Motion A Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That this House do not
insist on its Amendment 58, to which the Commons have disagreed for
their Reason 58A. 58A: Because it is premature to confer new search
and seizure powers on the Food Standards Agency until the
accompanying accountability arrangements, including in respect of
the handling of complaints about the exercise of such powers, have
been determined. Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con) My Lords, I will
also...Request free trial
Motion A
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 58, to which the
Commons have disagreed for their Reason 58A.
58A: Because it is premature to confer new search and seizure
powers on the Food Standards Agency until the accompanying
accountability arrangements, including in respect of the handling
of complaints about the exercise of such powers, have been
determined.
(Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Lords Amendments 89 and 146, and
Amendments 114 to 116, which are in this group.
Noble Lords will recall that Amendment 58, put forward by the
noble Lord, , would confer a power on the
Secretary of State, by regulations, to apply any provisions of
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the investigation of
offences by officers of the Food Standards Agency’s National Food
Crime Unit. As I set out during the debate on Report, the
Government recognise the serious nature of food crime and the
importance of empowering the National Food Crime Unit to
investigate these offences independently, so that its specialist
knowledge is put to best use and the burden on the police is
reduced. We support the principle behind the noble Lord’s
amendment and recognise his concern on the likelihood of another
food safety scandal.
However, it remains the case that there is further work to do
before we can move forward with legislation. Before proceeding
with an extension of police powers to the National Food Crime
Unit, we would need reassurance that what is proposed is
necessary and proportionate and that suitable accountability
arrangements will be in place, including in respect of the
investigation of complaints.
Specifically, we will need to work with the National Food Crime
Unit, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services on
establishing a formal independent oversight framework for the
NFCU’s exercise of these powers and the potential for the NFCU to
be brought under their respective jurisdictions, as the
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has been. This is likely
to require other legislative changes in addition to that provided
for in Amendment 58.
Given that we are dealing with intrusive powers of the state, I
am sure that noble Lords will understand that we must ensure that
these necessary oversight mechanisms are in place in tandem with
conferring certain police powers on the NFCU and not legislate
for these separately as an afterthought. These are complex issues
that will require detailed consideration and I know that noble
Lords would not want the Government to confer intrusive powers on
the NFCU without also putting in place the arrangements for use
of these powers to be properly and independently scrutinised and
for any misuse of powers to be dealt with swiftly and
appropriately.
We are committed to working with the Food Standards Agency and
its sponsoring department, the Department of Health and Social
Care, to take this work forward, as we recognise that these
legislative changes are in the long-term interest of all those
concerned with combating food crime. The Health Secretary has
agreed that the Food Standards Agency should publicly consult on
the question of additional investigatory powers later in the
spring, which will allow a broad spectrum of views to inform and
enhance the development of these proposals. I know that the noble
Lord, , and other noble Lords want to
make progress with this issue, but I hope that this House will
agree with the other place that it is premature to legislate in
this Bill and that additional time is needed to get the package
of legislative changes right.
Turning to Lords Amendments 89 and 146, I commend the noble Lord,
, my noble friend and other noble Lords
who have campaigned with such determination and, I might add, so
effectively for the repeal of the Vagrancy
Act 1824. The Government agree that the Act is antiquated
and no longer fit for purpose. That is why we have brought
forward amendments in lieu to consign this outdated Hanoverian
statute to history.
However, as my noble friend Lady Williams indicated on Report, we
must balance our role in providing essential support for the
vulnerable with making sure that we do not weaken the ability of
the police to protect communities who play an important role in
local partnership approaches to reducing rough sleeping. We must
ensure that the police have the tools that they need to
effectively respond to behaviour that impacts negatively on
communities and to protect all individuals.
Therefore, although the Government are committed to repealing
the Vagrancy Act in full in
England and Wales, these provisions will be commenced only once
we have suitable replacement legislation in place. As the
Policing Minister indicated in the debate in the Commons, it is
our intention to commence the repeal within 18 months of Royal
Assent. As a first step, we intend to consult on this issue in
the coming months.
In the meantime, we will deliver a bold new rough sleeping
strategy, which will set out how we will end rough sleeping,
building on recent success in ensuring that rough sleeping is
prevented in the first instance and is effectively responded to
in the rare cases where it does occur, but also ensuring that our
police have the ability to intervene where needed to keep people
safe.
