Sex Offenders Register

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Police: Protest Groups

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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.

--- 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.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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.

--- 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, 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—

Immigration: High Court Ruling

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 6th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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?

Controlling Migration

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for clarifying the confusion caused by the misleading leak of the contents of the Statement to the BBC this morning—not the first time that that has happened.

I am sure that the Home Secretary is right to say that migration has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the economic vibrancy, business strength and social vitality of our country. She is also right to say that it is essential that migration is properly controlled for reasons of both economic well-being and social cohesion. The question is: how does one achieve that? Over the past few years, the Labour Government put in place 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 earned 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, reaffirmed in last week’s debate in the other place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, 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. At the time, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that they did not come up with promises like caps which did not work; he then agreed to the cap in the coalition agreement.

Since then the Government have been in wholesale retreat and today they are in some confusion. The CBI, the chambers of commerce, universities, Nobel prize winners, UK and foreign companies—large and small—have all highlighted the huge damage the Government’s proposals mean for business investment, research and job creation.

The Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, and the Migration Advisory Committee, have highlighted that the proposed cap not only excludes EU migration but covers only 20 per cent of non-EU migration, with overseas students and family members being outside the cap entirely. At the weekend, the business editor of the Sunday Telegraph wrote that the Government’s “ill considered immigration cap” has had,

“the bizarre result of causing substantial problems for Britain's leading businesses whilst at the same time having only the most minor of impacts on the number of people actually coming to the UK”.

We have had the sight of the Prime Minister hinting at concession after concession in the face, we read, of opposition from the Home Secretary. But, then again, thanks to the excellent public lobbying and guerrilla tactics of the Business Secretary, the Home Secretary has now come to the other place to confirm the details of that retreat.

While we will need to keep a close eye on how our proposals will affect business and science, we certainly join business representatives in welcoming the decision to exempt intra-company transfers of workers. What has caused the confusion is this morning’s briefing to the BBC that the total cap would be 42,700 work permits. I understand that mid-morning the Home Secretary’s officials had to clarify to the Press Association that there is no such cap on that scale. My understanding from the Statement, as the noble Baroness has repeated, is that the Home Secretary will allow 21,700 tier 1 and 2 work permits, but with no cap on migration due to intra-company transfers. I ask the noble Baroness what the overall reduction will be as a result of the so-called cap announced today. If the number of intra-company transfers goes up, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether she will then put in place an offsetting cut in tier 1 and 2 permits? If not—and I know business representatives will very much hope that the answer is not—can she confirm that the supposed cap is in fact just a guess; a fig-leaf and no cap at all? This is a policy designed for an election campaign, but not suited to the reality of Government or the actual long-term interests of the UK.

Given her Permanent Secretary’s revelation this morning that her department will lose 9,000 jobs—the bulk of which will be in the UK Border Agency—is the Minister confident that she will have enough resources to enforce her migration policy and keep our borders secure?

On family reunification, the Statement had nothing new to say. No estimate was given to the House of how many fewer visas she will need to grant by 2015 to meet the Prime Minister’s target. On overseas students, we are promised another consultation and, again, with no estimates. Why is that? Could it be that the Prime Minister is simultaneously travelling to countries of the world, inviting students to come to Britain to study and the Business Secretary is telling our universities that they can live with an 80 per cent cut in teaching budgets because they can mitigate the loss with fees from overseas students? Is that the position?

I would also like to ask the noble Baroness whether it is still the objective of the Prime Minister and the Government to cut net migration to the tens of thousands by 2015. I notice that in the Statement the goal was repeated but we no longer get the date of 2015. Can the noble Baroness reaffirm that the 2015 promise still stands? It is a simple question: is the tens of thousands pledge still binding by 2015?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I, too, listened to the debate in the Commons and I note that the Speaker did not admit the proposition that there had been a leak from the Home Office. I do not believe that there was a leak from the Home Office. This is not an instance that can be cited in that direction.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions—

Immigration: Home Office Procedures

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

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.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I say to the government Front Bench that we are out of order. It is the job of the Front Bench on the government side to make sure that we keep to order.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Perhaps I may just say that I have undertaken to take the point away. I have done so in good faith and noble Lords may rely on my good faith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the amendment is fairly straightforward, and I hope that it will be seen as a much-needed addition to the Bill. Conservative shadow Ministers when in opposition made varying claims about the current cost of the ID card scheme which ranged widely from nearly £1 billion to up to £20 billion. Meanwhile, the National Identity Service cost report of October 2009—the official document laid before Parliament under the terms of the Identity Cards Act 2006—stated that the projected forward cost of providing ID cards for the next 10 years until 2019 was £835 million. Crucially, that figure does not equate to the savings to be made from scrapping the scheme. We know that because we read the impact assessment that accompanies the Bill, which states at the bottom of page 4:

“The October 2009 cost report indicated that cancellation of ID cards would avoid future costs of £835 million up to October 2019. However, these costs are planned to be recovered through future fees to ID card purchases. Therefore, there are no benefits to the taxpayer from Year 3 onwards”.

