lower the threshold or strike out the limiting provisions for ordering an independent assessment of a proposal. The approach we have taken mirrors that of devolution deals agreed to date, whereby members are able to reject specific proposals brought forward by the mayor where there is agreement from at least two-thirds of members of the combined authority. Given that the combined authority mayor will have been directly elected with a strong democratic mandate, we consider that two-thirds threshold entirely appropriate. Not to bore noble Lords too much about Greater Manchester but, as I explained, my position was as one of 10—the only Conservative—and that was the situation that faced me year on year, quite often frustratingly. But the two-thirds majority worked. Lowering the threshold would give room for more regular mischief-making, should members of local authorities see fit. In my experience—noble Lords may disagree—it is an entirely appropriate threshold, and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister, even as only one of 10, was quite capable of making enough mischief. I was never going to win an argument against the strong mayor model and the implications of that—but I do not think having a strong mayor means that there should not be consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on this. I remember quite clearly, during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act, the then Minister—or the government representative at the Dispatch Box; I think it was a Whip at the time—saying firmly, on the basis of notes coming to her from the Box, that the London Assembly should be allowed to sort out its own procedure. I think we were debating an issue around a quorum. The same applies here, probably in spades. It is also interesting that the Government, who are concerned about efficiency, effectiveness and economy, should insist on procedures that must have the potential to be less efficient and more expensive.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, explained, the amendment would delete the provision which prevents the assembly arranging for any of its non-fire and emergency committee functions to be discharged by that committee. The role of the fire and emergency committee will be to review how the London Fire Commissioner exercises his or her functions and to investigate and prepare reports on the commissioner’s actions and decisions. The committee will also review draft documents presented to it by the London Fire Commissioner and make a report or recommendations to the mayor. The committee will also undertake confirmation hearings in respect of the appointment of the London Fire Commissioner and the deputy mayor for fire. In addition, it will have the power to require the deputy mayor for fire, the London Fire Commissioner and any officer of the London Fire Commissioner to attend proceedings of the committee to give evidence.

The functions are set out in the Bill so that it is clear that the fire and emergency committee has a specific fire-related purpose. It follows that the committee should not be used for any non-fire-related business of the assembly. This is clearly different from everywhere else in the country, as the noble Lord said—and I am sure that other places in the country will argue for what London has. The position in London is different. There will be two separate functional bodies and no move to a single-employer model, so in that sense it is not the same as elsewhere. I apologise for doing it again, but I compare Greater London to Greater Manchester—it is four times the size.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would extend the powers of the assembly fire and emergency committee to investigate and prepare reports about the deputy mayor for fire and any other matters which the assembly considers to be of importance to fire and rescue services in Greater London.

With regard to Amendment 114, the noble Baroness makes a valid point about the need for scrutiny of the actions and decisions of the deputy mayor for fire. I am happy to consider this amendment further in advance of Report. On Amendment 115, any other matters which the assembly considers to be of importance to fire and rescue services will inevitably have already been considered by the London Fire Commissioner in the exercise of his or her functions, and consequently will be subject to scrutiny by the fire and emergency committee. We are not therefore persuaded that this catch-all provision is needed. On the basis that I will consider further Amendment 114, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw it at this stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for offering to look at Amendment 114. However, I wonder whether before Report she could look also at Amendment 115 in the light of Section 33(3)(f) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Section 33(3) of that Act gives powers that cover,

“actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.

That is the equivalent, in policing terms, of the deputy mayor for policing. It also gives powers that cover,

“actions and decisions of the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime”.

Quite separately, in paragraph (f), are the,

“matters which the Assembly considers to be of importance to policing and crime reduction in the metropolitan police district”.

This is the exact equivalent, I would have thought, of my Amendment 115. They really do go together—it is a package of scrutiny.

If there is a difference between the provisions relating to policing and the provisions relating to fire and rescue in terms of the assembly’s powers, somebody is going to make the distinction and say, “No, you can’t go there”—when actually, they should go there. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 114.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Wednesday 14th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If two PCC areas came to the Government with a proposal for change, the Government would consider it, just as in devolution where the Government considered any proposals that came forward. For example, just thinking of home, if Manchester and Cheshire wanted to come together—I am not saying they do—they could put forward a proposal. I hope that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions and that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for the care that the noble Baroness took in the detail of her response. On my Amendment 7 and operational matters for the police, I am not sure whether she was saying that if a PCC disregards concerns expressed by a chief constable about operational matters—she several times used the phrase “have regard to” such concerns—that would be a breach of the 2011 Act. I am not clear on that. Maybe that is not a matter for answering now. I would be happy to hear from her after today if that is a better way of dealing with this.