Finally, the House will recall that Amendments 114, 115 and 116
seek to specify matters to be addressed in the report on the
operation of the pilot for serious violence reduction orders and
to provide for the national rollout of SVROs to be conditional on
a parliamentary vote. I appreciate the case that the noble
Baroness, Lady Meacher, and other noble Lords have made and agree
that the pilot must be robust and its evaluation thorough. The
assessment of the pilot will be conducted by an independent
evaluator and the Government will consider thoroughly the
findings of the report on pilot before any decision is made to
roll SVROs out across England and Wales. The report will be laid
before Parliament. However, commencement regulations are not
normally subject to any parliamentary procedure and, although we
are not bound to follow the precedents in this regard, the
Government remain of the view that this approach should not be
changed for SVROs.
However, we accept that the Bill can and should say more about
the evaluation of the pilot and the content of the report on its
outcome. Amendments 116A and 116B agreed by the Commons are
directed to this end. These amendments specify a non-exhaustive
list of matters that must be addressed in the report of the
pilot. They include information on the number of offenders with
an SVRO; information about the offences that were the basis for
application for an SVRO; information about the exercise by
constables of the powers in Section 342E of the Sentencing Code;
an assessment of the impact of SVROs on people with protected
characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010; an
initial assessment of the impact of SVROs on reoffending rates of
those who are subject to an SVRO; an assessment of the impact on
offenders of being subject to an SVRO; and information about the
number of offences committed under Section 342G of the Sentencing
Code and the number of suspected offences under that section that
have been investigated. This a comprehensive list and, as I
indicated, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
We have listened and acted. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady
Meacher, will agree that the Commons amendments in lieu respect
the spirit of her amendments. For all those reasons, I invite the
House to support the Motions in my noble friend’s name. I beg to
move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its
Amendment 58”.
(Lab)
My Lords, contrary to what we have just heard, this issue was not
discussed in the House of Commons when it was sent there. The
Minister said about three or four sentences, which I will refer
to in a moment.
This is a piece of enabling legislation, which will save hours of
parliamentary time and slotting for parliamentary time in due
course. I am reminded of the late Alf Morris; once when someone
said to him, “We’ll kick that into the long grass”, he asked,
“How long is the grass?” and the answer came back: “Can you see
the giraffe?” That is what I am trying to avoid.
Amendment 58 seeks to place the new section after Section 114B in
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Section 114B(1)
states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations apply any provision of
this Act which relates to investigations of offences conducted by
police officers to investigations of labour market offences
conducted by labour abuse prevention officers.”
That was the bit that the Government put in the PACE Act to help
over exactly the same problem with the gangmasters. Amendment 58
is taken from subsection (1) of that part of the legislation.
In a public presentation last Friday of the Food Standards
Agency’s new five-year plan, the current chair, Professor Susan
Jebb, said:
“We are pursuing greater powers for the National Food Crime
Unit”.
This amendment does just that. There is no pressure on timing.
The Secretary of State “may” act. It is pure enabling.
11.15am
During Oral Questions in February last year, I raised the issue
of food-related crime and the resources devoted to it. The then
Minister, the noble Lord, , pointed out that the FSA
constituted the National Food Crime Unit in 2014 and that
Ministers were in dialogue about increasing its powers. In a
supplementary answer, he went further and said that
“its investigatory powers could be enhanced and its impact
improved. That is the view of the Government, industry and the
police”.—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. 614.]
So what is the problem? We have had dialogue for over a year and
have got nowhere. Ministers have been too slow on this.
The Food Crime Unit’s work is about tackling serious organised or
complex cases of food crime. The original assumption when the
unit was set up, which was after my term at the FSA, was that 10
full-scale investigations could be managed by the crime unit in a
year. Data from the first quarter of 2020 shows that more than 30
operations were opened, in addition to 40 pre-existing ones.
The Food Crime Unit and the FSA can already use the powers in
RIPA and the covert human intelligence sources legislation and it
can also access the PNC and ANPR. But in key respects it cannot
get into serious cases without the support of hard-pressed police
officers and local government, and delays owing to competing
higher-risk police priorities have already proven detrimental to
a number of Food Crime Unit investigations.
