Police: Protest Groups

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the police about the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, decisions on intelligence gathering are operational matters for chief officers working within the relevant legal framework. The Government do not discuss with the police the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups. The Home Office has spoken to Nottinghamshire Police about the next steps in this case, which has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is talking to ACPO and HMIC about which body is in the best position to undertake a review of the wider lessons to be learnt.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and I hope that we can have an inquiry into the workings of these police units. I am sure that she would agree that we cannot have a situation of overtly having freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate but covertly demonstrators are in fear of agents provocateurs and of being spied on and put on databases held secretly when they have no idea what is going on. Does she agree that there is far more to this than the one simple case? We need to clean up the position so that people can demonstrate. If they commit criminal acts, they will be prosecuted, but if they demonstrate in good faith, they should be able to do so without fear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is fairly clear that Nottinghamshire Police wish to have this episode investigated. They are aware that something is not quite right. We ought to await the outcome of that investigation, and indeed, if there is a wider investigation into the longer-term consequences, what HMIC will do. It is clear that there are governance issues, which ought to be looked at. The Government have already done certain things in relation to the governance of such matters. We are in favour, as is the whole House, of the right to peaceful protest and we will certainly not resile from that, but unfortunately not all protests are peaceful and in those circumstances the police need to benefit from good intelligence. Key to good policing of protests as a whole is ensuring the right to protest of those who are peaceful and limiting the activities of those who wish to do damage.

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden]

My Lords, is there a code of practice that describes the legitimate use of undercover police officers? Do not these officers, in going about their very important, difficult and often dangerous work, have to be very careful not to pressure, persuade or instigate the commission of an offence so as not to lead to their ultimate evidence being excluded by the trial judge on the grounds of unfair entrapment? If there is not a code of practice, would it not be a good idea to have one? If there is, is it being followed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My noble and learned friend makes a very important point. As I mentioned, governance in this area is a very important element. I must say that the police agree. The chief constable of West Midlands himself has said that the line is not to be crossed between infiltration to gather intelligence and the agent provocateur. He is quite right.

As to the codes of practice, the legal framework is provided for by regulations contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There is also a code of conduct and practice, which has been published by the Home Office under the previous Government, on how covert human intelligence sources should operate. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners has also provided procedural and interpretational advice.

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am telling the House what I think that it would like to know: what the governance arrangements are.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, although I have not been briefed on this issue. Can the noble Baroness confirm that all such operations would require RIPA authorisation, and what level of authorisation is required? Can she also tell us whether there is an expectation that such operations would be subject to regular internal review at a senior level regarding whether they were still appropriate and proportionate in the light of circumstances?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

RIPA—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—specifies how that should be done. The authorisation has to be by a senior officer. There has to be a regular instruction and record kept and there are various other procedures in the Act which are designed to manage and control the operation. I do not think that it is the framework that is lacking.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that undercover policing is an essential resource that has resulted in many dangerous criminals and criminal gangs being brought to justice—thanks, in large part, to the courage of the individuals involved in that work—and that it would therefore be an enormous pity if public confidence in that technique were to be diminished or undermined? In those circumstances, does she agree that undercover policing needs to be firmly controlled and used only in the most appropriate cases? Although she does not want to comment on individual cases, in general terms can she think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an undercover police officer to be embedded for seven years among a group of climate change campaigners?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that there is widespread agreement in the House with what the noble Lord has said, for which I thank him. I do not want to comment on the individual case, but clearly the length of time would need to be looked at.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the possibility of a wider review following discussions with ACPO. In view of the debate today, does she agree that there ought to be a wider review? Can she also reassure the House that the outcome of that review will be made public?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, Nottinghamshire Police are in direct contact at the moment with ACPO and HMIC. The question is who does it: who is best placed to do it. I would have thought that that is a matter that would be made public.

UK Border Agency: Visas and Passports

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I join other Members of the House in congratulating my noble friend on introducing the subject of Latin America in the context of visas. That gives me the opportunity to say something about the Government’s attitude to the relationship between this country and Latin America.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the Foreign Secretary’s recent speech at Canning House. If noble Lords have not had a chance to read it, I should inform them that it took place on 9 November. He said, in terms, that we will halt the decline in Britain’s diplomatic presence in Latin America; Britain’s retreat from the region is over and it is now time for an advance to begin; we will seek intensified and equal partnerships with countries in Latin America; and we will give much increased ministerial attention to them. I can testify to the fact, as I have been present at such meetings, that there is indeed a plan for a series of visits on different subjects to countries of the region. The Foreign Secretary’s speech spells out in greater detail what that concept of an intensified relationship should mean in practice. I hope that the House welcomes that as a starting point as it signifies a determination on the part of the Government to develop a close relationship with, and make a greater impact on, an increasingly important part of the globe with great prospects ahead of it. I am sure that in the end that redounds to the security and prosperity of this country.

I am sure that noble Lords will say that our ability to travel backwards and forwards should contribute to that and that therefore travel should be made as easy as possible. The answer to my own rhetorical question is, “Of course and indeed; that must be the objective”. The current hub-and-spoke system was introduced by our predecessor. I note the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the system. Some cases that have been cited by noble Lords undoubtedly took place on our predecessor’s watch. That apart, we need to try to make this system as friendly and efficient as possible for both parties; that is, for the authorities in this country and those who wish to visit here. The Government are conscious of this and so is the UKBA as an agency of government.

The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, quite rightly said that there are only nine countries which are visa countries for the purposes of short-stay visits. There is a wider visa regime—this is quite normal—for longer-stay visits. For short-stay visits, only nine of the 20 or so sovereign republics in South America require a visa. The Government were asked what the rationale was for the distinction between those countries that are required to apply for a visa and those that are not. The basic reason is the reliability of their documents. There must be doubt about the authenticity of the application in those countries where the documents being provided to support the application are of doubtful reliability. This is the main reason why in some countries we have to insist on a visa, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, noted in the case of Venezuela, if people are able to supply biometric detail they would be exempt. Over time one hopes that the reliability of the documents can be improved and that the number of countries where we demand a visa for a short stay can be reduced.

The aim must be a fast and fair process. I will spell out what we are trying to do to achieve that. As noble Lords clearly understand, the hub-and-spoke system has been operating since 2007. In Latin America, there are two hub countries: Columbia and Brazil. In Brazil, it is not in the capital; it is in Rio. The reason for this is that those two countries generate a sufficient number of applications to justify having a hub on the ground. Apart from that, it is a spoke system.

It is indeed the case that individuals have to apply online. There is no alternative, but I will come to some of the services that are allied to that in a moment. I understand the reservations that noble Lords have about the obligation to apply online and in English. All I can say is that, in the end, this will turn out to be advantageous to those making applications in a country where the internal distances are very great. I shall spell out why I think that is the case. Not everybody lives in Buenos Aires in Argentina; they may live in Patagonia, and so on. One has to be both realistic about the costs that we are expected to bear as the supplier of visas, but also about the relevant efficiencies for both sides of introducing modern technology into the system. I understand that the elderly are not always able to cope with a computer, but usually there is a young relative who can help them. So I do not think that we will depart from the notion that the application should be made online.

Once the application has been made online, there is then the question of the provision of biometric data. A number of noble Lords have said that this requires a journey. In the case of Asuncion, where unfortunately for some time now we have not had a mission, it would require a visit to Buenos Aires, which is the nearest point. One of the improvements that the Government are introducing to countries where this problem arises is the so-called mobile clinic, where people are available on the ground. This requires a suitcase-full of kit in order to be able to take people’s biometrics. Increasingly we want to introduce mobile facilities, most particularly in those places where otherwise a long journey, possibly even to another country, might be required. I am not saying that that is going to be the case everywhere immediately, but the aim is certainly to make the system itself self-contained and more efficient.

