Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

I have, of course, enormous respect for the knowledge and judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but on this occasion, with respect, I do not agree with his opinion. It is part of the law of this country that the Minister, like all other Ministers, has a positive duty under the Human Rights Act to confirm to this House and the other place that the legislation that the Government are bringing forward is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is the law of this country. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to tell this House, consistent with her duty under the law of this land, why she is confident—if she is—that this proposal is consistent with our international obligations.

[Baroness Hamwee]

On all previous occasions when we discussed this matter, I was honest with the House that I had some difficulty with it, but is what was the substantive issue then in fact the issue for today? I have been waiting to hear some comment on the Commons reason for disagreeing with this House’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, addressed the issue of financial privilege and suggested that we should not accept it. However—and this is an entirely personal view—I think that this may well be an issue that goes to heart of the relationship between the two Houses. I have grave doubts as to whether we should tackle that convention on the back of this Bill. This is an important, stand-alone issue, but it is not one that we should seek to overturn in this manner.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Before she sits down—

Immigration: High Court Ruling

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I say two things to my noble friend. First, he said that this was a kindergarten error, but we actually took legal advice. On his second, more substantive point, perhaps he missed my honourable friend the Immigration Minister’s announcement that, when the permanent scheme comes into effect, it will not necessarily be precisely the same as the interim structure. We are consulting on that structure and listening to what people have said. One of the changes that have already been announced is that we will create a category for international talent—people whom this country badly needs. I hope that my noble friend’s anxieties on that score are somewhat alleviated by the Government’s willingness to listen to the points that are being made to us.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the press reported Friday’s judgment as Parliament having been insufficiently consulted, which seems a reasonable précis of the explanation that the Minister has given. That being the case—and she has told the House that changes to the rules will be laid tomorrow to enable the Government to reinstate the interim limits on a clear basis—will she explain what the procedure will be and what consultation of Parliament there will be?

I would like to try to find a positive in this. During the period in which the cap has applied, whether properly or not, have the Government been able to take any comments or details from employers or indeed employees from particular sectors that will feed into decisions about the permanent limits? When the Minister gave evidence to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee earlier this year, she said that the Government would keep the interim limits under constant review to assess whether they were meeting the objectives outlined and, indeed, that they would monitor any unintended consequences.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The judgment that the court has arrived at indicates that we ought to have formulated the rules differently and the consequence of that is that we stand accused of not having consulted Parliament adequately on that point. I might say that that was not done with any intention to obviate our obligations to the legislature; this was laid out before Parliament in good faith. We felt that one of the ways in which it would be helpful to have greater flexibility when putting in the interim arrangements was to have the figure in the guidance so that it would be easy, in the light of the kind of consultation that we wished to conduct, to carry numbers over from one month to the next. I have to say that, in putting the figures into the rules, as no doubt we will now do, there will be greater rigidity in the arrangements that have to be arrived at.

The noble Baroness asked two other questions. One was whether we would consult on the changes to the new rules. Our obligation in this instance is to get ourselves into conformity with the judgment and I hope therefore that there will be no argument about what we do. She also asked whether we had listened to employers from particular sectors. The answer is that we have been consulting extremely widely and in all sectors.

Controlling Migration

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I ask the Minister to clarify a couple of issues regarding the paragraph about family members. The Statement says that from next week—although we are told at the end of the Statement that most of the changes will come in next April or soon after that—those who apply for a marriage visa will be required to demonstrate a minimum standard of English. Can she confirm whether that is about providing evidence that the marriage is not a sham marriage, or is that a completely separate matter? Does the Minister agree that English is best learnt in the country where it is spoken?

Secondly, does the Minister agree that there is a need for proper training and skills provision for some of those whom we may find it difficult to identify in future? The Migration Advisory Committee’s report rightly talks about the need for employers to provide training, but it also states:

“Some priority may also be required for limited migration into vital public services such as … social care.”