The unit needs the powers in PACE to go direct to the courts
rather than have the police doing it at one remove. The officers
from the Food Crime Unit are in a position to answer questions
from the Bench about the application that police officers drafted
in at the last minute, unfamiliar with the case, cannot. I have
to say that, in my experience, the police have never taken food
crime seriously. That was my experience at MAFF from 1997 to
1999. The police admit that it is not a high priority. Therefore,
if food crime is to be taken seriously, the unit needs the
powers.
There have been well-documented cases where the police have been
unable, unavailable or reluctant to apply for warrants on behalf
of the unit. There have been delays while the unit had to wait
for police officers to become available. Exactly these problems
arose with the gangmasters authority and the Government acted, as
I pointed out, by amending PACE. The gangmasters authority has
secured the powers. I do not know all the detail today, but the
gangmasters authority was run and managed by ex-police officers.
In fact, I think that the first chair or chief executive was an
ex-chief constable. The lack of these powers is affecting staff
in the Food Crime Unit and is a real constraint.
Officers in the Food Crime Unit—I repeat what I said in January;
I have not spoken to any of them—are well qualified to present
cases direct to the courts. They consist of ex-police officers of
very senior rank, ex-National Crime Agency officers and ex-police
intelligence officers. We are not talking about unqualified
people. The unit cannot do its job
“relying on the kindness of the police to lend their powers in
important cases”,
as the former chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, said.
The issue was considered by the National Audit Office in its
report, Ensuring Food Safety and Standards, in June 2019. It said
in paragraph 13:
“The regulatory system lacks the full range of enforcement powers
to ensure businesses supply safe food.”
It went on to say that the Food Crime Unit
“does not yet have the statutory enforcement powers it needs to
investigate … such as powers of search and seizure.”
That is what this is about: getting a warrant to do that work
without having to queue up. The FSA wants the powers, the
National Police Chiefs’ Council agrees that it should have the
powers and the NAO agrees. The Government imply support by
answers they have given.
I have worked in both the Home Office and the FSA over the years
and the grapevine tells me that there is a big reluctance in the
Home Office to acquiesce to a Back-Bencher initiating change.
This a silly and not adult politics. The amendment is in effect a
framework for the Government to build on. There is no need to
queue for valuable parliamentary time. It does not require them
to act now but it saves us from having to queue later.
There was no discussion in the Commons on the issue. On 28
February, the Minister, , after agreeing that
“food crime is a serious issue, costing billions of pounds each
year,”
described Amendment 58 as putting
“the cart before the horse”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/22;
col. 803.]
The Minister, not I, said that food crime is costing billions of
pounds a year. It makes you wonder why we are hanging about all
this time with the Government having dialogue.
Speaking of horses, has anyone wondered why no court action was
taken over the horsemeat issue in 2013? Thank goodness it was not
a food safety issue, although we did not know that at the time.
No company has ever sued another on the issue. Why? The answer is
to avoid washing the dirty linen in public. This shows how vital
it is to have an independent regulator, as industry cannot be
trusted to do it itself.
Although the FSA is a government non-ministerial department, it
has independence from day-to-day control of Ministers. From my
experience, Ministers of all parties —I am the only FSA chair who
has experience of Ministers from both Labour and Tory
Governments—do not like it when they cannot pull the levers. As
such, the FSA and its work by evidence and science—that is
legally required in Section 1 of the Act that set it up on behalf
of consumers—operating in an open and transparent way, is not the
top of Ministers’ list for action, as Ministers do not get to
pull any levers. The present Secretary of State, who answers to
Parliament on behalf of the FSA, is no exception.
We have moved on from 2010, when the plan of the incoming team
was to abolish the FSA. The announcement was all set for 12 July
2010—it still generates 50 pages on Google due to the briefings.
The FSA has had over 20 years’ experience and is part of the
fabric of generating confidence in food. It is crucial that we
maintain confidence. We still get food-borne illnesses: each
year, there are 15,000 hospitalisations and, sadly, food
poisoning leads to the death of 150 people. We are nearly 10
years away from the horsemeat issue and there will be another one
round the corner. Will we be able to move fast enough when the
time comes? The clear answer is no. Therefore, we need to push
these powers.
The Minister said that the FSA will consult. The FSA can consult
all it likes—rightly so—but whatever the outcome of the
consultation, primary legislation is needed to allow Food Crime
Unit officers to use the PACE legislation of search and seizure.
