Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

I shall speak to Amendment 17A in the absence of my noble friend Lord Liddle. In doing so I declare my interest in the region, having served on the sub-regional body Cheshire and Warrington Economic Alliance, one of five sub-regional bodies under the Northwest Regional Development Agency.

In the run-up to the most recent election, early versions of the Conservative-led Government’s regional policy seemed to suggest that both the north-western and north-eastern development boards would be retained, as there was general recognition of the benefits that each had brought to their regions. That recognition was reinforced by an independent evaluation undertaken by PwC, drawing attention to the strategic coherence brought and the GVA delivered.

It was therefore something of a disappointment when it was announced that all RDAs were to be disbanded. As a public-private partnership, the new Cheshire LEP is taking the coherency of the sub-region forward, but without any resources. It is undertaking some very worthwhile projects, such as with Liverpool University to explore the value of the equine sector in Cheshire West, and in rural housing, through a joint commission set up by rural regeneration and housing teams. That is all very worth while, but it is without the wider coherency of reciprocal support provided from the NWDA, following agreement on priorities across the whole region. The concern is that, without the wider regional strategy brought by the NWDA, policies will fracture into parochialism, with so-called local areas failing to see the bigger picture, to share best practice or to co-ordinate. I refer in this respect to the leadership shown on climate change policies and guidance that is so necessary if we are to meet our future obligations.

I will not repeat the debate in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has spoken tonight very powerfully. At the moment, there is confusion over the process of change. The decision to abolish the RDAs so quickly has created major challenges for existing destination organisations and, accordingly, rather than focusing on opportunities such as provided by the 2012 Olympics, they have been forced to reorganise. This has lost time and momentum, especially with there being no strategic transition plan in place to guide the move from RDAs to LEPs.

To continue with the 2012 theme, there is a great risk that this opportunity cannot be grasped. For the visitor economy, there is a need to provide the national organisation, visitEngland, with support to fill the current gap, while existing visitor businesses need to engage with new organisations that will emerge, albeit that they will be much reduced in terms of both human and financial resources. Another disappointing consequence of the plan to disband the NWDA concerns the future provision of the EU funding provided through the economic rural development funds. This highlights the vacuum in the present Government’s policy on regions. Instead of providing access to these much-needed rural development funds under Pillar 2 local arrangements at local level, the Conservative-led coalition seems to favour implementing these centrally, in direct contradiction to its localism agenda. The rural economy deserves better.

Finally, there seems to be no thought on what will happen on asset ownership, both physical and intellectual, and how the area can derive maximum benefit from their previous investments. There is still time to reconsider. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I find it quite extraordinary that the Government have decided to abolish RDAs on a day when the growth forecast has been reduced yet again. It is a quite bizarre decision.

I speak from the particular context of the West Midlands, looking at the performance of Advantage West Midlands. The West Midlands is a great place to live, but recently our economy faces many formidable challenges. Advantage West Midlands has done a very good job in the past few years, drawing people together and identifying real projects to invest in. As a result, we can see the regeneration of Longbridge, after the collapse of the manufacturing industry there. We have seen the regeneration of Fort Dunlop, with 140,000 jobs safeguarded, 28,000 helped back into work and 160,000 people helped to get better skills. Over 100,000 businesses were helped to improve their performance. As Sir Roy McNulty, the chair of Advantage West Midlands said at its last AGM, it is clear that its abolition has been based on political reasons rather than on its actual track record.

The CBI said that,

“in the rush to abolish Regional Development Agencies … and elicit bids for Local Enterprise Partnerships … there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater”.

Again, the CBI has singled out transport as a critical issue for improving economic growth. It concluded that LEPs need to find a way to replicate the ability of RDAs at their best to cut across local authority boundaries and to promote a regional level transport agenda. How are LEPs going to do it, given that they cover much smaller areas? For instance, in the West Midlands, is it really sensible to split Birmingham from the Black Country? It is a complete nonsense.

Let us talk about the resources needed for the development of major infrastructure. The number one priority for us is the extension of the runway at Birmingham International Airport. However, the Government’s last-minute decision to change the rules and go only for short-term, quick-win projects for the first £250 million that was available meant that bidding for Birmingham airport expansion was stopped in its tracks. No wonder the Birmingham Post said in a leader on 27 January that the launch of LEPs has been,

“an unmitigated and embarrassing disaster”.

Instead of a region working together, what will we see? We will see arguments and splits between LEPs that are side by side in the same region, when they should be working together.

The Government’s admission that their policy is a nonsense relates to BIS’s decision to recreate regional offices. What better indication could you have that the business department knows that the abolition of RDAs was a very silly decision which anyone concerned for economic development in this country could only oppose? The Government are making a big mistake in abolishing RDAs. Will the Minister respond to my noble friend Lady Quin, who asked why on earth those regions where there was a clear and strong consensus to retain RDAs, are not allowed to keep them going? Why should we be forced to downgrade, disrupt and undermine regional growth simply because there is some kind of doctrinaire political approach that says we cannot live with RDAs?

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I had the opportunity to make some remarks on this issue at Second Reading. I do not believe that anybody in this House is not in favour of growth or strong regional policy; that is common ground. The point I tried to make at Second Reading was: is the present structure fit for current-day purpose?

