Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2014
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government’s plans for the introduction of the Order do not include provisions for a 12-month review of the impact of the reclassification of khat in view of the highly unusual community focus of its use, for putting a detailed policing strategy in place before a ban takes effect, or for a health strategy to prevent a transfer of addiction to other substances; and do not commit the Department for International Development to do more work with the government of Kenya to alleviate the effect of the reclassification on the Kenyan economy.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall explain why we have brought this amendment before the House today.
It is around six weeks since we discussed this issue in Grand Committee. I thank the noble Lord for asking to meet me prior to this debate and for the discussion we had on the issue during the Recess. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded for the Government. He agreed that this was a finely balanced decision. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the ACMD, does not advise that the drug should be banned, due to a lack of robust evidence. In fact, it considers it to be,
“a much less potent stimulant than other commonly used drugs”.
As I identified in Grand Committee, successive Governments have considered whether khat should be banned, but the evidence has not been clear or strong enough previously to support such a ban. It is clear from the evidence base in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Government’s assessment of the options that the decision remains a finely balanced one. One of the new considerations is the impact of the ban by other European countries.
Having considered the evidence, we accept that the benefits of a ban could outweigh the risks. However, as I stated previously, there are a number of assurances needed from the Government before that is clear. When we debated this in Committee and sought assurances from the Government, we did not do so unexpectedly. My colleague in the other place, the shadow Home Office Minister, Diana Johnson, had discussions with the Minister who had responsibility for this order. Curiously, this was not the Drugs Minister, Norman Baker, but another Minister, Karen Bradley. She spoke to her regarding our concerns and the conditions we consider to be essential if a ban is to be put in place. These were raised in the debate in Committee in the other place on 31 March and indeed in our own debate on the same day. I had also notified the Minister’s office of our concerns. Both Diana Johnson and I were disappointed with the responses from the Government, so this amendment is another attempt to seek reassurances from the Government on the implementation of such a ban. There are no surprises and no reasons of which I am aware that a full answer to the points we have raised should not be forthcoming.
I do not think I need to repeat the detail of the Committee debate on the harms of the drug or the risks associated with a ban. They are well documented in those debates, the Explanatory Memorandum, the impact assessment and, indeed, the letter from the Home Secretary. We are aware of the social and possible health harms associated with khat and which communities—largely the Somali and Yemeni communities—in the UK are most likely to use the drug. Overall, just 0.2% of the population have used khat but some 50% of Somali males are thought to be users, and up to 10% daily users. We are also aware that it is very difficult to separate the social harms of khat from the wider social issues faced by the Somali community and, to a lesser extent, the Yemeni and Ethiopian communities. We are also aware of significant and strong support from within the Somali community for a ban.
However, it must also be recognised that neither the ACMD nor the Home Office review has been able to isolate khat as the cause of problems or as exacerbating existing social problems. Khat has been linked to health harms including liver toxicity and tooth loss, as well as issues relating to the manner in which it is consumed, and mental health problems in the Somali community. But again, the evidence in relation to physical health is not considered by the ACMD—the committee that advises the Government on the misuse of drugs—as being robust enough to justify a ban.
We must also examine the risks of banning khat. We recognise that in assessing the risks we have to consider the risk of the UK becoming a hub for illegal exports to the US and other EU countries which have already implemented bans. I understand that is a key issue behind the Government’s intention to ban the drug.
In Committee, I asked the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether there was any evidence that khat imports into the UK were increasing and that the UK was being used as a base for illegal imports. He was able to advise that there had been a change although I am not 100% clear from the figures how significant that change is. Of course, that is a very reasonable issue for the Government to take into account and clarification of the scale of the problem would be helpful. When looking at the risks, it is relevant for the Government to consider the impact on the criminal justice system and to recognise that the enforcement costs may be high initially.
The Government recognise that there is a significant risk that a ban could damage community relations because khat use is both common and widely accepted within the Somali, Yemeni and Ethiopian communities. That would mean that banning khat would criminalise an established and accepted social practice.
The amendment would not prevent the ban but, because the impact must be fully understood and handled very carefully, we have identified four areas that are essential to ensure that any ban does not damage community relations and does not lead to khat’s displacement by other drugs, leading to more serious social and health impacts. As the noble Lord is aware, we wish to raise four issues that we think are essential before any ban should proceed.
The first is the review. Particularly because this is a very finely balanced decision, we think that there must be a review after 12 months that looks at the impact of reclassification, including on organised crime as well as community relations. That should include a monitoring framework, as outlined by the Home Affairs Select Committee; it was the second recommendation in its report. I know that the Government already collect some data in relation to drugs but, because khat is unique among drugs in that it is focused in particular communities, specific data need to be collected on community relations. Rather than that just being published as part of the overall publication of statistics and figures on crime, community relations and drug use, there should be a separate review published on khat.
One issue that the Minister very helpfully discussed with me when we met was policing. Because khat is highly prevalent in the Somali and Yemeni communities, the introduction of a ban would allow any Somali or Yemeni male to be subject to stop and search. I know that the Minister recognises that this could have a seriously detrimental effect on community relations, and the Government are bringing in changes to stop and search. Although we discussed this, it would be helpful if the Minister could put on the record how the Government will ensure that this does not undermine the Prevent agenda, which is now being focused on the Somali and Yemeni communities.
One risk that we can particularly identify, because khat is a social drug, is that it is linked to numerous businesses, including cafés and community centres, so policing has to be very sensitive to those risks. To ensure that this happens, we want a specific policing strategy, agreed by the ACPO lead for drugs and the Prevent team. That should be in place before a ban is in force.
I mentioned my meeting with the Minister and his officials. He was able to outline some of the issues regarding policing. I am aware that the Government are giving serious consideration to them. He agreed at that meeting to provide me with details and a copy of the draft guidance currently being considered but I have not yet had it. I know that he would want me to have a copy of that. It would have been helpful for the debate today but, if we could have a copy of that, it would be very helpful.
When we met I also reiterated the need for a programme of engagement and support for the Somali community. There needs to be some kind of education about the dangers of drugs and alcohol. As the advisory committee recognises, the evidence on the harms is not robust enough for a ban and the last thing that I think anybody wants to see is khat being replaced with illegal or prescription drugs or alcohol. That would be a very serious matter and could cause greater health harms. When we discussed this, the Minister was not able to provide me with any further information other than that he was sure that this was ongoing. These programmes will be essential, and if he is able to provide more information today that would be extremely helpful to our considerations.
My final point is on international development, an issue recognised by the Select Committee in the other place. The Department for International Development has to commit to work with the Kenyan Government to alleviate the effect of the khat ban on the Kenyan economy. When we discussed this, the Minister was confident that Kenyan farming was robust enough to diversify. He is more of an expert on farming than I am—I hope that will be the case. The Select Committee identified this as a very serious issue. My understanding is that the department is working with the Kenyan authorities. We need more information on this, as part of the review that should be undertaken and reported on in a year’s time, so that we can understand the work that is ongoing.
These are very real and genuine concerns. As I said, we are not opposing the ban but we really consider that before any ban is implemented these kinds of issues have to be considered and dealt with first. I hope that we will have a positive response from the Minister today. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome this further opportunity to set out the Government’s approach, which allows me to focus, in particular, on the activities to support the successful implementation of the ban on khat. That has lain at the heart of concerns raised by noble Lords, which I take seriously. I am reassured that the points raised in today’s debate are nearly all matters that were taken into account in the early stages of our decision-making when we considered our response to the issues associated with this drug.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked what new figures we had on this drug. The new evidence, including reports from law enforcement agencies, emerged after the ACMD published its report and the Dutch banned khat in January 2013. It pointed to an increase in the volume of khat in transit via the UK to European countries where it is banned. The latest update for the first three months of this year shows that 17 seizures of khat—with a combined net weight of over 11.5 tonnes—originating in the UK were made in France en route to other countries where it is banned, including Denmark, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is evidence that this country is becoming a substantial hub for this material.
Before I address the particular concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister has given helpful figures, but can he give comparative figures on how the situation has changed over time? The premise is that if seizures of illegal imports are up, they must be up against another figure. I made this point in Committee; we had figures but not comparative ones.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I do not have those figures to hand. I think the noble Baroness will understand that, if this material is arriving here to be distributed to other countries, as I have illustrated, it confirms the view that this country is serving as a distribution hub in a way that would not have happened before those countries banned its use. That is the point which the Government have had to consider. The noble Baroness came to see us and we had a good and useful meeting, talking about issues that concern her. I will address these but I would like to consider the points made by other speakers first.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee wanted to know what the Somali network’s report had to say. An important aspect of this is that, according to testimony given by community leaders and mothers, several areas of a person’s life can be affected by khat use. Disagreements and frustration over drug use can cause family arguments and affect personal relationships; legal and health problems associated with khat use add to the strain on personal, financial and work relationships; and chewers of khat tend to be more inward looking rather than reaching out to others, fuelling further segregation. In other words, it can be anti-social in its impact.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rang me this morning to advise me that she wanted some assurances on this issue. I cannot give her the assurances that she is seeking but I can, at least, explain the Government’s thinking. She asked what the ACMD thought of our decision to control khat. The ACMD acknowledged the lack of robust evidence on whether khat caused medical or social harm. It understood that the scope of issues that the Government will take into account to make a decision on drug control would go beyond the remit of the committee itself. Before the decision was publicly announced, the Government discussed it with the chairman of ACMD, who accepted that we came to a different view on this occasion, based on consideration of the wider issues beyond those that were the immediate responsibility of ACMD.
The noble Baroness asked about temporary bans. They form part of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 but they are very different. Temporary class drug orders were introduced as a swift legislative tool to tackle the fast-paced emergence in the UK of psychoactive substances or so-called “legal highs”. I have debated these with the noble Baroness on other occasions. In essence, they are used where there is an urgent or significant threat to public safety or health. There is often very little evidence of the harm these drugs do, for the simple reason that they have been available only for a matter of months, if not weeks. Under a temporary class drug order, the advisory council has just 20 working days to advise and only looks at medical harms. Temporary bans are the exception, not the rule, and only last for 12 months. Khat is not a new drug where such swift, temporary action is demanded.
The role of advisors is to advise—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as on many other occasions, I am grateful to the Minister for the time and care he takes in responding to issues raised in debate. I hope he understands that the only contributions made in your Lordships’ House today have expressed concerns about the Government’s actions regarding the ban on this drug. Our concern is that, with a decision as finely balanced as the Minister said, how it is implemented is very important.
I was somewhat surprised at the uncharacteristically ungenerous comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She said we were looking for something to do. I find that a curious expression when we are looking at a very serious issue on a busy day in your Lordships’ House. These issues strike at the heart of how such a policy would be implemented. The noble Baroness said that she was unhappy with the amendment before us, but it is open to any Member of your Lordships’ House to table a regret Motion or any other kind of Motion.
