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?

Extradition: Gary McKinnon

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

Police: Retirement

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

Identity Documents Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

Immigration: Home Office Procedures

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

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

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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