I regret that I did not hear the beginning of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but I heard several of them in what was a very passionate speech. In referring to one case, he commented that councils did not necessarily have drive. However, leadership in any organisation, whether it is an RDA, a council or anything else, will vary from body to body, just as leadership in a school will vary from body to body. I have to say that there are examples of local authorities doing very difficult things. In my own case, I was a member of a local authority that redeveloped the most polluted site in Ireland—a former gas works. It is now a thriving economic area. We developed the waterfront and brownfield sites. Where the right leadership is in place, you can do a lot of things. We were able to tap into ERDF and even ESF to train the local people who will, we hope, get some benefit from the redevelopment, instead of looking through the railings at the parked BMWs. We can do that if the leadership is in place.

I wanted to say one thing to the noble Lord. He said that it was more difficult to create a structure or organisation than to close one down. I have to take the very opposite view. I had the opportunity to create an organisation like an RDA. I had the opportunity to merge bodies together and the opportunity to close them. The easiest thing to do was to create them. It was more difficult to merge them, and the most difficult thing was to close them. That is why we have so many—not only RDAs but public bodies in general. Departments liked to put a body out there that could take the flak and the front fire to protect the department from taking the blame for things. The existence of a body, whatever it might be, and the ability to say, “These people have autonomy to deal with this”, protects the Civil Service from its responsibilities. It is good to be able to put these bodies out there as a sort of barrage to protect the centre from local criticism, because there is always someone else to blame. That is why there are so many of these bodies.

Many of them have done excellent work. As has already been said, some of these RDAs have been good and some have been not so good; that is human nature. It is the human condition. That relates to the leadership they give, their policies and the opportunities that have been taken. However, we have to be mature about the whole issue of public bodies. Everyone admits that we have too many of them. No matter which one you touch, it is inevitable that a group of people will support it.

In many cases, some of the reasons that noble Lords have put forward have been perfectly plausible. However, the real issue, as I pointed out at Second Reading, is the change in Europe, where the resources that used to be available to this country will no longer be available post-2013, because the money is flowing east, as we all know. The economic profile of our economy has changed. We brought to bear solutions through these large battleship bodies with budgets of hundreds of millions of pounds. Those bodies were right at the time, just as the Agricultural Wages Board was right at the time. However, times have moved on. Europe’s policy has changed. We now have to manage within our own resources.

I am not as pessimistic about the role that local authorities can play and what happens regarding the local enterprise partnerships remains to be seen. However, as always, a lot of this will come down to leadership on the ground. It is the same for the military, a company, a school or a business—and it is the same for a local authority or an RDA. We must look at an alternative model, because circumstances have moved on, and in trying to deal with the plethora of public bodies, you could almost come to a complete standstill if you did not make some attempt to bring about change.

There is no doubt that the biggest challenge we face is on growing our economy. We all complain about the lack of warships and aircraft carriers. Where is the money coming from to pay for them, if it is not coming from economic growth and wealth creation? Those are our only sources, other than borrowing—and we know where that got us. There is little alternative but to try an alternative. I take the points made by noble Lords about assets—that is an important issue—but creating bodies is easiest; amalgamating them is the next most difficult; and closing them is the most difficult. That is my experience and this debate proves the point. Every body that you consider has a lobby in support of it. While I acknowledge the great work that a number of these organisations have done—it would be churlish not to say that—the fact is that the mechanisms we have to adopt to improve our economic growth have moved on and different structures and models must be adopted.

--- Later in debate ---

In proposing changes to the delivery of local economic development, we have two guiding principles. The first is partnership. Although the RDAs have broadly representative boards, these were selected in Whitehall. The boards of local enterprise partnerships are chosen locally and directly involve local authorities and businesses with a stake in a specific area. The second is appropriate geography. As in our previous discussion, I refer to the south Midlands, where joint work on economic development was hampered by the borders of three different artificial regions. I live on the border between the east Midlands and the eastern region and it creates real practical difficulties.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister refers to the problem of borders but how are the Government dealing with the problem of borders by splitting Birmingham from the Black Country? It is sheer madness in terms of getting support across a region for the major infrastructure projects that are so desperately needed.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord is under a misapprehension. The difficulty with RDAs was that they had clearly defined, strict borders. The great thing about LEPs is that they are partnerships and they are flexible enough to be able to work together when they need to. That is our answer to the question of the north-east. There are opportunities for LEPs to work together across boundaries. That is their huge advantage over the strictly geographically delineated boundaries that existed between RDAs and the difficulty of getting joint projects going with them.

The south Midlands was an area of the country where the south-east, the east Midlands and the eastern region met in an area around Milton Keynes, Northampton and Bedford. That particular group now has an LEP in common. It is a true economic region in the sense that there is a community of interest across what previously was RDA territory. We have deliberately placed the onus on the partners to show that they have identified a real economic area to cover. We have not sought to second-guess them. We have asked the partners to think again about a particular proposal only where there is a substantial difference of view in the area itself and in the places around it.