In the context of the reference to the care assistants who are already here, does the Minister accept that those who work in the social care sector need not just technical but—if I may put it this way—cultural skills as well? I say that having talked at the weekend to a trustee of a care home who tells me that Filipino care assistants have a much better idea of how to look after elderly people than, I am afraid, British people seem to have.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we come to an important amendment, which I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept, to do right by those members of the public who in good faith purchased an ID card. The introduction of ID cards was controversial and subject to intense debate in your Lordships' House. We on this side saw the ID card scheme as a convenient and secure way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was more affordable than a passport and functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, and we saw it as a way of demonstrating eligibility to work and as proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. The parties opposite disagreed with that principle and in their election manifestos argued for abolition of the cards. For that reason, we have not at any stage sought to oppose the Bill, although in Committee we tabled some probing and constructive amendments, including this one.

The point of my amendment is this. As a result of the introduction of ID cards, 12,000 or so members of the public purchased a card for £30. The cards were for a period of 10 years. As a result of the Bill, should it successfully pass, the cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date. That is fair enough; it is a decision of the Government and is why they have brought this legislation to your Lordships' House. What is not fair is the Government’s decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card.

I have been rather disappointed by the Minister’s somewhat unsympathetic attitude. On Second Reading, she said:

“We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.

She went on to say that,

“citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 715.]

She then dismissed the potential refund of £30 as,

“rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky”.—[Official Report, 18/10/10; col. 742.]

The Minister seemed to be saying that members of the public are meant to have a thorough understanding of the views of political parties, make an assessment of who is going to win an election and then make their dispositions accordingly.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am confused—I do not know whether other noble Lords are. Is the noble Lord speaking to the first and third amendments?

[A noble Lord]

It is Amendment 2.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I did not hear because of the kerfuffle.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

In the flurry of Members leaving, the noble Baroness may have missed that my noble friend Lord Brett did not move the first group. I am talking about Amendment 2.

Even if you were to accept that argument, which I do not, the fact is that there were mixed messages. I shall read an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 24 May 2010:

“Chris Grayling, the former shadow home secretary, had signalled that there would be refunds for cancelled cards”.

So even if you accept the argument that members of the public were meant to read the newspapers to get an understanding of what the opposition parties were saying would happen with ID cards in the event that they won—that even though a member of the public had bought a card for 10 years, it was tough luck—the fact is that the position was not clear in the media and there were conflicting statements.

I encourage noble Lords to think about the wider principle, not just about ID cards and £30. An incoming Government are saying that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is simply tough luck that members of the public decided to act on that policy. They are simply expected to have this right taken away from them without any possible compensation or recompense at all. I think that that is a rather extraordinary principle to adopt. I also think that it impacts on the reputation of governments as a whole. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is really developing a new principle which can only reduce trust in government generally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

Perhaps I might concentrate on why people bought the card in the place. If they bought it, as it seems, for a purpose, and that purpose no longer obtains, there is no doubt that we are taking away something from them. Surely, therefore, the answer is not to recompense them but to enable them to continue for the period of the card’s validity to be able to do what it is they bought the card for in the first place. That is a sensible and proper way of doing it. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—though I may express myself in less elevated language—I feel that the public have every reason to believe that, if they buy something from the Government for a period of time, they should be able to continue to use it in that way. Whereas recompense is an expensive and untidy way of doing it, I really do not see why they cannot go on using it for the time that they were supposed to use it for.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for interrupting him. I think that the technical term for what was going on around here is “kerfuffle”.

I will not pretend that I have not been troubled by this issue. I am not persuaded by arguments that members of the public should have read the manifestos, certainly not in the detail that might have been expected, nor that they could have predicted the outcome of the general election. I am being told that everybody should have been reading the manifestos, but we leave it to the press to summarise them. However, the debate in Committee was about fine detail in the manifestos, and I do not think that that should be used as the basis—certainly not the only basis—for the Government’s argument.

My view is that this issue is finely balanced between taxpayers and individual cardholders. It is not the same as a consumer situation where there are two parties, the supplier of goods and the purchaser of goods. There are three parties, and the third party is the taxpayer. I understand the point that this is a comparatively small sum of money, but comparatively small sums have more value than they did a year or two ago.

