| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
A peer review element to police authority inspections is absolutely essential. I have argued before that neither HMIC nor the Audit Commission has all the requisite knowledge and expertise about police authorities to conduct effective inspections, but that this can be greatly enhanced by the presence of individuals with a police authority background. In the past I have myself contributed to prototype inspections of this sort and know that the inspectors—in this case HMIC—found police authority input extremely helpful. So I was pleased to learn from the Association of Police Authorities that the Government had agreed to a peer review element in the inspection of police authorities. My amendment would simply put that agreement on a statutory footing. It is important to do so to ensure that inspection teams include individuals with the relevant knowledge, expertise and experience about police authorities to ensure that inspection is robust and authoritative.
Finally, as there will be a peer review element to inspections, which will be co-ordinated by the Association of Police Authorities, it is essential that the association is consulted about inspection programmes so that it can ensure that the right people are in the right place at the right time to assist with inspections. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I apologise to my noble friend for missing the preamble to her remarks. However, I think that I heard the substance of her points in what followed. I declare an interest as a vice-president of both the Association of Police Authorities and the Local Government Association.
My noble friend’s amendment is extremely sensible and I make three points on it. First, it is important to ensure that the inspection regime for police authorities is proportionate to the nature of police authorities. There are far more dissimilarities between police authorities and local authorities than the statute might lead one to believe. I am not always sure that the Audit Commission understands the very different status of police authorities and the fact that many of them operate with very small numbers of staff and very small directly controlled resources as opposed to those which are delegated to the chief
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1342
My second point relates to peer review and my experience of this both in local government and on the one occasion that this was tried in the police authority world. It is a valuable and important procedure in ensuring that the review process is relevant to the authorities concerned and conveys authenticity through being conducted by people with direct first-hand knowledge of the work. For that reason the peer review element of these proposals is particularly important.
Finally, because of the complexities of the legislation, which has been amended over the years by different Acts on a piecemeal basis, it is by no means clear that we will automatically see joint inspection in future. We may well end up with separate inspections or separate processes, which seems to me deeply unhelpful. I believe that the amendment addresses those three points and I therefore hope that in responding the Minister will indicate that between now and later stages of the Bill the Government will look carefully at those issues.
Baroness Hanham: Briefly, one of the most unhelpful things that can happen is that people have to dodge between one Act and another to try to decide what the law is. Anything that can be done to straighten that out regarding the inspections would be very helpful, so that it is clear who the inspections are meant to be carried out by, that it is a joint inspection and that there is no possibility of confusion over that.
Secondly, part of the amendment is that there should be a peer element in the review. The understanding that I have from the Association of Police Authorities is that it was agreed with the Home Office that there would be a peer review element, but that it has not been incorporated. Why was it not incorporated? Why has it been necessary to table the amendment, if that was an agreement? Does the Minister believe that something about the APA’s understanding was not correct? In which case, it would be helpful for us to know about it at this stage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond added her name to the amendment. She is very sorry that she cannot be here this afternoon to speak to it, and I know that she would like strongly to back up what the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, said. However, the noble Baroness introduced the amendment so eloquently that I do not feel worried that I am able to do no more than say from these Benches that we support the amendment.
Lord West of Spithead: I thank my noble friend Lady Henig for her very useful input, which has allowed debate on this point, and I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. It always makes one nervous speaking when one has people who have such
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1343
To date, there has been no process for the inspection of police authorities beyond the Audit Commission’s review of their financial arrangements and compliance with best value under Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999. Correspondingly, Section 54(2A) of the Police Act 1996 provides that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has a role only in the inspection of authorities’ best-value functions.
The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 made changes to the Local Government Act 1999 that allow the Audit Commission to inspect all the functions of a police authority. This provision will amend the Police Act 1996 to give Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary parallel powers, enabling a joint inspection process that draws on the professional expertise and knowledge of both those bodies. With related legislative provisions in the Police Act 1996 and the Police and Justice Act 2006, which allow the inspectorate to work jointly with the Audit Commission and to control the overall burden of inspection on police authorities, that will provide the statutory framework for an effective programme of joint inspection.
I recognise that the amendment seeks to consolidate those provisions and to go some way towards specifying how the different bodies will work together, in an attempt to clarify the inspection regime. It also introduces a requirement for nominees of the Association of Police Authorities to be involved in conducting police authority inspections. However, that will be better achieved through the joint inspection protocol and methodology that it has been agreed will underpin the programme of inspections. Specifying the details of joint inspection in the legislation reduces flexibility and the ability to take account of the different circumstances in the 43 different police authorities. The joint framework will be drawn up by the Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission to provide a clear basis on which to manage the inspection programme. It will be developed with input from the Association of Police Authorities to ensure that it reflects its knowledge and understanding of the work of the authorities.