We debated this issue in Grand Committee and today. Noble Lords will understand that there are grave concerns about the Government’s action. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us more information on policing. My greatest disappointment is on the issue of health. In a previous debate on drugs, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, responded, I said that the FRANK website is not really an answer in cases such as this because somebody has to be interested in order to access it in the first place. As the Government are seeking to ban this drug, they have to be very proactive.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure the noble Baroness will admit that this is not the sole intervention that the Government are making but is part and parcel of a package of health and community activities that the Government have commissioned. Public Health England is and will be very active in pursing this ban.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That is helpful, and I look forward to receiving more information. The point is that the measures must be in place and understood prior to the implementation of any ban. My greatest disappointment is that the Minister has failed to commit to a review. For us, that is crucial. At the 12-month point, there should be a full understanding and published figures and information. Given that it is such a finely balanced decision, to say that there will be continuous review seems to be an opportunity not to have the serious review that we are seeking. I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I am disappointed that he has not been able to address all the points that we raised. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his care in initiating this debate and addressing some of the issues that have been raised here and in the other place. When your Lordships’ House voted by a majority of 62 to refer the issue of making someone stateless to a Joint Committee of both Houses, it did so not to frustrate the Government in any way but to assist them in their deliberations.
I will not rehearse the detail here but it was clear that the Government’s proposed new clause to extend the power to deprive an individual of naturalised citizenship, and in so doing make them stateless, had not been adequately or effectively considered in the other place. As we have said before, the amendment was tabled 24 hours before Report and there was no prior consultation or consideration in Committee, just a last minute amendment and short debate before it was accepted. I note the point the Minister has just made about adequate consideration having been given to the measure recently in the other place. However, it has to be said that even then the Deputy Speaker asked for brief speeches because of time constraints. We believe that further and more detailed consideration should be given to the matter in your Lordships’ House. In contrast to the other place, we had two excellent debates in Committee and on Report. The outcome of those two debates was that this matter required further examination because of the importance and complexity of the issues raised. An amendment was then tabled in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, was passed by 62 votes, and returned to the other place for further consideration. The other place rejected our amendment. However, we welcome the fact that the Government have taken note of some of the issues raised in our debates and have brought forward their own amendments. Government Amendment 18A refers to the reasonable grounds that the Home Secretary would have to have before making a naturalised citizen stateless, and government Amendment 18B is about a review. We certainly welcome the fact that the Government recognise the deficiencies in their original proposal and have sought to deal with some of the difficulties.
The reasons the Government gave for bringing forward the proposed new clause was the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Al-Jedda case, in which it was ruled that by depriving Mr Al-Jedda of his naturalised citizenship on the ground that that was conducive to the public good, the Secretary of State had made him stateless. The Supreme Court quoted from the Government’s own guidance in saying that it was necessary for a naturalised citizen to hold another citizenship not merely to apply for it, or have the right or the ability to apply, for the Secretary of State to be able to withdraw citizenship and in effect make them stateless, which she should not be able to do. As I have confessed before in your Lordships’ House, I am not a lawyer, and I listened with great care to those who have far greater legal expertise in this area than I do. However, it seems that by amending the law through Amendment 18A to ensure that the Secretary of State must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual is able to acquire another citizenship, she would be able to deprive him of his British nationality in those circumstances even if it made him stateless. I think that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—used the phrase “recourse to apply”. However, I reread what the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, said in the debate in the other place. At col.191 of Commons Hansard of 7 May, he said it was important that the person was able to acquire another nationality, and repeated that at col. 192. At col. 194, he said that there should be the “ability to obtain citizenship”, but then said at col. 195 that the Home Secretary had to be,
“satisfied of their ability to seek the citizenship of another country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/5/14; col. 195.]
We need clarity on that point. Is it a question of being able to gain citizenship or the ability to seek citizenship? All those phrases were used by James Brokenshire in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in your Lordships’ House on 19 March that,
“to take away someone’s citizenship, it is not reasonable to say that you assume that they can get another country’s citizenship. It is only reasonable to say that you know that they have another citizenship; anything less than that is wrong. It may not be convenient, but it is not right”.—[Official Report, 19/3/14; col. 213.]
I would therefore welcome further clarification from the Minister.
In the Al-Jedda case, the Secretary of State referred to the original nationality that Mr Al-Jedda held, whereas this amendment, if I have understood it correctly, refers to the Home Secretary having “reasonable grounds” to believe that they could obtain citizenship of any country. In which case, does this government amendment go further than what is required to comply with the Al-Jedda judgment?
Although the Al-Jedda judgment represented an important principle in this debate, it was not the only issue that gave us cause for concern. Questions and issues remain around both the principle and practical implications, which I hope the noble Lord will address in his response. It was the lack of certainty on those points and those that arise from the new amendment that led to the need for further, more detailed examination by a Joint Committee. Perhaps I may therefore raise the concerns that remain about the implications for our relationship with other countries. I have read the legal opinion of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, who is a professor of international refugee law at the University of Oxford, a senior research fellow at All Souls College, and a barrister at Blackstone Chambers. His opinion from looking at international law is that the Government’s proposals risk damaging international relations and could lead to breaches of international obligations. I know that the noble Lord rejects that, but Professor Goodwin-Gill has provided a 20-page opinion that raises a number of issues that, at the very least, should be further considered and addressed to the satisfaction of your Lordships’ House.
I greatly welcomed the Government’s commitment to respond to that opinion. I was sorry that it arrived so late on Friday in order for us to have an opportunity to look at it. I am sorry that robust responses were not available for earlier consideration. However, I have now had the opportunity to read that response. Although it deals with various treaty obligations, it does not address the practical or diplomatic implications that I raised previously. We all know that the fight against terrorism is international and global. That highlights the need for international co-operation and collaboration. We really need proper and proportionate consideration of the implications for national and international security. This amendment would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in any country where they happened to be when their citizenship of the UK was revoked. When citizenship has been withdrawn from citizens who are overseas, will the country that has admitted that individual in good faith on a British passport be consulted or advised at any stage that that person has had British citizenship withdrawn from them—even after citizenship has been withdrawn?
The noble Lord will recall that Professor Goodwin-Gill stated:
“Any state which admitted an individual on the basis of his or her British passport would be fully entitled to ignore any purported deprivation of citizenship and, as a matter of right, to return that person to the United Kingdom”.
The Government dispute that but the Minister confirmed to me in his letter of 25 March that the Government have not discussed the development of what was then Clause 60, on deprivation of citizenship, with other countries and do not consider it necessary to do so. I still find it quite incredible that the Government do not think that they have to consider other countries and debate this issue with them prior to implementation. In his letter, the noble Lord also relied on the statement that other countries allow for deprivations to make people stateless. He used, as the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, used in the other place, the Republic of Ireland and Belgium as examples. I was not aware of the position of Belgium on the issue and whether it has made anyone stateless in recent years, but the Minister could have quoted Tunisia, Lithuania, or countries that have rendered political opponents or ethnic minorities stateless—such as Zimbabwe, Burma, Serbia and Russia.
This country has a proud record over half a century of opposition to making individuals stateless. What about our relationship with, for example, the USA, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Scandinavian countries and Italy? These countries have not taken a power to make citizens stateless. Again I looked at the response of Professor Goodwin-Gill in reply to the Government’s response. He took the view—I do not know whether this is correct; it is one of the reasons why we consider that such examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses is essential—that it would appear that Her Majesty’s Government have never accepted that another state has a right and is able unilaterally to denationalise its citizens while they are present in the UK, so making this country responsible for its residents’ safety and well-being. Are we imposing an obligation on other countries that we would not ourselves accept?
I should like to raise a second issue which was also raised in the other place and it would be helpful if the Minister could respond on this point specifically. It concerns what will happen if someone cannot obtain another citizenship despite their very best efforts to do so. The Government propose that the Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds for believing that someone can acquire another citizenship, but what if they cannot? It has to be recognised that although someone may be entitled to apply for the citizenship of another country, they may not in practice be able to acquire it. The Minister admitted as much in his letter to me of 25 March when he said:
“The number of people affected by this new provision will be very low and not all remain stateless as some may be able to acquire or re-aquire another nationality”.
I know that that was written before the new amendment but it does not change the position of a person’s statelessness or ability to gain another citizenship.
In responding to similar questions in the other place, James Brokenshire referred to those who make no effort to obtain another citizenship. But that is a completely different point. If the Home Secretary’s belief that they could obtain another citizenship was reasonably held but it was wrong and they were unable to do so, what action could then be taken to avoid a lengthy period of statelessness? The Minister talked about not wanting an arbitrary time limit for such a decision to be made, but there is no time limit in the amendment for the Secretary of State to look again to see whether it was a reasonable decision which was not correct.
The Minister spoke of a limited form of leave to remain being available to those stranded in country. What form would that take and what are the state’s obligations? How does that make UK citizens safer? If someone from outside the UK cannot obtain another citizenship, what are the implications? They may not be in their country of birth or of a previous citizenship. Given that our Government have had no discussions with other countries about this, the point being made by Professor Goodwin-Gill about being returned to the UK has to be a possibility at the very least. The country that admitted them in good faith has done so as it believed them to have British citizenship at the time. They will not be admitted back into the UK so I am slightly alarmed that they might end up like the character played by Tom Hanks in the film “The Terminal”. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the film but it is based on a true story of the case of Mehran Karimi Nasseri who, having been expelled from Iran, was refused entry to London and sent back to France where he was arrested. I will not go into the details but he ended up spending 18 years in Charles de Gaulle Airport because he was stateless. That is not the only example, but I hope that it is the most extreme one. I found several cases of people being detained at airports for several weeks or months.
If the purpose of the clause is to make us safer from terrorists, we need greater clarity and certainty on what happens to those who become stateless, particularly those from outside the country. Unless there is certainty, we could end up in some kind of legal quagmire with cases being taken to court because of the lack of certainty. I am sure we all want to avoid that.
I shall touch briefly on Amendment 18B. We welcome the review outlined by the Minister. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment differs in that the amendment of the noble Baroness referred to an annual review, which I think would be a much improved position on waiting, after the initial one-year review, for one every three years. That seems to be a very long timescale for the power that the Secretary of State wants to take.
Our concern remains that this amendment still allows for what the Supreme Court described as the “evil of statelessness”. Although the government amendment offers some concessions to the concerns raised by that particular case, I would welcome further clarity from the Minister as we are not yet convinced that the argument has been made for individuals who are terror suspects and are stateless. I am looking here at the interests of national and international security. I shall listen carefully to the debate, to the legal expertise that we have in your Lordships’ House, and to the Minister’s response. However, we need a full examination of this issue to ensure that we fulfil our obligations without making people stateless, given the difficulties and concerns that that raises. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sure that the Home Secretary will not exercise powers, which are clearly very important powers, carelessly or in any way that would damage the interests of the United Kingdom. I can assure the noble Lord that all such factors will be considered by the Home Secretary when she considers the question of deprivation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the time he has taken and the effort he has made to address the points that have been raised in the debate. I concur entirely with his remarks about internal and international security. Obviously, the first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and secure at all times. There has to be consideration of those issues when they are brought before your Lordships’ House. I can assure him that our consideration of these issues has at its heart the security of this nation and our international obligations to tackle terrorism. As the noble Lord said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. We have benefited from substantial legal expertise. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for confessing that, like the Minister and me, she is not a lawyer. It is significant that even with the legal expertise in your Lordships’ House there is no complete agreement among lawyers, either. We made that point earlier.
I welcome the fact that the Government have moved away from the position that they took previously when the issue was debated in Committee and on Report. I welcome the answers given by the Minister. A lot of the debate hinges on one particular issue. I am grateful for the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the conversations we have had. One of his questions summed up clearly the issue of the power to take away British citizenship if it relies on a discretionary power of another state. The noble Lord was very honest in his response to that. We have no power to know what another state will do. Other states have discretionary powers on whether to make people citizens.