The point has been made about whether this would be expropriation. That point was not taken up by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. No doubt the Minister will say something about that. I hope, too, that she will say what would be required if the cards were to go on having a use. As I understand it, it would still be necessary to retain the register. Otherwise, the cards are pieces of plastic that do not relate to anything. Quite apart from our objection to the offensiveness of the register, the cost and perhaps the confusion of retaining the register would be issues.

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, I am sorry to speak from this side against the clause, but I believe that it is morally indefensible. It is not just that it is a small sum of money, so it is particularly stupid not to pay it, but, as has been said, this sort of thing does the Government—any Government, those of the ruling political class—absolutely no good. The public will say, “They are just not to be trusted. They just can’t do things fairly”. Whoever was the civil servant and others who put up the suggestion that this money should not be compensated or that the card should not be used, I beg them to think again. We really cannot endorse something as shabby as this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

We are not actually on Amendment 4. I have been speaking to Amendment 5.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could confirm that he would be happier—I am not quite sure that I took this from his speech—for such lessons as there may be from a relatively short and limited experience to be included in the wider work that the Government are doing. Of course, one would not disagree that any available lessons should be learnt; but I doubt whether that work is as useful to Parliament if it is provided separately and discreetly from other work being done on cyber crime and related areas. It is an enormously important area and Parliament will look forward to debating it further. I am not convinced that this is precisely the way to go.

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, at Second Reading of this Bill, I suggested that, while at the moment an identity card would not help to stop fraud on the internet, it will come. There will eventually come a point when, in view of the rising number of people purchasing goods and services online, the banks and the people selling goods will insist that there is some form of identity involved in the transaction. Whether it will be putting a card into your computer or a camera that will show that you actually are the person, I do not know, but I would think the banks in particular will insist on this in the longer run, both for their own hole-in-the-wall cash machines and for buying online. The ID card, as it was originally proposed, if it had been made compulsory from the word go, as I wanted it to be, would have been one of the answers to that and would have saved the private sector very considerable sums of money in the long run.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, if I had got my act together a bit more quickly, I would have added my name to the amendment, because it is very sensible. There are some residual powers in the Bill which we need to keep an eye on. Although an Information Commissioner exists, he does not have the power to march in and look at things unless there are complaints. He would also be overextended.

We need to look out for residual powers that could give rise to concern. They come in Clause 10. Subsections (8) and (9) sensibly state that certain information which is gathered to prove someone’s identity when a passport is being issued should be destroyed after 28 days. Given that the Government will destroy the information within 28 days, I am happy for them to consult other databases—I mentioned in Committee electricity bills, which is probably the quickest way of finding whether someone has changed address or where they really are. I have no problem with the Government doing that to verify a person’s identity for the purpose of producing a passport.

However, then we get to subsection (10), which is the good old catch-all. It says that the Government can retain the information beyond 28 days for the purpose of “preventing or detecting crime”—I remember this sort of wording in RIPA, which led to a lot of grief—and “apprehending and prosecuting offenders”. Well, that depends on how quickly they apprehend them again. We should have oversight by an outside commissioner who reports to Parliament and not by a Home Secretary, because this sort of thing can get out of hand and, later, suddenly rise up to bite a Government in the future. We have several commissioners doing this sort of job elsewhere in the security world. We either add it on to someone’s job or create another one, but it is sensible for protecting the public.

[Baroness Hamwee]

In Committee I raised the point on subsection (10) to which the noble Lord referred. Is it the noble Earl or the noble Lord?