During the passage of this Bill in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Crime Reduction, Vernon Coaker, gave a commitment that the inspection process would include an element of peer review by the authorities, as the noble Baroness mentioned. I know that the inspectorate and the commission are ready to explore how best to bring this into the protocol with the Association of Police Authorities. We very much recognise the valuable experience and knowledge that police authorities can bring to the inspection process, but we do not accept that it is right that there should be a legal requirement that they play a part in every case in their inspection. I ask my noble friend Lady Henig to withdraw the amendment.
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1344
5.45 pm
Baroness Henig: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. Perhaps the Government might reflect further on these matters. I hear what has been said about a protocol. While I am all in favour of flexibility, we want to have absolute clarity in the Bill about these arrangements, particularly in relation to joint inspection and peer review. At this point, I will not press my amendment, but if it were possible for the Government to think again about these matters, I would be most grateful.
Lord West of Spithead: I have sympathy with what my noble friend is saying. Perhaps we can think about this and have a meeting prior to the Report stage.
Baroness Henig: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167 to 170 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 181 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Avebury: The attempt by the Government to create a special immigration status for certain categories of people is a glaring example of the old adage that hard cases make bad law. These clauses are here because of an Afghan airliner that was hijacked to Britain eight years ago by people belonging to a political organisation whose members had been arrested and tortured in Afghanistan. The Court of Appeal set aside the convictions of nine men who were involved in the hijack, and the adjudicators who then considered their applications for asylum decided that they were excluded from the protection of the refugee convention by Article 1F, which applies to a person who has committed a serious non-political offence outside the country of origin. Nevertheless, they could not be sent back to Afghanistan because they face a material risk of torture in the receiving country and are therefore protected from refoulement by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The special immigration status that the Government are proposing here covers the Afghans and a handful of other people who come into the same category. Clause 182 designates these people as “foreign criminals”, even though their convictions have been quashed in the Court of Appeal. It also includes a person who is a “serious criminal” defined by Section 72 of the NIA Act and who is therefore excluded from protection from refoulement by Article 33.2 of the convention. That person must have been convicted of a particularly serious crime for which he was sentenced to at least two years’ imprisonment outside the UK, or of any one of a large number of minor offences and have been sentenced to any period of imprisonment, however short.
As the Minister is no doubt aware, the UNHCR has expressed serious concern over Section 54 of the IAN Act 2006, Section 72 of the NIA Act 2002 and
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1345
If the SIS designation is under Condition 3 in Section 182(4), it is not clear whether the person would be able to challenge the statutory interpretation of Article 1F of the convention as being inconsistent with our obligations under the convention. That is what the UNHCR suggests. It says, for instance, that to class acts of preparation or instigation of terrorism, whether actual or inchoate, as coming within Article 1FC, and therefore being contrary to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, as in the definition in Section 54 of the NIA Act 2006, results in too broad an application of the principle of exclusion in the absence of any universally accepted legal definition of terrorism.
If the designation is under condition 1 or 2, relying on the provisions of Section 72 of the NIA Act 2002, the UNHCR says that a serious crime means a very grave crime, punishable by a long term of imprisonment. It means something like murder, rape, arson or armed robbery. Therefore, the particularly serious crime referred to in Article 33(2) must be only one of the most heinous offences in those particular categories. The order, by contrast, specifies among the crimes leading to exclusion such comparatively trivial offences as shoplifting. Whereas under Section 72 the applicant was given the chance to rebut the presumption that he was a danger to the community, and if successful could still be granted asylum, under Clause 182(5), that right is taken away from a person to whom special immigration status is applied by the Secretary of State. No matter how conclusive the arguments for deciding that the person has a well-founded fear of persecution, and no matter that her presence here is totally harmless to the community, she is barred forever from becoming a refugee.
We have just received a note from the Anti-Trafficking Legal Project, to which I drew the attention of the Minister who is to reply to this debate. It is a network of legal practitioners who deal with victims of trafficking and other vulnerable people. I will understand if the Minister has not had a chance to give its note full consideration since this morning. The paper it submitted says that where a trafficking victim has been convicted of a document offence, she can still succeed with her asylum claim, but under Part 12 she will be labelled a foreign criminal and will be unable to access the services that are available to promote recovery and rehabilitation of trafficking victims.
My attention was drawn to the particular case of a Nigerian client of the Hammersmith and Fulham Community Law Centre who was a victim of domestic violence in Nigeria, and was deceived into going with her trafficker to work abroad as a domestic worker. She thought this a means of escaping domestic violence. The trafficker got her a
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1346
Having committed ourselves to signing the Council of Europe Convention on Human Trafficking by the end of this year, we cannot allow these women to be caught by Section 181. Generally, it is disgraceful that the UK should act contrary to the advice given by UNHCR, which ought to be binding on all signatory states, let alone one that is a member of the executive committee. Narrowing the discretion which ought to be exercised by officers in determining asylum applications, when they ought to consider all the circumstances, sets an extremely bad example to all other convention signatories and runs the risk of setting off an auction among them to expand even further the areas of conduct that their domestic laws say are covered by Articles 1F and 33(2).