It is as plain as a pikestaff that we ought to pass this enabling
legislation.
I make one final point to every Member of the House of Lords who
has ever served as a Minister or an official. I can guarantee
that each one of them will remember one occasion when they
wanted—I quote myself—to save the Government from themselves. I
had those moments. I recall doing a Bill with the noble Lord,
Lord Bassam, when we became convinced, due to exposure in your
Lordships’ House, that it would not work as planned. We blew hot
and cold each day in Committee and on Report. We told the powers
that be in the other place, but to no avail. It required Eric
Pickles—now the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—entering government in
2010 to put that policy out of its misery. I do not need to
identify it, but it is an example. We were trying to save the
Government from themselves and this is another good example
today.
Why wait on the issue? Send it back to the other place. The
Government can then modify it and add the bits from the
gangmasters clause to the back end. There is no requirement on
time. It solves the problem of queueing for parliamentary time in
the future and it shows that the long grass is not so long. We
will then get some action, because the dialogue has gone on
without any success for far too long. I beg to move.
(CB)
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, . It is insane that we do not
have this. Food crime is complicated and difficult. Food chains
are very long with no roles of responsibility. It is not like
selling an egg to your next-door neighbour and then they end up
sick; the egg has probably travelled 1,000 miles and nobody
really gives a stuff about what happens at the other end.
There are lots of categories of food crime: illegal processing,
which can mean the unapproved slaughter or ingestion of food;
waste diversion, which means you send waste food back into the
supply chain; adulteration, which is fake food; substitution,
which is what happened in the horsemeat scandal;
misrepresent-ation, which is endless and to do with marketing
saying, for example, that pork has come from a happy pig when, in
fact, it came from some pig reared in Poland in a miserable
condition; and discount fraud. It is very common, widespread and
difficult to deal with.
The fact that we bring only a tiny number of prosecutions, as the
noble Lord, , mentioned, is a scandal, but
it is one that we can fix. The FSA has a brilliant new chair in
Professor Susan Jebb, who is gagging to go and to get on top of
this. It would do more than just sort out crime; it would also
bring safety and responsibility. It would stop this massive
dispersion of food into all different places.
The noble Lord, , mentioned the horsemeat
scandal of however many years ago. At that point I was working
for the current Prime Minister as chair of the London Food Board.
He rather jovially suggested that he and I should go up to
Trafalgar Square and eat a horsemeat burger. We did not, because
it probably would have got him into even more trouble than usual.
However, the point is that at that moment we all saw the chains.
Some of that horsemeat had passed through no fewer than 15 hands
as it travelled around, each time making a little bit of money.
Every moment is a moment for adulteration. I cannot understand
why the Government are not happy to accept the amendment and to
put it in the Bill. We would then have a much brighter future for
all of us.
(Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend—indeed, my very
personal friend. He and I wrote the White Paper on the Food
Standards Agency. It was necessary then and it was the right
thing to do. The public had lost confidence in politicians of all
parties and we had to create a new and independent organisation.
That is what we did. Believe me, I cannot for the life of me
understand why Ministers object to the proposal. It is already in
legislation, so what is the problem?
The reality is that food crime is a global occupation. The
European Union is concerned about it, as is the Government of
Australia. In the United States of America, the Department of
Justice recently fined a Brazilian company $110 million for
trying to rig the beef market. For that matter, it also tried to
rig the chicken market there. We need these powers to combat that
level of organised and very sophisticated criminal activity in
food markets. I do not know why there is any hesitation about
this. If America can do it, we can. Australia is looking very
closely at the activities of this same food company intervening
in the Australian market. It already has two subsidiaries here in
the UK. I have drawn this to the attention of the noble Lord,
. The reality is that, unless we
strengthen the Food Standards Agency, these people will fiddle,
rig, and have criminal activities in our food markets. We cannot
stand by and allow that to happen. As I said at the outset, I
strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. I urge noble Lords
on all sides of the House to support it too.
11.30am
(Con)
My Lords, in his opening remarks my noble friend spoke to
Amendment 89, and I hope that it is in order to introduce a more
consensual note to this debate by welcoming Amendment 89. The
first subsection of the new clause states:
“The Vagrancy Act 1824 is
repealed.”