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, it is the noble Earl. It is very confusing. I am actually the Earl of Erroll, but we are in distinguished company as we have two Earls who have surnames as their titles—Earl Ferrers and Earl Attlee. However, I would still refer to them as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Thank you very much for correcting the House on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

In Committee I raised the issues on subsection (10) to which reference has just been made, and I did so for the same reasons—the concerns about, for instance, judicial oversight of a Secretary of State’s decision to retain information for these purposes. I was told then that subsection (10) reflects the provision in the Data Protection Act. I went away and looked at that, and I ought to say thank you. I was entirely happy that although the wording is a little different, it amounts to precisely the same thing. That is not to say that the issue is entirely satisfactorily dealt with. Perhaps it should be dealt with in a different way in this piece of legislation or, as I would like to see, more widely. However, I think that that is a different point.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, the Earl Ferrers, to our debates on—

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2010

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I thank the noble Baroness for her careful explanation of the regulations. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has taken us into a rather wider debate. His comments were very interesting and I hope that we will be able to hear more about that issue. There is great concern that the way in which the current cap is operating is doing real damage not just to British business and industry but to the arts and academia, as we have discussed in the House on several occasions in the past few weeks. I hope that we will receive an early announcement from the Government that they will look at the policy again and make it more flexible.

Having said that, we support the general principles that the noble Baroness has outlined. We recognise the challenge of balancing the burden of the administration of the system between the migrant and the taxpayer. My reading is that the burden on the migrant is increasing slightly, although not significantly. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that. I should also be grateful if she could say what impact the fees increase is likely to have on the number of applications. Has an analysis been carried out of the possible impact on at least the main categories of application and whether there will be any unwelcome impact on regular migration when fees are increased? The Minister rightly mentioned some of the benefits of migration, which I must say was welcome.

Has an analysis been carried out of where there is clear benefit to our country from the skills that have been brought in and of our costs and prices as compared with those of other countries, such as Australia, European Union countries and the US? To extend the theme that was mentioned by the noble Earl, we need to be mindful that this country is a great global trading nation. We must be wary of any action that we take that would undermine the ability of UK companies to attract the best people. That has been one of our great strengths over the past 30 years, which it is important that the policy on immigration should not undermine. It is worrying to hear of small companies looking to, say, New Zealand for R&D purposes because of the constraints of the current system.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the increase in the cost of visas, particularly settlement visas, is part of a more general policy to bear down on numbers. Is the price increase part of a general policy of reducing net immigration? Perhaps the Minister would also refer to the matter of the migration impact fund, which was raised by my right honourable friend when the regulations were debated in a committee of the other place. I understand that the visa fee increases of the previous year took into account a £50 million contribution from migrants to that fund, which was intended to pay for projects in constituencies with a sudden increase in the number of immigrants. The Government have decided to abolish the fund, but the amount to cover the fund is staying within the visa fee. If the Minister could give us an explanation of that, it would be extremely welcome.

Will the Minister also provide a little more explanation of the alignment between fees in country and fees out of country, which she referred to in her introduction? Is the goal to have equalisation? Given the policy of looking at the proportion or cost of the administration of the fee, what measures will be put in place in that regard?

I note the significant increase in the fee for dependants. We do not oppose that, as there is a huge benefit to the dependant, but is that increase part of a deliberate policy to deter immigrants from bringing in dependants? Is it in line with the reductions of the rights of dependants, such as work rights, as part of the scheme, or is it just a method of raising extra resources when there is pressure on budgets?

Will the Minister also reassure me that no fees or charges will be imposed on Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House who make inquiries about the progress of an immigration application, on behalf of a constituent, in the case of an MP, or of someone who has approached a Member of your Lordships' House, as happens from time to time?

I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to these questions, orally or in writing. She may take it that we support the general principles, although I share the noble Earl's concern about the wider aspects of the cap, which are doing great damage to British business at the moment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I followed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, very closely and will try not to repeat what he said, but I, too, have a number of questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked how our fees compared with those of a number of other countries. I would be particularly interested in those of EU countries, because that is the context in which we should look at ourselves.

Wider policy objectives are referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 8.2 gives the example of attracting specific groups of migrants who are beneficial to the UK. Like both the previous noble Lords, I find it difficult to separate that from the wider issues of immigration policy. Perhaps the Minister could amplify on that, without taking us into a bigger debate, which we will no doubt have very soon.