The tables included in the impact assessment reveal that total savings from scrapping the scheme are £118 million. The total cost of cancelling the ID cards and the NIR are given as £22 million, although the Bill’s Explanatory Notes state the cost to be £55 million. There appears to be a muddle and the Government have been rather misleading to claim the scale of the savings that they have done. A definitive, preferably independently audited cost and saving report would be desirable and it would be appropriate for it to be part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter as sympathetically as she can.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government certainly agree that it is important that we are open and transparent about costs and savings. Ministers have set out the level of costs, both in the debate here and in the other place. Clearly, the Opposition do not entirely agree with our figures, but we have set out the costs and savings as we see them and as they are expected to be over the spending period. We also agree that it is important that these are set out in an accountable and auditable form and that is why we are including the costs and savings associated with scrapping the ID card scheme in the annual report and accounts—we have already undertaken to do this—which will be submitted to the House of Commons by the chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service.

Noble Lords will be aware that the annual report and accounts are presented to the House of Commons in accordance with Section 7 of the 2000 Act and they are published by the House of Commons. The accounts are aimed at being published in advance of the Summer Recess. If one looks at the noble Lord’s amendment, one can see that the timings are such that we would be invited to publish the same information twice over a very short time. I do not think that that makes a great deal of sense.

I can confirm to your Lordships that there will be a full and transparent breakdown of the costs and savings related to ID cards in the IPS annual report and accounts for the next year and that these will cover the points raised in the amendment so that there will be complete clarity on the points that noble Lords have raised. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am grateful to the Minister. She has said that the details that I require will be published and I am very happy to accept that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I look forward to further debates on those matters. The noble Lord is quite right. I hope that your Lordships' House will have further opportunities to discuss the implications of that, because it is a matter of great concern. There are some international companies that seem to feel that they can do what they like, and there is a need for this to be looked at very carefully. I understand the concerns about Governments amassing data. Equally, I refer the noble Lord to Mr Hodder, who wrote to me before Grand Committee, as an example of a business person who has used his card 30 times in going to the European zone and found it very convenient. For that reason, I do not think that we have heard the last word about the use of such cards.

I hope that the Minister considers taking this matter away. Whatever view noble Lords take of what the last Government did and of the nature of the cards and the information, it is rightly important that the public have confidence that the process used is done properly and well, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. The BBC carried a very interesting story about some of the techniques that will be used to ensure that the information is appropriately destroyed. I welcome that, but it would be helpful—and it is an important matter of public confidence—to have a proper independent scrutiny of this matter, which is why I very much support the noble Lord in his amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Two separate issues seem to have been debated under this amendment. The first was whether one needs the extraordinary amount of information that would have been contained on the national identity register as a means of establishing ID cards, and whether that is the kind of thing that we want to see reintroduced, which I certainly do not believe to be the case. The second issue, which is the proper intention of the amendment, is about ensuring that information retained by the Government is properly governed and accountable. On that second point, I share absolutely the preoccupations of those who have proposed the amendment, but I have reservations about the method that they have chosen to achieve the end. In effect, the amendment establishes a new individual—some sort of passport commissioner—who would have the job of overseeing how the data were used and retained by the IPS. That would also be the case in connection with information received by third parties for the validation of passport applications.

In our view, the Information Commissioner has significant powers, and we would regard them as sufficient to examine and consider or scrutinise any of the data processed within the IPS. I think that the noble Lord has had a conversation with the Information Commissioner to that effect. My impression of the Information Commissioner is that he takes a considerable interest in the operation of the Act and has powers to serve the IPS with a notice to allow him, or his staff, to find out whether the IPS is complying with the Data Protection Act, which is the governing Act here. He is able to oblige the IPS to allow him or his staff to enter any premises and to show any of the specified documents or to see any of the information of the specified descriptions that he wishes to inspect.