Another complaint, not in fact mentioned this evening but which I understand to be the case, is that while the online system is painless for both parties if all goes smoothly and there are no hitches in the application, if there is something anomalous in an application it might result in a rejection. One of the other things that we are trying to do—and a lot of these services are now supplied by commercial partners of the Government—is to improve this with the use of the telephone, and not to require payment for that; that is to say that I can ring up and discuss this application with those processing it for me. I hope that, over time, this will reduce the number of rejections that take place for reasons that the applicant feels they need to appeal against. Of course, there are rules about the basis on which appeals can take place. Again, I come back to the point that we are trying to make the system efficient but also flexible and friendly.

In trying to improve the system that people are using, we must also have regard to the efficiency of the operation in New York, which is the processing centre for the Americas. I do not have to say that that situation will not change. A number of noble Lords asked whether we would nevertheless review the system. Within its terms, we shall do just that. The independent inspector will shortly review the operations of the New York hub and the relationship between that hub and its spokes. The review is within striking distance. If there are systemic problems with how the system is operating, I hope that this will be the opportunity for change and improvement to take place. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that notice is taken of what the independent inspectors say and do in relation to the operations of the UK Border Agency.

Apart from the regular review, if it becomes obvious that there is a problem with the system—and it is very important that we learn of the various issues that noble Lords become aware of—we would try to see if it was a systemic problem or something that was in need of correction. I assure noble Lords that under this Government the system will try not to be deaf but will respond to complaints about the inadequacies of the system if clearly there is something that we can do about them.

I hope that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords. I will give one statistic that I hope demonstrates that the system is both capable of improvement and is improving. In 2009, when some of these examples of slow procedure took place, it took up to 25 days to process applications from Latin America. By July and August last year—12 months later—the average time had fallen to nine days. I hope that noble Lords will accept that that is a significant improvement.

The agency is looking at one further thing that over time will improve the system. I cannot promise that it will happen immediately, but it is being trialled. Instead of the individual having to lodge their passport or travel document with British authorities while the process takes place, which I accept can be inconvenient and may inhibit their travel plans, we aim to move over time towards a situation in which there can be a remote printout of the visa at the spoke, which will mean that the document does not have to travel backwards and forwards. That will be a material change which depends to some extent on the technological capability of the spoke, which is also something that, costs allowing, we intend to try to rectify.

I am not able, I fear, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about staffing, but I shall write to him. I do not believe that in the case of the area we are talking about there will be moves of a kind that will decrease efficiency. I hope that I have answered the material points that have been raised.

My noble friend Lady Nicholson asked about Baghdad, which is outside the scope of this debate. It is fair to say that the circumstances reigning in Baghdad are exceptional. They are not typical of the system and the safety of our staff has to be taken into account. That lies in the background, among other things, for the arrangements that may prevail there, although I am not intimate with them. That is not typical of the hub-and-spoke system, or indeed of the conditions in Latin America.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I acknowledge that Members of your Lordships’ House sought earlier to determine whether I had, following Report, sought to obtain further legal advice. At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the House will be aware that, by long-standing convention observed by successive Administrations and embodied in the Ministerial Code, the fact that law officers have or have not advised on a particular issue and the content of any advice are not disclosable outside the Government.

I have consulted Hansard and spoken to officials during the adjournment. I did say on Report that I would confirm the advice that we had received on legal aspects. I am able to confirm that I did just that, that the contents of the Bill are compatible with ECHR requirements and that I have given that commitment based on legal advice. I have taken appropriate legal advice at all stages of the Bill, including Report. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that the convention of the House, which I have tried to follow, does not enable me to disclose the source of that advice, but I am satisfied that I have taken it.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Minister is fulfilling a commitment to the House. I think that the noble Lord is now graciously allowing her to do so.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, my main intent during the debate has been to fulfil my duty to your Lordships’ House and I have done everything that I can to do that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for coming back to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for entertaining us for so many minutes before she was able to do so. I will be very clear. The Minister has answered one specific point that was raised on Report. However, I remind her that she was asked whether advice was received from the law officers. The noble Baroness said, “I will confirm the advice that I have received”. She has now answered that point. However, she was also asked by my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Aberavon, who is a former law officer, whether the advice was from the law officers. The noble Baroness said:

“I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 792.]

She has not answered that point, nor has she given an assurance to the House that, following Report, she did anything at all in relation to the commitments that she gave.

I hear what the noble Baroness says about the disclosure of the law officers’ advice. That is a separate point to the one asked by my noble and learned friend, who asked whether advice had been sought from the law officers. That is a different issue. On the issue of the availability of advice from the law officers, would the noble Baroness be prepared to let me see that advice on Privy Council terms? The substantive issue that this raises is about Ministers making commitments to the House and then following them up. It is a matter that I will return to in the fullness of time.

The further substantive issue is one of fairness. Thousands of people bought ID cards on the basis that they were for a 10-year period. The Government have decided to withdraw those cards and this Bill enables them to do so. That is parliamentary democracy. We did not oppose the Bill, because we recognised that commitments were made in the manifestos of both parties in the coalition Government. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, the issue is one of fairness. How can it possibly be fair, when a person has bought a card for 10 years, for it to be withdrawn after a matter of months and for no compensation to be given? It is an absolute disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall confine myself to brief questions. First, the Minister indicated that legal advice had been taken. Will she accept that there is a difference, which concerns noble Lords, between taking legal advice on these matters and taking legal advice from the law officers?

The second matter arises out of the noble Baroness’s statement that it is a convention that Ministers do not confirm whether or not legal advice has been sought from the law officers. Does she accept that it is a different matter if she has given a specific assurance to the House that legal advice will be sought from the law officers and that it is entirely appropriate that she should confirm to the House whether her own assurance has been fulfilled?

My third and final question is: will she also accept that it is not a universal rule that the Government do not tell the House whether legal advice has been sought from the law officers? There are many, many examples of the Government telling this House and the other place that legal advice has been sought from the law officers. Professor Edwards’s book, Law Officers of the Crown, gives many examples, the most recent of which, of course, relates to the legality of the invasion of Iraq.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is not clear to me how much more help I can be to the House. I have tried very hard to be of help. Perhaps I can take up the points that have been made. I was asked in the House—I am looking at Hansard—whether the advice was from the law officers. I said that I was not sure but would seek to confirm it. That is indeed what I undertook to do. I am advised that I am not in a position to disclose either the fact of seeking that legal advice or its contents. That is why I am not able to take what I have said to the House this afternoon any further. The only way that I could do that would be—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness may find this disagreeable, but we are fully entitled to ask these questions. She says that she is not in a position to do so but, first, why did she not write to noble Lords following Report? Why does she treat this House with such disrespect? This is not the first time that she has not followed up debates by writing to noble Lords. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, when she says that she is not in a position to disclose, I think that she is saying that, as a Minister, she is not prepared to do so, whereas in fact she could very easily do so.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord has just said. I treat this House with the greatest possible respect and I hope that I command it. I am acting on advice. I am not in a position to comment any further on whether advice was sought from the law officers. I have confirmed to the House that appropriate legal advice was sought at all stages of this legislation.

Motion A agreed.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I must say that I am rather disappointed that the Minister has not sought to give any explanation at all as to why the Government have not given further consideration to this matter. In fact, it is quite extraordinary that she gave no explanation at all to your Lordships’ House.

On 12 November, this House agreed by a substantial majority to an amendment to give compensation to ID cardholders whose cards are due to be cancelled. The Commons have now sent it back to us on the grounds of financial privilege. As it is a privilege reason, my understanding is that it would be contrary to convention to send back another amendment, which would clearly invite the same response. The debate this afternoon none the less affords an opportunity to the House to indicate to the Minister the strength of feeling on this matter and, even at this late stage, to ask the Government to reconsider.