The Government’s Motion rests on whether somebody is able to obtain citizenship. It hangs on the interpretation of that. We have concerns in that we want to avoid at all costs somebody becoming stateless—the evil of statelessness via the Supreme Court—and the dangers that that would bring to citizens of this country and abroad. I mentioned that James Brokenshire, the Minister in the other place, gave three different interpretations of what being able to obtain other citizenship could mean. If somebody is unable to obtain another citizenship and they remain stateless, at what point would the Home Secretary have to say, “We have a problem; this person does not have citizenship of any country”? There is a danger in leaving somebody abroad who we think is a danger to this country and involved in terrorism, who is stateless in another country or who remains in this country and cannot travel.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the intention was that those who are dangerous should leave—but they cannot do so if they have not got citizenship of any other country. The noble Lord also made the point that our position has changed. I can assure him that our position has not changed. These are the very same issues we raised in Committee and on Report, and we wanted to consider them in the light of the changes that the Government have made.
We have to consider the practical and diplomatic implications here. I know the Minister says that there is no need to discuss this issue with other countries, but he was not even able to confirm to your Lordships’ House that, if we remove citizenship from an individual who we suspect of being involved in terrorist activity while they are in another country, we would notify the Government of that country that we were doing so. That seems to be a rather irresponsible attitude and I worry that we will be passing the problems of terrorism on to other countries when international co-operation is so essential.
I do not wish to detain the House. We have had an interesting and worthy debate on this issue. What the Government have not been able to do, however, is rule out the possibility that we will make people who could be highly dangerous stateless. All it requires is that the Home Secretary must have reasonable grounds for believing that an individual can obtain other citizenship—but if those grounds are wrong and the individual cannot do so, we do not know what will happen to that individual.
The point was made when we debated this previously that we are not saying to the Government, “No, this must not happen”, but that there are still a number of questions which remain unanswered even at this late stage. They include the issue of what happens to someone when they have been rendered stateless and what the implications are for our relationships with other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, gave examples, and I am not sure that the Minister’s answer was that someone could not be made stateless.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. To be clear, what I said about the Opposition was not that they have not changed, but that they have not changed in the light of the changed circumstances of this concession.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
The Minister cheers the noble Lord on, but no one else is doing so. I said in response to the Government’s changes to their Motion that they do not remove the danger of statelessness. The noble Lord referred to the Pepper v Hart ruling, and he is absolutely right. What the Minister here and the Minister in the other place say is very important, but we have now had many interpretations from Ministers of what the amendment actually means.
Again, this has been a useful and interesting debate which I value, but we are seeking certainty on a number of issues, and that has not been forthcoming today. I believe that this matter would benefit from further consideration. It does not have to delay business. We are at the end of this Session, but it could be brought back quickly at the start of the next Session. It is important that we understand the implications for the security of this country and for individuals living in it. Accordingly, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
European Union: Justice and Home Affairs
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in welcoming this “double header” debate. It would have been nonsensical to have a debate on the fourth annual report and not look at it in the wider context of the government proposals we have already debated on the opt-out/opt-in in relation to crime and justice issues. However, I share with other noble Lords a sense of déjà vu in relation to the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, was more generous in her comments and rightly referred to the comprehensive discussions that we have had. We were right to have those. We have had several debates, Statements and Questions on opting into EU justice and home affairs measures and on the Government’s proposals to opt out of all the EU measures on tackling crime, but then, as we have heard, seeking to opt back into some of them—around 35.
The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Kennedy, said extremely appropriately that these issues strike at the very heart of what we value about our society because, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the Government’s first duty is to the safety and security of its citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that this is a complex issue. It is quite technical but it is also in this sense a very simple and straightforward issue: will the Government’s proposed opt-out make our citizens safer and more secure? Will it ensure that we can better and more effectively tackle crime? The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about the law enforcement agencies’ concerns in this area contrast sharply with the rhetoric we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson.
We have to recognise that modern crime respects no borders, whether it be drug trafficking, people trafficking, money-laundering, kidnap, abduction, cybercrime, paedophilia and, of course, terrorism and threats to national security. These crimes are all the more dangerous and more complex because they transcend borders and the fight against them has also to cross borders. The Government have to be honest and admit that, despite the political rhetoric, they also accept that principle. The fourth annual report on the application of Protocols 19 and 21 regarding opt-outs and opt-ins reinforces how integrated and connected the fight against crime is, and has to be.
At the same time as the Government are boasting about how many measures they are opting out of, this report highlights those that the Government have opted into. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that of 21 proposals eight were rejected and the opt-in was not taken up, but 13 were accepted and opted into. Why is that? It is because in these cases the Government look into, and make an assessment of, the content of the proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, confirmed. They consider the advantages and disadvantages and the benefits to the UK. Those are the right questions that should be asked in every single case. In three cases those issues were debated in your Lordships’ House in very useful debates. The Government put their case and we had the benefit of reports from our own EU committee. I well recall that in the case of the EPPO debate, the Government received broad support for their position. However, this fourth annual report has to be taken in the context of the wider debate on the Government’s proposals for opting out of all EU justice and home affairs measures—around 130—and then trying to opt back into 35, although that figure may change.
It has been disappointing that the public debate about these 130 measures has been of a different tone and character to the debate that we have had on the fourth report. To many of us, it seems that the public debate on these issues seeks to obscure rather than present the facts. Too often—we heard a taste of it today—the debate on anything European becomes one of those in which those with very strong views try to persuade everyone else that they should share those views. It has been interesting for those of us who have been speaking to people during the run-up to the European elections that many people readily admit to being totally confused by the political rhetoric that they hear on TV and on their doorsteps—the conflicting figures and facts that they are given. My impression is that what people really want are hard facts, accurate information and the space to be allowed to make up their own minds on the issues. In contrast, the debates in your Lordships’ House have been rooted in those facts and information, and could have been of enormous benefit to the Government in their examination of the issues. The reports of our EU Committee on the implications of the opt-out and opt back in again have been forensic, detailed and extremely valuable to our debates here and for wider consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made an unsurprising speech. I welcome him to today’s debate because he failed to take part in any of our other debates on these issues. I recommend those reports to him.
My noble friend Lady Corston illustrated the commitment of our EU Committee and the sub-committees to the effectiveness of their scrutiny role. I was concerned at the point she raised about the lack of co-operation from the Government, and I hope that the Minister can respond to and address those relevant concerns.
I hope that our debates have had an impact on the Government. The initial government statements and comments about the opt-out were not about the value of individual measures. They said that this was going to be a historic transfer of powers. The UK was going to be liberated from the shackles of EU regulation and bureaucracy. That is not quite right, is it? When a serious look is taken at the individual measures and at what really matters—the interests of UK citizens—the response becomes very different.
We have had so many debates that I am slightly losing track of how many we have had, but I have been asking similar questions and have failed to get clear, concise answers from the Dispatch Box from various Ministers. Today I shall try again. Today is slightly different because I can ask as well as answer the questions. The relevant question that has echoed throughout our debate relates to the impact assessment of the measures that the Government seek permanently to opt out of. I have asked these questions again and again. How many of the measures that the Government want to permanently opt out of are relevant to the UK and currently being used? Eventually we received some clarity. We now know that the Government want permanently to opt out of measures to tackle racism and homophobia; but we have domestic legislation that deals with that issue. We are not going to seek to opt back into a directory on international crime; but, again, it has not been published for the past two years. Much of this is a sleight of hand.
Looking at the various documents that we have had for some time, my understanding is that the measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of are basically harmless and irrelevant. Some are out of date and no longer relevant. Some we have never used and do not have to use. Others are agreements to co-operate, and the Government intend that to continue. Some relate to minimum standards that we have already met or exceeded. There is a temporary system for dealing with counterfeit documents that has already been replaced. A bundle of measures applying to Portugal, Spain and Croatia do not even apply to the UK. We have not yet been told if any of the measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of are harmful to the UK. That is why I endorse the calls made today for a proper impact assessment of not just those measures that the Government seek to opt back into but those that they seek permanently to opt out of. It seems to me that the Government are prepared to risk those measures that they even consider essential by being strong and bold in jettisoning the totally irrelevant.
The Minister may correct me but my understanding is that the Government are seeking to opt back in to 35 measures, and that number is likely to increase when the European Commission adds any necessary partner measures. Where measures are important—where they make a difference to people’s lives—we are going to seek to opt back in. I may be wrong and we are opting out of something hugely significant. If so, what is it? However, we are opting out of all measures without any guarantee of being able to opt back in, even to those that the Government admit they need. It is a gamble but I am prepared to accept that, following negotiations, there will be a process of some kind for opting back in.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Kennedy is very important. We are not clear about whether there will be any gap in application or implementation between opting out and opting back in. This is not a historical moment for the anti-EU members of the Government but it is an illustration of the weakness of a Government who feel that they have to pander to anti-EU rhetoric.
I want to be clear on two points. One is the principle of the opt-out. We negotiated it but we were also clear that we would not exercise the opt-out without guarantees regarding an opt-in, particularly regarding the European arrest warrant. I am fully aware of the concerns and issues regarding the arrest warrant and I welcome any improvements and positive changes to it. However, let us really understand why it is so very important that we retain that mechanism for police co-operation and intelligence-sharing across borders, and that we do whatever we can to ensure that those who are guilty of some of the most appalling and truly shocking crimes, such as abduction, rape, people trafficking and drug trafficking, can be caught and brought to justice.
There are numerous examples of the value of the European arrest warrant and I shared some of them with your Lordships in previous debates. It would have benefited greatly from the UK Government implementing the European supervision order to prevent British citizens being held in poor conditions in some foreign prisons while awaiting trial. No doubt other improvements could be made. However, I disagree most profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the benefits of the arrest warrant. He said that he speaks for real people when he opposes the EAW. Perhaps I may quote from a real person. Beatrice Jones was the mother of Moira Jones, who was assaulted, abducted, savagely raped and murdered by an EU national. Beatrice Jones said:
“He fled the country but because of the dedication and determination of Strathclyde police along with the cooperation of Slovakian police, he was arrested and extradited back to this country ... EU police cooperation is essential for the safety of all”.
That comes from a family who directly benefited from the arrest warrant, and justice was brought because of the EAW.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, the noble Baroness tells us a heart-rending story but why could this criminal not have been returned to this country under normal extradition arrangements? Why do we need to give up our sovereignty in order to expedite this sort of thing? Why do we have to tolerate an Andrew Symeou case or any case involving a British citizen in order to achieve the result that the noble Baroness has just referred to?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, changes could well be made, and I have already indicated one: this Government should have accepted the European supervision order. However, we are not ceding any sovereignty whatever by being able to go to another country to return criminals to the UK to face justice or by extraditing criminals to other countries to face justice there. That is not giving up sovereignty; it is bringing justice to those who deserve it. I am not prepared to say to a mother whose daughter has been murdered or raped that we will not continue with the European arrest warrant, which ensures that we are able to extradite criminals quickly. The noble Lord may be slightly older than me but I remember the days of the Costa del Crime, when this country struggled to extradite back to the UK criminals who had committed crimes and fled the country.
Real people want that protection and I welcome the fact that the Government have now made a U-turn and accepted that we need the European arrest warrant. However, we need assurances that they are not going to put public safety at risk through there being a gap between the opt-out and opting back in. The European arrest warrant is a legal framework and transition measures will have to be legally robust to ensure the satisfaction of the courts in dealing with extradition. Those arrangements have now expired so we need to ensure that there is no gap.