This shows the value of your Lordships’ House. When the
legislation came to this House, there was nothing in it at all
about the Vagrancy Act But an
all-party campaign, led by the noble Lord, , who had hoped to speak to this
amendment, inserted an amendment that would have repealed
the Vagrancy Act in its
entirety. That went back to the other place and, following a very
constructive meeting with the Minister, my noble friend Lady
Williams, and Minister , a satisfactory compromise
was reached that is set out in Motion J and government Amendment
89, which, as I said, begins:
“The Vagrancy Act 1824 is
repealed.”
My noble friend explained that there may be sections of
the Vagrancy Act that need
to be kept and therefore that total repeal is subject to a
review, with an undertaking that it will be repealed in its
entirety, subject to that review, within 18 months. I am most
grateful to my ministerial friends for their constructive
approach and I wonder whether the Minister, when he winds up, can
say when the review that he referred to will be completed, and
when we can have the assurance that there is nothing in
the Vagrancy Act that needs
to be kept and that, within the total span of 18 months, it will
be repealed in its entirety. On behalf of all those who supported
the campaign led by the noble Lord, , I say that we very much welcome
the outcome of our discussions.
The Lord
My Lords, I echo the thoughts that the noble Lord, Lord Young,
has just shared. I declare my interest as chair of the Manchester
Homelessness Partnership board and as co-chair of the national
police ethics committee, because I also wish to speak to the
Motion regarding serious violence reduction orders.
I support the Vagrancy Act repeal, as
I know my right reverend and most reverend friends on these
Benches do, and have sought to see that included in previous
Bills. I am grateful that it is now on track and I look forward
to working with Ministers and others to ensure that we avoid any
unintended consequences and do not simply recreate the old Act in
more modern language.
On serious violence reduction orders, I am deeply concerned about
knife crime. In fact, in Greater Manchester we are holding a
summit on the afternoon of Friday of next week and I would be
delighted if the noble Baroness the Minister could join us on
that occasion, if her diary permits. As one of those who
sponsored Amendments 114 to 116, I am grateful that we now have
an expanded list of things that the review of the pilot must
include and I am grateful for the assurances that we have heard
today that the list is not exhaustive.
I still have concerns that these orders may prove unworkable,
that they may put vulnerable women and girls at greater risk or
that they may damage community relations with police through
their disproportionate application. At worst, I think that all
those things could happen, but for now I am willing to accept
that the review is in good faith. Again, I look forward to seeing
how the lessons learned from it will be taken fully on board and
incorporated into any subsequent national rollout of SVROs.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion A1. I congratulate the
noble Lord, , on his introduction and
support his amendment. Organised food crime costs billions and
the police have far more urgent priorities to deal with.
Food-borne illnesses cost money in lost earnings and even in some
cases result in death. In the current food shortage scenario, it
is open season for the unscrupulous to take advantage and exploit
the public by producing and selling adulterated food that is not
fit for human consumption. They avoid prosecution while the
police are completely overstretched. This amendment would assist
the FSA to act to prevent future food scandals. I fully support
the noble Lord, , and urge the Government to
accept this very sensible amendment.
(LD)
My Lords, we support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord,
. Compared with other important
issues that the House is considering today, it is a relatively
minor one. None the less, it will save no time if we abstain, so
if the noble Lord divides the House, we will support him.
On Motion J, although the repeal of the Vagrancy
Act is very welcome and something for which Liberal
Democrats have been campaigning for many years, it is unfortunate
that the Government are still insisting on delaying the repeal of
the outdated and unnecessary Act until replacement legislation is
in place, as we believe that existing alternative legislation is
sufficient. Unlike the noble Lord, , I heard the Minister
say that the Government will commence, not conclude, repeal in 18
months—I wrote it down. If I am right and the noble Lord is
wrong, can the Minister tell us how long it will take to repeal
the Act in its entirety?
On Motion L, serious violence reduction orders will allow the
police to stop and search people without any suspicion that those
targeted have anything on them at the time they are stopped and
searched that they should not have in their possession. It is
another form of stop and search without suspicion, which is
notorious for being ineffective. It is even less effective at
finding weapons than stop and search based on suspicion and it is
disproportionately focused on black people, even compared with
stop and search based on suspicion. As a consequence, it is
notorious for the damage that it causes to the relationships
between the police and the communities they are supposed to help.