The introduction of ID cards was 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the House do not insist on its amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason given.

Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) giving cardholders the option of being reimbursed £30 on surrendering their ID cards by such a date and pursuant to such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

Because it would impose a charge on the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, consideration of the Bill during its passage through this House and the other place has recognised that the decision to scrap the ID card and destroy the national identity register was a commitment in the general election manifestos of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. That commitment formed part of the coalition agreement published on 12 May, and the Government introduced this Bill to Parliament on 26 May. We have acted swiftly in achieving our manifesto commitment and believe that the Bill’s purpose, which is to remove the intrusive ID card scheme and the national identity register from the statute book, has widespread support in the country.

Noble Lords are today focusing on the detail of the decommissioning process rather than on the significance of a Government destroying a national database. The Bill is a major step in removing the state from unnecessary and undesirable intrusion in the personal life of the individual. We should not forget the significance of the Bill, nor should we minimise the landmark action of a Government legislating to get rid of a national database. However, there are costs associated with dismantling the scheme. In incurring those costs, the public must be confident that taxpayers’ money is being spent effectively and efficiently. The ID card scheme and associated work on biometrics and policy development has to date cost the taxpayer £292 million. Further costs of about £5 million will be incurred in dismantling the scheme.

Further spending would be required if we were to provide refunds. I am aware of the strength of sentiment that has been expressed on this point, but this proposal would cost around £400,000. That may not seem much in the grand scheme of spending to date by the previous Administration on ID cards, and it may be that some Members of this House consider it an insignificant sum, but this is not how the coalition Government look at public finance. We are tackling the deficit which we inherited. We are doing that by ensuring that moneys are spent only where necessary and that such spending delivers more for less. Providing a refund on ID cards does not meet any of those criteria.

I am not ignoring the fact that cardholders spent £30 each on a card for which there will be no further use on enactment of this Bill.

[Lord Maxton]

If no compensation is to be paid, then presumably the card will become the property of the person who holds it. We briefly debated that point when we considered the Bill. Does that mean that the person who now holds the card as their own property, as they are not being given any compensation for it, will be able to use it to prove their identity in certain circumstances, such as for young people in pubs, or whatever else it might be?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we allowed the Minister to lay out her stall, as in doing so she may very well answer the noble Lord’s point. I know that the Minister is very keen that all noble Lords’ questions are answered.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I will respond to the noble Lord’s point. The answer is no. The card does not have value or efficacy because it is no longer attached to a database which would enable it to be a valid document that could prove your identity. It is simply a piece of paper, because there is nothing behind it.

I am not ignoring the fact that the cardholder spent £30 on a card for which there is no further use. During debates here and in the other place opponents of the Bill indicated that the decision to refuse to issue refunds will affect the poorest or the less well off members of society. However, there is no socioeconomic breakdown of cardholders, so neither noble Lords opposite nor the Identity and Passport Service can indicate the economic status of cardholders. I cannot imagine the circumstances in which a person struggling to make ends meet would think that buying an ID card was a necessity. If the ID card scheme was intended to allow travel to Europe or to provide proof of identity to get into pubs and clubs, then, frankly, it is doubtful that we should consider this form of purchase to satisfy the criterion of core household spending.

There is no provision in the Identity Cards Act, which the Benches opposite passed in 2006, for applicants short of cash or on a limited income—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, as there have been a number of interruptions, and we are perhaps following precedents which perhaps should have been challenged before, I shall just read to Members on both sides what the Companion says on this matter:

“A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with the traditions and customary courtesy of the House. It is, however, recognised that a member may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance, in the middle of an argument, or to repeated interruption, or in time-limited proceedings when time is short. Lengthy or frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent of the member speaking”.

I suggest that we stick to the Companion.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That legislation did not put in place a scheme to offer financial support to buy cards at the point of issue, nor was there any provision for specific groups, based on social or economic factors, or both, to have cards free of charge or at a reduced rate. It was not considered an issue. Clearly the previous Administration did not consider that ID cards were an essential household purchase or a requirement for those who have to live on low levels of income. That remains the case with the refunds policy.

I acknowledge that the intention of noble Lords is to ensure that the individual is protected where appropriate. That is a key and important function of this House. In this case, however, we have to protect the interests of the taxpayer. We should not be spending yet further sums of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that has very little public support and that would be scrapped on enactment of this legislation by Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for intervening rather too early in proceedings. I have listened very carefully to the Minister but, although she says that she has listened, she appears surprisingly unsympathetic to the thousands of people affected. What really worries me is that she is completely oblivious to the precedent that is being set.

At Second Reading, she said that,

“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 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.]

On Report, the argument had advanced. The noble Baroness said:

“We do not believe that the statutory basis of the issue of ID cards creates a contract or anything akin to a contract in relations between the Secretary of State and the cardholder. Remedies that would be available in the courts if the contract were governed by the law of contract or consumer legislation … is not available for identity cards”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 792.]

Today, we hear this argument about the socioeconomic background of holders of the card. What on earth has that got to do with it? This is a matter of principle.

Let us just think about the wider principle, not just in relation to ID cards and the sum of £30. For example, an incoming Government say that because they disagreed with the original policy of a previous Government, it is just tough luck on members of the public who decided to act on the provision that became available as a result of the actions of the previous Government. Does the Minister not see that, in refusing to refund the £30, she is developing a new principle that will essentially reduce trust in Governments generally?

What policies might this apply to in the future? If we were to accept the logic of the noble Baroness’s argument, it would be open to an opposition party to say, “We don’t agree to a policy being brought in by the current Government”. If, subsequently, that opposition party came into Government, they could simply rescind the policy and refuse to pay any compensation if that policy had involved an outlay of money by members of the public. That is simply not the right way to treat people in this country. For instance, that was not the way in which the previous Government dealt with the assisted places scheme. We abolished that scheme but we allowed children in receipt of an assisted place to complete the remainder of that phase of their education.

It is no wonder that on Report the noble Baroness’s noble friend Lord Vinson described the Government’s position as “morally indefensible”. What is her response to my noble friend Lord Richard who pointed out that,

“identity cards were not sold on the basis of, ‘You are buying it from a Labour Government, but if another one come in, things may change and you may have to renegotiate it’”? —[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 789.]

What does she say to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, who thought that the Government were guilty of mis-selling? As he said,

“If you expect a member of the public, seven months ahead of the general election, to be able to predict its outcome, there are a lot of geniuses among the public whom we ought immediately to recruit to become pollsters”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 787.]

Has she taken on board the comments made by her noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury? On Report, he said:

“Governments must set an example of the standards they expect of private industry. Had private industry engaged in a tactic of this sort, noble Lords on all the Benches would have been up in arms, and rightly so”.—[Official Report, 17/11/10; col. 785.]

On Report, the noble Baroness said that she would look at the matter again. The defeat of the Government after her comments required no less. I would ask her what form her further consideration took. Will she say why the Government are not taking on board the views of this House? She cannot simply hide behind financial privilege.

She also said on Report that she would seek advice on whether the Government risked legal challenge from the holders of ID cards since the Government are essentially confiscating cards without compensation. She was asked by the noble and learned Lord Morris of Aberavon to confirm that the advice she received came from the law officers. Will she inform the House whether the law officers gave such advice?

