Sex Offenders Register

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the whole House recognises the importance of proportionality and it will note the important point that has just been made.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

In light of the decision of the court on the right of sex offenders to be able to appeal against their place on the register after 15 years, why did the Government come to the view that it was right to exclude a mental health tribunal or any other judicial body from that review process? It is fatuous for the Minister to say, as she did, that a policeman—she meant a police officer, I am sure—will know far more about the person whom he has been supervising than anyone else. Does she not realise that police officers, like offenders, move around? We cannot expect police officers to be as independent as professional and experienced people. A police officer can have a role in going to a tribunal to put a point of view. Will she think again about this?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government do not accept that the procedure being proposed is fatuous. Police officers concerned have a much better idea than many others about the nature of the conduct of the defendant, both in prison and later, and they are appropriate people to take a view on this. Moreover, they will do so in consultation with other agencies, as the MAPPA process, in which other specialists will be involved, will be taken into account.

Biometric Passports

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That is indeed an issue, but we do not believe that maintaining the fingerprint database of the country will help the problem. However, we do have to combat passport fraud.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

Will the Minister be kind enough to answer the question from my noble friend on the Front Bench and remind us which Government removed the exit controls at borders?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The exit controls were removed quite some time ago, well before 9/11.

Immigration

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they decided not to contest the judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on 18 May that two men considered a “serious threat” to national security could not be deported to Pakistan.

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

My Lords, to appeal further there must be present an arguable material error of law in the judgment. The decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission was studied closely by officials and the Queen’s Counsel and no such error was found. Consequently, there were no grounds on which to contest the decision. However, departments—including, notably, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—continue to pursue the circumstances in which it would be possible to return these men to Pakistan.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

My Lords, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission decided that these two terrorist suspects—they were never charged—could not be deported to Pakistan because of that country’s abuse of legal and human rights. Does that not reinforce what was said to be the Government’s determination to repeal the Human Rights Act? If that is the case, does it have the enthusiastic support of the Liberal Democrats?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I can recognise wedge-driving when I see it. I do not think that there is a commitment on the part of the coalition to repeal the Human Rights Act. We are certainly going to look at the possibility of a Bill of Rights which is in conformity with the obligations that we have under the Human Rights Act.