Can the Minister tell the House how the monitoring of the impact of the fees, which the Explanatory Memorandum promises will be monitored closely, will be done? Will it be a matter of looking at trends? Important as the examples that we have heard are, those examples would probably not feature very much, if at all, in the statistics. However, sometimes anecdotes are useful.

Like the noble Lord, I am happy to support the approach that has been taken in the regulations.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised in the debate, which I will try to answer.

One of the first points was on the question of a sensitivity analysis of the elasticity of demand for visas and whether price affects take-up. Partly because the impact of the fee in relation to the benefits gained is relatively marginal, there is little or no convincing evidence that the increase will have such an effect. Indeed, we have had cases—this may be regarded as perverse—in which an increase in the fee actually led to an increase in demand. The reverse is also true, as a reduction in the fee has coincided with—I do not know whether it led to—a reduction in demand. We do not have convincing evidence of a direct elasticity relationship. However, it is clearly important that we monitor what goes on, and we intend to do that. It is fair to say that there is a continuous monitoring process. In the wake of price increases, it is right and sensible that we should be particularly careful about the monitoring of their effect, and we will certainly do that.

On the competitiveness of the UK visas system with other regimes, comparisons are fairly difficult because, as Members on the Benches opposite will know, no two national systems are exactly the same. However, I will try to give some comparisons. Two comparisons that are perhaps relevant include comparator countries in the European Union, which the noble Baroness will be interested in, and some of our Anglophone competitors. France and Germany operate simplified immigration systems. In Germany, applications include a Schengen visa—comparable to a UK short-term visa—for which the fee is €60, which this month is roughly £51. France offers a Schengen visa for the same fee or a long-term visa to remain for more than 90 days, for which the fee is €99 or roughly £85. The comparable figure in the UK is £70. Overall, therefore, we mostly reside in the middle range, although we are possibly nearer the upper end for the charges for some long-term visas. I am happy to give the noble Baroness more detail in a table if she would like. To give another example, Australia charges a total fee of £1,074 for a tier 2 visa, which is a longer term visa, whereas the equivalent figure for the UK is £1,750. Ireland is much more expensive. From looking at these figures, you would not immediately say, even with the increases, that the UK is out of line with comparator migrant countries.

On the question of fees inside and outside the country, this is where one enters the Hampton Court maze of the fees structure, as the permissions for raising fees inside and outside the country are different. However, I can say to the noble Lord that equalisation is not the objective. We are raising the fees in those contexts in which we are allowed to do so and where we are able to do so without regard to whether we are going over the limits of the cost. We do not intend, or indeed have as an objective, that the fee increases or the fee structure should contribute to, or be part of, immigration policy. The issues are separate. Therefore, if noble Lords have any thought that the fee increases might somehow be a covert immigration control, I can assure them that that is not the case.

I am quite certain that we will not be charging MPs or Members of your Lordships’ House for inquiries.

Finally, on the question of the migrant impacts fund, it is indeed the case that a contribution from the visa fee previously went to feed that fund, which has now been abolished. The money will now contribute to the cost of the visa and will mitigate increases that we would otherwise have had to make.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their support for—if I understand the mood of the House correctly—the price structure that is being put in place.

Public Disorder at NUS Rally

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, there will be criticism no doubt that the policing was too light on this occasion and there was criticism that the policing of the G20 demonstrations was too heavy. Does the Minister agree that it is important that the pendulum does not keep swinging and that we seek the right level of policing for such demonstrations?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My noble friend puts the point, which I am sure we all appreciate, that these decisions are difficult. Getting the balance right between protecting the legitimate right to peaceful protest and safeguarding the public against illegitimate activity—and certainly violence—is precisely the issue that the police face. She is also right to say that in the past the police have been criticised for being too heavy-handed, whereas this time there was clearly not quite enough resource immediately available. However, once the police had learnt the nature of the situation, they were pretty fast in bringing the right sort of people in protective gear to the scene. I am sure that this is the aspect that the head of the Metropolitan Police will be looking at with great care.