The RDAs were expensive bodies to run and often duplicated activities which could be better undertaken at local or national level. In much of the country people felt little or no attachment to regions. In our earlier debate much was made of the local support for the north-eastern and north-western regions. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, talked of the way in which Cumbria identifies more strongly with Newcastle than with Manchester. Only yesterday the House approved the creation of the Greater Manchester combined authority. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and I took that through as a statutory instrument in the Moses Room last week. It reflected the desire of that area for a stronger local focus. I remain doubtful that the enthusiasm for a unified north-east region runs quite as high by the Tees as it does by the Tyne.

In our new circumstances we need lighter, more nimble bodies, capable of forging new linkages and alliances, rather than being caught up in regional straitjackets. Where partnerships wish to work together, we welcome it. If they had chosen areas which had matched one or more of the former regions and been able to demonstrate economic benefits and support from businesses and local authorities, we would have welcomed that too, but the fact is that they did not. In our previous discussion I pointed to the enthusiastic response we have received throughout the country to our call to develop local enterprise partnerships. On 8 March 2011 the 31 partnerships sent 90 representatives to a summit in Coventry. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Business and Communities were all present. They confirmed their support for the formation of an association to help partnerships share knowledge and ideas. This idea came from the partnerships. The Deputy Prime Minister also announced that the second of the regional growth funds would open on 12 April, and those successful in the first round will be announced shortly. Some £1.4 billion will be in that fund over the next three years.

I am grateful that my previous letter has been well received. I shall do my best to answer some of the questions that have been asked tonight, although it may not be possible to do so in the case of some of those which were highly specific. I shall do my best to give answers that cover some of the most central points raised. The first question was what the Chancellor announced today. He announced that the Government would introduce 21 new enterprise zones. I do not belittle them—the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, did rather. They will all be important; they will all be established in LEPs; and they will be focuses for growth. The Budget names the LEPs that will receive the first enterprise zones, plus London. The next 10 will be established through a competitive process. Benefits include the business rate discount over a five-year period.

It was asked whether LEPs have the capacity to take on the wide range of projects envisaged—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, made this point particularly strongly. The capacity of LEPs will vary initially. Some are based on well established structures—Manchester being an example of an existing structure, let alone the fact that it now has a combined authority—but others are entirely new. The LEPs are establishing a network to share experience and best practice to bring new partnerships up to speed quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in what I acknowledge was a very impassioned speech, asked whether there would be a fire sale of assets. The brief answer to that is no. It will be a managed process. Assets of which it makes commercial sense to dispose in the short term are being identified and a list will be made available to local authorities shortly. However, where it is more sensible to dispose of assets over the medium or long term, it will be done. It is important to emphasise that the RDAs are liaising with the local authorities within their patch and with the LEPs to make sure that this process is managed efficiently.

It was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the LEPs will not have a role in inward investment and European funding. That is not the case, because UKTI and the DCLG have made it clear that they will work closely with LEPs and other local partners on inward investment and on the European regional development fund. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked what discussions were going on about the position of the North East Economic Partnership and its assets. Discussions are ongoing; I cannot comment on the path that they are taking. However, we have confirmed that that we are not able to pass on assets as gifts or for deferred consideration to that partnership.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, also raised questions about the north-east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 20 would remove the Valuation Tribunal Service from the Schedule. I am not quite clear about what the Government propose here. I could be persuaded to withdraw my amendment and not divide the House, but I need quite a detailed response from the Minister on what he is proposing. I look forward to his response and hope I will not have to divide the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving the amendment and for allowing us to debate for a few minutes the Valuation Tribunal Service. It is one of a number of bodies which are either listed or not listed in the Bill and whose work is not particularly well known by the general public. However, these are bodies that have played an important role in terms of the good order of society. As we have debated the 150 or so bodies under consideration, there has been a tendency and temptation—given that we have all agreed that it is right that these bodies should be reviewed on a regular basis—to underestimate the contribution of the people who have worked for them or sat on their boards. It is right for me to invite the Minister—who has, if I may say so, expertly steered the Bill through your Lordships’ House—to reflect on the importance of the tone with which we debate these organisations.

I say that because, in relation more generally to debates in your Lordships’ House, in the other place and among the public on public services, there has been an unfortunate tendency to speak in a pejorative way about back-office functions. That is a matter for regret. It is not sensible to suggest, for instance, that only a policeman is doing a good thing while someone who works for the police force in a back office is not. That is not a sensible way forward. Back-office staff are being made redundant from police services, while bureaucratic tasks have to be undertaken by front-line police officers. That demonstrates some of the perverse incentives of taking a black-and-white approach.

I mention that because, as we close our first day on Report, we have an opportunity to reflect on the fact that many of these organisations will go out of business. The functions of some will be transferred to another body while the functions of others will come to a close. It is important to send a message out to the people who have worked in these bodies that we do not underestimate the contribution that they have made. The regular review that is taking place should be sensible, but in no way should it be taken as a criticism of the work that is done by thousands of people up and down the country.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I happily associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because we all share his sentiment. The more you become involved in this process, the more you realise that you are dealing with bodies that in many cases are performing important tasks and are staffed by people with a due sense of purpose and public service.

What is interesting about the amendment—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for giving us a chance to talk about it—is that in many ways it brings continuity between the previous Government’s proposals in the area of tribunals and our own. As will be clear from my explanation of why the Valuation Tribunal Service is in Schedule 1, noble Lords will recognise that the foundations for this decision were laid by the legislation of the previous Government.