I am not sure which of the noble Baronesses who lead their respective councils used the phrase further collaboration—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. But since this is about further collaboration, it raises the question: why? The LGA argued strongly, I think in response to the Government’s consultation paper, that the sector should be enabled to continue to effect change without the Government resorting to legislation. It said that a duty to collaborate was,

“likely to provide a constraint that stifles innovation and broader collaboration. In the LGA’s view, the provision of incentives like transformation funding is more likely to produce greater collaboration between the emergency services, and between them and other public services”.

It said that such incentives,

“would also encourage the ambulance service, which in some cases has been less ready to engage with collaborative programmes”.

Despite what we have heard, that question still hangs in the air.

There was also the comment about consultation on a voluntary basis. When people resist consulting, that is when they most need to be required to consult; I think that must be the experience. The examples used about where things have worked well from the bottom up, prompted by what has been identified locally as desirable, obviously bear careful reading. There are still questions hanging over this but for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, where a PCC is interested in taking responsibility for fire and rescue, he or she will work with the local fire and rescue authority to prepare a business case setting out their assessment of the benefits and any costs of a transfer. The business case will then be subject to local consultation. The business case would need to show the Home Secretary how the proposals would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness on the one hand or public safety on the other. The Home Secretary is able to make the order only if she is satisfied that one or other of these tests has been met. Amendments 12, 30 and 44 would instead require both tests to be satisfied. Amendment 99 seeks to apply the same change to the single employer model operated by a combined authority mayor.

The provisions as currently drafted mirror those for fire and rescue authority mergers. Section 2(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 sets out that the Secretary of State may make a scheme combining two or more fire and rescue authorities only if it would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness or public safety. This is a long-established test, enacted by the previous Labour Administration, for the closer alignment of two services, and we therefore do not agree that an amendment is required.

We would expect that any assessment of the impact of a proposed transfer of governance on effectiveness would include an assessment of its impact on public safety, which is a primary function of the emergency services. In forming a view on the first test of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the services’ role in protecting the public should therefore be paramount in the PCC’s consideration.

However, the provisions which, as I have said, mirror those that have been tried and tested for fire mergers, also provide for a separate test based on public safety. There may be exceptional circumstances where a current service is failing to protect the public and urgent action is required. In such a case, it is right that the Home Secretary should be able to make a Section 4A order solely on the grounds that to do so would be in the interests of public safety.

While I do not agree with the proposed amendments, I recognise the principle behind them. Police and fire and rescue services perform an important function in protecting the public, and we would not want a transfer of governance to have a negative impact on public safety. It is absolutely not the intention for these provisions to permit cases that would save money but damage front-line provision—which I almost said in my answer to Amendment 1—and the Home Secretary would not approve such a proposal. Indeed, such a proposal would not satisfy the test that it would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness for a Section 4A order to be made.

However, there might be other ways of incorporating the spirit of these amendments in Clause 8 of and Schedule 1 to the Bill in order to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of an order being made that would have a detrimental impact on public safety. If the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would be content not to move the amendment, I will reflect further on what he and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have said in advance of Report, although they will understand that I cannot give a commitment at this stage to bring forward a government amendment.

Amendments 10 and 11 are on assessing the duty to collaborate. I cannot be so accommodating with these amendments. As I have set out, where a PCC wishes to seek responsibility for fire and rescue, they will be required to prepare a local case setting out their proposal. The Home Secretary will then give consideration to whether it would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness or public safety for the order transferring the functions to be made.

Amendments 10 and 11, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would, in effect, additionally require the Home Secretary to assess the extent to which opportunities for collaboration under the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 1 had been maximised before she decides whether to agree to the PCC’s business case for a Section 4A order.

I do not agree that such additional steps are required. The duty to collaborate and the fire governance provisions in the Bill are distinct. It is not necessary for a PCC to have exhausted all local opportunities for collaboration in order to make a case for a transfer of governance. While PCC governance of both police and fire and rescue services can maximise the opportunity for collaboration between policing and fire and ensure that best practice is shared, the benefits extend beyond collaboration alone. As Sir Ken Knight found in his efficiency review, the directly accountable leadership of police and crime commissioners can clarify accountability arrangements to the public.