The Government’s own impact assessment shows that these measures
will disproportionately impact black communities and fly in the
face of the Government’s response to the report by the
independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities.
The police need to work together with communities suffering
serious violence to build trust and confidence and to demonstrate
that they are on the side of the community—not using powers
disproportionately against it, as these new powers, by the
Government’s own admission, will continue to do. Even Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services says that the disproportionate use of powers against
certain communities is “undermining police legitimacy”.
Like the right reverend Prelate the , we have concerns. We
believe that serious violence reduction orders are likely to make
serious violence worse, as they further alienate the very
communities the police need to co-operate with to identify the
perpetrators. However, we have reluctantly agreed to see how
SVROs, arguably a manifesto commitment, work in practice in a
limited number of pilot areas. We supported an amendment in the
name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Report that would
have strengthened the proposed pilot evaluation and prevented
SVROs from being introduced beyond the pilot phase until a report
on the pilot had been laid before Parliament and both Houses had
agreed to the rollout.
The Minister has given assurances that the pilot will be
independently evaluated and that the Government will not continue
with the scheme if it proves, as we suspect, to be ineffective or
counterproductive. The evaluation must include crime reduction
outcomes and community impact assessments. Given those
reassurances and the Government’s strengthening of the pilot
evaluation, we have agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher,
not to insist on her amendments, but we will be watching the
pilots very carefully and listening to the communities affected,
whose trust and confidence in the police is essential if knife
crime is to be tackled effectively.
(Lab)
There are three issues in this group and I wish to say something
about all of them. Starting with Motion A1, I thank the noble
Lord, , for sending me a
copy of his letter of 22 February to my noble friend on Lords Amendment 58, which
relates to the Food Standards Agency. As the letter says, the
amendment gives powers available to the police under the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the National Food Crime Unit of
the Food Standards Agency. However, the Commons disagreed with
the amendment, giving this reason:
“Because it is premature to confer new search and seizure powers
on the Food Standards Agency until the accompanying
accountability arrangements, including in respect of the handling
of complaints about the exercise of such powers, have been
determined.”
Yet Lords Amendment 58 does not lay down a specific date or
timescale by which powers available to the police under PACE have
to be given to the National Food Crime Unit. It simply says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations apply any provisions
of this Act to investigation of offences conducted by officers of
the National Food Crime Unit in respect of search and
seizure.”
If I am right, the Commons reason suggests that the Commons and
the Government never actually read the terms of Lords Amendment
58. That is surprising, since the letter from the Minister to my
noble friend states that
“the Government agrees in principle that these powers should be
conferred upon NFCU officers in order to support their vital work
tackling food crime.”
There is no argument about whether the powers should be given,
but simply over when they should be given. Lords Amendment 58
would give the statutory authority to the Secretary of State to
give those powers but leaves it up to the Secretary of State to
decide when the time is right. So what is the problem with the
amendment?
The letter from the Minister goes on to say:
“Food crime is a very serious issue and empowering the NFCU to
investigate these offences independently will ensure that their
specialist knowledge is put to best use and that the burden on
police forces is reduced”.
Yet the Commons and the Government have disagreed the amendment.
The Minister goes on to say that
“further work is required to fully work through the implications
of these proposals to ensure that any exercise of police powers
by a non-police body is necessary, proportionate and legitimate
and that suitable governance and accountability arrangements will
be in place”,
and:
“For these reasons we have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords
amendment 58”.
But Lords Amendment 58 does not say that the Secretary of State
has to do it; it would simply give the Secretary of State the
necessary statutory power to do it if and when the Secretary of
State so wishes, which is the point being made by my noble friend
. Frankly, the Government really
are struggling to think of a credible argument why Lords
Amendment 58 should not be accepted.
The powers currently available to the Food Standards Agency under
food law relate to the enforcement of regulatory matters. The
NFCU investigates cases of serious crime, often involving
offences such as fraud. However, the FSA’s existing powers do not
sufficiently equip the NFCU to investigate these crimes fully and
lawfully, and to collect evidence to the higher standard needed
to prove criminal intent, without the support of partners in the
hard-pressed environments of policing or local authorities.