Drugs: Classification

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government certainly take seriously the need to engage the community in reducing the level of drugs misuse. Later this year, the Government will produce a drugs strategy to reinforce that side of their policy, but they do not agree that it is right and proper to decriminalise all use of drugs.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we tax alcohol, we regulate tobacco use and we criminalise drug use. The Minister may not want to use words such as “hypocritical” and “cynical”, but is there a consistency in this approach?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we believe that all drugs that are classified on the list are extremely harmful to society; we do not believe that alcohol taken in moderation is harmful to society. Clearly, there is alcohol abuse, but the Government already have a strategy—and we will add to it—on reducing the possibilities of that abuse. This Government are taking measures that are rather more stringent than those of the previous Administration.

Parliament Square

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

This is getting into territory on which I tread with some trepidation. I think that the noble Lord is referring to the judgment which stated that, given the circumstances of the pavement in front of Carriage Gates which, I think it was judged, “did not lead anywhere”, it was permissible for the two protestors and those who were attached to them to continue their protest there.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that, while there are many—and I share this view—who see the value of Parliament Square as an open space which supports a site of world heritage importance, it is entirely natural and proper to allow protests in the vicinity of Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government accept my noble friend’s contention that it is right and proper for people to be able to protest peacefully within Parliament Square or its environs. The legislation will seek to restore the right also of the general public to enjoy the amenity of the square.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

13: Clause 6, page 3, line 11, after “(“P”),” insert “knowingly and”

[Baroness Hamwee]

I have Amendments 13 and 15 in this group, which also contains Amendments 14 and 16 in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips. Amendment 13 is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who has asked me to say that he is sorry that he cannot be here this afternoon and that he very much supports the amendment, which in a way is a little embarrassing for me, as this is only a probing amendment, as indeed are all my amendments this afternoon.

Amendment 13 would insert the words “knowingly and” before “without reasonable excuse” in Clause 6(1). On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, took us into some Latin terminology and I suppose that I shall, too, in asking whether mens rea—a guilty mind—is included in Clause 6(1). It is not obvious that it is covered by the phrase “without reasonable excuse” but, as the clause creates an offence, the “knowingly” aspect may well be imported in any event.

Amendment 15 would remove paragraphs (e) and (f) from Clause 7(1). It enables me to ask the Minister whether offences already exist relating to the misuse of driving licences. It struck me as odd to think that such offences came into effect only with the 2006 Act, so I would be interested to hear why it is necessary to refer to them at this point. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, the other two amendments in this group, Amendments 14 and 16, are in my name. I reiterate what my noble friend said about the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who has put his name to both my amendments.

The purpose of Amendment 14 is to get on record—this may help those who have to interpret the statute—an explanation of the difference between Clause 6(1)(a), which my amendment would delete, and Clause 4(1)(a). If the Minister could explain the intended difference between the offences laid out in those two paragraphs, that would be extremely helpful, as they are close in wording, albeit with different conditions. Amendment 14 is truly a probing amendment.

Amendment 16 relates to Clause 8, which is headed, “Meaning of ‘personal information’”. The phrase “personal information” is used in Clauses 4 and 5. My amendment seeks to clarify paragraph (l) of Clause 8(1). I ask the Committee to humour my error in framing the amendment. Its first word, “or”, is redundant and my amendment should therefore read,

“in relation to any identity documents”.

The paragraph, as it stands, refers only to “documents”, not “identity documents”, which my amendment does. The term “identity document” is defined in Clause 7, but I am concerned that the paragraph could refer to, for example, a rating return, a television licence or any one of many other documents which identify the person to whom they relate and which contain numbers allocated to person A. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether I am right or wrong in seeking to confine the personal information defined in paragraph (l) to that which relates only to identity documents, as defined in Clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am not sure that I have worked out which part of the Minister’s answer related to my amendments. It all seemed to be addressed to my noble friend. I am not sure that the Minister dealt with Amendments 13 and 15. I could of course bring them back.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I apologise. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: I failed to deal with the issue. I am concerned that the effect of Amendment 13 is to shift the burden of proof. The prosecution in these circumstances would have to prove a couple of elements. It would have to prove, first, that the defendant knew that they were in possession and, secondly, that they had no reasonable excuse so to be. In Clause 4, which covers the possession of false identity documents with improper intention, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It must prove improper intention. I hope that that clarifies the difference between what is there at the moment and what I understand to be the effect of the change that would be made by the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