In conclusion, I am concerned about the whole process. Our EU Committee remains unconvinced by the Government’s arguments on the opt-out. Perhaps the most damning and worrying comments I have read in the whole of these debates are in paragraph 19 of the committee’s follow-up report, when it refers to the,
“lack of analytical rigour and clarity regarding evidence drawn upon”,
by the Government. That should give us all cause for concern.
Three Select Committees in the other place— the European scrutiny, home affairs and justice committees—have raised their concerns about the process in an unprecedented joint report. That echoes some of the questions that have been raised today. The Government need to respond to three key questions. Do they really need the re-opting list ready by June or next December? Is it on schedule to be ready? What arrangements have been made if agreement is not reached by that deadline? What are the transitional arrangements? It would be a tragedy for this country and for justice if the real things that matter to people in this country, such as the ability to tackle crime across borders, were sacrificed because of political rhetoric and campaigning against Europe.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It would be highly dangerous and I hope that the Government can say today that they are not prepared to put British citizens in that danger.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his explanation of his amendment. Immigration law is far more complicated than most people realise and he did a great service to the House in explaining his amendment, which of course we welcome and support.
Turning to Amendment 6 concerning the Long Title of the Bill, which the Government have amended, I share with your Lordships my confusion and hope that the Minister can give some clarification. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss this and other issues. He gave me a letter explaining the amendments before us today, which was very helpful. But he also said about what was then Amendment 4 and is now Amendment 6 that,
“an amendment to the Long Title is necessary to ensure that it covers nationality matters”.
He then referred to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury,
“with a view to appropriate amendments on the issue at Third Reading to create a new registration provision for persons born before 1 July 2006”.
However, he did not say that that was not the only amendment being made to the Long Title, because the amendment as printed—although not referred to in his letter—says that it also makes,
“provision about the removal of citizenship from persons whose conduct is seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s vital interests”.
Yet when we debated that issue here in your Lordships’ House at both Committee and Report stages—they were very good and lengthy debates, unlike those which took place in the other place, which were rather cursory—it was decided, despite the length of the debate and the complexity of the issue, that an amendment to the Bill would be made removing the Government’s clause and inserting a new clause saying in effect that this was a complex matter which should go to a committee of both Houses. That amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was passed by a majority of 62. Although that issue is not in the Bill, it is now in the Long Title.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sure that, as a former Member of the other place, I was not suggesting for one second that it does not have the right to look at our amendments and come to its own decisions. This is about the contrast between the two issues. While I am happy to accept the explanation that deprivation will be considered further by a Joint Committee of both Houses once the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, that contrasts with the issues of the trafficking of children and guardians for trafficked children. That provision was passed by your Lordships’ House and does not now appear in the Long Title, even though it has been amended to deal with something that is not in the Bill in the same way. It is just that contradiction between the two and I would hope that the Minister can reassure me that, since this House has committed to the guardians for trafficked children, the Government will also remain so and are not taking for granted the support from the other place on the issue of deprivation of citizenship and making people stateless.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It would not be in my nature to take anything for granted where Parliament is involved. However, I think I made the position of the Government quite clear on guardians for trafficking when the amendment was considered, and the noble Baroness herself has been well aware of that. I hope she will accept what I am saying. It will be a matter of our listening to the House of Commons, as we must now call the other place, and giving it an opportunity to present to us what it considers of our amendments. That is a reasonable position to take. Meanwhile, this change to the Long Title facilitates the adoption of my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope the House will support because they will be welcomed by many and assist individuals hitherto precluded from British citizenship by historical anomaly. They will therefore be able to register as British citizens if they wish to do so. I am extremely happy to be able to offer my support to my noble friend in this matter.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I concur with the comments made by the Minister and respect those about this being a much improved Bill. That is accurate. We are pleased that the Bill has seen significant improvements, with amendments and concessions from the Government addressing issues raised by noble Lords. I was also pleased that he thanked the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his help and advice during the passage of the Bill.
I also thank the Minister. Where he has been unable to address issues from the Dispatch Box, he has been prepared to meet and discuss them, and to clarify those issues in writing. All noble Lords who have taken part in these debates have contributed to the improvement of the Bill, and we hope that some of those improvements will remain as debates continue. There are others that we would have liked to have seen and have not been able to achieve, but we still agree with the noble Lord that this is an improved Bill from that which presented itself to your Lordships’ House.
I add my thanks to colleagues, not only on the Labour Benches but across all Benches, who have put a lot of work into and contributed much to the Bill. I also thank the Bill team for its efforts and for being prepared to meet, and the Labour research team that helps us on our side of the House. It is no surprise that Sophie Davis, who has been advising the Labour Front Bench on this, was the Labour researcher of the year, which we all thought was very well deserved. We look forward to another Bill and another debate in the next Session.
Muslim Brotherhood
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I cannot agree with the noble Lord, although he speaks with a great deal of authority. He will know that Sir John Jenkins has been asked to lead the review because he is one of our most senior diplomats, with extensive knowledge of the Arab world, and his role is to serve Her Majesty’s Government. He was not chosen because of his current role as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He is not working alone, and will draw on independent advice from other places.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to a review, but the Prime Minister used the words “an investigation” or “an inquiry”, and there may be some difference. It would be helpful if we could have some information on that. Has he taken the opportunity to talk about this to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who always impresses your Lordships’ House with her knowledge of such issues? A report in the Financial Times says that a senior government figure reported on “tensions” between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Prime Minister’s Office on this, saying:
“This cuts against what the FCO has already been doing in this area, both domestically and in the Middle East. It risks turning supporters of a moderate, non-violent organisation that campaigns for democracy into radicals”.
Is there a tension at the heart of the Government, and is this a review or an investigation?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Not at all, my Lords. My noble friend and I are at one on the issue.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the think tank British Future and as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In the time that has been allowed to the Joint Committee to scrutinise this legislation and whatever mechanism your Lordships’ House chooses, whether it is post-legislative scrutiny or the Joint Committee option, there are three brief matters on which I would still like to hear the comments of my noble friend the Minister. I thank him for outlining the important duties, privileges and obligations that naturalised British citizens have. As an 18 year-old on a gap year, I took what was perhaps an unwise journey to northern areas of Ghana, which were known at that time for their instability, but I had most wisely packed my British passport. When civil disturbance arose, I literally clung to my British passport, knowing that of course the embassy would help to rescue me if I needed it. At that young age, I realised what a privilege it indeed was to have British citizenship and a passport.
I will outline those three brief matters. First, much mention has been made of the potential to undermine the position of the United Kingdom in relation to human rights laws on the international stage. It is important to give two current examples. In November 2012, 31 Bahraini citizens were deprived of their citizenship for “undermining state security”. When given the opportunity to sit in front of some Bahraini politicians, I outlined the position in relation to those cases, which arose in the context of civil protest. I was met with the retort, “Well, you do this too”. “Yes”, I said, “but we don’t do it to leave someone stateless”. The second example would be that there has been much mention in your Lordships’ House of the plight of the Rohingya Muslims in Burma, who do not enjoy citizenship. I therefore struggle to see how representations could be so forcefully made about them being entitled to citizenship if the Burmese Government are able to use similar language to that being outlined in the legislation.
Secondly, although it may well be that this clause does not place us in breach of our treaty obligations in international law, as I understand it neither would reintroducing the death penalty, yet moving to re-enact that is not a trajectory that many of your Lordships would wish to see. One of the circumstances that were not commented on in Committee in your Lordships’ House is this situation. If it seems that we can deprive people of their nationality while they are, for instance, in Syria and do not then have to readmit them to the UK, what would happen in the unfortunate situation of having people within our borders who have managed to get some kind of visa to be in this country and are perhaps unsavoury if their country of origin deprives them of their citizenship, so that we are left with a little oasis of stateless citizens in the UK? I am slightly too young to remember properly the tit-for-tat diplomatic spats of the Cold War, but is it really too much to imagine that there could be a tit-for-tat deprivation of the citizenship of people in different jurisdictions around the world?
Thirdly, I would like to outline the impact on the next generation, which has perhaps not been fully explored in relation to this new power. There are, of course, implications for the nationality and citizenship of the children of those who have been deprived of their citizenship. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for clarifying that the power will not apply, as I understand it, to people who acquire their citizenship by way of registration, who are often the children of someone who is naturalised—such people who are under 18 acquire their citizenship by registration. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could outline the views of the Government about the effect on the next generation of children, who potentially have parents who are stripped of their nationality. This would make contact with that parent perhaps not impossible but significantly more difficult. Perhaps we might be at risk of sending a message to those children and perhaps having the same unfortunate effect as did certain of the powers that we used in Northern Ireland when we had a similar security situation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate. I am speaking to the amendment that I have been pleased to sign, along with the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Macdonald, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. There is a sharp contrast with the time which was allowed to debate this issue in the other place.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments at the beginning of the debate. I do not want to repeat the points which have been made, particularly those made more eloquently than I could do by those with legal expertise. I want to emphasise a number of points, particularly around the issue of scrutiny, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This new government clause was introduced—with other amendments—in the other place just 24 hours prior to Report, all to be considered in a five-hour debate. It therefore did not receive the scrutiny that such a substantial and far-reaching clause needs and deserves. In the other place the Home Secretary admitted that,
“Members have not had as long to consider it as they would perhaps have wished”.
The Home Secretary claimed to have been “incredibly generous” in repeatedly giving way to respond to MPs’ concerns and questions, although I do not think that that was a particularly wise turn of phrase. As was made clear by my colleague in the other place, David Hanson, we were seeking to ensure that the consequences of such a significant clause had been properly thought through. The response from the Home Secretary was that the Government,
“recognise that there are consequences, and they have been considered”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30 Jan 2014; col. 1047-48.]
However, when we debated this in Committee, the responses from the Minister did not provide your Lordships’ House with the assurance that all the consequences had been considered. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, partly quoted my comments in Committee, and I will reiterate the same point that everyone in your Lordships’ House wants to do everything possible to protect UK citizens from potential terrorist activity, both at home and abroad.
We also have to recognise that we have international obligations in this regard, as terrorism is a global threat. We all know that Clause 64 is a response to the Al-Jedda judgment by the Supreme Court, as was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It was clarified that the Secretary of State could not withdraw citizenship from an individual if it would leave them stateless. Clause 64 seeks to remove that barrier, and would allow the state to make an individual stateless if they are naturalised British citizens and the Government consider that they are involved with actions prejudicial to the interests of the UK. That would mean that either the former citizen remains locked in the UK, unable to leave, work or receive any support, but the Government still have obligations to that individual, or that they would be left stateless in another country and obviously not able to return.
When bringing forward such an exceptional power as this, the Government have a duty to consider the wider implications and the impact it will have. We understand that actions to tackle a threat to national or international security do at times curtail the freedom of an individual, but when such a measure is proposed it must be fully and properly considered. The process, the impact and the implications must all be fully thought through and understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, recognised the seriousness of this issue when we debated it in Committee. He said that it was right that we should have a thorough debate on the issue, after it was introduced at such a late stage and almost slipped in at the last minute in the Commons. However, the noble Lord has rejected the proposal in our amendment before the House today for scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, a dedicated committee to examine this in detail. He said that it should be debated during the passage of a Bill in your Lordships’ House.
For a debate to be effective, there must be answers to the questions raised. We are not a debating society. As the Minister has in effect acknowledged, our role in Parliament is to scrutinise and, if necessary, revise legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in his comments that it was a complex issue. In Committee I and other noble Lords asked a number of questions in an attempt to understand how this clause would operate in practice and the impact on the individual, on public safety and on national and international security. To be effective in that scrutiny—the very scrutiny to which the noble Lord referred when introducing his amendment and rejecting our amendment—the Government must address the points we made, and answer the questions. On this very far-reaching clause, they have failed to do so.