On the basis of that and the undertaking that I will reflect further on Amendments 12, 30, 44 and 99, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be content not to press his amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I reserve my right to consult my noble friend after today.

The start of the Minister’s explanation of “and” and “or” made me wonder whether consistency was more important than logic and safety, but it would be unkind to pursue that thought. The thought I will pursue is the Minister’s comments about safety being encompassed within economy, efficiency and effectiveness —effectiveness in particular, if I understood her correctly. Clearly they are not, otherwise it would not be necessary to have paragraphs (a) and (b) as separate paragraphs and to have paragraph (b) in addition to paragraph (a). We are all grateful to the Minister for offering to consider this further. I think we are not going to come to a meeting of minds on the two earlier amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have Amendment 23 in this group. It is a probing amendment, although it no doubt looks as if it may be more than that. It would take out what will be the new Section 4E in the Fire and Rescue Services Act, which is the requirement for an authority created by Section 4A to have a fire fund and for receipts and expenditure to be dealt with through that fund.

I am not of course challenging the need for transparency or the need to enable audit trails and all the rest of it, but a separate fire fund presumably means a separate policing fund, and our amendment is intended to probe how this will work. If there are to be efficiencies through shared facilities, and perhaps shared sites and some shared staff, how are those to be dealt with? Is there to be an allocation of costs of the shared services to the fire fund and to the policing budget? What is to stop virement between police and fire—or between fire and police, whichever way you look at it? I hope that the noble Baroness can explain a little more how the budgetary and accounting arrangements are to operate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, public safety is of course paramount and it is important that fire and rescue authorities are properly resourced to carry out their life-saving and other functions. When a PCC is interested in taking on the governance of fire and rescue, they will work with the local fire and rescue authority to prepare their proposal, including an assessment of why it would be in the interests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, or public safety, for the transfer of governance to take place. If the noble Lord is amenable, we can address the issue of consultation in Amendments 47 and 48, as it is relevant to them. It is also important to remember that fire and rescue authorities are required, under the duty to co-operate, to provide the PCCs with necessary information to inform their proposal. It is reasonable to expect that an authority’s funding provision will be a key piece of information for any PCC to consider.

Amendment 13, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, appears, at least in part, to be based on the assumption that under the governance or single-employer model it would be possible to divert fire service funding to the police force. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also talked about virement. I assure the Committee once again that there will be no change to the way funding is allocated to fire and rescue authorities that are the responsibility of PCCs, and no question but that FRAs will have the resources they need to carry out their important work. As the then Policing Minister said during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, under both the single-employer model and the governance model, there will continue to be two separate precepts and two separate central funding streams for the police and the fire and rescue service.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the position since 2010 regarding firefighter jobs et cetera. There has been a long-term downward trend in the number of both fires and fire deaths, which recently reached historically low levels. Despite the latest increases —which I concur with the noble Lord about—fire deaths in England in 2015-16 were still 9% lower than they were some six years ago and fire injuries requiring hospital treatment were 25% lower. At this point, I pay tribute to the fire service for installing smoke alarms in people’s homes and advising them on how to reduce the risk of fire. I am sure that has helped with the long-term reduction in these numbers.

Given that assurance, I hope the noble Lord agrees that the amendment is unnecessary. By driving efficiencies in the way that back-office and support functions are provided to both the fire and rescue service and the police force, the provisions in Part 1 will help to strengthen front-line services.

I understand that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in tabling Amendment 23 is, as she said, to probe how any joint service functions could work in practice if the funds continue to be separated in the way I have set out. The Committee should be in no doubt that under the provisions in the Bill, a police and crime commissioner will not be able to use the fire budget for policing and vice versa. The money spent on each service will need to be accounted for separately in order to ensure transparency and accountability.

However, I assure the noble Baroness that it will still be possible for police and fire funding to be allocated for the purposes of shared back-office functions or other collaboration arrangements, but the costs for these functions will be apportioned back to the appropriate budget and accounted for separately. This ensures that clarity and transparency in funding is maintained. Requiring the police and crime commissioner to hold a separate fire fund for their fire funding mirrors the existing arrangements in place for them to hold a police fund.

Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, these amendments are about the delegation of fire and rescue functions by a police and crime commissioner and sub-delegation by the chief constable under a single-employer model. I understand these to be probing amendments—the noble Baroness confirmed that—which are designed to test why arrangements for delegation are required, and to ensure that the chief fire officer or chief constable, as appropriate, will continue to have operational responsibility. I hope to be able to reassure the noble Baroness on both those points.

Where an order is made transferring responsibility for the fire and rescue service to the police and crime commissioner under new Section 4A of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, it is necessary for that order to make provision about the delegation of functions by the police and crime commissioner. As the fire and rescue authority, the PCC will have the functions of the fire and rescue service vested in it as a corporate sole. However, in practice we would expect it to delegate the majority of functions to a chief fire officer who, under arrangements to be made by the PCC, would have operational responsibility for the service.

The order therefore needs to specify which functions may or may not be delegated, including the strategic functions that must be performed by the PCC and those operational functions we would expect to be performed by the chief fire officer. It is right that the PCC should be enabled by the order to delegate fire and rescue functions to its fire and rescue staff, including firefighters, to secure the delivery of an efficient and effective fire service. I have also tabled technical amendments to ensure that the PCC is able to delegate fire and rescue functions to the staff of its PCC office so that the office can operate effectively, appoint a single chief executive and share policy support if it so wishes to drive efficiency.

Where an order is made under new Section 4H of the 2004 Act implementing the single-employer model at the request of a PCC, it is also necessary for that order to make provision about the delegation of functions by the chief officer. The chief officer will legally be the chief constable of the police force area, but will be the employer of both police and fire and rescue personnel. In order to secure the effective delivery of the fire and rescue service, the chief officer will need to be able to sub-delegate functions that have been delegated to them by the PCC to fire and rescue staff who have transferred to them, as well as to any fire and rescue staff they employ, including firefighters.

Additionally, to help them to maximise the benefits of collaboration between the two services, the chief officer will also be able to delegate fire and rescue functions to their police personnel. However, let me be absolutely clear that this is not an operational merger, as I have said before. The delegation of functions is subject to the clear restriction that police officers cannot be employed for the purposes of fighting fires and that firefighters cannot perform functions that are reserved for warranted officers.

Finally, I would add that, in practice, the arrangements with regard to the delegation of functions will operate in similar fashion to the way in which they do now. The 2004 Act confers functions on fire and rescue authorities, but those authorities do not discharge all functions themselves. Many are delegated to a chief fire officer and sub-delegated beyond that. We need similar flexibility under the scheme provided for in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the first thing I should do is thank the Minister for putting on the record the answer to a question that I put to the Bill team a little while ago seeking some clarification. It is good to have that on the record. That was in regard to officers in different types of authority—police and fire—carrying out one another’s functions.

I remain a bit confused about sub-delegation, as distinct from arranging for functions to be carried out by what under this scheme is a sub-delegatee—I do not know whether that is the right word for the person further down the chain. I will think about what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Immigration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with my noble friend, and that is why we want not only to train but also to retain some of the brightest and best students from around the world so that they can contribute to our economy.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept the importance of accurate information that is publicly available, especially on an issue where information is often secondary to anxieties, fears and sometimes prejudice? Can she also tell us what progress is being made on determining the number of people who leave the UK?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that accurate information is absolutely vital. Exit checks will tell us how many people are leaving, and the more accurate information we have, the better we will know exactly what the figures are.

Women: Refuges

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 5th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very powerful point. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that no woman will be turned away from the help she needs. Clearly, I cannot pre-empt the spending review, but we have provided additional funding. We committed in our manifesto to securing future funding for refuges, but we have also provided funding to UK refuges online—UKROL—so that victims calling the national domestic violence helpline looking for refuge can get additional help to find the support they need.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, on the subject of the comprehensive spending review, have the Government undertaken any cost-benefit analysis, either formal or informal, of the benefits of providing good—or at any rate adequate—refuge provision, taking into account both local authority and central government spending?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The cost of domestic violence, both to the individual and to society, is immense. The estimated cost of domestic violence to employers is some £3.1 billion. The total cost is an estimated £23 billion when all the various factors are taken into account, including the human and emotional suffering and the subsequent suffering of children. So the costs are immense, and the benefits of addressing this issue are obviously incalculable.