As part of the FSA, the NFCU already has access to sensitive law
enforcement powers around directed surveillance, securing
communications data and the management of convert human
intelligence sources. But NFCU officers have not yet been given
essential investigatory powers, including the power to apply to
courts for warrants to search premises and seize evidence, or to
interview suspects without police officers present. The unit has
to rely on the support of partners, including the police forces,
to carry out these activities. This means that the courts are not
hearing from the experts familiar with the cases, which can
increase the likelihood that warrants are not authorised.
As I understand it, competing demands on police time have led to
delays in several NFCU investigations. At present, the NFCU needs
the police to go to court and swear warrants on its behalf, so
investigations are delayed if the police decline or take time to
do so, or if the court refuses to authorise the warrant, which is
more likely if the person swearing it cannot answer questions
about the case. The NFCU also needs the police to be present when
warrants are executed, which can lead to delays in the unit being
able to carry out searches or seize critical evidence if the
police have other priorities. As I understand it, the evidence
seized then needs to be taken into police custody before it can
be transferred to the NFCU. These issues can and do create delay,
which is a problem in running a live investigation and trying to
gather evidence before it is moved or destroyed.
I understand that NFCU investigations have been impacted by all
the issues to which I have referred. I am also advised that the
FSA’s view is that these additional powers are essential to
enable the National Food Crime Unit to properly investigate and
pursue complex food crime cases. As has been said, this was also
identified as a gap in its systems to keep food safe in the
independent review by Professor Elliott in I think 2014 following
the horsemeat scandal.
In the Commons debate on this Lords amendment, the Minister said
that the chairman of the Food Standards Agency had written to the
Minister for Crime and Policing on 11 August 2021, expressing
concern that the existing powers of the National Food Crime Unit
were insufficient for their purpose. The Minister responded in
October by expressing support for the request and indicating the
Home Office’s intent to work with the NFCU to find a suitable
legislative vehicle.
11.45am
Well, we have a suitable legislative vehicle: it is this Bill.
But five months after the Minister’s reply to the chairman of the
Food Standards Agency expressing support for the request, we
appear to have had very little action. It is time for action now,
and my noble friend has made the case for achieving
that objective of action by proposing Motion A1, his amendment to
government Motion A: that this House
“do insist on its Amendment 58”.
I turn to the other two matters referred to in this group. First,
on the repeal of the Vagrancy Act the
Government have given a concession on this, as has been said.
They have brought forward their own amendment, which will repeal
the Vagrancy Act In the
Commons, the Minister said the Government agreed that no one
should be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and that the
time had indeed come to repeal the antiquated Vagrancy Act 1824. The
Minister said that the Government were planning to bring forward
replacement legislation in the next Session to ensure the police
had “the tools they need” to intervene where necessary. So the
Government will delay commencement of the new clause for 18
months while the legislation is introduced and scrutinised. The
noble Lord, , asked what exactly was going
to happen in the 18 months, and I, too, await an answer from the
Minister on that point.
We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the terms
of this amendment and have finally decided to act. Likewise, we
pay tribute, as the Minister did, to the tenacity of the noble
Lord, , and those who have worked with
him on this issue—not least for ably moving the amendment and
winning a vote in the middle of the night on Report, which was
some achievement.
My only question follows on from what the noble Lord, , said. Could we have an
assurance from the Minister that this is not going to be kicked
into the long grass due to the plans for delayed commencement,
and that the Government will get on with improving support for
those who find themselves sleeping rough on our streets?
On the issue of serious violence reduction orders, the noble
Baroness, Lady Meacher, led on this on Report and we gave our
support. The noble Baroness led on amendments that would
strengthen the pilot of these orders, requiring it to proactively
report on a number of concerns, and would require a vote in
Parliament following the pilot before the orders could be brought
in. The Government opposed the amendments but have brought
forward Amendment 116A in lieu, which provides a non-exhaustive
list of matters that must be covered in a report on the pilot.
The Government say that the pilot will be robust and that an
assessment of it will be covered by an independent regulator.
We are disappointed, as I said, that the Government have not
accepted the reasonable amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady
Meacher, on serious violence reduction orders. Prevention of
crime is obviously a priority for our Benches and, I am sure, for
all noble Lords in this House, and we considered this part of the
Bill carefully. But the Minister is aware of our concerns that
these orders may reduce trust in the police disproportionately
and will not actually reduce crime.