In Committee we sought to understand the process and the full implications. What would the process be for making an order under the clause, and what would “seriously prejudicial” mean? What criteria would be considered by the Secretary of State, and what would be the process by which she would make her decision? I raised the specific case of Y1 with the Minister. In that case it appeared that the Home Secretary did not agree with the professional advice of the security services, following discussions with Cabinet members. I was not suggesting that that was necessarily wrong, but I wanted to understand if decisions could be made on political grounds. I did not receive much clarity on these points, but the Minister replied that this would affect only a small number of individuals. I have never considered that a few people being affected by a power makes it less important to consider the implications.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has identified 15 cases, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred, in which the person was overseas at the time. It has also shown that the use of that power gradually increased under this Government, from roughly one case each year in 2010 to eight in 2013. However, when asked for more precise information—for example, on how many of the individuals whose citizenship was removed were in the UK and how many were outside the UK at the time the decision was made—the Minister refused to give us more detail on the grounds of national security. I am not sure that I fully understand why giving the numbers involved, rather than specific information, is a danger to national security.
The Government have clarified that this new power could be used against people whether or not they are in the country, and whether or not they can acquire another nationality. They have stated that they would expect those who can acquire another nationality to seek to do so, but have no answers on what happens if that fails. There remains a lack of clarity on what happens to people who have their citizenship removed while they are in the country. This is an important point, as this clause is designed to deal with those whose activities are of concern, and indeed those who may be a danger.
Mr James Brokenshire, the new Immigration Minister, said that in the event of a person remaining in the UK they could be granted limited leave, “possibly” with conditions, and the UK would have certain legal international obligations under the UN convention. He expanded on that in a letter to the Constitution Committee, in which he wrote:
“For those living in the UK, we may grant another form of immigration leave, depending on the person’s circumstances … Crucially this will not attract all the privileges associated with being a British citizen; they would not be entitled to hold a British passport, to vote or to have full access to public services”.
The Minister confirmed this in writing to us after the debate. He also added that, in certain circumstances when the person cannot return to their country of origin, “it may be necessary” to provide them with exceptional leave to remain of some kind or another. Does this mean therefore that people would be trapped here, and we would not be able to deport them but would still have obligations towards them? How does that help to ensure that national security is protected?
What happens if someone is in another state when the decision is taken? What happens if they cannot be contacted? The Minister said that they would have the full right of appeal, but they cannot have this if they cannot be contacted. How can someone be notified in such circumstances, or avail themselves of any review of the decision? What about children who may be left behind? What will be the obligations of the state these children are in when their parent is made stateless? What will be the obligations of the state in which the person is made stateless?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that my responses have been inadequate. It is a matter of pride that I have sought to answer noble Lords’ queries during the passage of this Bill. The noble Baroness has never implied that anything I have supplied her with has been inadequate, and I am sorry if she has taken that view.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
At all times the Minister has sought to be courteous and to give as much information as possible. However, he will recall that in Committee I asked questions and he apologised for not having available some of the information needed to answer them. It is no slight on him personally; he has made a great effort to try to answer. It is just that there have not been answers to some of the questions I have asked.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I have written a report on every day of this Bill, and I will be writing about today’s debate to tell all noble Lords of those things that have arisen where I am not in a position to give an answer. The noble Baroness is very generous. Indeed I do my best but there is a limited amount of time and I do not want to take up too much time on an issue that noble Lords have debated with great skill for the elucidation of the House.
As I made clear in my earlier intervention, this is an important and sensitive issue that goes to the heart of ensuring that the Home Secretary has available to her the necessary powers to respond to changes and threats to our national security. Amendments 56ZA and 56ZB were discussed in Committee, and I can assure the House that this power was drafted taking full account of the need to ensure consistency with our international obligations. The Home Secretary will personally review every case and in doing so will of course consider, in line with our obligations under the ECHR, whether deprivation is a necessary and proportionate action in response to the conduct of the individual and the threat that they pose to the UK. I hope noble Lords will be reassured by our proposal for a statutory independent review that will be able to look at these matters as part of its scrutiny of the operation of this power.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a number of questions. She asked whether the independent reviewer would have access to information on whether the deprivation action was taken while the person was in the UK or abroad. The independent reviewer will be provided with information on all aspects of the operation of the power, including the circumstances—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, if the Opposition were prepared to accept Amendment 56A, I should be prepared to move it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord has moved his amendment formally but, as the matter has been referred to a committee, should this not also be referred to a committee? It would seem more sensible to us that, if a committee were discussing something, it would then decide the nature of any review that would take place after implementation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The point that I was trying to make was that, if this were to form part of the substantive Bill, it would be possible for it to be considered as part of the Government’s proposals in this respect. I do not want the House to have another vote on the issue, but I feel that this is not in conflict with the amendment successfully moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, I am told from the Box that there is no need for Amendment 56A, so I will not move it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have very little to say on this, as it is not something on which I have a great deal of knowledge. The issue would have benefited from debate in Committee. I understand why the noble Lord did not bring the amendment forward in Committee, although I think he probably wishes that he had done so. We would have welcomed a debate on it. I know of the noble Lord’s persistence on issues. He and I have discussed issues such as litter previously and I look forward to him coming back to that matter as well.
However, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views on this. From what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has said, he expected this issue to be in the Bill. I think he thought it was agreed that it would be included in the Bill but it is not. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that, on whether the issue is being considered by the Government and on their reasoning in relation to it. That would be extremely helpful for this debate.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on speaking so powerfully on behalf of a vulnerable group. This is an important amendment. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading and I am sorry to have missed the Committee stage, when I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave another response, but I am still not satisfied that the Government have taken a serious interest in this. When I spoke at Second Reading the report of Médecins du Monde seemed to me very compelling. Has the Minister seen it? The noble Baroness quoted several authorities and I will not repeat them but I think this has serious consequences, not only for that group but for the population at large, especially in the field of mental health.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, when we look at the Second Reading and Committee debates, one area of the Bill where there has been the least clarity for noble Lords is in trying to understand the implications beyond what are now Clauses 37 and 38. It is not necessarily the words of the clauses but some of the rhetoric that the Government have used in describing the Bill, such as “health tourism”. I know that there are expectations of what this Bill was going to do and concerns about the implications. I think there is an opportunity for the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is to be congratulated on bringing this forward to give some clarity to what is involved. I have had several e-mails and letters from organisations that are extremely concerned. They are not trying to scaremonger; they are trying to understand the public health implications.
In a meeting I had with noble Lord, he was very helpful in explaining that he did not feel that there would be any public health implications and that people who needed treatment would receive it at the point at which they needed it. However, I think a little clarity would be helpful. The two issues of the public health of the nation and cost-effectiveness have exercised your Lordships in looking at this matter. If the Minister can bring some clarity to the two issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, it would be extremely helpful and perhaps helpful to the wider audience outside your Lordships’ House, who have genuine concerns and are trying to ensure that they operate in the best interests of public health and within the law. There is considerable confusion as to what that will be.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, when I raised issues about bail and mental health in detention at the previous stage, the Minister gave me assurances about the Home Office policy presumption in favour of release or temporary admission—a “presumption of liberty”, so called. He said:
“Wherever possible, alternatives to detention are used. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary”.—[Official Report, 3/3/14; col. 1163.]
As this is a more focused debate than in Committee, when we had, I think, six amendments and the Minister had to cover a lot of ground, perhaps I may ask him some questions of which he is aware.
Can the Minister expand on the criteria applied for detention or conversely release, and say something about Home Office guidance and case law? The issue of the periods applied by other EU member states has also been raised. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, I am curious not just about the periods but the legal systems within which those periods sit and how other countries deal with the “abscond” risk. Although I suspect not, does the Home Office have any profile of those who are detained for more than the 28 days that we discussed previously and the more than 60 days we are considering now?
Finally, I cannot resist sharing with your Lordships a case study from the Movement Against Xenophobia, which is one of the many very helpful briefings that we have received. It refers to a man who had been born in the Ukraine and had moved to Poland. He was unable to get a passport and bought a false passport. He was picked up and imprisoned. One might say, “Fair enough”. After his imprisonment, he was held in detention. Post the imprisonment sentence, the detention was 18 months. Eventually, he was successful in challenging that. The irony is that he was trying to leave the UK when he was picked up.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some extremely powerful speeches in today's debate, especially on the concerns about overlong detention. Some of the individual cases that we have heard about strike the humanity of all noble Lords—to take a phrase from my noble friend Lord Judd. We certainly understand the reasons for the amendment and agree that it should always be the objective to reduce the length of time that any individual is in detention. I would hope that in the vast majority of cases it is possible to deal quickly with the process for individuals or find alternatives to detention. As we have heard, that is in the interests of the individuals detained—we have heard that there are 30,000 detainees each year—and in the interests of the taxpayer.
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lady Lister, led to a greater concern about the regime of detention centres and the way in which rules are enforced. We agree that immigration rules must always be enforced, but the responsibility of government is to ensure that all detainees are treated humanely, with high standards and safeguards in place. As this amendment seeks to draw attention to, the process of administrating and assessing claims or arranging deportation should be undertaken as quickly and as fairly as possible.
Long delays and long periods of detention bring with them other problems. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the research undertaken by Women for Refugee Women which illustrates concerns about access to healthcare and support for physical and mental health. Only this week, we heard the extremely sad and distressing account of a woman of 40 who died at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. I was pleased that yesterday the Minister announced an investigation and review into that sad and tragic death.
Will the Minister also confirm that there will be a full investigation into the reports of sexual abuse of vulnerable women at Yarl’s Wood by Serco employees? What action has been taken as a result of the report of the inspector who said that abused and trafficked women are being held at Yarl’s Wood? The chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place said yesterday that Serco has confirmed to him that in the past few years seven employees had been dismissed for inappropriate behaviour. The Minister will also be aware that there are ongoing police investigations and criminal proceedings, although Nick Hardwick, in his most recent inspection report, said that—I paraphrase—good progress was being made but more needs to be done. There are real concerns that have been illustrated across the House today.
However, that is not the amendment before us today. This is specifically about the length of time an individual can be held, and we heard examples of overlong detention from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. My concern about the amendment is that it is slightly clumsily worded and does not necessarily achieve what it sets out to do. It has an arbitrary time limit of 60 days. Within that, there is no risk assessment of the issues of whether or not someone is likely to abscond or any assessment of the reasons for the delay.
More importantly, and this gives us the most concern, foreign criminals who have completed their sentences may be detained while they await deportation. That may take a little longer than 60 days to resolve—to get all the paperwork in place, ensure that they are treated properly and make an assessment of where they can be deported to. We would then be faced with the prospect of releasing those who do not have a legal right to be in the UK and who have become convicted offenders who have received a custodial sentence. That could lead to complications in the paperwork or the complex nature of the deportation. If the amendment were passed today as it stands, we could have a difficulty with former offenders who have been held in detention prior to deportation.
Unless I have missed something, there is no process in the amendment to allow for any extension in any circumstances, whether for a genuine risk of absconding or because of deportation for previous criminal offences. There is no qualification at all in the amendment as it stands. Having said that, I think it was my noble friend Lord Judd who used a phrase—which is well worth this House returning to on a number of occasions—about the humanity and the principle of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to the amendment being a “stimulus”, because the Government should be aiming to achieve far shorter detention periods.
I fully appreciate that this amendment could focus the Government’s attention on being far more efficient in dealing with cases but there is a risk here, as I have outlined, and I am not convinced that the Government would necessarily take note in that way. I would like to hear some assurances from the Minister that action will be taken to deal with any abuses of the rules and regime in any detention centre. I hope that he will not dismiss the objectives of the amendment before us today because, whatever flaws there may be in the detail, this amendment raises issues of serious concern across your Lordships’ House, as he has heard, that have to be addressed. Although we cannot support this amendment as it stands, we would hope for a very sympathetic and helpful response from the Minister.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that contribution. I think she recognises the burdens on the Government in dealing with this matter. I also say to her that, clearly, if there is evidence of wrong-doing at a detention centre, it will be investigated. However, I would like to write to the noble Baroness in more detail on that because I cannot address from the Dispatch Box the particular issues that she raises.
However, as to the general principle, we have had a really good debate today on detention. The truth of the matter is that no Government want to detain people more than they have to. I think the figure was quoted of £36,000 per annum for each detainee, which is enough incentive for any Government, not just on humanitarian grounds but on hard-nosed business terms. We do not want people detained, but these are difficult issues and we have vested, quite rightly in my view, the determination of these matters in the courts. It is the courts that determine the period of detention. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has talked about the legal background to these issues, this is a case where that balance between the Executive and the court system determines outcomes.
I will now try to address the issues in the amendment, which my noble friend Lady Williams characteristically presented with the passion that has driven her through a most distinguished political career. Amendment 9 would require the release of any individual in immigration detention subject to a removal decision after 60 days’ detention, no matter how imminent their removal was. Removal might be due after 62, 64 or 70 days, but 60 days would be the effective limit. There is an absconding risk in that, which I think noble Lords will recognise. Having a finite limit would give people an incentive not to co-operate with removal. Much of what we have been discussing here has been discussed in very high-minded terms, but there are people in detention who will do everything that they can to ensure that they are not removed. If an individual refused to co-operate with arrangements for their removal—for example, in obtaining a travel document, which requires the co-operation of the detainee—they would be able to benefit from their non-compliance when making a bail application after 60 days of detention, even if the sole reason for their detention and for their not being removed was their lack of compliance. Even if a limit were to be imposed, 60 days is not the right limit, and I hope I can convince noble Lords of that. The Government’s view is that it is not appropriate to legislate to set a time limit for immigration detention.
Lord Hope of Craighead
The reason why I suggested the word “previously” is because that is in new subsection (6) and would link in new subsection (5) with new subsection (6) to show that what one is talking about is exactly the kind of matter being referred to in the definition in new subsection (6).
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I rise briefly to comment that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has done a service to your Lordships’ House because she has given the Minister the opportunity to think again and to take advice from some of the best legal minds that the country has. I hope that he will take that opportunity.
I am not a lawyer, but one thing that strikes me is the issue of fairness. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised the point when she used a football analogy—not something that I would normally do in any event whatever. My noble friend Lord Bach laughs, because he knows my loathing of the obsession with football. But the idea that the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction should depend on the consent of one of the parties to the appeal is something that offends a great many noble Lords and their sense of justice and fairness.
My only question to the noble Baroness, which I asked her when I saw that she had raised this matter, was whether the Government had ever raised any concerns and whether this proposal would make it more difficult for them, given their problems in deporting foreign criminals. She was able to assure me that it has never been raised by the Government as causing any concern whatever. I think that the Minister should take the opportunity that has been presented to look at this again. The noble Baroness says that the amendment is not perfect, but it does not need to be perfect to take it away and give some further consideration to what has given a lot of concern to noble Lords across the House.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for introducing this amendment, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, has given rise to many learned contributions in the course of debate. As has been indicated, the amendment would place the tribunal in a position of the primary decision-maker; it would allow matters to be considered and decided by the tribunal without the Secretary of State having considered and decided them.
The tribunal exists to consider appeals against the refusal of an application by the Secretary of State. That is why the Bill provides that the tribunal may not consider matters that have not first been considered by the Secretary of State unless the Secretary of State consents to it doing so. Picking up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, nothing in the proposal in any way reflects on the work that has been done by the tribunal. Indeed, the point he made from experience about it being more appropriate than the cases that went to court is in no way a reflection on the tribunal.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights stated in its report that the provision relating to the Secretary of State’s consent may not be compatible with the principles of equality of arms, right of access to a court and the separation of powers because it allows one of the parties to an appeal, the Secretary of State, to determine the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Of course, ultimately Parliament sets the jurisdiction of the parameters within which the tribunal will operate.
However, the principal reason why the Government have proposed this measure is that we do not believe it is right for the tribunal to be the primary decision-maker. I certainly will reflect on the points made on that principle. I noted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that it was more practical for the tribunal to deal with this matter although, technically, the decision-making body was the Secretary of State. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made the point that the primary decision-maker in these matters is the Secretary of State. Therefore, I do not think it is such a clear question of principle as perhaps has been suggested. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, maintained that there were compelling practical reasons. However, the primary decision-maker is, indeed, the Secretary of State. The role of the Secretary of State—
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, we now return to what many consider one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that we had a number of debates on this clause in Committee. We raised our concerns about the principle of removing the right to appeal against an application to refuse a visa. We saw that against the backdrop of what appears to be poor-quality decision-making, when so many appeals succeed.
In the debate last week on the Question for Short Debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the decision-making process as a matter of judgment and said that when a tribunal overturns an original decision by a caseworker that does not mean the original decision is wrong, merely that a different judgment has been made. He was very clear that these are balanced judgments. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, made a helpful point that, on the issue of judgment, the caseworker should be able to go back to the sponsors of an application to double-check its veracity. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, agreed to write to us on that and I look forward to receiving his reply. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, contributes to our discussions today. Despite the Minister’s best efforts, both in your Lordships’ House and in writing, and the generosity with their time of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in meeting to discuss this and other issues, he has failed to convince us of the need to remove the right of appeal and replace it with an internal, administrative review. We remain of the view that the efforts and resources would be better employed ensuring accurate, timely initial decisions.
We remain deeply concerned about the clause and have therefore retabled our amendment to delete it from the Bill. We have also tabled Amendment 13 to ensure that appeal rights cannot be abolished until the quality of Home Office decision-making for managed migration is deemed, by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the Secretary of State, to be efficient, effective and fair. This reinforces my previous point about our priority being the quality and accuracy of judgment on initial decisions.
As your Lordships will know, only three types of decision will remain appealable under this clause: a decision to refuse a claim of asylum or humanitarian protection; a decision to refuse a human rights claim; or a decision to revoke asylum or humanitarian protection. A decision by the Home Office to refuse an application which does not involve one of these claims but is made, for example, on erroneous grounds or without reference to highly relevant information, could not be challenged before a tribunal. That even includes a simple mistake being made or not including a document that should have been included. As noble Lords who have been through this process with anybody or advised them on it will know, it is sometimes very difficult to know all the documents that should be included. Instead, the Government plan to set up an administrative review system which will provide a proportionate and less costly mechanism for resolving caseworking errors. We obviously support a process that gives timely, accurate decisions with a facility to swiftly address any errors. However, taken in context, this clause does not do that.
In Committee, we heard about the impact that the clause might have on students, undermining our attractiveness to the best students in the world. We heard about the impact that it would have on children, and noble Lords will also be aware of its impact on businesses. Organisations representing students’ best interests and student bodies fully support Amendment 11 as the preferred way of dealing with this. This may offer reassurance to the noble Lords who have spoken specifically about students.
The system that provides for appeals is even more essential, given that we know how flawed the current system is: the balance of judgment referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It is well documented that the department is already struggling to deliver a high-quality service and there are huge casework backlogs. In Committee, I provided some shocking statistics to show how serious the situation is. I do not intend to repeat those today but it is clear from the evidence that there are huge pressures on the service and on those whose job it is to clear the backlog and assess new applications. Yet the Government now propose a new administrative review system with no additional staff. We should not be surprised, or allocate blame to individuals working under such pressure, that so many decisions are overturned on appeal. The latest statistics that I have seen show that 32% of deportation decisions, 49% of managed migration appeals—that is, work and student appeals—and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year.
Although the department had no statistics on why those appeals were granted, since then it has, rightly, undertaken an exercise looking at a sample of 2% of cases, which showed that 60% of appeals allowed are due to casework errors. Extrapolating that figure indicates that almost a third of all appeals allowed are due to casework errors. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said that these figures had to be looked at,
“from the perspective of the end-to-end immigration system”,
and that the majority of applications are successful. What he meant was that the majority of applications are not appealed against.
However, what matters here is the principle. When so many decisions are found to be flawed and when even the Minister acknowledges, as he puts it,
“historic problems with decision quality”—[Official Report, 3/3/14; col. 1195.]—
should we really be trying to remove the current system of appeals and replace it with administrative reviews? I have said before, and I think it still holds, that it cannot be right that the Home Office’s response to its own inefficiency is simply to stop people challenging that inefficiency. I come back to my earlier point, which makes all the more sense to us: the Government should be focusing on improving the efficiency of those initial decisions and making sure that there is little need for appeals in the first place.
As evidence of the appropriateness of the new system of administrative appeals, the Government rely on its use overseas by people who are refused entry clearance. However, as the Government themselves have admitted, not only are these very different decisions with fewer grounds—and so, it is hoped, with fewer mistakes made—but just 21% of original decisions are overturned in that process against the 50% of appeals granted under the current system. Therefore, given the difference in the types of decisions and the fact that less than half the number of overseas administrative reviews are successful compared with appeals, I am not convinced that the Government’s reliance on that as evidence for making the change is sound.
The Government have said time and again that the person reviewing the decision will not be the person making the original decision, but the reviewers will still be a cohort of immigration staff drawn from the initial decision-makers, so it is not an independent process.
In his response to me in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, insisted that the administrative review process will be quicker and less costly. He said:
“Immigration judges at the tribunal will no longer need to consider caseworking errors. Applicants will have those errors considered faster and more cheaply, and those types of case will be removed from the tribunal system, which will reduce overall expense”.—[Official Report, 3/3/14;. col. 1191.]
That is all very well: who would not want a system that is simple, fast and cheaper? However, do we not also want one that is accurate? If mistakes are being made one way, with people being denied visas when they should have received them, can we be certain that no mistakes are being made in the other direction—that is, people being granted visas when they should not be? People are certainly not going to appeal against that. Therefore, we need a system that gets it right.
I think that our comments and concerns have been taken on board to some extent, particularly with regard to the lack of oversight. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, quoted the statement of intent in relation to the Bill, saying:
“‘Within a year of the … review process being established, the Home Secretary will ask the independent chief inspector to include a review of the administrative review process in his inspection plan’”—[Official Report, 3/3/14; col. 1196.]—
and that the chief inspector could have the power to undertake an inspection off his own bat. A government amendment was tabled to that effect, and another not dissimilar amendment will be coming soon from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, that remains after the event. Why not have a review first to see where improvements can be made? Alternatively, we can monitor those improvements before forging ahead and adding another layer of chaos to an already overstretched service.
The Government have also relied on the availability of judicial review as a recourse, despite the change that they are making to judicial review and despite the fact that the impact assessment could not make a proper assessment of the cost. However, this process has the potential to be far more expensive, despite the noble and learned Lord’s comments about it being cheaper and quicker. The Government’s own assessment shows that an extra 5,600 reviews and up to 1,000 judicial reviews could be granted. That would cost more than appeals, and costs can be sought from the other party and damages may be claimed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said on a number of occasions in our previous debate that he understood the concerns in relation to the clause and he understood the reservations that were expressed about decision-making in immigration cases. Despite that, the Government are still ploughing ahead with a radical reform. We have not seen the evidence for this clause and we do not believe that the evidence is there. It is ill thought-out and unfair, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will be prepared to consider the points that have been made throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give greater reassurances on this issue than he has been able to provide so far. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full explanation. He is right: there has been some movement to address the concerns that we raised in Committee, and I welcome the Government’s new clause. I must admit that he has gone further tonight than I thought when I read the new clause when he said in response to the noble Baroness that the chief inspector would look at the substantive issues and not just those such as the effectiveness mentioned in the amendment. That is certainly welcome. I wonder whether the inspector will be able to deal with possibly thousands of cases every year.
Although the Minister says that the majority of applications are successful, it remains that a third of all appeals succeed due to casework errors. I take his point about speed. It seems that the Government are more concerned with the cost and speed of decision-making than with accuracy and fairness. I would point to the system at the Department for Work and Pensions, where there is a process for administrative review but that does not prevent an appeal taking place as well if that remains the decision of the person who was refused. I have already said that I think the Government’s reliance on the overseas system of administrative review is flawed for a number of reasons. I am also surprised that the Minister seems to be at odds with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who referred to case working decisions being a judgment decision on a balanced decision, yet the Minister referred to it as following rules. We seem to be being informed about two different systems.
As much as I welcome the comments that the Minister has made—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who is unable to be with this us at the moment—I feel that the Minister has not really addressed the reasons why the Government are removing a fundamental right of appeal for judicial review. The explanation and the evidence were not there and I feel that I have to test the opinion of the House on this issue.
Metropolitan Police
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, it might help the noble Lord if I just say that I have made it quite clear that we recognise the sense of duty with which our police officers undertake their tasks, and indeed our confidence in the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the content and tone of his answers. The further revelations published in the Independent newspaper today of a secret investigation into persistent corrupt networks within the Metropolitan Police are really beyond shocking. I am grateful to the Minister for his answers today, but can he tell us what action the Government will be taking in regard to these allegations as well?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think the noble Baroness is referring to Operation Zloty and the discovery that some of the material that we were hoping to be able to use to investigate further may have been destroyed. There is a determination among everyone who is currently engaged in this matter to get to the bottom of it and to get to the truth. I am confident that we will achieve that. It may take time and there may be obstacles in our path but we are determined that the truth should be known. Indeed, by finding the truth, we will also help the police themselves regain that confidence that they should surely have about the way that they protect us.
Licensing Act 2003 (Mandatory Licensing Conditions) Order 2014
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
As an amendment to the above motion, at end to insert “but regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have failed to demonstrate a coherent link between the permitted price policy and the evidence quoted in the Impact Assessment and Explanatory Memorandum, meaning their claims are completely speculative; and further notes that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 35th Report (HL Paper 149) again criticises Her Majesty’s Government for failing to make the policy link as asked by the Committee in its 32nd Report (HL Paper 137).”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and for his comments on the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I beg to move my Motion of Regret, which reads as an amendment to the Motion moved by the noble Lord.
I seek clarity from the Minister on the evidence he has produced and the information presented to your Lordships’ House in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the impact assessment. It seems to be a regular theme when looking at Home Office legislation—I feel that I come back to these three points again and again—that we need to probe further to understand: the evidence base for the measures brought before us; how those measures will work in practice and the impact they will have. That is, whether the measure can achieve the objective the Government state and any unintended consequences, such as whether groups or individuals other than those whom the policy targets are affected and whether that is reasonable. I have tabled this amendment to the Motion today because of the lack of clarity on these points in the order before us.
Most noble Lords would agree that alcohol can be both a pleasure and a pain. The vast majority of those who enjoy a beer or a glass of wine—or something stronger—do so responsibly, without causing any significant harm to themselves or others, and do not cause any disruption or drain on public services. However, we are also aware of those who, because of the amount of alcohol they consume, cause significant harm to themselves, and harm and disruption to others. That can be a considerable drain on public services, to the detriment of others. The challenge is to effect such change that will impact on the behaviour of those who have and cause significant problems, without unfairly impacting on responsible drinkers. The question for your Lordships’ House is whether the order before us today achieves those objectives.
I found the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 32nd report, and the 35th report with the publication of the correspondence from the Minister, Norman Baker, very helpful, and I was glad that the noble Lord referred to them briefly in this comments. The committee has proved—I have tried to follow this in reading the papers myself—the discrepancies and the contradictory information supplied by the Government in evidence for the policy. I am particularly grateful to the committee for its scrutiny, and I always find its reports particularly helpful and invaluable to your Lordships’ House.
After the committee’s initial scrutiny, the Government withdrew their original Explanatory Memorandum that claimed that the benefit to the public sector was £17 million a year from this policy and replaced it with the significantly more modest claim of less than £1 million —and I have to say that the evidence base for that £1 million remains a bit woolly. The 35th report published correspondence with the Minister, Norman Baker, with the initial questions and concerns of the committee. Having read the order, the Explanatory Memorandum, the impact assessment and the committee’s reports, I had anticipated a fuller response from Norman Baker. I share the concerns that the committee expressed in its 35th report, when it said:
“We found the letter to be no more convincing on the merits of this policy than the Explanatory Memorandum. The House may wish to press the Minister to explain the policy of the instrument more clearly in debate”.
That is the challenge for the Minister this evening: to explain that and to assist your Lordships’ House in understanding the rationale and impact of this, as well as bringing clarity to the evidence on the impact.
I am going to refer to parts of the Explanatory Memorandum and impact assessment as I make my comments. Page 2 of the impact assessment provides the Government’s assessment of the economic benefits of this policy. It identifies a best-estimate annual cost of £5.3 million and £9.5 million of benefits, giving a net annual benefit of £4.2 million. I am still a little puzzled by the figures. If the Minister has the impact assessment in front of him, he will see that the calculations of the costs in the figures include only two of the four costs listed; it does not include the cost to retailers. It says:
“There will be transition costs as retailers familiarise themselves with the policy … This is estimated to be a one-off total cost of £4.1m”.
Neither does it include,
“transition costs to the licensing authorities to familiarise themselves with the policy and inform alcohol retailers, estimated at £0.2m”.
Those costs do not seem to be included in the £5.3 million that the Government give as their best estimate of annual costs. But those are costs that the Government say will arise.
When we look to non-monetised costs and benefits, we see that there is more certainty around the costs than there is around the benefits, where it says:
“There may be a benefit to business if consumers”,
do such and such, such as “switch their expenditure”. So there is much more clarity about the costs than there is about the benefit, with the costs being referred to as “will” and the benefits as “may”.
Paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum is completely different, because the cost to business there is identified at around £0.4 million a year, with an estimated one-off cost as well. But it talks also about the impact on the public sector, saying:
“There is an estimated cost of £5.3 million per annum, plus £0.2 million implementation costs. There is an estimated benefit in reduction of healthcare costs of £1.15 million per annum. The benefit to society, for example to victims, the police and the criminal justice system through a reduction in alcohol related crime is estimated as £3.6m per annum”.
There is a net annual cost of £0.5 million—so that is different. But I do not know where the evidence is for the impact that is outlined in the impact assessment. The evidence base would be crucial on this, and if the Minister could enlighten us on the evidence base for those figures and why they are different in the impact assessment from the ones in the Explanatory Memorandum, I would find that helpful.
I have quoted from Norman Baker’s explanation in the committee’s 35th report. He explains the modelling used and offers,
“reassurance that work is in hand to improve the quality of checking Home Office Statutory Instruments and supporting documents”.
I still do not understand the reasons for the differences, but maybe I am missing something that is very obvious to others—I just do not know what it is, and other noble Lords may also find a lack of clarity there. If the Minister can give an explanation on points that I have raised regarding costs and benefits, that would be very helpful.
The second point is on the impact of the policy. What difference would this policy make? The rationale for the policy is outlined on page 7 of the impact assessment, which cites the NHS costs of £3.5 billion, alcohol-related crime at £11 billion and lost productivity due to alcohol at around £7.3 billion a year. That is £21.8 billion annually. It would be helpful to have the evidence base for that, because, again, those are significant costs. If they are likely to be reduced significantly, we would like to know the evidence base for that.
Page 3 of the impact assessment identifies the policies that were considered by the Government before bringing this policy forward. Originally, there was the minimum unit price, which qualifies what they used to call competition. The Home Secretary said previously:
“We will ... introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/12; col. 1071.]
There were no ifs, buts or maybes—she said, “We will introduce this”. The consultation document on the alcohol strategy stated:
“In the Strategy, the Government committed to introducing a minimum unit price. However, in other areas, this consultation seeks views on the introduction of policies”.
That seems to me very clear. The Government had intended, and were clear about that intention, to introduce minimum alcohol pricing, to the extent that they were consulting on other matters in the strategy and not that one. But tucked away on the impact assessment to the order, on page 3 we learn:
“The Government has decided that the introduction of minimum unit pricing (MUP) will remain a policy under consideration but will not be taken forward at the present time”.
That is not quite the same fanfare as when it was announced that it would be brought in. So that was rejected.
The other policy rejected was the ban on multi-buy offers, such as “buy two, get one free” in supermarkets. I am not clear how that works in conjunction with this order. Presumably, although multi-buys are not being offered, they would have to be sold in line with the formula in this order at a permitted price. I would like an explanation on how that works. I go to Marks & Spencer and buy my husband six bottles of Sussex Golden Ale for the price of five—that is a multi-buy. He is not going to get drunk on those; he is not a big drinker. He might have a couple of bottles of beer at the weekend, of an evening. But presumably that affects the price for those seeking to purchase such items on a budget. Although the Government do not seek to do anything around multi-buy offers, the permitted price would have an impact on such offers.
What about those pubs or restaurants that offer in many areas fish and chips and a pint for £4.99 or £5.99? Will that fall foul of this order, if somebody decides that the beer rather than the chips has been discounted on price? How would that be assessed? I would like to know the detail of how that will work, because we are told that this policy is the alternative to banning multi-buys and minimum unit pricing. What difference is it going to make?
The Minister quoted from the University of Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, which produced the data for the Government on the impact of the policy and the different income groups. There is recognition that those with an addiction are not likely to be affected by pricing; the greatest impact appears to be on those hazardous and harmful drinkers on lower incomes, as those on higher incomes could just spend less for the same effect.
Page 13 of the impact assessment explains further that there will be no change in expenditure for the higher-income moderate drinkers but there will be an increase for hazardous drinkers of 30 pence a year. It says that,
“whereas low-income harmful drinkers are expected to increase their expenditure by £1.40 per year, higher-income harmful drinkers are expected to decrease their expenditure by £0.10 per year”.
Is that really going to make any difference? The Minister gave some sort of figures on the differences that this policy is going to make, but I have not seen the evidence behind the information that he has given.
The response to the committee from the Home Office when it asked about the impact on crime—and the Minister gave significant figures on this—was:
“The reduction in crime costs was estimated by predicting how crime will change in response to changes in alcohol consumption. These estimates do not predict how the level of crime will respond to any changes in disposable income resulting from the ban on below cost sales. However, the prediction is that, on average, alcohol spending among low income groups will increase by 0.03%, equivalent to a £0.15 increase in annual spending. It is not likely that this would lead to any considerable increase in crime”.