The Valuation Tribunal Service is a non-departmental public body that provides administrative support and all the services required by the Valuation Tribunal for England, which hears appeals on council tax and business rates—in other words, national non-domestic rates.

Taken together, the Valuation Tribunal for England and the Valuation Tribunal Service—I will use the acronyms from now on—provide an independent appeals service for business rate or council tax payers who wish to challenge either the basis on which the banding or valuation of their property has been calculated, or their liability to pay business rates or council tax. In the Government's recent announcement about the future of arm’s-length bodies, both the VTS and the VTE were identified as bodies that could be abolished. However, I stress that the Government recognise that the jurisdiction that the VTE exercises, and the functions undertaken by the VTS, are still necessary—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is correct—and plan to transfer them so that they become part of the unified structure for tribunals, thus ensuring that the independence of the appeals process for business rates and council tax will be maintained. The achievement of these transfers would be a further step in the achievement of the long-standing policy introduced by the previous Government, following the 2000 Leggatt report, Tribunals for Users: One System, One Service, which this Government are continuing. The aim is to bring central government-sponsored tribunals in England and Wales under a single umbrella organisation.

The Government's proposal is that the jurisdiction of the VTE and the functions of the VTS should transfer respectively to the First-tier Tribunal and Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. It is important that noble Lords should note that the planned transfers are fully supported by both the chairman of the VTS, Anne Galbraith, and the president of the VTE, Professor Graham Zellick. The jurisdiction of the Valuation Tribunal for England will be transferred to the soon-to-be-created Land, Property and Housing Chamber—the Land Chamber—of the First-tier Tribunal, which was formally established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Powers in the 2007 Act would allow the formal transfer of the VTE's jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal, and the subsequent abolition of the VTE as a separately constituted tribunal. Since the 2007 Act powers are already available to achieve this, the Government do not need—and nor do they intend to seek—its abolition through the powers in the Bill. I trust that noble Lords will be comforted to learn that the jurisdictional independence currently enjoyed by the VTE will continue, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the First-tier Tribunal.

Noble Lords will also wish to be made aware that the transfer will bring added opportunities. Members who would formerly have been in separate tribunals will be able, following the transfer, to sit on tribunals in all jurisdictions exercised within the First-tier Tribunal Land Chamber. Such arrangements are already in place elsewhere and have brought significant operational and jurisdictional advantages.

I turn to the Valuation Tribunal Service that is the subject of the amendment. If the jurisdiction of the VTE is transferred and the VTE is abolished, the VTS will effectively cease to have any purpose and powers. Therefore, the Government's intention is that, in tandem with the transfer of the VTE, the parallel administrative functions provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service should also transfer at the same time to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice that is shortly to be established following a merger between Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Tribunals Service.

The functions of the VTS, which are essentially to provide all administrative support for the operation of the VTE, including staff, accommodation and IT, would be absorbed into the tribunal service to sit alongside the administrative support for all jurisdictions within the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. Once these functions had been transferred, there would be no further need for the VTS to remain in existence as a separate body and it could then be formally abolished. However, as the VTS was established under statute—in the Local Government Act, to be precise—new powers would be required to achieve both the transfer of the VTS’s functions and its subsequent abolition. The power set out in Clause 1 would allow an order to be laid to achieve this transfer, and that is why the VTS is included in Schedule 1.

Planning for the transfer of both jurisdiction and administrative functions is in its very early stages but, following the transfer, we confidently expect the realisation of economies of scale, operating efficiencies and added service improvements, which the unified tribunals system was established to provide. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise and be reassured that the Government’s proposals will maintain and sustain the independence of the appeals process for council tax and business rates, and that they are a continuation of the policy pursued by the previous Government. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Sex Offenders Register

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement repeated by Baroness Neville-Jones on 16 February (HL Deb, cols. 714–15) on the sex offenders register, to what extent the statement took account of ministers’ duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary under section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

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

My Lords, Ministers are fully mindful of their duty under the Act. HMG took account of their duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary by taking steps to remedy the incompatibility identified by the court.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is clearly right that we do everything we can to protect the public from sex offenders, but does she accept that the Home Secretary went too far when she described an eminently reasonable judgment of the Supreme Court as appalling? Has her right honourable friend the Home Secretary been reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I should like to make two points in response to that. First, there was real public anxiety about some of the potential consequences of the judgment, which was being reflected by the Government. The Government have taken appropriate action to meet the court’s judgment and to protect the public interest. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor has no doubt spoken to his colleagues.

Passenger Name Records: EUC Report

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I congratulate the committee, and indeed the sub-committee on home affairs, on producing this important report. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the historical context in which he placed the debate today. The report was published on 11 March and here we are debating it on 17 March. This is in remarkably quick time and I commend this opportunity to have an early debate and, by the terms of the Motion, come to a considered view on the question of whether or not to have the opt-in. I note from paragraph 23 that the sub-committee hopes that this will allow the Government to be fully aware of the views of the committee and of the House itself. The Opposition certainly support that aim.