We now have the benefit of advice from the JCHR. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his place because he is a distinguished member of that committee. It welcomes the Government’s agreement that the Secretary of State could not lawfully designate a person if a court decides that the effect of doing so would be to breach the UK’s obligations under the convention. I ask the noble Lord how that is to be tested. Presumably a person could challenge the statutory interpretation of Article 1F, which the JCHR now demands should be repealed. If he is said to be a foreign criminal under condition 2 of Section 182(3), would he be able to get to a court by claiming that the Secretary of State had wrongfully certified that the offence he had committed outside the United Kingdom was similar to one on the specified list? Since no right of appeal is provided against Section 181 designation anywhere else in Part 12, a claim that the UK’s obligations were likely to be breached would have to be by way of judicial review, there being no ordinary right of appeal against designation in these clauses.
The Minister wrote to me after Second Reading with some comments on the designation of spouses and children, which he said was a matter of convenience, so that contact is maintained with the family. I am glad to accept his assurance that both designated persons and their dependants will have access to the full range of health services and that children, as designated persons, will have the same right to education as natives. However, the Minister confirms that these people are not going to be entitled
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1347
Mrs X—whose Home Office reference, if the Minister wants to look it up, is S1040623—arrived on the Afghan-hijacked plane with her husband and lodged a separate claim for asylum shortly afterwards. After eight years of waiting for a decision, she has applied for a judicial review of the delay and that application has been granted by the High Court. There is no date for the hearing because there is a backlog in dealing with judicial review applications generally. Mrs X also made an application for indefinite leave to remain, a concession that is normally granted to families who have been in the UK for more than three years. That was refused on the grounds that she is family member of someone who is excluded from the refugee convention, although her husband is not and has never been a dependant on her asylum claim. Mrs X had four children, three of whom are UK born.
Mrs Y also came on the hijacked plane, but married Mr Y, one of the nine hijackers, in 2002, after arrival. A hearing of her application for judicial review of the Home Office refusal to grant her indefinite leave to remain was scheduled for 17 March, but the Home Office is now attempting to settle this claim. Mrs Y won her asylum appeal in June 2005, more than five years after her arrival. The Home Office case notes, which have now been disclosed to her solicitors, the Hammersmith law centre, show that the Home Office recognised that she had a right to ILR, but the solicitors had to apply for judicial review after her application had been with the BIA for over a year. By then, the policy had changed and refugees were to be granted only five years’ leave to remain. However, the JR application was continued and the Secretary of State now wants to grant Mrs X ILR outside the rules. Her solicitor’s argument is that she must get ILR as a refugee, as that was her entitlement at the time of the application. The case notes show that all the BIA thinking had been wrongfully related to her husband’s case—so much for the Minister’s assertion that anyone who is not the principal designated person can apply separately for the right to asylum or ILR.
6 pm
Those examples show that, although there may be nothing to stop family members applying in their own right, their treatment will be grossly inferior to that of ordinary applicants, over half of whom receive an initial decision on their claim within two months. On the Minister’s assertion in his letter of 30 January that it would be anomalous for dependants who apply for
10 Mar 2008 : Column 1348
Part 12 is unnecessary, as the Law Society has said, because there are perfectly good provisions in the existing law to grant a person who is not removable for human rights reasons a renewable six-months’ discretionary leave to remain. It is an additional complication which runs contrary to the promises of simplifying immigration law and practice but, far worse, these clauses are based on misinterpretations of the UN Convention on Refugees, to which the Government’s attention has been drawn by the UNHCR—the guardian of the convention. They exclude a small number of persons, most of whom are wives and children, from protection, sentencing them indefinitely to a life of penury with no hope of betterment or of ever being able to support themselves for as long as they remain in the United Kingdom. All this to fulfil the threats made by the former Home Secretary, Jack Straw, against people who had been driven to desperation by the Taliban. I beg to move.
Lord West of Spithead: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has spoken with his customary passion and eloquence in opposing the proposed new immigration status created by the clauses which currently form Part 12 of the Bill. Notwithstanding that, I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that he has not won me over, although he raises some very interesting and important points. I have a fulsome response, as I think that this is a very important area to address and talk through.
As your Lordships are aware, these provisions are being introduced in response to a ruling by the High Court in 2006—subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal—in relation to the men who seized control of an aircraft on an internal flight in Afghanistan in early 2000 and forced the pilot to fly to Stansted.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |