Identity Documents Bill

Lord Brett Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, the people who hold these cards, and there were not many of them, were inveigled into getting them on the basis that the scheme would go ahead and eventually would apply to everyone. In fact, they were helping the Government out. Although it was not this coalition Government, it was a Labour Government. Nevertheless, those people had every reason to trust the Government and trust a future Government to give them some recompense if the system of ID cards did not go ahead.

I have to say to the noble Baroness that the coalition is in need of support at the present time. Would it not be in their own interests to show good will and to show that they are cognisant of people’s feelings and do not want them to feel offended? Would it not, for a small cost, be better if the Government supported, or accepted, this amendment, which might do them some good electorally? You never know.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, Amendment 1 was not moved not because the Minister convinced me in Committee of her arguments on cost and complexity. The complexity seemed to be manufactured and the cost involved figures that I could not recognise; nor could anybody else who studied it, given that banks issue cards every day of the week gratis and do not expect it to cost a tremendous amount of money. On the other hand, I was convinced by the noble Baroness’s determination not to move on the issue and not least by the discourtesy shown—not that I blame the Minister for this, because she has always been courteous. But I asked two questions in Committee and I did not get the courtesy of an answer. I indicated that I was happy to accept the answer betwixt then and Report. I asked whether the Government had consulted the Government of Gibraltar, who issue travel cards and replace them at very little expense for the same kind of number as the 12,000 that have been issued in this country to people who are not airside workers. I also asked how many ID cards from different countries were accepted by the UK Immigration Service at British ports and airports. I did not get an answer to that, either.

But those unanswered questions were not what determined me not to move Amendment 1. I thought that the moral high ground was rather greater on Amendment 2 than on Amendment 1. Amendment 1, although it was justified in my view, would have applied to a number of the 12,000 people and it would have pre-empted consideration of Amendment 2. Amendment 2 applies to everybody who voluntarily applied for a card, meaning that they at least would have the consolation of the restoration of the money they paid. For me the most telling argument for why this should happen concerns the impact assessment that the Government carried out. The civil servants who drew up that impact assessment put as the case for refunds that a non-refund would mean a reputational loss to the Government—a reputational loss for the sake of £400,000. I said in Committee and I say it again: the reputation of any democratic Government in this country, of whatever source, colour and coalition, has to be worth £400,000. It is de minimis in departmental budget terms and infinitesimal in national budget terms, but not to those 12,000 people, many of whom are elderly or very young. Business people might use the card for travel, young people would like the card because it would get them into places where they needed to carry their passports, such as clubs and pubs where they had to prove their age, and elderly people could use it as a travel document although it was also a document of some cost.

It seemed to me that the Minister was saying that if you are wealthy enough that £30 does not matter, you will not complain. Ipso facto, if you are poor and you do not complain, you will suffer in silence. Again, for the sake of £400,000, 12,000 people who voluntarily believed the Government of the day are being betrayed by the Government that followed them. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House or the other place can sit easy when this happens and we have the opportunity with this amendment to remedy it.

[Lord Craig of Radley]

My Lords, I am equally concerned that for the sake of a very small amount of money the Government are taking this intransigent attitude. That is assuming that 12,000 people will be seeking £30. I very much doubt whether everybody who has paid their £30 will in fact be doing so, so the sum is probably rather less than the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was talking about. I wondered, as a sort of compromise, whether it would not be possible for those who had paid their £30 to be allowed to offset it against the cost of their next passport so that the cost of their passport is reduced by that amount. That might in some way alleviate this disheartening feeling that everybody seems to have about this rather abrupt and unfair arrangement.

Public Disorder at NUS Rally

Lord Brett Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Well, my Lords, we have a free press, do we not, and we may not always agree with either what they say or do. This is not quite so germane to the noble Lord’s question, but it turns out that the correction I made was erroneous. The Home Secretary did not speak to the mayor; I had said it was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, so I apologise to the House. However, as is clear from the Statement, there was contact between the Government and the police. There has also, obviously, been extensive contact today as a basis for giving accurate information to the House.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, yesterday when watching television I had a sense of déjà vu watching the disgraceful events in Millbank Tower. The déjà vu was: 1996 in Seattle with the World Trade Organisation, where I was one of the people inadvertently suffering from pepper gas and tear gas, because the police were seeking to protect the delegates but had the Seattle sound with a 30 mile an hour wind to put up with. The thing that was in common was watching people dressed entirely in black and wearing hard hats, smashing into Millbank Tower then encouraging young people to go in and themselves, noticeably, not necessarily going in but walking away. That is exactly what I saw when a Starbucks coffee house was burnt out in Seattle. The gentleman who threw the brazier in—he had lit a whole pile of rubbish—then walked away, taking off his black shirt and putting it underneath his other T-shirt.

It is therefore not necessarily just a question of students, because I suspect that some of the people have nothing to do with being students. I trust that the investigation will therefore look at that. More particularly, there was intelligence about Millbank Tower, where I used to work. It is a large building with lots of staff who must have been very terrified when that happened. If there was such intelligence, was the management of the building informed of the likelihood of such dangers?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord makes some good observations about what went on. The Statement was rather careful in just referring to a “faction”, because at this stage we simply do not know exactly who was involved. He is quite right, and anyone who viewed television saw what he saw, that there was obviously preparation; you do not come along with a mask without the intention of doing something, or indeed with, I believe, a hammer. Clearly there was premeditation.

The noble Lord is also right to say that this must have been pretty frightening for those who were in the building. I would say that one of the first cares of the police when they arrived in that building was to secure the safety of those in it and, thereafter, to begin to eject the intruders.

I cannot answer the question about the information to the management. I would hope that because of the route, and given that the police were there, the management of the building had some forewarning.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Brett Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

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

[Lord Brett]

I am fascinated by the idea that information from a private sector credit reference agency, whose staff are not vetted by anybody, is considered to be reliable and secure enough for us to see it as a key part of the provision of passports. Concern was rightly expressed during the passage of the 2006 Act about government security and the destruction of the information being held. The Bill states that the information will be destroyed within 28 days. Can the Minister go into more detail about what “destroyed” means? Does it simply mean wiping out the tape that holds the information? Does it mean a wider destruction of information? For example, every piece of information that is put on the record goes on the computer, which has a hard drive that retains it. The word “destruction” carries with it a fairly comprehensive meaning, but the reality is that 28 days is a short period of time. Can we have more of a flavour of what physically has to be destroyed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps before the Minister answers, I could just ask her about what it says at the top of page 6 of the Bill, in Clause 10(3)(i). Following my noble friend’s intervention on qualifying the credit reference agency, I notice that there is an open-ended paragraph that says,

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

It would be helpful if the Minister could let me know either now or in writing what sort of “any other person” might be mentioned. There was a concern about the credit reference agency, but I would actually have a rather wider concern about the open-ended nature of that provision.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Brett Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Brett]

1: Clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out from “day” to end of line 12 on page 2 and insert “will remain valid as a travel document in Europe until their expiry date”

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to retain one part that is enshrined in the law of the 2006 Act; that is, the use of the identity card as a travel document. Identity cards are not a unique phenomena known only in the UK, although you might have thought that from some of the external non-parliamentary criticism some time ago. Across the whole of the European Union, they are the norm rather than the exception. All countries in the EU except Ireland and Denmark have them. Ironically, Denmark, although it does not have ID cards, maintains a national identity register. However, this amendment is solely about travel. This is an issue that caused no controversy whatever before the Bill was introduced, while it was being discussed or after it was passed.

Amendment 2 is simply a mechanism for achieving the aims of Amendment 1; namely, the right of the holders of ID cards to use them as travel documents for the duration of their validity. Given the lack of controversy over this aspect of the Identity Cards Act, there can be no ideological argument against retaining them. The case put forward in the other place for not retaining them was based on technical issues and, in particular, cost issues which, given the Government’s refusal even to offer refunds, must be the most relevant and pressing matter for them.

More than 13,000 ID cards were issued in the UK. However, these are not the only cards containing a UK emblem. The many British residents in Gibraltar are issued with ID cards which are accepted as valid travel documents throughout the EU and the EEA, which includes countries such as Switzerland. I understand that these are issued and maintained at relatively minimal cost. I should like to ask the Minister particularly whether the Government, through the Home Office or the IPS, have consulted the Government of Gibraltar on their experience of ID cards, the processes they use and the costs in this regard. In Europe, the use of ID cards as travel documents is not limited to Gibraltar. Germany, Sweden and a number of other countries, both EU member states and candidate member states, already use ID cards as travel documents.

Among the aggrieved citizens who have approached me and other Members of your Lordships’ House with concerns about being unable to use the ID card as a travel document are, in particular, elderly people who restrict their travel to Europe because of age and insurance issues and business people who frequently travel to Europe. For example, a gentleman from Kent has travelled to mainland Europe—as we used to call it—some 30 times since getting his ID card earlier this year. He values it very highly and does not like the idea of having to carry a passport, which will inevitably get damaged by constant use, while he can have an ID card that fits in his wallet.

For those reasons, and setting aside all the other arguments for or against ID cards, I believe that they should be retained for those who bought them as a valid, legal document. The issue is not one of ideology, and I do not believe that it can be one of cost. I hope the Government will look at the issue again with a view to extending the use of this part of the ID card as a travel document for those who bought them in the honest belief—without a particular view for or against ID cards as a security document—that they could be used as a travel document. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 4 because, as I said on Second Reading, when we discussed this matter at length, it seemed a shame to throw out the one good bit of the scheme along with the bad bit. The bad bit comprises the national identity register, whereas having another bit of plastic with which to identify yourself is not a huge concern. As I said then—I may as well put this on record again—I should be very happy to see us have a plastic passport, as you might call it, comprising the photograph page of the passport with an identical chip in it. We are told that retaining this provision temporarily as a travel document for use in Europe would give rise to huge expense as whole sections of the national identity register would have to be preserved. I do not believe that that would be the case; I think the pudding is being over-egged here in order to make the case all one way.

I support Amendment 4 in preference to Amendment 2 because the latter seems to be rather all-embracing whereas Amendment 4 is concerned merely with the information that is relevant to a passport. That information would have to be retained for a passport anyway and would probably be sufficient to prove the authenticity of the card. I have not checked with my expert but I imagine that the card is very secure and that if you are in possession of the Government’s public key you can authenticate the card without having to have any of this background information off a database, and you can tell whether the card has been cloned or tampered with in any way. Therefore, I think we should do exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, suggested and retain the card as a travel document. Perhaps in due course we could also have a convenient European travel card to go along with it, but we should retain the minimum of information that is required, if any.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Erroll]

I envisaged that the amendment meant that the fingerprints go, everything on the NIR is scrapped and one or two things—which might be literally just the facial biometric—are transferred to the passport to save time. That is all.

[Lord Brett]

I seem to have caused part of this confusion with my amendment. As I understood during that brief period when I was the Minister responsible for identity cards, you have the information that is on the passport database and additional points that are on the national identity register. We are scrapping the national identity register, but we are told that virtually everyone who has an ID card is on the national passport database. So, on the national passport database we need to have an indication that some individuals have an ID card as well, as a travel document. To me, that seems to be the only information that needs to be transferred from the national identity register to the database for passports. That does not sound very resource-intensive or difficult in terms of legal base. I cannot see why any other information is required to be transferred if we are getting away from a register and back to just having a passport, albeit a plastic one.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the amendment does not contain all that accompanying detail. It is not easy, therefore, to interpret what the noble Lord actually thinks should be transferred. If he wants to make that clearer, perhaps that might help, but, as things stand, these amendments have not been thought through. That is a pity because there is the germ of a good idea here. The idea of a passport card is not new, and Members of this House may be aware that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brett]

I am more confused now than I was when we started. I cannot even recognise the replacement costs. But I return to the issue of database transfer. It takes only an asterisk or other symbol on the passport database to indicate that a person is using the same information on the database on a new plastic card which is valid in Europe. If the person loses the card, the cost of replacement will be the cost of the plastic card. Banks do it thousands of times a day. If the cost were remotely as much as is mentioned here then banks would be charging us very substantial sums for card transfers. We are not maintaining a database, so I do not know where the £4 million figure comes from. The passport database, which is well regarded and will continue, will indicate that this small number of people also have a plastic card which will expire on a given date.

I have another question for the noble Baroness. If she does not have the answer to hand, I would be happy to accept it in a letter. How many ID cards does the United Kingdom—the UKBA—accept, and from which countries, as travel documents? If we accept many dozens of them—I think that we are talking a score or more—and if a score or more are used internally in Europe, would it not be a good idea to use this limited number of people as a pilot or experiment to see whether there is value in a longer-term policy of issuing a travel card in Europe?

Those are my questions. I will of course withdraw the amendment, but one can expect the discussion to continue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

No, but even if we are not, I am still fascinated to know how many of us did. I will be quite frank—I did not even read my own party’s manifesto. It was 115 pages long, for a start. However, even if we assume that people had read the party manifesto and knew that we were committed to a repeal of the scheme, there was nothing in any manifesto about repayment of the fee. Anybody reading it would, I suspect, have assumed that if the Government were going to do that, they would return the £30 that was laid out for the purchase. That is my first point.

Secondly, in the statement of the deputy director of policy of the Identity and Passport Service, which is annexed to the report of the Joint Committee on the Bill—it was a pre-scrutiny report published in the middle of October—it was made clear that, although all cardholders had been warned that the cards would be made null and void by the passage of the Bill, there was no reference to non-repayment of the fee. It is very simple: if you knew about all of this—and the vast majority of the public did not—there was still nothing about repayment of the fee.

Then we come to the argument which is to be found at page 20 of the Joint Committee report:

“Comment has been raised that the absence of a refund provision in the Bill is denying cardholders access to safeguards set out in consumer protection legislation. However, an ID card would not be considered as a consumer good. That is because the issue and the holding of an ID card are not considered to be in the nature of a consumer transaction and a sale of goods”.

That, again, comes from the deputy director of policy at the Identity and Passport Service. That is his view. As a lawyer, I am extremely dubious about the reasoning. It seems to me that there was a sale and purchase of goods; namely, a card. I do not see any reason why this should be taken out of the normal consumer protection legislation. Even if it is, surely it is bizarre for this Government, who are committed to fairness—and I am passionately committed to fairness—to resile from the general standard that prevails by law between consumers and suppliers, between purchasers and sellers, on the basis that there is no strictly narrow legal requirement under legislation to do so. Surely we should be a model and satisfy the spirit of all that consumer protection legislation.

I am sorry to have gone on but it strikes me that this is an own goal. It may be small in financial terms—£360,000 is scarcely a blink of the Treasury eyelid these days—but not in terms of the message that it sends out. I want this coalition Government to walk their talk and to act fair as well as talk fair.

[Lord Brett]

My previous confession about having read all three manifestos was somewhat of a wasted investment, given that after the weekend following the election, we had a coalition agreement. However, I recognised at Second Reading that one of the few things that appears in both the Liberal Democrat and the Conservative manifestos was the decision to scrap ID cards. I saw in neither manifesto a reference to a refund or non-refund. When I was, briefly, the Minister responsible for the launch of the scheme, I debated this with Mr Huhne of the Liberal Democrats on the radio, and while he talked about scrapping them, he was silent about the travel document. I was asked what would be the advantage of having one of these documents if the scheme were to be scrapped by the incoming party, and I said that at least they would have value for 10 years as a travel document. Mr Huhne chose not to contradict that and he certainly made no reference to refunds.

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, it is a question of fairness. In the other place, the Minister of State accepted that there were people who, in these straitened times, would have the hardship of having spent the £30. He did not go on to follow his logic, which is that, if you believe in fairness, you should restore that £30 to the individual.

Leaving aside all aspects of ideology, policy and security, I believe that the reputation of this Government—and the reputation of any democratic Government of this country, irrespective of party—is worth a lot more than £360,000. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I did not add my name to the amendment because there was not room, but I spoke about this on Second Reading. It is absolute lunacy not to offer a refund. It could be optional, in which case, as I said, a lot of people might well then decide to keep the cards as a collector’s item and an investment for the future. The concept that we would have to spend £22 million refunding the money is, to my mind, dotty. The Government have clearly fallen into the hands of the large systems integrators again, who are siphoning off our taxpayers’ money to America. I would suggest that they deal with some British SMEs for a change, but unfortunately government procurement rules do not let us do that at the moment. That is just a quick side swipe.

Thinking about the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about consumer protection, I thought that there was also provision under the ECHR whereby Governments could not expropriate private property without compensation. I suppose that the ID card is not people’s property, but presumably there is an issue because they paid for it and were expecting something in return. If it is expropriated without compensation, I should have thought that that might be an interesting case to go further up the line—there is nothing like stirring things up a bit.

I find amusing the concept that the general public are better than the weather forecasters, all the pundits and all the experts, and can predict the outcome of the next general election several months ahead. That is wonderful. I would love to know who those members of the public are. Then there is the idea that they could also predict the coalition, the way round that it ended up, which was not expected by many people at all. For a while it was largely thought that Labour and the Liberals would end up together. Then there is each of the parties having the arrogance to say that they will have sufficient control over the next Parliament to get what they want through. This is still a democracy. Opposition parties are still supposed to have some say. I know that after a few unfortunate years under first Margaret Thatcher and then Tony Blair, when majorities were excessive, Governments behaved in that way. Perhaps it is good that we return to the situation where Governments do not have control over Parliament and these things have to be agreed among other people, including Cross-Benchers—who are sometimes very cross.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

They have, however, been written to to say that the scheme will be cancelled. The key issue is not that of a refund to the individual but how much the taxpayer is expected to pay to end this wanton scheme. We have already seen that the previous Labour Government spent £292 million on the ID scheme and the associated biometric work. That is a staggering amount for a scheme that was predicted to be self-financing through the fees, and given that only 15,000 cards are in circulation in the first year of issue, 3,000 of which were given away free anyway. The amendment’s effect is that the 12,000 cards should be given away free of charge. We cannot go on spending taxpayers’ money in this fashion, particularly when the public have shown overwhelmingly—there is no ambiguity about this—that they do not want ID cards. At the previous election, they showed their unwillingness—

[Lord Brett]

Will the noble Baroness provide the evidence to back up her conviction that the public do not want ID cards, as all the opinion polls taken by this and the previous Government do not indicate that that is the case? However, more importantly, is she saying that some people are rich enough to write off the £30 without worrying and complaining, while the people who are being punished are the poor people for whom £30 is more than they can afford, even if they can afford Sky Television? That is the logic of it.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we do not have a socio-economic profile of those who bought cards. We have other profiles but not that one as we did not inquire about people’s incomes. However, I do not think that the public are very interested in the Government spending a further £400,000 on refunds. Unfortunately, the sum is not £360,000 as an administrative overhead is incurred in refunding the £30 fees, which themselves amount to £360,000. You might say that £400,000 is not a significant sum in the previous Government’s overall scheme of spending on ID cards. Indeed, I hear noble Lords present saying that. However, I am afraid that the Government maintain the contrary view. It is a significant amount and, frankly, noble Lords opposite have not provided a good reason why a refund should be given. Instead they accuse the coalition of being mean-spirited. If mean-spirited means extricating ourselves from an expensive failure at the least possible cost to the taxpayer, I think that we are doing the right thing. We do not accept that yet more money has to be spent on ID cards.

I am happy to ensure that the details of how we extricate ourselves from the ID card mess are placed in the public domain. As the Immigration Minister made clear on Report in the other place—I again confirm this—a Written Ministerial Statement will be made to the House on completion of the destruction process. I will place a copy of the planned destruction process referred to in the amendment in the Library.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is certainly the Government’s intention to cancel it, assuming that Parliament gives its assent.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, would it be helpful if a copy of that letter were placed in the Library of the House so that we could all examine it before Report?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we will so do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, the Minister has invited the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, but that still leaves the opportunity to make a brief intervention. I did not speak at Second Reading—indeed, I was not present—but I have had the considerable privilege of listening to the whole of the debate today, except the very first words that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, uttered.

I am a mildly interested party, for quite irrelevant reasons, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, introduced the car scrappage scheme. My car became relevant to it precisely 24 hours after the scheme ended, and I have behaved impeccably towards the noble Lord and indeed all members of the previous Government by not alluding to that fact until this very moment. I am also perhaps the only member of the Committee to be over the age of 75 and therefore entitled no longer to pay a television licence. I have always regarded that as a generous concession by the state—although you do not realise, until you have to do so, that securing it is a little like proving that you are not a money launderer.

The jury must be out on the country’s enthusiasm for the ID project. There was some reaction that the Government were wrong to suggest that it was wholly unpopular, but the fact that only 12,000 people had bought these ID cards since 2006 did not suggest an overwhelming popularity and that they would do well as a loss leader in a supermarket. I think that we can say that there is something to be said on either side of that argument.

[Lord Brett]

First, it was a phased rollout, starting in 2009 and ending in 2012-13. It was restricted to Manchester Airport, London City Airport and the area of Manchester. It would have been rolled out across the rest of the country over the period. There is also a register of applications for people in other areas who had to wait because the cards were not available, so to say that there was a take-up of only 12,000 is actually to pretend that the whole country could have applied when in fact it was very restricted.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

That is an entirely fair point, which I am happy to take. The fact remains, though, that even under the provisions that the noble Lord issues, I still stand by my statement: the figure of 12,000 does not indicate overwhelming popularity for the scheme. People were not fighting in order to get their own cards.

On the fact that compensation is available for contracts but not in different languages with regard to ID cards, presumably that occurred because the original contracts allowed for what would happen in the event of the scheme in any way being interrupted. That is the way in which contracts are usually written. I have heard everything that has been said about what this Government have not done but I notice that the previous Government, in selling the ID cards, did not appear to have built in a provision in relation to compensation calculations, perhaps for the good reason that they did not want the thought to enter the public mind that they might not be returned at the next general election and that therefore the ID scheme would be interrupted.

On the same point, I have to say quietly that although, in their rush towards modernisation, the Government were keen to remove Latin entirely from public life in this country, the phrase “caveat emptor” is presumably one that still rested in their mind when they brought in the scheme in the way that they did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

I think that there might be some advantages for security in this scheme, and I would like to know the Government’s view on that. From the exchanges I have been reading from, it seems that there may well have been some advantages so far as security is concerned. Indeed, I am reminded that Mr Fazackerley was asked a question by the honourable David Simpson:

“On a point of clarification, Mr Green asked Mike—

I presume that is Mr Fazackerley. I do not think that we would call an expert witness by their Christian name in this House, but perhaps I am being old-fashioned—

“a question about the fact that it takes eight to 12 weeks to carry out the security side of the process, but if a card is lost or misplaced, it can be replaced within 24 hours. Did you say that no further security checks were carried out?”.

Mr Fazackerley answered by saying:

“At that point. The benefit that we got from the system was that you were absolutely sure that the person who was standing in the pass office was the right person”. —[Official Report, Commons Public Bill Committee, 29/6/10; col. 28.]

Whether what he said about the issue goes to the question of security or not is a matter for the Committee to decide.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, when I was involved in this, it seemed potentially to be a win-win situation. We have heard from my noble friend about the impact on airports and their ability to clear people airside for security purposes in a much shorter period. We know also that there was initial resistance from the staff, not to the detail but to the fact that the system was being made compulsory. It was only when the potential of what the system was about that the hesitation, to put it mildly, expressed by the staff turned into at least into an enthusiasm to investigate without necessarily committing to the results.

The third area is that of the airlines. The experiment was being carried out at Manchester and at London City airports, although any two airports could have been chosen. Carriers flying in and out of those airports do not have resident senior technical staff. They may have a contractor with airside passes who provides the general maintenance of an aircraft, perhaps unblocking a sensor or putting right a temperature gauge. If a more serious technical problem arises, engineers have to be brought in either from a repair facility or the headquarters of the airline involved. Those people will arrive at the airport with no airside security clearance whatever, but they cannot be allowed just to wander in and repair the aircraft. Therefore, another period of delay is built into the clearance of those individuals. However, with the provision of an identity card and the security it offered, this was another area in which a considerable advantage would have been gained for the airline industry, for passengers who could be delayed, and by making a saving in costs to airports themselves. Aircraft sitting like parked vehicles is not an advantage. At the start of the experiment, these were things that were seen to be potential advantages, so in a sense it is sad that we will not see the outcome unless the costs are exorbitant.

Let us look at the costs of aviation. A 747-400 airliner costs well in advance of £100 million, and even more modest aircraft cost tremendous sums. The daily cost of keeping an aircraft inactive is also very high. At the moment, the airline industry feels slightly battered by the costs that have been imposed by government, and this is an area where we could have formed a degree of coalition, if I may use the word, between the interests of airports, staff, passengers—we are the victims when aircraft are delayed—and the airlines themselves. I am sorry if the experiment will not be completed because there are powerful arguments for why it should be done. If not, how are we going to provide an equivalent over the coming period because, as sadly we have heard today, the problems associated with airport security are not going to go away?

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this amendment, but I will say two things. First, I suspect that a report before Parliament might be an unnecessary expense, but I hope that people will look at the experiences from it and incorporate them into future policies. Having heard what noble Lords have said, there seems to be confusion between nailing down a particular name or body to an identity card, and security. The trouble is that one does not know when someone goes bad. There can be a complete dissociation between issuing a pass to someone and them committing a crime. One has to go on checking whether someone has gone bad. Possession of a particular identity token does not show that someone is okay.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brett, a lot of work is going on on the interoperability of identity systems. That is the way forward. There is a body of work going on from EURIM, which is an offshoot of the parliamentary group PITCOM. It is an interesting area. The problem is that different organisations vet people for different purposes. It may be totally safe to entrust someone with the secrets of the country, but you might not want them to babysit your children—and vice versa. I note that the noble Lord is laughing. I am citing extremes here to highlight the fact that someone may be perfectly all right working in airside security, but quite dangerous in a totally different situation. We must be careful not to confuse these things and not to think that possession of a nailed-down identity card or token that shows you have been given a certain name proves that you are okay. That is the underlying problem. We should move forward, looking at the interoperability of identity systems, so that if we have to take engineers from somewhere else, we know whom we can rely on and what it is safe for them to do, and can work out how to get them through quickly. I suspect that the bigger problem is the bureaucracy involved in issuing these things. People think that that is the clever place, but it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Brett]

12: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—
“Identity fraud
(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the repeal of the Identity Cards Act 2006 on combating identity fraud and the lessons learnt from the operation of the identity cards scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within one year of the coming into force of this Act.”

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, the contribution of the Minister in the previous debate has provided a purpose for putting down this probing amendment and, possibly, a small part of the answer. I do not think that anyone would argue the point that identity fraud is increasing. It is very troublesome for those who are victims of it, as well as for retailers and those in business who are misled into dealing with people who are not the genuine persons with whom they believed that they were dealing. The previous Government believed that the ID card was a valuable tool in that regard.

I was moved to put down this amendment by a case which shows that the identity card has great value; that is, for a person whose identity has been stolen. A colleague of mine moved flats. Someone collected the mail that was delivered later, stole the identity of the person concerned and purchased a cell phone or such like. The case was investigated, which took time and trouble, and it was resolved—except that the person was not caught. Time and again during the next two years, he or she continued to use that identity. On each occasion—whether a retailer or a utility company was involved—my colleague had great trouble going through all the rigmarole of proving her identity by supplying documentation from a number of sources. The identity card would have proved simply who she was for the benefit of anyone involved and for her own peace of mind.

We can argue the degree to which the ID card was of value in fraud detection, but I do not think that we can say that it would not have been of great help in this case of identity fraud. We know that the National Fraud Authority and our national intelligence bodies, under Home Office supervision, are looking at some form of national strategy. I presume—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that that is part of the review of which she spoke. This amendment seeks a commitment from the Government to tackle the growing crime of identity fraud; to evaluate, in the absence of having the identity card, what other measures need to be put in place; to learn the lessons; and to report to Parliament. That would provide, in time, a review that we can meaningfully look at in relation to what we know the identity card could have provided; and, more importantly, in its absence, to the alternatives.

It is always terrible to have your house broken into: you feel violated. It has happened again and again to this individual and it got to the stage where her health was really suffering. If nothing happened this week, her fear was that it would happen the next week. Each time it happened was that much worse. I believe that in this case, an ID card of the kind that we have in law would have helped the victim considerably. More importantly, as the Minister said, the central purpose of the legislation before us is to remove ID cards. I seek the assurances set out in this amendment, if not in the form in which they are written then at least in terms of the spirit and intention behind them.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, Amendment 19 is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. The provision is covered by Clauses 22 and 23 of the Identity Cards Act. The only difference is that that constitutes 60 lines of legislation, with 14 subsections, whereas my amendment is infinitely more modest. I would like to think that its modesty and open-textured nature is a plus and not a minus. I well appreciate that the dismantling of the identity card scheme is not the same as its creation. Some may think that this is superfluous and that it is enough to rely on the statements that the Minister has made about what the Government may do. I take a cautious view about that. With issues of citizens’ basic rights, it is incumbent on us as legislators to be cautious. I also have in mind the fact that the noble Baroness is here today but may be gone tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Information Commissioner needs to be satisfied that the destruction process has been proper, thorough and complete. That is why we are in touch with the Information Commissioner. We really do not see the need for yet another layer of oversight that could get in the way of the exercise of his functions. In fact, it would duplicate what he is already charged to do—effectively, I would hope.

I would also say that the Government are committed to transparency in this process. We have nothing to hide and we are absolutely committed to the citizen’s rights in the matter. While I realise that I might not last for ever—the thought of being translated to a higher place is rather worrying—nevertheless, I will say with absolute confidence that this Government, whether I am in your Lordships’ House or not, are committed to ensuring that this process is carried out properly and that there is no doubt about its integrity and thoroughness. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, personally I am sure that the reference by the noble Baroness to a higher place was simply to a more senior position in the Government, if only because I am not sure that anyone who is a politician can hope to go to heaven.

I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I do not think that we are looking for bureaucracy in the amendment I have tabled. I believe that the Government are just as concerned as the previous Government were about issues of identity fraud and we know that things would have come from the identity card scheme that would have helped. However, it is not to be persevered with and we have been told that a plan is to be put together by the end of this year. The Bill requires a report to be made only within one year. I would have thought that, without too much bureaucracy, it would be possible to look at the extent to which the Bill will provide for those things that were provided for by the various parts of the Identity Cards Act, particularly in relation to individual identity fraud. We have seen that, online, someone’s identity might be used again and again.

So, I am disappointed, but I hope that between now and Report, the Minister will look at this again with her advisers. Transparency requires other people to be able to see something. In some ways, the only people who can report back with all the facts at their command, which we can then scrutinise, are the Government. Even at this stage, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to reconsider the matter. In the mean time, I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Brett Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, for sticking to the old guns, as you might say. It may be worth while in this Second Reading debate reviewing where we have come from because I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was not accurate in what he said. The principal issue that exercised this House back in 2005-06, to such an extraordinary degree that we threw that Bill back to the Commons three times, was the issue of compulsion. It is wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to start his speech by saying that the previous Government introduced a Bill for a voluntary card. Indeed they did according to their manifesto, but when the Bill came out it was compulsory. That is the rock upon which the opposition in this House was built and that opposition then grew across all Benches. It is as well to remember that.

I pay tribute to Mr Willcock. I do not suppose that many in the Chamber remember dear old Mr Willcock who, when asked by a policeman in 1952, refused to produce his identity card. He said, “I am not going to produce my identity card. The identity card was to stop the Germans, not to help you on some piffling nonsense”. The High Court upheld the good gentleman’s refusal and the identity card legislation was swiftly repealed. The point of that was to show that identity cards tend to have what you might call usage creep. The state cannot resist the opportunity to use the card for more and more things in more and more situations.

Again, one aspect of the Bill of 2005 that this House objected to profoundly was the right of the Secretary of State to add to the circumstances in which the identity card could be used and, in particular, to add to the category of information that could be on the national identity register. Let us not forget that the national identity register was to be unique in the world in terms of the amount of information that it would collect on each citizen. Microsoft licked its lips and referred to the register as the great honey-pot because it was to be the greatest source of information on earth.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, objects to what we are doing now because of the commercialisation that he says afflicts disadvantaged youths who want to establish their identity. I would be totally sympathetic to that if I felt that he was correct. However, he omits to remember not only that the ID cards that the Bill will abolish would have been compulsory if this House had not intervened three times but—this could never have been taken away—the huge cost of the scheme, which the LSE working group established would be more than £20 billion over the first 10 years and which was to be recouped by selling the ID cards to the great retailing outlets. These would have readers which, if you spent more than £15 at XYZ store, would read the purchase into the national identity register. Every time that happened, the store would have paid a small sum of money, and—how many of us remember this?—the national identity register would have recorded every occasion on which the card was used. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, looks quizzical, but I assure him that that is so. That is why people objected to the sort of information build-up to which the card would lead.

[Lord Brett]

We are having a Second Reading debate on a Bill that will repeal an Act. Will the noble Lord say where in the Act the facts that he is putting forward appear? In the Act that was passed in this House and in the other place, there is no reference to that.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

It is a bit much to ask me to refer to a point of detail in the Act. I shall tell the noble Lord afterwards, but he need only read Hansard. I assure him that the Government did not deny that they would pay for a substantial part of the cost by commercial use and that every use of the card would register on the NIR. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, will agree with that.

Let me quickly pay tribute to NO2ID and Liberty for the huge help that they gave this House in respect of that Bill. I also repeat what the noble Countess said about Lord Northesk, whom we all miss and who was of great use to the House in the course of the passage of that Bill, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is not in her place now.

To come to the Bill, those of us who fought and fought the previous Bill welcome this one with huge enthusiasm. I believe that the Identity Cards Act 2006 would have affected fundamentally the relationship between the citizen and the state. It is as well to think of “citizen” rather than “subject”, because in some respects that Act would have had a deleterious effect on that vital relationship. However, I say to my noble friend, who confirmed in opening the debate that there will be no repayment of the £30, that I think that that is a serious mistake. It seems unfair to say that people should have kept an eye on what we do in this House and should have carried in their heads the fact that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party had made clear statements in the course of that Bill’s passage that they would repeal it if they came to power. Simple fairness should lead Government to repay those sums of £30—whether to old women or to rich hedge fund managers, I do not mind. It is not fair to abolish ID cards and not to repay that money. It is a modest sum in relation to the total costs already incurred.

I am sad that the Bill is as complex as it is. I do not know how many noble Lords have tried to read through the Bill, but it is a nightmare, even for an old lawyer like me. In Committee, I shall table a lot of amendments to attempt to make its provisions clearer. I draw attention to just a couple of clauses. In Clause 4, “Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention”, the definition of improper intention in the second subsection does not say whether it is exhaustive. In addition, the reference to “false identity documents” is not true to the clause because it covers situations in which the documents are not false. The language of the clause is also extremely complex; I hope that we will be able to simplify it as we go along. Clause 6(1)(a) provides for an offence of possessing without reasonable excuse,

“an identity document that is false”.

That does not seem to be reconcilable with an almost exactly parallel offence in Clause 4(2)(a). I hope that that is not too detailed a point for a Second Reading debate.

Clause 10 desperately needs rewording, because it allows the Secretary of State to require various authorities to provide him or her with what is called “verifying information”. At the end, there is a nasty little subsection that states that the Secretary of State may specify by order,

“any other person … for the purposes of this section”.

That could take us right into the realms of private businesses, and we will need to look at that.

I welcome the Bill with great enthusiasm, as have my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others. I would like to think that, by the time it leaves us, the Bill will be really fit for purpose as well as fit in intent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I am not sure that I can help either of the previous speakers, but I would give one word of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. In seeking the identity of Members of the House, it might be more profitable if he were to ask for given names and not just Christian names.

As has already been accepted by our Front Bench, the manifesto commitments on this issue of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties give them the authority to seek repeal of the previous legislation. I am fascinated by the speed with which it has been dealt; it could be because, so far as I can see, it is about the only item that appears in both manifestos.

In the debate on the gracious Speech, the Minister said:

“This Government have a strap line: freedom, fairness and responsibility. These themes run through the Government’s programme”.—[Official Report, 27/5/10; col. 240.]

I should like to test the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Stoddart; namely, is it reasonable, free and fair now to say to people that the ID cards which they have voluntarily acquired and which have been legally provided are now to be abolished without compensation in any form and without continuing to provide the freedom of travel across Europe that was part of the reason that they bought the card in the first place? If it were a major issue of expense, one might say that, in these straitened times, it could not be afforded.

The impact assessment looks at the number of options available. The one which I find most attractive is Option 5, the mandatory return of cards with return of fees. It states that this would be of particular advantage because:

“Under this option, current cardholders would be entitled to reclaim the £30 cost of the ID card by returning it to IPS. The benefits of this over Option 1 include … Reputational benefits for the government, in dealing with people who purchased a now-useless card in good faith”.

Are we saying that the Government’s reputation is not worth, at maximum, £400,000, which would be the cost if everybody sought a refund? The impact assessment points to reduced enforcement costs as compared with other options. It also states that,

“the administrative costs incurred in dealing with claims over and above those incurred in collecting the cards in any case will be negligible, but reductions in risk relating to outstanding cards will also be negligible”.

That adds up to a powerful case for consideration of amendments in Committee, particularly when one takes account of the fact that we are expending some £82 million on a referendum on AV and something like £50 million plus on a proposal, if it becomes law, to elect police commissioners.

So I argue that the Government’s position in respect of refunds is not an issue of freedom—it is denying freedom. The agreements were entered into voluntarily. It has been argued that it was not a contract; I am not sure that that was how people who bought the cards would have seen it. Is it reasonable and, most of all, is it responsible?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted letters from a couple of people who were unhappy about the ID cards. Both of them talked about compulsion—if I recall them correctly—but the ID card was voluntary. I shall quote from a letter that I received from a couple in July—I am quite happy to provide the Minister with a copy. It states:

“I would like our comments to be taken into account by the committee regarding the use of this card as a TRAVEL DOCUMENT in Europe. We can no longer travel long distances this card is fantastic to use. Convenient to carry and most of all welcomed by customs officers wherever we have travelled. Now we have a travel document for Europe at a reasonable cost why should we have to pay over £70 for a worldwide passport when we cannot travel worldwide? All governments spout about value for money, but when it comes to the citizens of our own Country we are denied value for money ... The country may be in a financial mess, but we bought these cards on the understanding they lasted for 10 years. One of our laws (The Sale of Goods Act) states they need be fit for purpose and be suitable for the life span intended”.

That is a very reasonable case made for why the whole of that group of people should get at least a refund. A more prosaic description says:

“The Coalition Government states 100 days to abolition. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he stole money off his victims”.

So there is not a population seething on the streets and waving flags to congratulate the Government on removing ID cards; there are mixed opinions.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, speaking from the Cross Benches, because I do not believe that at any stage public support for voluntary ID cards was ever less than a majority of those being polled. That was the case through the piece—and compulsory ID cards got a larger support than that. However, that is not the issue. I see no point in rerunning the Second Reading debate on a previous piece of legislation. I suspect that our memories are all faulty on this occasion. When I spoke earlier about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I was referring to what, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, was the outcome of debate in this House and to what became the law, based on assurances given by the Government—I gave them from the Front Bench together with the noble Lord, Lord West—which limited very severely the kind of use to which the voluntary ID card could be put. Therefore, I rest my case on what I asked at the beginning: is it reasonable, free and fair for the Government now to refuse either to refund or to give credit against the cost of a full passport? It may be that the majority of people have full passports, but some have nothing more than the ID card and will now have to go out and buy a passport without even getting the credit for the £30 that they have already spent against the passport that they have to buy.

I hope that the views expressed by myself and from the Liberal Democrat Benches and Cross Benches will have support, because otherwise I think that this is a mean Bill, whatever the justification for the repeal in the first place.

[Lord Selsdon]

I apologise if the noble Lord misunderstood when I said “Christian”. I was referring to people who have been christened. He may want to have a debate later about the Baha’is and Patels and all the other people who have given names, which all appear in different orders. That was the point that I was trying to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The fact is that there is significant sunk investment and there would have been future costs if we had operated the system. Those future costs will now not be incurred.

Here is more precision on the point that the noble Lord has just raised. In October 2009, the cost report provided the figure of £835 million for future investment. Noble Lords will be aware that fewer than 15,000 cards have been issued, which has been against an investment of £292 million. The difficulty is that one cannot be as confident as the noble Lord that the costs would be recouped from fees. Irrespective and independent of the attitude of the Opposition at the time, which I am sure acted as a dampener on the general public’s enthusiasm to purchase a card, it was clear that the public were voting with their feet. A total of 12,000 cards is not a large number of applicants.

[Lord Brett]

The point has been made about the restricted areas—one in Manchester and one in London—but there was also a general inquiry register, to which members of the public from other parts of the country could apply so that they could have access to their cards when the cards became available. That is a rather different issue and a rather different figure.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge that, at the end of the day, this was not going down a bomb.

If the question of refunds is the only complaint that the Opposition can find, that shows that there is not a great deal to object to in the legislation. Several points were raised. I was asked about refunds and whether we could supply discounts against other documents or at least allow the documents to have their full-life validity. As I pointed out, full-life validity would mean keeping the system open, which would probably cost an extra £60 million to £80 million. We simply do not think that that is justified or sensible. Noble Lords have said that this would involve a small sum of money, but we believe that £400,000 can be spent to the benefit of the general public in a rather more useful fashion than on a refund of £30, which is rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky. We have to have a sense of proportion about this.

One or two noble Lords said that they found the Bill unnecessarily complex. In fact, when one gets into the detail of the Bill, there are quite a large number of complexities to unwind. However, I am happy to talk to them about the issues that they have raised and, if the Bill can be simplified, I shall be most delighted to do so.

A point about fraud was raised. The National Fraud Authority and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have produced a strategic threat assessment of the harm impact of identity crime—a matter with which I think we in the House are all concerned. It will lead to an action plan, which will be overseen by the Home Office. We have started work on it and the first meetings have begun to take place. I am personally very interested in this subject. The House probably shares the view that identity, and its protection, is something that we have to get right. It relates to issues such as how we combat crime that takes place through cybernetworks, so I do not underestimate the importance of getting this right. As I said earlier, we do not believe that the national register is the way to tackle it. However, we have a great concern about the need to protect victims of crime relating to people’s identities having been swiped.

In conclusion, we believe that the Bill is in the public interest and we are pleased to have brought it forward this soon. We believe it is right to start getting the balance that we think should pertain between the citizen and the state more where we would like to see it, and of course other legislation is coming forward which will swing further in the direction of the liberty of the citizen. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Children: Trafficking

Lord Brett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

There certainly have been prosecutions. I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord the actual figure, but I shall certainly write to him. The most reverend Primate also raised this issue of criminalisation. There are people who have previously been trafficked who then exploit other children who have been trafficked for the purposes of criminal activity. There have been examples in cannabis farms. So it is right to prosecute those who engage themselves in criminal activity.

[Lord Brett]

The Minister has twice referred to CEOP, a very valuable agency created by the previous Administration which is very highly valued by the public. It is therefore not clear why the Government have decided, in their new regime, that CEOP should not exist any longer. Is it to be merged with another body? More importantly, can the Minister assure me that there will be no less funding than there is at the moment so that its valuable work can continue?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the functions of CEOP will certainly remain within the new structure for the National Crime Agency. There is no intention to abolish those functions. As to the budget figure, obviously I cannot give an assurance of that kind until we know the outcome of the CSR review. But I note the point that has been made.

EU: European Investigation Order

Lord Brett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I have to disagree with my noble friend. We believe that opting into the EIO is in the interests of justice. It does not transfer any jurisdiction, which is what many might have feared, and we actually believe that the system of mutual legal assistance, which is already operating, deserves to be improved by one of the main innovations that will take place as a result of the EIO—setting deadlines for the receipt of evidence that is sent from one country to another. That is one of the current defects of mutual legal assistance. In other respects, the EIO does not change the present regime.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I welcome today’s decision by the Government, which perhaps gives little comfort to the noble Lord who asked the Question. Should it not be the case—will the Minister agree?—that there should be greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should this not include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stages?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am afraid that I did not hear the noble Lord’s question. Can he repeat it, please?

[Lord Brett]

Fortunately it was brief. Does the Minister agree that there should be greater consideration of the rights of the suspect and that it should include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stages?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, there are certainly some reservations about the operation of mutual legal assistance, which is a separate issue from the actual operation of, or changes to, the regime that the EIO will bring. Some of the matters that we are reviewing include the reservations expressed about the operation of mutual legal assistance.

Policing

Lord Brett Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in another place and for her letter notifying me of the review and inviting views.

Passing over the pejorative paragraph, repeated by the Government ad nauseam, about public finances, I am struck by the rhetorical style of the Statement, with phrases such as,

“power back to the people”.

I know that the Minister bears no resemblance to Wolfie Smith, but the Home Secretary’s call sounds to me more like that of the Tooting Popular Front than of responsible government. I refer particularly to the proposal to legislate to remove police authorities in favour of elected police commissioners with wide powers. This is done in the name of accountability. It is backed up by the police being required to publish local crime figures and data, and the mandating of meetings so that people can meet, and challenge the performance of, their neighbourhood policing teams. Is that revolutionary action? Well, not quite.

The Minister tells us that the Government have scrapped the policing pledge. I am sure that that was said in the other place with a flourish. Let us examine what has been scrapped. Let us look at policing pledge number 9, which states:

“We will arrange regular public meetings to agree your priorities at least once a month, giving you a chance to meet your local team with other members of your community. These will include opportunities such as surgeries, street briefings and mobile police station visits which will be arranged to meet local needs and requirements. We will provide monthly updates on progress and on local crime and policing issues. This will include the provision of crime maps, information on specific crimes and what happened to those brought to justice, details of what action we and our partners are taking to make your neighbourhood safer and information on how your force is performing”.

The pledge now contains an update on progress and meetings with local representatives. Therefore, what the Statement promises is already in place in the policing pledge, which the Home Secretary has chosen to scrap.

I turn to elected police commissioners, which the Statement says is about accountability to the public. Let us see how it impacts on the public. What is the current level of accountability? I commend to all Members of your Lordships' House an excellent debate last Thursday on policing and crime rates proposed by my noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. He made clear all the areas of accountability that the police already have. Consultation on local policing, as set out in the policing pledge, is now apparently to be reinstated.

The issue is therefore one of scrapping the police authorities, which are currently made up of elected council members from all the major parties, independent councillors and independent appointed members. Their role is to be invested in a police commissioner, who, unless he or she has a wide-reaching consultative body of some kind, will inevitably narrow the consideration of public accountability that now exists in law enforcement and local government.

A number of people have voiced to me their fears of political interference and the potential for cronyism and corruption among elected police commissioners. Why should that be? In an elected police authority, which comprises members of different political parties, people will express different views about policing. They will be tackling the same issues. There is no evidence that that has led to anything other than consensus policing, which has assisted chief constables in meeting their operational requirements while enforcing the accountability that we want. No one in the police service, in police authorities or in local authorities has any great confidence in this proposal.

If the overwhelming response to the consultation on elected police commissioners is negative, as it was when a similar question was asked in a survey in 2004, will the Minister abandon the proposal? The Local Government Association says that elected police commissioners will cost £50 million. What is the Minister’s estimate of the cost? Will not the abolition of the police authorities remove a reservoir of knowledge and experience that no single individual can replace?

If I were to stand for police commissioner for Cumbria, in whatever competition there was—and I buy completely the idea that there should be no interference in the policing part of the role of the chief constable—I would get elected by making promises. That is how people get elected. Those promises might include a rebalance between rural and urban policing in Cumbria. The chief constable is very clear that with the reduced resources he is likely to have, the way to do it is the way he is doing it, so I have a problem at re-election of presenting how I delivered my promises. That at least has major potential for political interference. If I do not interfere, how do I deliver the promises on which I have been elected against whatever party or non-party opposition that has stood in the same competition?

On the SOCA proposal, the coalition agreement talks of refocusing SOCA, not eliminating it. Is this a coalition U-turn? A press briefing over the weekend talked of creating a British FBI. Is this the Government’s intention? This has been denied in the past and there have been very clear views from senior police that that is not what is required. A good friend of mine with the metropolitan police in Washington DC said to me in the late 1980s that FBI stood for “famous but incompetent”. When I questioned that, he said that he was referring not to the ability of FBI agents but to everything from what you might call turf wars to the unwillingness of certain parts of local law enforcement and the agency to accept the authority of the other. There are major problems attached to this, and I would be very interested to hear more on that subject.

We also hear that there is to be an enhanced border police force. Is this to replace the UKBA? Is this going to impact on numbers? It is very odd because in the debate last Thursday, and indeed in every previous attempt by this side in both this House and the other place, we have tried to persuade Ministers to admit simply that with the kind of cuts that they are contemplating, there will be fewer police on the beat and fewer resources available to maintain the present successful battle against crime. When I say “successful”, I agree with the noble Baroness that it can always be improved, but it is not a damaged record. It is the best record for 30 years, the level of confidence among the public is the best in 30 years, and there is the least lack of confidence in the ability to deal with social issues and anti-social behaviour. It is therefore a rhetorical, Wolfie Smith-type Statement, and it would be better if we dealt with it in a much more serious manner.

We are making major moves ahead of the review that we are told will take place in October, so I ask yet again: is that going to reduce the number of front-line police officers or not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, 68 per cent of the public in recent surveys support the idea of having elected commissioners, and I hear what the noble Lord says about the way in which the police authorities have performed. I do not think that the Government are suggesting that the police authorities have done a sustainedly bad job, but they are invisible to the local population. One of the main objects of this exercise is to reconnect the police force of the locality with the people of the locality, and we believe that the way to do that is to have an official who has to account to the people. We are trying to get away from the police accounting bureaucratically upwards instead of being the servants of their local populations. With all the measures that we are trying to put in place, including the beat meetings and the crime and policing panels, it is not true to say that there will be no checks and balances in the system. The police commissioner will himself be answerable to these panels. They have the right to challenge his decisions. They cannot override them, but they can certainly conduct dialogue in the name of the local people, so you will have local discussion. There is probably a philosophical difference between my party and the other side of the House on the need to reconnect authority over the police to the local community.

[Lord Brett]

The noble Baroness makes a great play of the lack of connection. We have had elected and appointed members on police authorities for a number of years. Does she have information on a failure of people coming forward to be independent members of police authorities? I happen to know that in Cumbria there were 100 applicants last time for what I think were two or three posts. Is there evidence to sustain the argument that there is a disconnect, other than in surveys?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Only 8 per cent of wards have a councillor on their local police authority. It seems to me that there is a much more slender connection between local accountability and the people than is suggested by that kind of assertion. Police commissioners are much more directly responsible and accountable to the locals than a police authority, which has relatively few councillors among its number, with an election behind them.

The noble Lord made a number of other points. The general proposition that we are putting forward here is that accountability is not to and for government but towards local communities. As the Home Affairs Committee said in its report during the last Parliament, the previous Government succeeded in micromanaging too much local policing while neglecting some of the national issues.

On the national side, the noble Lord asked a number of questions about the nature of the National Crime Agency. The agency will be a much more powerful body than we have at the moment. It will be at the centre and will take issues of national importance. It will perform in two areas. One is serious organised crime. It will build on what SOCA has done and achieved and will retain SOCA’s facilities, including its intelligence-gathering capability.

At the same time, the agency will also have control over the border police force and will direct a chief constable directed at that. The border police force will sit alongside the UKBA, which will not be incorporated into it. We have decided that for a number of reasons, including the need for economy. Also, with the Olympics in sight, it is not sensible to have vast structural change at this juncture. It therefore seems more sensible to us to have, overarching the agency, a strategy to which the agency will work. The agency will then be responsible for the part of the strategy over which it has control: serious organised crime and border policing. The UKBA will, however, be tied into that overarching strategy as well. We will therefore have a single strategy for border control, part of which will lie with the National Crime Agency—that is to say, SOCA and the functions that it performs, plus the functions that will be created for the border police command. The UKBA will work alongside the border command within the framework of that overriding and overarching strategy. The object of that exercise is to create more coherent control of the borders without resorting to excessive expense in an era in which that is not going to be possible.

I am sure that the noble Lord asked me some other questions, which I would be happy to answer; I am looking at my notes.

The noble Lord asked if it was going to be a British FBI. No, it is not going to be a British FBI. We want to try to ensure that the National Crime Agency has broader powers, but it will not have a FBI-style role. All the powers it exercises will in the end also link back to the constabularies. Part of the role of the National Crime Agency will also be to link into the constabularies when it comes to, say, level 2 crime. So it will not be divorced from the role of the 43 police forces round the country, but it will give a strategic override to that function.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I have one question—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Order.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Disclosure of Information by SOCA) Order 2010

Lord Brett Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Grand Committee

This order was approved last Wednesday by the House of Commons Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, and I commend it to your Lordships.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the background and detailed information about how we take forward this important piece of secondary legislation. The Opposition support it and I commend it to the Grand Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister, as she anticipated one or two of my questions, but I have a couple more—a little more than the noble Lord, Lord Brett. First, it was interesting that we are dealing with SOCA providing information to a non-departmental public body. I could have understood the position more easily were it the other way around, as SOCA is the organisation that really needs the information. However, I appreciate the concerns which underlie this measure.

I was interested in the Information Commissioner’s comments. The noble Baroness anticipated these to some extent, but his office emphasises that the question of whether disclosure of information to the anti-doping agency is fair and proportionate necessitates detailed consideration of what information is to be shared and why. I assume that this refers to the need for the assessment to be carried out on a case-by-case basis and that what is being said is that one cannot give global rubber-stamping to this work when dealing with confidentiality and human rights requirements.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers at paragraph 7.4 to,

“obtaining evidence to help pursue drugs cheats”.

I should like to understand whether that is part of this programme, if we are talking only about individuals. It does not immediately strike one as being serious and organised crime, although that may simply be the way that this paragraph is worded and that what we should understand by it is that an individual may be part of a serious and organised crime.

The Minister said that there would be no significant additional cost. Can she therefore confirm that the figures given in the papers attached to the impact statement on a requirement for eight extra staff at SOCA, with a budget of around £100,000, are correct? I appreciate that in government £100,000 is sometimes regarded as small beer, but the public might not always see it that way. I was a little surprised to see that eight more staff were needed. I should have thought that that sort of work might have been swept up in the work that was already being carried out, but I am probably too optimistic on that score.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

Lord Brett Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Order in Council was laid before Parliament on 12 July. If it is made, it will bring a group of cathinone derivatives—so-called legal highs, which include naphthylpyrovalerone, known as naphyrone and commonly branded as NRG-1—under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class B drugs. There it will join mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives which were brought under the control of the 1971 Act as class B drugs from 16 April 2010, with cross-party agreement in the final days of the last Parliament.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated in its cathinone report of 31 March that it would provide further advice on this additional group of cathinone derivatives as a priority. That is what we are dealing with today. They are familiar but sufficiently different from mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives that the ACMD needed to consider them separately. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary received the council’s report on 7 July and she was pleased to accept the council’s recommendation for control, on which this draft order is based. She did so on behalf of the Government.

The council is to be commended for using this extra time well to provide a further thorough, forward-looking piece of work. The proposed control of naphthyl analogues by a wide-ranging generic definition, as set out in the draft order, is consistent with the UK’s legislative approach to other synthetic drugs. Now that we have the council’s advice, we are asking for Parliament’s agreement to expedite control without delay and before this House rises for the Summer Recess. We need to learn the lessons from the UK’s experience on mephedrone, which became rapidly established before it was controlled in April. It is proposed that the order will come into force on the second day after the day on which it is made. That could be as early as 23 July and the legislation would therefore have an immediate impact, not least on the current music festival season, as supply and possession of these drugs would become unlawful with immediate effect.

Action to address the health risks arising from the use of existing so-called legal highs and the issue of further legal highs coming on to the market is a priority for the Government. We need to consider how we can reduce the supply and demand for new substances; our response must be wide-ranging, encompassing prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. That is at the core of our legislative response. There are those who look to subvert our laws and sell potentially harmful drugs advertising them as legal. This can lead people, especially young people, to think that these drugs are therefore safe. We need our drug laws to move faster to protect the public and to combat these unscrupulous manufacturers and suppliers.

As we set out in the coalition agreement, we will introduce a system of temporary bans on new psychoactive substances while health issues are considered by independent experts. The underlying purpose of the temporary banning power is to enable Parliament to be highly responsive to emerging new psychoactive substances and, at the same time, provide the advisory council with the time or space that it needs to formulate its full advice. Full details of the temporary banning power will be announced shortly. It is the intention to undertake legislation on this later this year.

While the temporary banning power will be a key and necessary tool in our legislative response to this changing landscape, our preferred approach to drug control will remain one which the advisory council and the Government have adopted for the past 40 years: a full assessment by the council before any controls are invoked by Parliament. The order before Parliament is an example of that process working. We need to add naphyrone, and related substances, promptly to the cathinones already controlled under our misuse of drugs legislation. This is because they are structurally similar to cathinone derivatives, such as mephedrone, which are already classified under the 1971 Act as class B drugs, and they pose similar harms to those who use them.

The advisory council commented that, consistent with the known or reported harms of the cathinones and traditional amphetamines, the predicted harmful effects of naphyrone include adverse effects on the heart and blood vessels, hyperthermia, dependence liability and psychiatric effects, including psychosis and anxiety. However, the more concerning aspect of the advisory council’s advice is that naphyrone has a high potency by comparison with other cathinones. This suggests that its use is likely to be associated with a higher risk of accidental overdose. I also emphasise that we are not aware of any legitimate use of these chemicals.

Enforcement action has been, and is being, applied to naphyrone. This included an immediate worldwide importation ban on naphyrone under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954 on receipt of the advisory council’s advice. The open general import licence was amended to exclude naphyrone from its scope. The UK Border Agency has been instructed to seize and destroy shipments of this, and related drugs, at the border; and we will also continue to work with other law enforcement agencies to strengthen their enforcement response to the identification and sale of illicit substances being mis-sold as legal highs.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency is actively developing approaches to identify websites offering mephedrone for sale, both at home and abroad, so that it can take action at an international level to close these down. This action will be extended in scope to include naphyrone.

Enforcement action of this sort is effective. We continue to monitor the impact of the ban on mephedrone but it has curtailed the availability of the drug, enabling enforcing authorities to take action to seize mephedrone at our borders and on our streets. Since the ban has been introduced, the UK Border Agency has made a number of detections and stopped more than 115 kilograms of chemicals that it suspects to be mephedrone from entering the UK. We also know that the legal-highs market self-regulates and withdraws banned drugs. The ban has also provided the strongest support to our public health message about the harms of mephedrone and like drugs.

Control of naphyrone also provides us with the opportunity to repeat our public message that although this drug may currently be advertised as legal—as a so-called legal high—it does not mean that it is safe or that it is necessarily legal. The advisory council’s report on naphyrone highlighted research from test purchases. Clearly, sellers are using the brand NRG-1 and masquerading it as naphyrone—and therefore legal—and marketing it as a mephedrone substitute. A branded product of this sort may, in fact, contain a number of illegal cathinones, legal stimulants or other active or inactive constituents. Any brand name that purports to be legal cannot be trusted. It does not mean that they are safe or legal. Users are putting their health at risk and could be committing a criminal offence.

We have taken a number of actions based on this information. It is now a key message for the FRANK service—which is available to users—on legal highs. Last month, the Minister for Crime Prevention—my right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—wrote to organisers of music festivals to make them aware of this information, asking them to review the measures that they put in place to ensure that their festivals are as safe an environment as possible.

The department has also called on local trading standards teams through local authority chief executives, to work in partnership with the police to deal with the sale of any legal highs, taking full account of this latest evidence, and to make appropriate referrals to the police and otherwise apply their responsibility for enforcing offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will also update its enforcement guidance on new psychoactive substances.

It is intended to make two further related statutory instruments, which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010 will specify naphthylpyrovalerone analogues including naphyrone as drugs, which have no statutorily recognised medicinal or other legitimate use. The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2010 will similarly amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 to include these drugs. These instruments were laid on 14 July to come into force at the same time as the Order in Council, if it comes into force as proposed.

The Government will publicise the approved law changes on naphyrone and related substances through a Home Office circular and the Talk to Frank and drugs.gov.uk website. Reference to the law changes and health risks relating to the drugs will be included in future government materials for young people. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation of why this order is both important and necessary. In proposing this order, the Government are continuing the policy pursued by the previous Labour Government. I commend the Minister for this and suggest that continuing the policies of the previous Government in a number of policy areas in the Home Office would also be commended as useful. Beyond that, I applaud the Pauline conversion of the minority party in the coalition to the policy set out in the Minister’s explanation. As I recall, it showed far less support when the same policy was put forward previously by the last Government.

My colleague, the Opposition spokesman in the other place, sought and gained the assurances from the Government that I would have placed before the Minister today. On that basis, it remains only for me to indicate support for this order and commend it to the House.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we discussed the last misuse of drugs order less than four months ago. Speaking on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I supported the order, so I am a little confused by what the noble Lord has just said. There were several comments about designer drugs and so-called legal highs, and that the so-called designers would always work on the next drug. Those predictions were clearly right. I am very happy to support this order, but I have a number of questions, to some extent following from the previous order so that the House can understand the success or otherwise—I hope success—of that approach.

The Minister has told us that 115 kilograms of mephedrone/cathinone derivatives have been seized. I know that it is asking her to prove a negative, but does she have any information as to how much might be getting through—the converse of that coin? What steps have been taken to publicise the dangers of legal highs? Welcome was given around the House to the steps that were being taken then, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned the use of social media, which struck me as entirely sensible in this context. She has mentioned today steps that might be taken by trading standards officers under consumer protection legislation. Naphyrone and naphthylpyrovalerone analogues apparently have no legitimate purpose in the same way as mephedrone. I do not suppose that they are any more effective as bath salts or fertilisers than mephedrone. Have trading standards officers in fact had any success in using their powers under consumer protection legislation?