We need more information about a significant impact in this regard. If we want to reduce harm, including harm from crime caused by drinking, will this pricing policy do it? How much less would someone drink as a result of this policy?
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report states that the Sheffield model—the ScHARR model—
“assumes that on average each person will reduce their alcohol intake by 0.04%. The Committee asked what that meant in practical terms. The Home Office responded: ‘The reduction in consumption equates to an average three units per year per person that is equivalent to a large (250ml) glass of 12% ABV wine’”,
or two regular glasses, if, like me, you do not like the large glasses that some pubs use. Given that such minimal outcomes are listed in the report, the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum, one has to question whether the measure will make the significant difference that the noble Lord claims that it will. It seems to me that there is not much evidence for that.
The impact assessment says that minimum unit pricing is still under consideration, but I understand that it may be affected by the Scottish legal challenge. Is this genuinely still under consultation—I think that the committee made a similar point in that regard—or is that just a phrase now being used as a graceful way of ditching the policy when it is difficult to say what the real position is, given the comments made by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister?
These are worthy objectives. None of us wants to see harm caused to individuals or society through alcohol. I emphasise that most drinkers drink responsibly and drink gives them pleasure rather than causes them pain. The Government need to bring forward evidence to support their policy on these issues. I hope that the noble Lord will address these issues; otherwise, it seems to me that considerable effort and money have been expended to bring forward legislation that appears to have such a small effect.
Alcohol abuse is a serious issue and we all want to see policies brought forward to address it. However, I worry that the Government do not have a grip on this issue. We have had the hokey-cokey over the minimum unit pricing and the late night levy, which was supposed to bring in £16 million a year in the first year and £17 million in subsequent years. I think that that figure is now about £520,000. Not a single early morning restriction order has been put in place. The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act included powers for the Home Secretary to introduce full cost recovery for alcohol licences. The Government say that they will implement those powers but have not done so although the Act dates from 2011. We now have the Government’s sobriety scheme to help those with alcohol problems. The pilots were launched in April 2012 and lasted for six months. I have no information on them but I understand that six people have benefited from the scheme.
If we are going to tackle this issue, we have to do so seriously and seek to have a joined-up approach on the different issues that can make an impact. However, I am not clear that the measure before us today will have any impact. If it will have an impact, where is the evidence base for that?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will no doubt be relieved to hear that I will not ask as many questions as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I think that we have perfect symmetry here because I wish to ask my noble friend why he is not going further today and why minimum unit pricing appears to be only half on the table.
The Government’s response to the consultation acknowledged that there might be unintended consequences of minimum unit pricing. This nostrum seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent. What process is now involved? We have this form of pricing, which clearly is half a loaf, but what is the Home Office doing in terms of further research? We have robust Canadian research, which many of us have seen over the past few months. I have the relevant brief in front of me. It states:
“All 10 Canadian provinces have some form of minimum alcohol pricing applied to liquor store and/or bar and restaurant sales … The Centre for Addictions Research of BC at the University of Victoria has collaborated with five other research agencies in Canada, USA and the UK to evaluate minimum pricing impacts on health and safety. Six studies have been conducted which demonstrate impacts of increased minimum prices on level of consumption and alcohol-related harms including deaths, hospital admissions and crimes. The results support the predictions of the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model and suggest that estimated benefits are larger than the model predictions”.
It is interesting that all the Canadian evidence seems to imply that the Sheffield model is rather conservative in its estimate of the health and social benefits arising from minimum unit pricing.
It is interesting that the Government seem to have parked this matter. I very much hope that the Minister will describe what next steps will be taken to introduce something rather more robust than what we have before us today. How on earth will officials in the Home Office assess what the unintended consequences will be? It seems to me a very circular argument. There may be unintended consequences but surely, if the evidence appears robust, the way to deal with that is to go forward on a trial or sunset-clause basis, see what the impact is and then make adjustments accordingly rather than just talking about unspecified unintended consequences. I take the point about the Scottish legal challenge but that is a timing issue in terms of seeing whether or not that will bear fruit for the complainants.
I very much hope that the Minister will give us a little bit more of a window on the future as opposed to this rather cautious approach that we have at present.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I welcome this debate. It is good to explain to the House how this measure fits in with the Government’s alcohol strategy, and the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has given us a chance to debate it more fully than we might otherwise have done.
I think all noble Lords agree that, when used responsibly, alcohol can be a welcome part of social situations and community events. However, we all also accept that alcohol-related harm can affect many people in England and Wales, with victims in almost half of violent crimes believing the perpetrator to be under the influence of alcohol. This is completely unacceptable. That is why the Government are committed to tackling this issue and why it is crucial that they use all the tools at their disposal to tackle the causes of this harm.
Through the alcohol strategy, the Government are promoting proportionate and targeted action to reduce the costs and problems caused to society by irresponsible and excessive drinking without disproportionately affecting responsible drinkers. This includes giving local areas more powers to address the alcohol-related problems that they face on a daily basis through the local alcohol action area scheme, which was launched last week. It offers support to local areas in cutting alcohol-related crime and disorder and reducing the damage caused to people’s health. As well as taking local action, we are acting nationally by challenging the alcohol industry to raise its game by supporting targeted local action, tackling the high strength or high volume products that can cause the most harm, promoting and displaying alcohol responsibly in shops, and improving education around drinking.
I think all noble Lords will agree that alcohol that is too cheap is a threat to achieving the aims of our strategy. We must do something about it without penalising those who choose to enjoy alcohol in a responsible manner and without threatening economic growth by creating red tape for business. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked about minimum unit pricing. I would like to be clear that this is not a debate about the benefits of minimum unit pricing. However, I accept that it is a matter of great interest and will therefore speak briefly on it. A wide range of evidence was provided throughout the consultation on minimum unit pricing. These have been considered alongside updated modelling by the University of Sheffield—I note the comments of my noble friend on this point—which suggests that a minimum unit price of 45p would have an impact on the consumption of hazardous and harmful drinkers, thereby resulting in a significant reduction in health harms and some reduction in crime-related harms.
A number of other issues were raised, including the potential impact of minimum unit pricing on the cost of living, the economic impact of the policy and increases in illicit alcohol sales. The Government acknowledge the need to give careful consideration to any possible unintended consequence of minimum unit pricing. Further, while we remain confident of the legal basis of the minimum unit pricing policy and will continue to support the Scottish Government in this area, the Government are also mindful of the need to watch the outcome of the legal challenge to the Scottish Government’s minimum pricing legislation. For these reasons, the Government have decided that the introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol will remain a policy under consideration. I emphasise to the noble Baroness that it remains a policy under consideration. It has not been shelved but will not be taken forward at present. We will continue to monitor carefully the legal developments and the implementation of this policy in Scotland.
Perhaps I may answer my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s comments about minimum unit pricing in Canada. Two provinces are actively engaged in this: British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They have been doing so for some time but their policies are different in practice from the proposals that have been made on MUP in England and Wales. Social reference pricing in Canada involves minimum prices for types of drinks but not per-unit pricing. The context of sale is also different. Alcohol sales are more tightly controlled in those provinces than is the case currently in England and Wales.
My noble friend also asked about the process for considering MUP. The policy remains under consideration, which includes looking at the experience of the policy in other jurisdictions and the potential unintended consequences. Officials remain focused on keeping this under review and will continue to do so, but it would not be appropriate to set a timescale for when this will be completed.
Perhaps I may address some of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It is easier to do so in the general rather than the specific, and I hope she will allow me to write to her on some of the specific challenges she made on the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. However, I should say that the impact assessment was approved by the Regulatory Policy Committee in 2013 and given a green rating. The benefits of the model have been based on the University of Sheffield’s ScHARR model and experts in a number of different fields have fed into the policy. While the reduction is modest compared with the size of the problem, this policy will impact the most on hazardous and harmful drinkers. That is why it is designed in this way. We know that those particular drinkers generate the biggest costs for alcohol-related harm. What this policy seeks to achieve is 900 fewer crimes in the first year alone. The reduction in hospital admissions will go from 100 in year one to 500 in year 10.
The noble Baroness asked for the evidence base for the cost of alcohol. NHS costs are based on Department of Health estimates and alcohol-related crimes are based on Home Office estimates.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful that the noble Lord is making the effort to address the questions. I did not ask for the evidence on alcohol-related crime or hospital admissions; I asked for evidence of the change that this policy would bring about. That was what I was trying to understand—the evidence for the changes that the Government say this policy would bring about, not evidence of the problem.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps in the context of the figures that I am intending to provide to the noble Baroness when I reply in detail, I will seek to do so. However, I think that I have just said in my most recent contribution to the debate that this policy is focused principally on those people who hazard themselves and others through excessive drinking. The policy is targeted at those drinkers with very high consumption of alcohol and is considered to be a very effective policy in this area.
The noble Baroness asked why the Explanatory Memorandum contained one set of figures and the impact assessment a different set. The Explanatory Memorandum identifies the health benefits for the public sector, as is the practice. The impact assessment presents a wider picture and includes the gains in quality-adjusted life years, which also benefits patients. The costs in the impact assessment outlined in the table on page 2 relate only to the costs in the public sector, because that is normal practice for impact assessments.
In response to the question on multi-buys, full details on how this policy will work with regard to the type of offers that have been mentioned can be found in the guidance that has been published by the Home Office. In effect, it means that, aggregated together, the multi-buy still has to meet the requirements of this policy so that there is no suggestion that the multi-buy can break through the price that this measure implements. Businesses can continue to promote multi-buys if the total price is not beneath the permitted price.
I picked up one point that the noble Baroness made about page 2 of the impact assessment. She pointed out that a whole series of costs were not included in those figures. If she looks, those total figures excluded transitional costs—and I think she admitted that the costs listed immediately above the paragraph entitled,
“Description and scale of key monetised costs by ‘main affected groups’”,
were transitional costs.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did see that but I just wonder why the figures exclude transition costs. They are still a cost of implementation.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It was considered that this was a reasonable way to evaluate the costs and benefits over time. Obviously, this is a continuing process, and amortising transition costs over time is not normal practice when one is doing an impact assessment. These costs are identified separately, which enables noble Lords to assess them properly.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s diligence in drawing the House’s attention to some of the matters relating to the analysis of the Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment. I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken receive a copy of the letter which I shall write to the noble Baroness setting out answers to the detailed questions that she has asked me, and I hope that I will be able to answer them to her satisfaction.
I believe that at heart this is at least a brick in the wall towards building an effective alcohol strategy. We must build on this to maintain the momentum of our commitment to reduce the harm caused by alcohol to consumers, to families, to the thousands of victims of alcohol-related crime, and to local communities and businesses, which are also vital to our economy. With that in mind, I commend the order to the House and I hope that it will prove acceptable to noble Lords.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I look forward to receiving his letter. I do not doubt the Government’s objectives in this regard at all; what I doubt is the effectiveness of the policies outlined. I will go through his letter in some detail but, when I look at the tables in the impact assessment, the impact does not seem to be at all significant. I was not necessarily making the case for a minimum unit price; I was just trying to understand the Government’s direction of travel on this, having gone from absolute certainty to a position where the policy is now under consideration and under review. There is a lot more work to be done on this. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but I look forward to receiving the Minister’s letter and perhaps to having further conversations with him on this issue.