One should be in no doubt about the importance of this decision. As the Home Office memorandum makes clear—I am grateful for the clarity provided in that memorandum—passenger name record data are an essential supply of data for the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies for investigations and operations, and are a proven and vital tool for the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism. As the committee points out, the collection of PNR data, their transfer to border and enforcement agencies and their retention for a number of years constitute a substantial invasion of privacy with major data protection implications. It is therefore right, as the committee states, that such collection is justified only if the benefits in combating terrorism and serious crime are as great as is stated.

I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about the broader implications behind the collection, holding and security of such data. It is interesting to look back to 2007 when the original proposal was put to the European Parliament. Criticism was expressed at the time in that Parliament’s resolution about the need for the actions proposed to be fully justified. The European Parliament also questioned whether the proposal met the standard required for justifying interference with the right to data protection. With regard to data protection, the European Parliament called for a clear purpose limitation and emphasised that only specific authorities should have access to PNR data.

A lot of progress has been made subsequently. In the Explanatory Memorandum produced for the European Parliament and Council in February 2011, the Commission is now able to argue that the proposal is fully in line with the overall objectives of creating a European area of freedom, security and justice; that, because of the nature of the proposed provision, the proposal is subject to in-depth scrutiny to ensure that its provisions are compatible with the fundamental rights, especially the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; and that the proposal is in line with Article 16 of the TFEU, which guarantees everyone the right to the protection of personal data. Overall, it concludes that, in addition to being in line with existing data protection rules and principles, the proposal contains a number of safeguards to ensure full compliance with the proportionality principle and guarantee a high level of fundamental rights protection.

I note the committee’s conclusion that it has no hesitation in accepting the Home Office’s assessment of the value of PNR data for the prevention and detection of serious crime and terrorism. The committee agrees that the case for EU-wide legislation is compelling. I note, too, support for the directive to be extended to intra-EU flights. This seems to me a sensible approach, as explained in the committee’s memorandum.

The committee’s support for opt-in is entirely consistent with the thrust of its support generally. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point. Her ministerial colleague was reluctant to give a view when he gave evidence to the committee, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to clarify that point and reassure the House on it.

This is a very telling report. We are in a sense setting a new pattern for the House to consider these matters, in that the committee is inviting the House to express a view. I very much support that proposition and commend the report to the House.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2011

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief on this issue. It is very clear that everyone in this House is opposed to terrorism but the question we must ask is how effective the control orders have been. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, asked what their impact had been on those who have been affected by them, not simply those who are subject to the orders but their families and those who suffer the effects of these exclusion orders. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, referred to alternative forms of investigation and surveillance.

One of the consequences of not using powers of surveillance and investigation in Northern Ireland to the extent that they led to prosecution was that we saw a development in criminal activity. I am not suggesting that the control orders would lead to that but one of the consequences of repressive anti-terrorist legislation is that it grows the terrorism which it seeks to defeat by virtue of the impact it has on the communities on whom it is imposed and on which it impacts. The evidence is very clear that legislation which is neither proportionate nor necessary has the effect of growing resentment in those communities, and that that resentment can lead ultimately to people becoming involved in, or possibly supporting in some very minor way, the very terrorism which it seeks to defeat. Is it not possible for the control order to slip into oblivion, for the new measures to be introduced in December, and in the mean time to make use of the very extensive powers of investigation and surveillance available under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and other legislation?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for introducing the order. I echo my noble friend Lord Judd in thanking our security services and police for their co-ordinated work in keeping us safe. We know that plots have been foiled recently. It is clearly our duty to provide the police and security services with the tools and procedures that they need to do their job effectively. As we have heard today and in previous debates, that sometimes means walking a very difficult line in balancing individual freedom with collective safety—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, put that very well—with the rights of the wider community sometimes outweighing the rights of the individual. Control orders have been the tool for that and I thought that the Minister said that they had had some success. In an ideal world we would not wish to use control orders. It would be greatly preferable if our criminal justice system could deal with terrorists who wished to cause us harm but the view was taken by the previous Government and previous Home Secretaries that control orders were a necessary evil.

The order before us provides for the continuation of the power to make a control order against an individual when the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity. I echo the noble Baroness’s tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the work that he has done. We know that eight people are subject to control orders at the moment. My understanding—perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm this—is that some of these orders have been made since the coalition Government came to power. The implication of what the Minister has said is that the Government recognise that a number of people pose a real threat to our security who cannot be prosecuted or deported. Therefore, the Government have come face to face with reality in recognising the need for a mechanism to protect the public from the threat that such individuals pose. The Sixth Report of the Independent Reviewer states clearly:

“The control orders system, or an alternative system providing equivalent and proportionate public protection, remains necessary, but only for a small number of cases where robust information is available to the effect that the individual in question presents a considerable risk to national security, and conventional prosecution is not realistic”.

It looks like the Government have gone through a steep learning curve in the past few months, but one of the results is an absurd situation whereby the order on 28-day detention was allowed to lapse without the draft emergency legislation being in place. Legislation has now been published but, as yet, we do not know when Parliament will discuss it.