Finally, I appeal to the noble Baroness to consider the matter again. The Government are setting an extraordinary and dangerous precedent by not paying compensation. Such a precedent goes much wider than ID cards and would be very unfortunate as regards trust in government. She should think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer]

As a compromise to this extraordinarily heated debate, would it not be worth considering that those people who have invested £30 on an ID card could put that cost against their next tax return?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we have had another lively debate on this subject. Perhaps I can deal with some of the issues to which it has given rise. On compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government would not put forward legislation that they did not believe to be compatible with the convention. We believe this Bill to be compatible with the convention. I hope that that is a clear statement. We believe it to be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can the Minister confirm that the law officers have given such advice? She said on Report that she would find out. I am surprised that here we are, over a month away, and noble Lords who took part in that debate have not yet been informed of that.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I repeat to the House that the Government believe that this legislation is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not think that I am obliged to say whether or not we have consulted the law officers, nor to say what legal advice we have taken. However, we believe it to be compatible with the convention. As we take our duties seriously, that is a clear statement to the House that we believe that we are acting lawfully.

[Lord Pannick]

Does the Minister appreciate that the question is not simply whether or not the Government are satisfied that the Bill that they are putting forward is compatible with the convention? Will she address the point that on the previous occasion, and in the debate today, a specific concern has been raised about why it is feared that the Government’s position is incompatible with the convention? That is why it was suggested to the Minister on the previous occasion that specific advice should be taken from the law officers on this precise point. I am sure that it would assist the House if the Minister were at least able to say whether she went back to the law officers in the light of the debate on the previous occasion, and in the light of the specific concern that was raised, in order to assure herself and noble Lords that that point had been considered and the Government were satisfied with regard to it.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not think that I am able to enlighten the House any further on the question of taking legal advice. We believe our actions to be lawful.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I have the record of our debate on the previous occasion in Hansard. I asked, and my noble friend Lord Hunt has referred to this:

“On the assumption that no advice has been obtained from the law officers on these matters, would it be prudent before the next stage of the Bill to obtain such advice?”.

The Minister replied:

“My Lords, I will confirm the advice that I have received”.

I asked:

“Is the advice from the law officers?”,

and the Minister replied:

“I am not sure that I can confirm that. I will seek to do so before Third Reading”—

that is, confirmation that advice had been received from the law officers.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think the House knows that it is a strong convention that we do not reveal the source of legal advice. I am confirming to the House that we believe that we are acting lawfully.

[Lord Sewel]

As I understood it, it is quite right and proper that a Minister does not reveal the nature of the advice that has been received from law officers. It is another matter for the Minister to confirm whether or not advice has been sought, and it is that second question that the House wants an answer to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Advice is sought on legal points in the normal course of events.

[Lord Higgins]

The question is really quite simple. When this was debated last time, we understood that my noble friend would go back and take advice from the law officers. What that advice may be is one thing, but can she confirm that she did in fact go back to the law officers and seek their advice?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think what I said was that I could not confirm that the law officers had been consulted, and I cannot confirm that today either. I am afraid that I cannot take this issue any further. We believe that we are acting lawfully; I would hope that that was a good answer to the House. We are acting lawfully.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

If it is the case that the Minister cannot confirm whether or not the law officers were consulted, is she in fact confirming that she did not go back and seek the advice of the law officers, as the House had requested and as she had undertaken?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am neither confirming nor denying; I am simply saying that I cannot take this any further.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

Is it the case that the noble Baroness does not know whether advice has been sought from the law officers, or is it that she thinks it is inappropriate to tell the House whether advice has been sought from the law officers?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I really have nothing more that I can say on this subject. Could I go on to the question of financial—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

Why is the noble Baroness unable to answer the very relevant question put by my noble friend?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Because I think it is inappropriate to answer it and I cannot take the matter any further. I am very sorry, but I do not think that I can take this any further. The House has made its point and I have given an answer. The House may not regard this answer as satisfactory.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

On the specific point, the noble Baroness said:

“I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.

That was a promise made to the House in the course of the deliberations. Did she seek to do so before today’s proceedings? Has she made any attempt to do so? We know the conventions, which have been broken over the years. One could give a series of examples of the law officers coming to another place to give advice. They can do so, so it is not a convention that cannot be breached at all, but I come back to the simple statement that the noble Baroness made:

“I will seek to do so before Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 17/11/2010; col. 792.]

Did she seek to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

This is becoming rather a sterile exchange. I am not able to enlighten the House further.

[Lord Howie of Troon]

My Lords, this has become somewhat unsatisfactory. Is it not time to send for the Leader of the House?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

This is a matter for the House, but I should like to answer the other points that have been made.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness but she really has not answered the substance of the concern. I suggest that the only way she can do that is by telling the House whether or not the law officers have been consulted. It is a matter for the House what step to take but I suggest to the noble Baroness that the appropriate step for it to take is to adjourn further consideration of this matter until she is able at least to assure it that the concerns that have been expressed by a number of noble Lords have been considered by the law officers. I entirely accept that there is no obligation on the Government to tell the House what the advice of law officers is but it must be assured that they have been consulted on this matter. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to accept that the appropriate step is for further consideration to be adjourned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, does this not go to the heart of parliamentary government as we know it and understand it in this country? The Minister gave a clear and solemn undertaking on a previous occasion that she would seek the law officers’ advice on a specific point. How can it possibly be “inappropriate”, to use her term, for her now to tell the House whether or not she fulfilled that solemn commitment? It is quite clear to me that if the Minister gives a solemn commitment and then refuses to say even whether that commitment has been fulfilled, and the House does nothing about it and simply goes away, we have abdicated our responsibilities as a Parliament.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am just not in a position to advise what information has been provided by the law officers, but I can confirm that we are satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the ECHR. I have an answer on the substance. Could we perhaps turn to the question of financial privilege?

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The question has been asked as to whether the Government are “sheltering behind financial privilege”. The Government are quite clear that they do not actually think that it is justified to refund this money. The Government’s position is very clear on the substance. As regards the issue of financial privilege, the Commons cannot even make a determination without the House of Lords itself putting forward a proposition. One has to have the proposition from the Lords before the House of Commons can take a view on that. It is obviously then a matter for the Commons to determine. The Government are not going to avail themselves—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, that is well understood. The Commons did not consider this matter; it was simply returned to this House with financial privilege. I have no doubt that that might happen again. The point is that the Government were given a number of weeks to reconsider the matter. The noble Baroness, on Report, wished to dissuade the House from voting and said that she would give the matter further consideration. She has not explained what further consideration has been given and why the Government are sticking to the principle of no compensation despite the clear majority of votes on the matter in your Lordships' House.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government have given it further consideration and decided that they are not going to supply refunds. That was the position of the House of Commons. It is very clear that the Government are not going to avail themselves of the opportunity to waive financial privilege. This amendment would impose a charge on the taxpayer. Our view is that the taxpayer should be saved from having the charge imposed. Citizens are also taxpayers, not simply purchasers of ID cards.

On the substance of the matter, I say that we should have a sense of proportion about £30. It is absolutely not the same as, for instance, the example cited by the noble Lord opposite of assisted places for children. Of course, if a child had an assisted place, their educational career depended on it, and the policy changed, one would not cut off a child who was in mid-educational career. That is utterly different from a payment of £30. We should keep a sense of proportion. We do not believe that the purchase of the card constitutes any kind of contract between the Government and the taxpayer. Therefore, we do not believe that there is an obligation on the Government to refund the money, so the Government do not intend to do so.

The card will no longer have a database behind it to demonstrate its validity. Of course, it will not be an illegal act for someone to use it when they go to the pub. However, it has no legal validity, and one could perfectly well use a passport or driving licence for that purpose. For all these reasons, the Government do not believe that it is right—

[Lord Berkeley]

Will the Minister explain what would happen if someone used one of these ID cards to go for a short holiday on the continent? It is a lot cheaper to buy an ID card than a passport. She may say that £30 is nothing to people who go on holiday, but that is a slightly arrogant approach. She says that the card could be used in pubs that ask for ID, but that no one will be able to check it against a database. However, we all know, from going into and out of this country, that there are different ways of being checked by electronic means. Will these identity cards still work when one goes through immigration or will they be cancelled?