Those are very considerable powers. I share the preoccupation of the House in ensuring that Government retain information only for the purposes for which it is genuinely needed and they are governed in ways which ensure that that is the case—that it is not used for purposes for which it was not specified and for which the Government are not entitled to use it. It is important for us to ensure that this is the case, and to talk to the Information Commissioner to ensure that he is able and willing to exercise his powers in this way, which I believe to be the case. I ask the noble Lord if on that basis, and with an assurance from the Government that we will take the intent of this amendment seriously, he is willing to withdraw his amendment?

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 3rd November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Before the noble Baroness agonises over whether to withdraw the amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the review. Will it be a departmental review or will it be a more public review? Can she say something about its timing?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

If you are going to do a review as extensive as the one proposed, it will have to have external input. It would not be particularly valid unless we were able to take advice on the kind of things on which I am offering to have consultation. I am told that the findings will be made public. We ought to make it known that we are conducting this review and we should be open to inputs from those who have interests in the matter.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but will she answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips? Is she saying that all holders were written to and told that no refunds would be given, or are they expected to read the statements that appear in the media?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

People have been written to. I will come to that in a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I quite appreciate what the noble Lord has just said. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the impact assessment, which simply set out the possibilities in a straight catalogue of options, which ranged from doing nothing through to the option chosen. Today, we are debating the option chosen by the Government.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness, but, with the greatest respect, first, clearly, this impact assessment was produced in a hurry, because it is such a mess. Clearly, on page 2 of the impact assessment, it is shown as option 1. Yet, on the front page, option 1 is the “do nothing” option, whereas option 1 on page 2 is the option to cancel ID cards without refunds and no requirement to return cards. But when I look at the first section of policy option 1 on page 2, under the cost figures of £22 million, the costs include the cost of the refund process. I rest my case.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I do not think that this Chamber or the House is under any illusion as to which of these options we are debating today. If there has been confusion over—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

With the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, the preferred option says that it includes the cost of the refund process.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Option 2 was the preferred option, as I have made clear. That is the option that we are discussing. I am afraid that there is an error simply on page 2. The figure of £22 million was also queried. That is the cost of decommissioning in the first year.

The Government take the view that it is not a sensible use of public money to throw further costs behind this scheme, and that the right thing to do with taxpayers’ money is to cancel this scheme but not to pay refunds. Accordingly, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, although there are different views about the ID scheme—as we identified in our earlier debates—clearly there is a general understanding among all noble Lords that, given that the ID card scheme will be scrapped if the legislation is passed, the destruction of the data needs to occur properly and efficiently. I agree with the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The question is, what is the best way to achieve the desirable policy outcome? Clearly, destruction must be thorough, transparent and successful in order to provide sufficient public confidence in the process. Those whose data are held on the national identity register deserve reassurance that their personal information has been destroyed to an acceptable standard.

I was grateful to the Minister for saying at Second Reading that the Government were committed to producing a Written Statement to Parliament on the event of the destruction of the data contained in the national identity register. It is absolutely right, and I welcome the fact, that the Government will report on the process and delivery of the destruction of the data. However, given the report of the Joint Committee and the comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and given that it is such a sensitive area, it would be helpful if that were to be made a statutory requirement. In reporting to Parliament, the Government should specify what data have been destroyed, the process involved and the standard by which destruction occurred. I recognise that the Minister is having a tough day with the Statement as well as this Committee, but it would be helpful if she were able to give a little more information in respect of that.

I would also like to follow the noble Lord’s amendment and its implication. Will the Minister confirm that the destruction will occur in line with the standards of the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that the process is recognised as being fully comprehensive? On Report in the other place, the Minister, Mr Damian Green, revealed that the Government were in contact with the Information Commissioner’s Office about the destruction process. As part of the Government’s stated wish to ensure transparency and openness about the physical destruction process, will the Minister consider making available communications with the Information Commissioner as soon as possible and, at the very least, include this information in the report that the amendment calls for?

Finally, Clause 3 requires destruction of data within two months of Royal Assent. I would be grateful to have confirmation from the noble Baroness that the Government are confident that that deadline can be met.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for the time that he has taken to discuss this aspect of the Bill with the Bill team. His experienced views on these matters were very much appreciated. The best thing that I can do to reassure the Committee is to describe what we are going to do. I ask noble Lords to forgive me if that takes a moment or two. The national identity register is a generic term applied to the process of collecting and storing personal biographical and biometric data on ID card applications. At the moment, the core database is maintained in secure conditions on behalf of the Identity and Passport Service by its main contractors. Data held for dealing with applications, for subject access requests or for marketing purposes are similarly held in secure conditions by IPS staff and by contractors, such as Teleperformance.