A number of noble Lords referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that examines whether Parliament should be given the opportunity to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed emergency legislation. The noble Baroness will know that the Select Committee said that it does not accept the Government’s reasoning for not providing this opportunity and recommends that the legislation should be published and made available to Parliament for pre-legislative scrutiny. I invite the noble Baroness to comment on that specific recommendation. I also echo the point raised by my noble friend Lord Judd, who referred to the recommendation in the committee’s report that the Government should publish a summary of the views of a number of the agencies involved in counterterrorism in order to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the review. I accept that the report was published only a few days ago and I would not expect the Government already to be able to come to your Lordships’ House with a full response. That would be unreasonable. However, the noble Baroness should be able to say broadly whether she accepts those recommendations and can respond to them.

It is noticeable that the proposed new control order regime pays particular attention to surveillance. We are told that sufficient finance will be available to the police and security services for that resource-intensive proposal. Will new money be made available? The noble Baroness owes it to the House to inform us as to how continuation of the current control order regime will be dealt with, given the financial cuts that the police and the security services are facing. I pray in aid to the noble Baroness the report published today that details some of those cuts.

Will the noble Baroness inform the House about the impact on the capability of our counterterrorism work of the changes proposed in the Police Reform Bill that is now in the other place? That is highly relevant to this order and to what is likely to take place over the next few months. I have great reservations about the proposal to impose elected police commissioners on our police forces. I have no doubt whatever that it risks politicisation of our forces and inevitably corruption. That is a debate for another day, but I am concerned about the impact on national strategic policing issues, which are relevant to this debate.

There can be little doubt that police commissioners will be elected on manifestos that are bound to focus on local policing issues. I suspect that it will be a question of which candidate proposes more bobbies on the beat. That is fair enough, but what if these elected police commissioners neglect their national responsibilities? What if they do not make appropriate resources available for counterterrorism work? The noble Baroness speaks with great authority on this issue. Is she convinced that there will be sufficient intervention powers at a national level to ensure that elected police commissioners do not inhibit national security work in which the police have a major role to play? I assure her that we will come back to that issue.

These are not easy issues. As every noble Lord who spoke today said, we in this country have a long tradition of individual rights and freedoms. We are all very proud of that. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said, we have responsibilities for the safety and security of the public in very challenging times. It is a very difficult balance to achieve. The Official Opposition support the extension of the order this evening. We look forward to the new legislation on how we can scrutinise what happens. I hope that we will be able to reach consensus that meets the requirements of individual freedoms while keeping the safety of our country to the fore.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the House for the thoughtful tone of the debate that followed my opening remarks. It demonstrated, not surprisingly, that there is a range of views on these issues. There are strong principles involved and I do not resile in any way from the principled stand that I took in opposition. However, I always said—and it is still the case—that one has to measure what one does against the security needs of the country, and what one does must be consistent with those needs. It is a matter of regret that we came to the conclusion that we cannot simply revert to a situation in which we can rely on open and normal prosecution through the courts. It is much to be desired that that is where we will come to. However, after detailed examination—this was a very thorough process—we came to the reluctant conclusion that we could not dispense entirely with the measures that lie alongside the normal judicial system.

I am grateful to noble Lords for many of their remarks. Perhaps I might have wished that more recognition had been given to the differences that exist between the measures that we are proposing and those that exist at the moment. We had regard to what was said, in particular about the psychological effects of relocation; we took a view on the necessity of a very long curfew; and we did our best to create a situation in which normal life will be open to those who are under restrictions and they will be able to work. Many of them do not, but we would like those who have work to be able to do it. We are trying extremely hard not to distort the lives of those individuals who are under restrictions any more than is necessary.

There will be an opportunity for scrutiny of this legislation. That is one reason for wanting to have in place a temporary regime. I was asked about pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government have no problem with this. It is partly a question of the amount of time available to do various things. I am sure that the House will attach importance to us not continuing the existing control order regime longer than we need to. We must allow enough time for scrutiny on the Floor of the House, not only of the TPIMs but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked, of the emergency provisions. I take his point and put it to noble Lords that we need to be practical about how we go about giving the scrutiny that this House and the other place will want to give to this legislation. I am not saying that the Government see an obstacle to it in principle; it is simply that we have doubts about the practicality.

I was asked whether there will be new money for the extra surveillance. The answer is yes, and I shall come back to that in a moment. I was also asked whether we will give information about, or publish, the evidence given by some of the services in the process of the review. I am not going to promise that. I think it will be perfectly understandable to Members of this House why it is necessary to keep the confidence of the security services, in particular, but also the police in this matter. We will do our best to—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The Select Committee’s report came out only a few days ago. Is that a considered response in the light of the report? I entirely understand the point that she is making but I wonder whether the Government need to give a little more time to that.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

As I said, I am not going to make that promise. I was about to add a sentence when the noble Lord rose. We will take this under advisement and see whether we can give some kind of summary, but if the noble Lord does not mind, I do not want to give a totally definitive answer to that point this evening.