As my colleague said in the Commons, some
years ago there was a similar scheme and knife crime prevention
orders were lauded by the Government as the answer to crime. But
they have not even been brought into force, presumably because
they are hard to make work. What we are all trying to do is pass
good law and bring into force only initiatives that actually
prevent crime and protect communities. That is why the quality of
the pilot is so important.
Having said that, we welcome the fact that the Government have
moved slightly and included a list of areas that must be included
in the assessment of the pilot, including the impact of the
orders on reoffending and an equality impact assessment—of sorts.
I ask the Minister whether the Government will promise a debate
in Parliament after the pilot concludes. It would be appreciated
if that undertaking and guarantee could be given when the
Minister responds.
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, , for his comments and to all
noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I will try to
reassure the noble Lord, , that we fully recognise the
need to make quick progress with the consultation on extending
Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers to the Food Standards
Agency and then to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as
parliamentary time allows.
The noble Lord very properly pushed me on a credible argument for
this. I refer back to one of the paragraphs in my opening
remarks: we specifically need to work with the National Food
Crime Unit, the Independent Office for Police Conduct and Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue
Services on establishing a formal independent oversight framework
for the NFCU’s exercise of these powers and the potential for the
NFCU to be brought under their respective jurisdictions. The
noble Lord referred to gangmasters; that is what happened with
the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. That is likely to
require other legislative changes in addition to those provided
for in Amendment 58. The issue is one of linked legislation. I
have no doubt that the noble Lord will monitor this closely and I
will ensure that he is kept informed of all developments. I hope
that, on that basis, he will not press his Motion A1.
My noble friend asked about our
commitment to commencing the repeal of the Vagrancy
Act just as soon as we have consulted on and legislated for
replacement legislation. The noble Lords, and , asked me precisely when.
Perhaps it would help to clarify this if I read out what the
Minister said in the Commons:
“On the undertaking that I was asked to give about
the Vagrancy Act let me
say that 18 months is a maximum. If we can act faster, we will,
but intensive work will obviously be required to get us
there.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/22; col. 855.]
My noble friend Lord Young asked about the consultation. All I
can say is that it will take place this spring.
The noble Lord, , quite rightly asked why the
House will not necessarily have a debate on the SVRO pilot. We
have done this because, subject to the Bill receiving Royal
Assent, we expect the pilot to take two years, having started in
early 2023. It will then take some two or three months to
complete the evaluation. That timetable firmly takes us beyond
the life of this Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord
understands that it would not be right for me to commit a future
Government or Chief Whip to provide parliamentary time to a
debate on the report of the pilot. That is not within my gift or
anyone’s gift. But we have said that in principle we endorse the
case that has been made for such a debate and we understand the
concerns. Therefore, we commit to sending all noble Lords the
terms of reference for the independent evaluation of the pilot
once they have been finalised and to lay a copy of those in the
Library of the House.
In conclusion, I hope that, in the light of the Commons
amendments in lieu providing clarity in the Bill on the matters
to be addressed through the pilot and the observations about
affording this House the opportunity to debate the pilot report,
the noble Lord, and indeed the whole House, will support Motion L
when we come to it.
(LD)
I am still confused, despite what the noble Lord read from
Commons Hansard. There will be consultation and replacement
legislation, but will the repeal start in 18 months’ time or will
the Vagrancy Act in its
entirety be repealed in a maximum of 18 months? I am still not
sure.
(Con)
I go back to the statement that I just read: 18 months is a
maximum for this issue to be resolved.
(Lab)
My Lords, I will make two very short points. All the issues that
the Minister has talked about could be dealt with in the
regulations—that is the whole point. The issue of parliamentary
time is the giveaway.
From time to time, the House is fortunate to have one or more of
its Members on the board of the FSA, such as the noble Baroness,
Lady Howarth of Breckland, and the noble Lord, , who was the founding chair of
the FSA. He is tied up in committee this morning, but I have his
authority to say that he will vote for this Motion. Currently, we
have someone sitting in the Chamber who, as a member of the
board, has inside knowledge of the crimes that the Food Standard
Agency’s National Food Crime Unit is dealing with. However,
because the noble Lord, , is a member of the board,
he cannot speak in this debate—but he will vote for the
Motion.
[Division 1
Division on Motion A1
Content
181
Not Content
157
Motion A1 agreed
|