In other words, one can commit an offence under Clause 6 without knowing that one is doing so. I do not mean not knowing about the law; it is not an excuse not to know what the law provides. In this case, do you not need to know, for instance, that an identity document in your possession is false or has been improperly obtained?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

It hangs on the improper intention.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I think that I am grateful for that. I do not know whether there has been an answer on my Amendment 15. I had given notice that these were probing amendments and of what was behind them. My point was simply that it was interesting that offences had to be created in this way. I would have thought that there must be offences attached to the holding of driving licences quite separately from this.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

It is not established that that is the case but I think that it is. We do not believe that the Act to which the noble Baroness refers covers driving licences. We would have to check this and provide a written answer. I suggest that we provide the noble Baroness with a more detailed answer on this between now and Report. To speed through this legislation, and in light of the fact that we will be conducting this review, I hope that noble Lords will agree not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

17: Clause 10, page 5, line 42, leave out paragraph (h)

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendment 17 is grouped with Amendment 18. Again, these are probing amendments and I hope that my questions will not cause too many anxieties. I know that there is an answer to the first one, which is to ask the Minister to explain the desirability of including a qualifying reference agency as one of the bodies in Clause 10(3). I have heard the reason informally but I think that it should be on the record.

Amendment 18 deals with the provision which allows the Secretary of State to retain information—in other words, not to have to comply with subsections (8) and (9) where he thinks that it is desirable to prevent or detect crime, or apprehend or prosecute offenders. Again, I should be grateful to hear a little more about, and to get on the record, the Government’s thinking on this.

It is clear from the debates in the House, particularly before the last election, that there is growing concern about provisions which allow the Secretary of State to take this sort of executive action, which one might think would require either an order or some judicial input. In debates in which I have taken part with regard to RIPA and parallel matters, noble Lords have suggested that magistrates should play a role because they can always grant applications when there is an urgency or a particular necessity, and that would provide some control over the Executive in a way that certainly colleagues across all sides of the House have thought would be proper in those situations. It seems that there should be justification for Clause 10. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, during the passage of the Bill in another place, the Government introduced an amended Clause 10, adding significant safeguards, and I think that it is entirely right to demand such safeguards. We specified in the Bill that data collected have to be destroyed within 28 days following the issuing of a passport unless—and this is obviously the whole point—they are retained to prevent, detect or investigate crime or prosecute offenders. My understanding is that the amendment would remove that provision, but I should like to put to the noble Baroness that it has to be recognised that an agency which is responsible for passports and civil registration should be in a position to retain information that is relevant to assisting in the pursuit of suspected or actual criminals.

I probed this issue myself to establish what the criterion for retention would be, to which I got the answer that it would indeed be “reasonable suspicion” for as long as was necessary in determining whether the suspicion would lead to a prosecution. Therefore, such retention is for a strictly limited time and for a strictly limited purpose. This has been put into the Bill so that the matter is quite obvious, and I hope that it removes all doubt about the extremely limited circumstances in which the Identity and Passport Service would be allowed to retain information. I suggest that this is really a safeguard and not a power.

The other point raised by the noble Baroness is the resort to credit reference agencies. In the process of issuing a passport, it is very important to be absolutely certain about the claims being made by the applicant. The IPS makes use of a credit reference agency because it provides the most up-to-date information on addresses and is able to provide a relevant historical perspective which is particularly useful during interviews. In the course of one’s application, one gives one’s assent to this being done. It is a part of ensuring that a British passport is a reliable document that meets the highest standards. It is a very important part of the verification process. The information is strictly limited and must be relevant to the application. It would be a bad idea to remove the ability of the IPS to maintain a high level of verification by excluding a resort to a verification process conducted by an agency which itself maintains high standards and which has become important to verification. External credit reference agencies can add to the range of agencies able to provide a high degree of security and verification in considering applications for passports. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am grateful for that answer. I recognise that Clause 10 is a recent addition to the Bill. I think that it was added without any debate in the Commons and so has not been looked at in detail previously. I guess that it indicates how old-fashioned I am that I feel slightly uncomfortable in thinking that a credit reference agency is more up to date and more accurate than a number of government departments.