I was asked a number of detailed points and I shall try, without detaining the House for too long, to go through some of them. Right at the beginning, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked a number of questions which I think bear on points made subsequently in debate. The implication of his remarks was: would we honour seriously what we have said about the importance of continuing to seek prosecutions? I have three things to say about that. One is that the CORG which he mentioned will conduct serious work. I think that it has always been a serious body but the Government are going to make absolutely certain that the conduct of the CORG—the review body that keeps these cases under continuous and pretty close scrutiny—is serious. We have, I hope, created a situation in which there will be greater possibilities for prosecution. I stress to the House that I think it is only fair to say that the primary purpose of these measures is still protective. Nevertheless, within the scope that is offered, we will certainly be looking at the possibility of continuing and bringing prosecutions. Indeed, the operation of the TPIMs themselves may allow that to happen.

I was also asked why, if we believe that the control orders are imperfect—as, indeed, I said myself—we do not abolish them straightaway. I was asked whether it would not be right to do just that. I remind the House of the condition which is very important to our ability to move to a looser regime, and that is the surveillance that needs to be put in place in order to provide the public with the necessary security. That surveillance does not exist at the moment. Individuals have to be recruited; people have to be trained; and we have to have extra capacity and capability in that area, which we do not have at the moment. I do not think it is reasonable to say that you should be able to abolish the existing regime for the individuals who are currently under control orders in the absence of the necessary conditions for a new regime. Having said that, clearly the current control orders come up for regular review. We shall be reviewing them and of course we will be looking at individuals’ cases in the light of their situations. As I have said, there is clearly a transition to be undertaken. I do not think that I can go further than that at the moment. I understand perfectly well the point that has been made but I hope that noble Lords will also understand the constraints that we are under in moving quickly from one regime to another.

Sex Offenders Register

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I have some concerns about the tone adopted in it towards the courts. As she said, the register has existed since 1997. Since then, it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes. Requiring serious sex offenders to sign the register for life, as they do now, has always had broad support from across the House. Our priority must be public safety. The indefinite period of being on the sex offenders register with no option for appeal is automatic for the most serious sexual offences. The register was implemented for a reason: the victims of these crimes have suffered and continue to suffer greatly because of the actions of these offenders. Offenders can still pose a threat to the public. The Supreme Court judgment in F and Thompson notes that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights also applies to public safety and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. With that in mind, we should consider the Supreme Court’s judgment and how Parliament should respond.

Clearly the priority must be public safety and the protection of our young and vulnerable people. Does the noble Baroness agree that, while the rights of an individual are important, including those who commit a crime, the rights of families and communities up and down the country are paramount? What is her assessment of the impact of the judgment on those currently subject to the notification requirements—how many offenders subject to them will this affect? What factors does she think will need to be taken into account in any review mechanism for those subject to the requirements? Does she agree that any such review needs to be extremely tough, given the seriousness of the offences and the need to have tough punishments in the eyes of the public? When does she expect Parliament to be able to debate the implications of the judgment? Could she also give me some indication of the timescale for when the changes have to be made?

I also ask the noble Baroness to explain the reasons for the decision of the Government that it is the police who will decide whether an offender should remain on the register with no right of appeal. What is the process? Will it be behind closed doors? Will the chief constable or the elected police commissioner take such a decision? Will the Government publish guidelines to the police and will those also be debatable in Parliament?

Finally, I would like to ask the noble Baroness about a couple of comments in the Statement about the role of the courts. The Statement starts by saying that the Government were “appalled” by the ruling of the Supreme Court and ends by saying that it is time that Parliament, not the courts, made laws and that a commission will investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights. I rather thought that Parliament made the laws and that it was for the courts to interpret those laws. I hope that she will reflect on the rather intemperate words used in the Statement in respect of the courts; given her wide experience, I am sure that they are not hers. Ministers should be very wary of undermining the role of the courts. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to make it clear that that is not her intention. Does she accept that, while Parliament would be called on to enact any Bill of Rights, the courts would inevitably be called on to interpret such an Act in due course?

Counterterrorism

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Private Notice Question in the other place as a Statement. However, it is disappointing that the Statement had to be dragged out of the Government by means of a PNQ this morning. When the Conservative Party was in opposition, it made much play of the need for the Executive to respect Parliament and parliamentary procedures. In office it has acted rather differently. I will return to that in a moment.

Keeping the public safe and striking the right balance between security and protection of fundamental liberties is one of the most vital challenges facing any Government. As a responsible Opposition, we seek to support the Government on issues of national security and on their review of counterterrorism powers, provided that decisions are made on the basis of evidence, solely in the national interest and following an orderly process. That is still very much our intention. That is why we said before Christmas that if the evidence shows we can go down from 28 days’ pre-charge detention without impeding the police and security services in doing their job, we should do it.

However, the process has not been at all orderly; it has been delayed considerably. It was to be completed after the summer Recess, then in November, then by the end of the year and then last week. During that time there have been considerable leaks to the media. On only 15 January, the Sun reported that £20 million of extra funding would be required for the security services to implement the changes to control orders, which were agreed as part of the Government’s counterterrorism powers review. That was followed by detailed reports by the BBC and other newspapers last week. For example, the BBC reported the coalition plans to replace control orders with a new range of restrictions to keep terror suspects under surveillance. One working title for the new curbs, according to the BBC, is surveillance orders. These would restrict suspects’ movements but end overnight curfews and a ban on mobile phones if numbers were supplied. The Daily Telegraph reported the following from political sources:

“Curfews for terrorism suspects are to be abandoned as part of a government overhaul of control orders, it can be disclosed”.