The Minister says that the database has been abolished. I doubt whether any database ever gets abolished, because MI5 or someone else will want to keep it. At what stage will the ID card not work when one goes through immigration, and what is the other solution? Not everyone has a driving licence—why should they? Will it be the case that one cannot go abroad unless one has a passport, so that going abroad will not be possible for people who cannot afford a passport? I would be glad if the Minister would respond to some of those questions.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The ID cards will not have a database behind them. The previous Government decided that the database should be separate from the passport database. It is not possible to join up the two databases because they are not compatible; that is one of the problems. This database will not exist. Therefore, the ID card, although it might be regarded as a courtesy proof of age, for instance in a pub, will have no legal validity at the border. The receiving country might be willing to accept it, but I fear that the individual might not get back into this country because they would have to show a document that had a database behind it.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, can we return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick? It is a very simple point. The citizen acquires an identity card that becomes his or her possession. The Government, as is their right, withdraw the card and it is nullified. Have the Government fulfilled their obligation not under the Human Rights Act, as we have been invited to do, but under the European convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us? That, for me, is the crucial issue. It is crucial because the Government are required to declare that their legislation complies with the European convention. Can the Minister give that assurance?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Yes, my Lords, I give the assurance that we believe this legislation to be compatible with our commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights. I have tried very hard to answer the House’s points and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords—

Immigration: High Court Ruling

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my friend the Minister of State for Immigration. The Statement is as follows.

“In June, when the Government announced that they would consult on how to implement a permanent limit on economic migrants, we also said that we would impose an interim limit, until the permanent one took effect. This was to avoid a surge of applications in anticipation of the permanent limit.

The interim limit was given effect through changes to the Immigration Rules which were laid before Parliament and on which an oral Statement was made. On Friday, we received the judgment that the changes announced provide insufficient legal basis for the operation of the interim limit.

The judgment was based on a technical procedural point, known as Pankina grounds. The court decided that this meant more detail about the manner in which the limit is set, including its level, should have been included in the Immigration Rules changes laid before Parliament.

I would like to make it clear that the judgment of the court was concerned solely with the technicalities of how the interim limits were introduced. It was in no way critical of, or prejudicial to, the Government’s policy of applying a limit to economic migration to the United Kingdom, either permanently or on an interim basis.

The policy objective of a limit in migration has not been called into question and I am now considering what steps are required to reapply an interim limit consistent with the findings of the court.

Tomorrow I will be laying changes to the Immigration Rules which will set out the details the court required. This will enable us to reinstate the interim limits on a clear legal basis. The House will be interested to know that I will also be laying changes to the rules tomorrow to close applications under the tier 1 general route from outside the United Kingdom, as the original level specified on this tier has been reached. I can reassure the House that the policy of using these limits as part of our overall policy of reducing net migration is unchanged. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the urgent question in the other place as a Statement.

Migration has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to our country, but it is also essential that it is properly controlled for reasons of both economic well-being and social cohesion. Over the past few years, the previous Government put in transitional controls on EU migration; a suspension of unskilled work permits; a tough but flexible points system to manage skilled migration; tighter regulation of overseas students, leading to the closure of 140 bogus colleges; and new citizenship requirements for those seeking settlement.

At the general election, the leader of the Conservative Party proposed to go further in two key respects. First, he proposed a new target to reduce net migration to tens of thousands by 2015. To meet that target he pledged a cap on immigration, which he said would be tougher than the points system. Since then, the Government have been in wholesale retreat.

The Home Affairs Committee and the Migration Advisory Committee have highlighted that the cap not only excludes EU migration but covers only 20 per cent of non-EU migration. The CBI, Chambers of Commerce, universities, UK and foreign companies have highlighted the damage the Government’s proposals would have meant for business investment and job creation.

As a result, we have the retreat confirmed by the Home Secretary on 23 November. We have also learnt of the funding cuts in the noble Baroness’s department, leading to the cutting of the number of border officers and staff by nearly a quarter, raising serious questions about the security of our borders and whether the Government’s policy can actually be implemented.

We come to the way in which the Home Secretary imposed the cap. On 28 June, the Home Secretary came to the other place to announce, without consultation, an immediate and temporary cap on non-EU migration. Details of this cap were then posted on the Home Office website, but not presented to Parliament. On Friday, the High Court ruled that the actions of the Home Secretary were in fact illegal. Lord Justice Sullivan said,

“There can be no doubt that she”—

the Home Secretary—

“was attempting to sidestep provisions for Parliamentary scrutiny … and her attempt was for that reason unlawful”.

As a result, the Government’s much heralded cap does not in fact exist. As Lord Justice Sullivan said,

“no interim limits were lawfully published … by the Secretary of State … there is not, and never has been, a limit on the number of applicants who may be admitted”.

In the light of this chaotic situation, on the consequences of the error, what is the status of those who applied under the illegal cap but were rejected? Will their applications now be granted? Can the Minister tell the House how many more migrants she now expects to enter the UK, while the cap is out of action? And in this light, is it still the target of this Government to cut net migration to tens of thousands by 2015, as the Prime Minister pledged before the election? Or is this mistake one reason why the Home Secretary is now trying to water down this target to just an aim?

Secondly, how did we get into this mess in the first place? Did Ministers ask for and receive legal advice before the summer about the legality of the temporary cap and the rushed way they were introducing it? Can she confirm that, in fact, Ministers were warned by officials and lawyers that there was a real risk of legal challenge if Parliament were bypassed in this way? Will the Minister agree to lay before Parliament all the legal advice on which the decision to proceed was based in order to dispel the impression that they have acted in a reckless and chaotic manner and to show that Home Office Ministers have nothing to hide in this regard?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am extremely glad to hear that noble Lords opposite can agree that migration into this country needs to be controlled. The problem is that it is insufficiently controlled. The Government remain attached to their target of controlling migration down to levels of the tens of thousands that we had at the beginning of this century.

It is not clear to me how the noble Lord gets the idea that the Government are in “wholesale retreat”. Let me give him an example of the way in which the Government are most certainly not in wholesale retreat. In the Statement, it was announced that we were closing the applications for the limit on tier 1 general. This is because the limit of 5,100 has already been reached. Had we gone on at the same rate, we would have had a higher level of migration under that tier; it would probably be roughly double what it was last year. We do not consider that an acceptable rate of migration, and we have therefore closed that category. So it is not at all clear to me that we are in “wholesale retreat”.

Of course, we have yet to see the statement and the judgment in writing. It would be unwise of me to go too far until we have seen that. What seems to be clear is that the court was critical of the decision to put the cap limit into the guidance, rather than into the rules. I am not aware that there are further problems. Did the Home Office take legal advice on the matter? Yes, it did. Are the Government going to publish that legal advice? No, the previous Government did not do so, and we are not going to do so either.

[Lord Ryder of Wensum]

My Lords, I express two declarations of interest. My first is as the chairman of the Institute of Cancer Research. I made a speech in your Lordships’ House some weeks ago expressing my severe misgivings about aspects of the Government’s policy, in which I said that that policy, as it stands at present, is preventing eminent international scientific researchers from entering this country. That is clearly an unintended consequence—yet another example of some of the unintended consequences that have streamed from Whitehall during the past few weeks.

My second declaration of interest is as a former business manager in the other House and as a member of the Legislation Committee for seven years. The notion that this is a technical oversight is not true; it is a kindergarten error. I cannot recall in my time on the Legislation Committee, or as a business manager in the other place, anyone overlooking the parliamentary procedure to which my noble friend refers.