Where is the accountability in subsection (10)? How can the public know how and when the power is being exercised? The provision seems to be entirely private in the way that it is drawn.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Baroness asks a perfectly reasonable question to which I shall try to get her an answer. I share her feeling that one must have accountability and that one must be certain that, at the end of the process of determining whether there is prosecutable evidence, information is destroyed. Both these things need verification.

There are two government changes to Clause 10. The first inserts a time limit of 28 days and the second defines that the information used must be strictly relevant. It is all subject to the terms of data protection legislation. While we could not be expected to inform a suspect that information about them was being held, one can rely on the fact that use of the data and all the provisions governing their retention will be subject to the terms of the data protection legislation. So they are not exempt; you cannot just do your own thing under this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can I respond to that, as we are in Committee? The noble Lord raises an important point. I have no objection whatever to the general principle behind Clause 10, which seems entirely sensible and in the public interest. It is simply a matter of ensuring that there is due process and accountability.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I wondered whether to table an amendment probing paragraph (i), but since the provision would require an order, I thought that that was the inbuilt protection which subsection (10) seems not to have.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, several questions have been raised. It is indeed the case that the contract with Experian was inserted in this Bill. We are transposing it, as it was negotiated by the previous Government. I do not think that it is contrary at all to the public interest, as it is a very reputable agency and, without doubt, it provides up-to-date and accurate information in a way that financial credit reference agencies are liable to have that information, which may be less up to date in departments of government or other organisations.

Other points were raised about the power of the Secretary of State or,

“any other person specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State”.

That should be related to the question of how such orders can be made, under Clause 11, of which subsection (3) states that it has to be by affirmative order. So there would indeed be opportunity for debate. I do not think that this power could conceivably be exercised on an arbitrary or unaccountable basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Will it be thought necessary or helpful if we find that a new organisation is holding information about citizens? I hope that we do not extend that category by much, if by anything at all.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I will endeavour to answer those two points. As regards the question posed by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the distinction depends on the individual application and on the ability of the Identity and Passport Service to determine which source of information is best suited to the application. This is therefore permissive, rather than demanding that every single source should be applied to and used.

As regards the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on judicial input, I think that what we are saying here is that a requirement to attend a magistrates’ court on every occasion when a person working for the IPS has a suspicion that there is a problem is impractical. We need to be able to ensure that there is an operational capability to deal with suspected offenders. The provision as it stands replicates the power and ability that exist in the Data Protection Act, which also provides safeguards.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I think that it was my question, so I obviously I should go away and read the Data Protection Act. I have lost my bet because I thought that the debate would be over in about three minutes, but it has taken more than 30 minutes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Intellectual Assets: Crime

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, of course many sorts of crime are involved. The original Question was clearly about espionage but there is also theft, to which the noble Lord referred—that is, crime of a more straightforward kind—and both those aspects of our intellectual underpinning in this country need to be addressed. I can give the assurance that there will be no change in the status of SOCA, which will remain central—and I mean central—to crime-fighting in this country, so there will be no diminution in our efforts on that front. As those on the Benches opposite may know, we will produce a strategy for cybercrime by the end of the year. Therefore, I can give that assurance, and we agree with those on the Benches opposite that this is a matter of high national importance.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, will the Minister tell the House of any work that is being undertaken internationally since it seems that work with other countries should be central to management of the ware?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Yes, I can give several instances but two in particular. First, the UK is developing a vision for our handling of cyber issues in the future which we will share with close allies. Secondly, noble Lords may have observed that it was announced today that we and the Government of France are seeking to co-operate on cyber matters. I believe, as the noble Baroness says, that we will not succeed in producing a secure cyberrealm in the absence of international co-operation.