There have been all these briefings and leaks in the media, but we are told today of the conclusions of the Government’s review, as the noble Baroness has set out—of a reversion to 14 days and draft emergency legislation to be brought to extend the maximum period to 28 days in the circumstances that the noble Baroness described. We must, however, wait until next Wednesday for a full justification for this decision and the details; yet the powers to detain terror suspects for 28 days expire, as the noble Baroness has stated, next Monday. Why are we not receiving a full Statement today, before the reversion to 14 days? Have the police and the security services agreed that, on the basis of the evidence, the power to detain suspects beyond 14 days is no longer necessary? Will this evidence, if it is available, be published in the review outcome, which I assume with be published next Wednesday? Has the Minister's department established a leaks inquiry into the series of disclosures that we have seen in the media in the past few weeks?

This party is determined to do everything that it can to support the Government in any appropriate and necessary national security measures. However, the Government’s conduct on this matter has not given us any confidence in their approach.

Police: Protest Groups

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

The introduction of ID cards was subject to intense debate in your Lordships’ House. We on this side saw the ID card scheme as a convenient and secure way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

I am advised that there is nothing before the House to debate at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, shall I carry on? Perhaps we can have a debate on the general issue. I am most grateful to the Lord Speaker for helping us through that.

Following the introduction of ID cards, 12,000 or so members of the public purchased a card for £30. The cards were for a period of 10 years. As a result of the Bill, these cards are to be cancelled within a short time, many years before their due expiry date.

Whatever one’s views on ID cards, noble Lords from all sides of the House were concerned about the Government’s mean-spirited decision to refuse to refund the £30 to those who purchased an ID card. The Home Office Minister, the noble Baroness, has appeared—

[Lord Higgins]

Can the noble Lord say which Motion he is debating?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, perhaps I may help the House. We are debating whether we should consider the Commons reason. We are not yet debating the Commons reason. If the noble Lord opposite wants to take advantage of our procedure, he is able to do so, but I hope that he will not speak at great length.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. I want to debate the issue, as this amendment has been returned from the Commons, but if the House would prefer the noble Baroness to move her Motion first, I can resume speaking afterwards. Clearly that would be helpful.

[The Lord Speaker]

I sense that that is the will of the House; so we shall take the procedural Motion now, and I am sure that there will be an opportunity for debate when we get on to Motion A. The question, therefore, is that the Commons reason be now considered.

Motion agreed.

Motion A

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

At Second Reading, she said that,

“those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out”.

She went on to say that,

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

She dismissed the potential refund of £30 as,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am glad to see the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms in her place. The position is that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, on Report, told that House that she would seek to take certain actions. It has now become clear that for the House to come to a view on this matter, it is important that it knows the information that noble Lords requested on Report in relation to the law officers. It is equally clear that up to this point the noble Baroness has not been able to satisfy the House. Given that this is almost the end point for the Bill, I would suggest that if she is unable to answer the point, a short adjournment would in fact be sensible and in order.

[Lord Waddington]

My Lords, I am getting rather exasperated by all these exchanges. Surely, if the House is not satisfied with the replies given by the Minister, the time will come when that can bear on noble Lords’ judgment when they vote. However, the Minister has given her reply and I, for one, think it is high time that this debate came to a conclusion. The Minister has been very generous in giving way. Perhaps I may remind her that she is not obliged to give way. That has been made quite clear already this afternoon, when a long passage from the Companion was read to the House. I respectfully submit that it is about time we followed normal procedures and, if the House does not like the replies given by the Minister, that can be reflected in its vote. However, noble Lords must not disrupt the business of the House by silly points of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

After the question has been put, no one can speak.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I wish to move that the House do adjourn to allow the noble Baroness the Minister to seek further advice so that the House may be allowed to hear the response that she should have given to noble Lords following her commitment on Report. I should like to move that further consideration of Motion A be adjourned.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I strongly oppose the question that the House do now adjourn. We need to determine this matter now.

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I will speak briefly about two issues. We certainly accept the convention that the noble Baroness is under no obligation to tell the House what the advice of the law officers was. However, I am surprised, not least in the light of the earlier observations by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, to hear her assert that she is under no obligation to tell the House whether she received advice from the law officers. I wonder whether part of the reason for her difficulty earlier in the afternoon was that the advice of the law officers was not consistent. Perhaps they disagreed among themselves, which put her in an embarrassing and difficult position. Perhaps she would be willing to cast any light on that; if she would, I think that the House would be interested.

The second issue is the one that I raised earlier. I am genuinely unclear, from what the Minister said this afternoon, whether the Government are asserting financial privilege and hiding behind a ruling of the Speaker and whether they are content that this extension of the doctrine of financial privilege to cover matters of expenditure as well as measures concerned with revenue raising is an appropriate new doctrine for them to espouse and to use for their political convenience. As I suggested earlier, if that is the case, there are large implications for this House, which we should ponder and take seriously. Will the Minister tell us in plain terms whether the Government consider that this is a matter of financial privilege and therefore outside the authority and competence of this House to vote on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

Immigration: High Court Ruling

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There can be no doubt that she”—

the Home Secretary—

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

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

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

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

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