Some weeks ago I had a meeting with the Minister of State at the Home Office in which I set out my views on the unintended consequences of his actions, and he promised to write to me. I have still not heard back from him—perhaps this is an intended consequence of our meeting. Will my noble friend please assure me that in future these errors will not be committed by the Home Office and will she give me further reassurance that she will have a word with Ministers in the Home Office to ensure that between now and April, when these matters come into permanent effect, they will look seriously at the misgivings that some of us have expressed about their policy over the past few weeks?

[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.

[Lord Richard]

Do the Government intend to consult Parliament now? If so, how are they going to do it? The Minister said that there would be increased rigidity. What did she mean by that?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

As I said, my Lords, the object of the Statement tomorrow will be to get us into conformity, as we understand it, with the judgment. Then, when we see the judgment in writing, if we need to make further changes in the light of that, we will certainly do so. It is not clear to me how much clearer I can be on the question of the nature of the rigidity introduced by the cap. There is complex drafting involved in putting a limit in the rules to give us the ability then to change it, which is why the Government decided, in order to retain flexibility, that we would keep the limit in the guidance.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that new controls over migration are of limited value unless there is effective border control over those entering and leaving the country? Does she therefore understand my disappointment that she has apparently decided that the coalition agreement pledge to “reintroduce exit checks” cannot be fulfilled until 2015, which is later than the former Labour Government planned to introduce this change? Given that her Written Answers to me reveal that only some 5 per cent of those departing the UK are currently subject to exit controls, and that there is complacency at the Home Office on the need for urgent action, will she hold urgent discussions with our right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to whom she is responsible for national security, with a view to getting something done?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am not clear quite how relevant the points that my noble friend has just made are to this debate. Most of the people coming in, except for a very small number, are sponsored to this country, so it will not be difficult to know when they are moving—their employers will not be able to have a new person in, in the absence of being able to demonstrate that those who previously had that sponsorship have left.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, she said that the Government will be involving the other place in the proposed changes to be announced tomorrow. Will there be a similar process whereby this House can be involved with those changes?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That is a matter for the usual channels.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, it is not the intention of the Government that we question but the fact that this has bypassed the scrutiny of Parliament, which was precisely what the judgment was all about. May I ask the Minister about something that is still not clear? She mentioned that a Statement would be made tomorrow. Are we expecting a Statement or are we expecting changes in the rules for the interim cap? Either way, will we have the opportunity in Parliament to debate or at least to comment on the changes to the rules?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Statement will deal with the changes in the rules. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to say that the rules will then change immediately—that is to say, the rule change will be commenced immediately to rectify tier 2. Also, as was contained in the Statement, the Government will be closing tier 1 on 23 December. As a result of these timetable changes, it will not be possible to meet the 21-day convention for laying rules, but we will write to the Merits Committee about that matter.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, if the object of the Government’s policy is to reduce net migration, is not her noble friend’s question about numbers of people leaving the country extremely relevant and should not that therefore be taken into consideration?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Hundreds of thousands of people leave the country. This is normal travel. Among that number are those who are here on some kind of immigration visa for the purposes of employment. As I said, very few of those who come here to work come without any kind of sponsorship. There is a small category of entrepreneurs and investors who are in that position. Otherwise, people who come here to work have sponsors. Sponsors are not able to replace them. There cannot be a net increase in the migration to this country in the absence of the person who sponsored the employment giving notification of the departure of the employee and the reinstatement of a new person, if they wish it. We can therefore keep control and knowledge of movement of people in this position.

[Lord Kilclooney]

My Lords, the Government are right to recognise the concern that the population at large has on the number of immigrants coming into the United Kingdom. The present cap, however, applies only to non-EU countries—presumably that includes Australia, Canada and New Zealand. There is also increasing concern at the number of immigrants coming from within the European Union, which will increasingly become a political problem in the United Kingdom. Are the Government avoiding that issue simply because they are members of the European Union and can do nothing about it?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we are members of the European Union and there are obligations for free movement of labour within the European Union. The noble Lord is right to say that we honour our obligations.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, would my noble friend suggest that somebody in the Home Office should advertise on the internet on one of the job vacancy websites such as Gumtree and see who answers the advertisement? She would find, as I have found, that a large number of the applications would come from people who have student visas—I am glad to see the noble and learned Baroness over there, because she has had experience of getting caught on this, as I very nearly did—and that many of them, when one replies and asks for their immigration status, disappear very smartly. There are masses of people coming into this country seeking work illegally, so does the Minister not agree that the suggestion of my noble friend of having exit checks would be one way of finding out whether those who are admitted, for example as students, ever leave the country at all? Also, surely she agrees that it would be extremely foolish for the Government to set the precedent of publishing, as has been requested, the legal advice given to Ministers in confidence. That would not be the way of ensuring that Ministers receive blunt, honest and open legal advice in future.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

On my noble friend’s last point, the Government are clear that we are not going to publish the legal advice that we get, for precisely the reason that he has stated. Such advice needs to be given in confidence by our advisers in the knowledge that it will not subsequently be made public.

On my noble friend’s other points, I entirely agree that there are a number of people who try to take up work illegally in this country. It is precisely that practice that the Government want to end. This is why we are introducing refinements of the controls that are already in place and making the qualifying criteria for ability to work in this country tougher. The object of the exercise is undoubtedly to ensure that those who get the right to work here are legally here under the qualifications that we are setting. He is also right to say that a number of people apply under categories of so-called skilled labour when they are clearly unskilled. That is a practice that we also intend to bring to an end.

Lastly, on the point of external immigration checks, the Government are aware of the concern on this issue and they are, indeed, going to bring in these exit checks. There are problems related to the contract which the previous Government negotiated and which we have had to end. That means that we have to find other ways of bringing in that exit check, but we will do so as early as we are able to. I have given my noble friend who asked the question earlier an estimate of when we are going to be able to do this. If we could do it earlier, we certainly would.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, could the noble Baroness help me? Did I hear right? The consultation with Parliament is to be by means of a Statement in the other House. That Statement is to be a declaration rather than consultation with that House. We do not know yet whether it will be taken in this House and, if it is taken in this House, we do not know what consultation there will be in this House. In any case, it is going to happen tomorrow and the Government are proposing to renounce—if that is the right word—the 21-day rule. Is that really the position that the Government are taking in order to satisfy the Court of Appeal? If it is, the Court of Appeal may still be interested.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that the Court of Appeal would expect the Government to rectify their position as soon as they are able to. As for the noble Lord’s other point, as I have said, that is a matter for the usual channels.

[Lord Ryder of Wensum]

My Lords, with permission, may I come to the assistance of my noble friend? Unless I am very much mistaken, the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is, “Yes, they have to”. If they did not do so, there would be difficult consequences for the Government.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government must clearly put themselves in the position of being in conformity with the law.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

What discussion have the Government had with the Government of Scotland in relation to this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question immediately, but I believe that immigration is a federal matter.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Government of Scotland have expressed a view to the Government of the United Kingdom concerning this. It is a matter on which they have expressed a different view from that of the Government of the United Kingdom. Have the Government of the United Kingdom not had some discussions with them in relation to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

As I said, I am not entirely able to answer that question. Perhaps I may add one point for the information of the House. The Statement tomorrow will be a Written Ministerial Statement and it will be open to your Lordships’ House to pray against this matter if it should wish to.

Extradition: Gary McKinnon

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current position regarding the request for the extradition of Gary McKinnon.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, a judicial review of a decision by the previous Home Secretary to uphold an order for Mr McKinnon’s extradition stands adjourned. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is reviewing the case against the sole legal test, which is whether, given Mr McKinnon’s medical condition, extradition would breach his human rights. My right honourable friend has sought Mr McKinnon’s consent to a psychiatric assessment by clinicians recommended by the Chief Medical Officer. A response is awaited from his solicitors.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I declare an interest in so far as I chaired the independent review of autism services in Northern Ireland and currently chair the Northern Ireland autism regional reference group. I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but does she accept that inadequate recognition and the total lack of appropriate interventions for those with an autistic condition, which was first identified and defined by Kanner in 1943, have deprived someone in Gary McKinnon’s age group of his human rights and that to extradite him would exacerbate the social neglect that he has suffered? Do we not have a more compelling moral responsibility in this instance than a legal one?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Medical science has advanced through the ages, and we have a better understanding of some of these conditions. With regard to Mr McKinnon’s case, it is of course precisely the issue of the state of his medical condition and whether the extradition would breach his human rights that is at issue at the moment. We hope that he will be willing to undertake an examination, with agreed clinicians.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, many of the judicial avenues open to Mr McKinnon have now been exhausted. The sad part about it is the particular state of disablement that he suffers. A conversation was recorded between the Prime Minister and President Obama in July this year where they said that they were looking for agreeable solutions. Has such a solution been found? Will the Minister confirm that the Extradition Act 2003 does not require contestable evidence? Does it not work to the detriment of British citizens, and should it not be reviewed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

On the first point, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, we have a legal framework within which Mr McKinnon’s case is being considered. On the second point, my right honourable friend has asked for a review of extradition provisions, including the US/UK treaty as well as the European extradition warrant. Sir Scott Baker will be considering some of the issues to which she has made reference.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, having been actively involved in the other place in the Gary McKinnon case, I have read his psychiatric reports that were made available to the Home Secretary before the general election. I understand that the Minister is seeking further medical reports. Does she agree that the evidence already before the Home Office shows overwhelmingly that the threat of self-harm is not an idle threat but is very real? Does she also agree, in the light of the damage that has been caused to the American Government by Wikileaks, that, rather than trying to imprison an autistic savant, the Pentagon would do well to employ Gary McKinnon to sort out the weaknesses in its computer system?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

If I might respond to the first part of my noble friend’s question, one of the factors that influenced my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to stay the judicial review that was in progress was precisely the desire to take a second look at the question of Gary McKinnon’s medical condition. The House will understand that she has asked for a separate and impartial view to be taken of his medical state.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, did the Minister or any members of the current Government have discussions with the Americans about this case when they were Opposition, and were they given any indications about how the Americans would behave with regard to it?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I have not had any discussions with the Americans and I cannot, without notice, answer for other members of the Government.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend about the timing of the Scott Baker review. Clearly, this is an increasingly urgent matter, given this and other sad cases. The latest parliamentary Answer that the Minister has given is that it will take place in late summer, which is a fairly broad date. Could we have an update on the timing? Does the Minister not share my regret that this unbalanced treaty was slipped—not passed—through by the previous Labour Government without any parliamentary scrutiny at all?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I would hope that the legislature had done its proper job. As regards the review being conducted by Sir Scott Baker, he has indeed been asked to report by next summer. The reason for that is to allow him to conduct a proper review. If I might say so, there is a general feeling that some of the provisions need looking at. If they are to be looked at, they need to be looked at thoroughly. They include such matters as the breadth of the Secretary of State’s discretion; the operation of the European arrest warrant; whether we should commence the forum bar; whether the UK-US extradition treaty is unbalanced; and the whole question of whether requesting states should be required to provide prima facie evidence. This is a long and substantial list of items. I am sure the House will agree that it is right that those conducting the review should be able to do a thorough job.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we will clearly look forward to the outcome of the review with a great deal of interest. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that there should then be parliamentary debate. However, will the noble Baroness confirm that the 2003 Act, which was debated in Parliament, enabled the UK to align extradition arrangements with EU member states, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and has been instrumental in bringing back to this country people who have committed crimes against UK citizens?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord is correct in saying that the Act has enabled the UK to request the return of citizens to this country for trial. There are some erroneous figures out in the open about the operation of the UK-US treaty. The numbers in each direction are pretty much the same. There have been 25 cases of people returned to the UK and 29 of individuals returned to the US by the UK.

Police: Retirement

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the decision of a number of police forces forcibly to retire police officers who have 30 years or more service.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Government have not made any such assessment. It is the responsibility of police authorities and chief officers to manage the resources and staff available to them to ensure effective policing for the communities in their area. They are best placed to consider operational decisions including the impact of using their powers under Regulation A19.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, does the Minister not think it extraordinary that some of our most experienced police officers are being forced to retire while the Government are prepared to waste millions of pounds on the election of police commissioners? Can the Minister tell me how many police officer jobs will be lost in order to pay for the politicisation of our police force?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government do not accept the conclusion to which the noble Lord has just leapt. As things stand, the officers who are eligible for retirement, having 30 years’ service, number 3,260 out of a total force of 143,000 warranted officers. Therefore, I do not think that we should exaggerate the quantum of those involved.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, will the Minister ask the police authorities to carry out an impact assessment on crime and security because of the cuts in numbers? Will she ensure that those cuts do not have an adverse impact on the recruitment of people from black and ethnic minority communities, which is a serious problem in police forces?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government continuously assess the impact on policing of the measures that they take, but the matter that we are talking about is an operational one. I am sure that the police will wish to ensure that there is no discrimination in their recruitment policies.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is a matter not just of numbers but of quality? Notwithstanding the autonomy of local police services, will she prevail on them at least to consider the loss of experience and wisdom, not to mention the loss to the public purse, arising from arbitrary and enforced retirement after 30 years’ service? Will she ask them to give the fullest consideration to maximum flexibility when choosing retirement for any person?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, this is an operational matter for the police and I am sure that they will take note of what the noble Lord has just said. A number of chief constables, including the head of the Metropolitan Police Service, have indicated that they do not wish to lose the experience that is available to them. I remind the House that this power is available to the police. It permits them to retire people; it does not oblige them to do so.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, my question relates to specialisations. I accept that these decisions have to be made by local police forces but, for example, as the Minister will well know, people such as counterterrorist support officers working for NaCTSO tend to be at the very end of their careers and have huge experience. I believe that somehow the Government have to make a judgment in the overall balance of the advice that goes, for example, to the architectural industry and other areas. Does the Minister have any way of measuring the cuts that are being made in various areas so that there is a national view of the impact on areas as important as counterterrorism?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, as I have just said, this is a power that is open to the police, and senior police officers are not obliged to take this measure, among the measures that are open to them. The Government are clear that we need police to be available on the streets. HMIC has noted that 11 per cent of the available police force is invisible to the public at any given moment. In other words, we need to drive out a great deal of the bureaucracy that was imposed on the police by the previous Government. I am absolutely certain that the police will take their responsibilities seriously in ensuring that terrorism does not in any way prevail in this country.

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, the Metropolitan Police has one of the finest child protection units in the country—indeed, nowadays I would say even beyond this country. Can the noble Baroness use her influence to ensure that, in the reductions that are to take place across the board in the police force, the highly specialised units that deal with the most vulnerable children are properly protected?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the House shares the sentiments that the noble Lord has just expressed and I have no doubt that the police do too.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, where does age discrimination fit in here, if it fits in at all, either legally, if the discrimination legislation has come into force, or morally?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The regulation relates to the number of years of service that an officer accrues—that is, 30 years—and it is the only measure that the police have under the existing system for retiring people in the public interest. However, that does not necessarily correlate to anyone’s age. I do not think that it is an age discrimination matter; it is a length of service issue.

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal]

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, how do the Government intend to preserve a service when individual services may take a decision which does not allow for national coverage to be maintained? How are the Government going to make sure that does not happen?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

It is a matter of the close links that the Government have with the police. I am sure the police will wish to ensure, through ACPO and their other organisations, that the net result of the decisions taken by individual commissioners makes sense in policing terms. I have no doubt that the Government will be in touch with them over this.

Immigration: Detention of Children

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made regarding the ending of the detention of children of failed asylum seekers.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, there has been progress in the pilot studies that the Government have been conducting. We remain determined to end the detention of children for immigration purposes and intend to make a Statement on the subject before the Christmas Recess. As the House will be aware, the number of children in detention for immigration purposes has fallen dramatically—and is now very low—and takes place only for very short periods. There are no children in detention at present.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Is the Minister aware that the Government kept their promise to end the detention of children in Dungavel in Scotland by shipping them hundreds of miles away to detention in Yarl’s Wood? The Observer reported on Sunday that the replacement for Yarl’s Wood is no better than Yarl’s Wood. How will the Government end what Nick Clegg described as a moral outrage or will this be another pledge he wishes he had not made?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Observer is inaccurate. It is not the case that the accommodation that will be provided will be “no better than Yarl’s Wood”. The picture painted of the current Yarl’s Wood was inaccurate. The Labour Benches opposite will know something about the changes that they made. The accommodation will not be like Yarl’s Wood and will not contain any means of detention.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, the Government will be aware of the Church’s continuing acute interest in this subject not least because of an open letter to all party leaders that was sent before the general election touching this question. What are Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to keep monitoring the psychological and mental medical impact of detention upon children and families and the impact of some aspects of the whole regime that currently obtains, including the practice of dawn raids, the proposed suggestion of indeterminate dates for expulsion and comparable matters? Will Her Majesty’s Government be prepared to raise and press some of these issues with other European Union countries?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the most reverend Primate raises a number of important points. The reason why we are concerned about the mental condition and psychological effect on children and their families of what has hitherto been the practice is the reason why this Government made a commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. We will honour that commitment.

As a result of the number of questions that I have been asked on this subject, I have kept the House aware of the pilots that we are already conducting to alter procedures such that some of the things that have been mentioned will no longer take place. There will not be a need for the “raids” that used to take place. We are endeavouring to bring about a system that ensures that those who are not entitled to be in this country are not able to stay here and that they are not able to abuse the system, but that in its procedures is humane and just.

[Baroness Afshar]

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who is involved in the Child M question and has raised the question of children in detention. It seems to me that the treatment of these children as numbers rather than as human beings, and the idea that they are a category that belongs or does not belong in this country, simply denies them their rights as human beings. Can we please take these cases as human beings and think what we would do if these were our children? I feel that Child M is being pulled every which way. The family is breaking up and the future of that child is being destroyed. We talk about future pilots. Here is an example. Please let us do something.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I say to the noble Baroness that these pilots are in progress; they are not future pilots. We are endeavouring to introduce means by which we can encourage families to return on a voluntary basis. I lay stress on the fact that we keep families together as much as we possibly can. It is now a very rare circumstance, such as, possibly, the brutality of parents within a family, that would result in family separation. We try to keep families together. Our aim is to get them to depart voluntarily if they are not entitled to be in the country and, if they do not do so, to make as humane arrangements as we possibly can to remove them, but we do not intend to involve detention in that process.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in seven months we as a Government have made more progress to end the detention of children for immigration purposes than the Labour Party did in 13 years? Can she arrange a visit to Yarl’s Wood to enable the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Baroness, myself and others to see the ending of that desperately sad regime?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I have already offered the possibility of a visit to Yarl’s Wood, which will, in due course, become a centre for adults only. However, I would be very happy to demonstrate to Members of this House the arrangements that we are piloting and hope to put in operation shortly. As I said, there will be a Statement on this issue before the Christmas Recess.

Identity Documents Bill

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would wish me to thank the Minister for her careful stewardship of the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. She will be aware that, last week, the House voted to provide compensation to holders of the ID cards that are to be taken out of circulation in the next few weeks. Do the Government now intend to honour the vote and the intention of the House of Lords last week?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, I believe that this is a matter for the House of Commons.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Immigration: Home Office Procedures

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the procedures and paperwork required by the Home Office from applicants for immigration or residential status.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, online forms containing guidance have already been introduced on the UK Border Agency website to make things easier for applicants. Next year, tier 4 student applicants, which comprise the largest category, will be able to create their own customer account to assist them to complete their online application, pay for it and view its progress. All immigration application forms will be available online by 2015, and the aim is to simplify and clarify application procedures in all categories.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I thank the Minister for that reply. My question relates to long-term residency in the UK, and I declare an interest in that I have had the right of abode for many years and have been here for 50 years. Why were new regulations introduced in 2006 requiring everyone to resubmit documents? In 1985 I had a letter saying that no repeat would ever be required, but in 2009 I was told that I must resubmit all originals. I am getting the same complaint from many people. Will the Minister also comment on the Canadian lady who, just this week, after 60 years in the UK, was stopped at the airport as an illegal immigrant?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the aim of the 2006 regulations, which were brought into effect by our predecessors, appears to have been to cut down on fraudulent claims to the right of abode by ensuring that the validity of the certificate of entitlement which applicants have to have was limited to the lifetime of the passport to which it was attached. Requiring new certificates of entitlement enables a further check on the genuineness of the eligibility to take place. As regards the Canadian lady, on the basis of the press reports—and I have no other information—it would appear that this lady, who was allowed into the country, will be able to claim her right of citizenship through descent. I think that she will have no problem in doing that, and of course she will not have to pay.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, will my noble friend put copies of all the paperwork in the case of Anwar and Adjo in the Library, including the judgment of Lord Justice Sedley in which he said that “a shameful decision” had been made—the effective criminalising and enforced removal of an innocent person without either worthwhile evidence or the opportunity to answer? Lord Justice Sedley went on to request that the misuse of the powers of one of the great offices of state should be drawn to the attention of the Home Secretary. Has that been done, and what remedies is the Home Secretary providing for this misuse of powers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not familiar with this case, which obviously the noble Lord is interested in, in detail. I will write to him.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, have the new Government amended the guidelines which the last Government gave to immigration officers instructing them to allow the second, third and fourth wives of Muslim men, together with their attendant children, to live in this country,

“even if that sets up a polygamous marriage in the United Kingdom”?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not familiar with that provision. I understand why the noble Lord is asking the question; I fear that I will have to look into the matter and perhaps write to him.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, as regards asylum applicants—which is a part of this larger question—is the noble Baroness aware that the UK borders authority operates a dispersal programme and system? Will she encourage it by all possible means also to disperse its centralised Croydon office to the regions so that applicants do not have to travel huge distances at great inconvenience for their principal interviews?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, is this in relation to passport applications? Is that the question the noble Lord is asking?

[Lord Hylton]

No. It is to do with asylum applications.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I will have to see what can be done. This seems rather distant from the original Question.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer this one? She will be aware that, a few months ago, the previous Government published a draft Bill on simplifying the immigration law. Contained within it was a proposal on information, to bring together piecemeal powers to require and supply information through specific gateways. Will the Government be taking that forward?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know. You will have to wait and see.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I express an interest as a lawyer whose firm does a lot of immigration and asylum work, and I preface my question by saying that what I have to ask has no effect on the numbers coming in. As my noble friend the Minister will know, the previous Government tried their best to simplify the procedure for those applying for immigration and asylum and to move to a points-based system. The situation now, however, is that the questionnaire that applicants have to fill in is 60 pages of technical, concentrated stuff. If they get any aspect of it wrong, they fail. Legal aid is being withdrawn for asylum. Will my noble friend at least review the questionnaire process in order to simplify and clarify it?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we should try to make these procedures as comprehensible, simple and clear as we can, consistent with having to acquire the correct information. We will see what we can do.