IPS and any other party which has or had access to information gathered in connection with the NIR is required to comply with data protection legislation. We certainly will ensure that that is the case throughout. IPS has adopted an active approach and has identified all sources where information recorded as part of the NIR is held. As a result of that exercise, three categories have been identified. The first is the core data where the central records for the NIR are held. Core data containing biographical and biometric data are held by contractors on secure production systems. The storage media such as hard disks and back up tapes containing the data will be physically destroyed by shredding. That shredding process will comply with requirements for destroying secret data set out in Her Majesty's Government Information Assurance Standard No 5—the Secure Sanitisation of Protectively Marked or Sensitive Information. This category represents by far the largest element in the destruction process.

Terrorism: Aviation Security

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 1st November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place and for the detailed information contained in it. The whole country has been shocked by the events of the past four days and by the discovery of two concealed and hard-to-detect explosive devices, one at East Midlands Airport and the other in Dubai, and by the very serious and challenging threat that such terrorist activity constitutes to public safety and our country’s security. There can be no complacency when it comes to preventing and dealing with terrorism.

The noble Baroness has said that the devices were probably intended to detonate in mid-air and that had they done so, they could have succeeded in bringing the aircraft down. Today, my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary, Mr Ed Balls, has commended the Home Secretary for the calm way in which she has led the response to these threats. I join him and the Minister in commending our police, intelligence and security services for the vital work that they have undertaken in the past few days, in close co-operation with our allies around the world, to save lives.

It is the job of the Opposition to ask questions, to probe statements and to hold the Government to account. We will do that but we shall also be mindful, at all times, of our wider responsibility to support necessary actions, to keep our citizens safe and to protect our national interests. In that spirit, I pose a number of questions to the Minister in three areas: first, the detailed events of the past few days; secondly, the implication of the events for airline security; and, thirdly, the implications for wider security policy.

On the first point, we all appreciate that where intelligence and international co-operation are involved, events move fast and things are always clearer in hindsight. At what point were the police, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister first told about the potential threat? Were there delays in getting precise information to our security and police officers on the ground? Can the noble Baroness say why the device was not discovered by police officers during the first search? Would early information have made a material difference? What operational lessons will be learnt from dealing with such events in the future?

The second area concerns the fact that these two live explosive devices were intercepted only by an intelligence tip-off after they had already been carried on a number of different planes, including passenger planes, giving rise to serious questions about the security of our airspace. Some security experts have referred to cargo security as a potential blind spot. The noble Baroness will be aware of comments made by BALPA to that effect over the weekend. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, drew attention to the potential risks of cargo transit in his annual reports in 2007 and 2008. As a result, significant actions were taken to improve intelligence and international security co-operation, and a tougher search method—explosives trace detection—was introduced for passenger flights following the Detroit attempted attack.

I appreciate that this is a complex problem to solve, that a review has already been established and that the Home Secretary has already acted to ban unaccompanied cargo packages from Yemen. The Minister has also set out, in the Statement, a series of measures that the Government have already taken. What conclusions does the Minister draw about the reliability of current checks from the fact that the device was not spotted on first check by police experts at East Midlands Airport? Will the review consider extending explosives trace detection to cargo flights? Will the scope of the review cover cargo being carried in passenger aircraft? Are there other immediate actions that we should take now to improve the security of cargo coming into, out of or transiting through the UK while the review is being undertaken?

The events of the past few days raise wider issues for our national security and counterterrorism strategy. It is clear that terrorists operating from Yemen constitute an increasing threat. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are in urgent discussions with the Yemeni Government and our allies around the world with a view to interrupting terrorist activities at source? Given the wider evidence of a mounting threat, the judgments that underpin the Government’s current review of counterterrorism powers will be especially important. While we will reserve judgment until we see the outcome of the review, we have said that we will support the Home Secretary where we can and that consensus should be our shared goal.

I raise the issue of resources. Given that these explosive devices were intercepted through vital intelligence work, is the Minister confident that a 6 per cent real-terms cut in the single intelligence account over the next four years can be managed without compromising this vital work? Given that the device was discovered by specially trained police working closely with our security and border services, is she confident that a 10 per cent real-terms cut in counterterrorism police over the next four years, and a 50 per cent cut in capital available to the UK Border Agency, will not undermine our operational capability?

The Olympics, when the eyes of the world will be on this country, are now just two years away. With a planned 20 per cent real-terms cut, front-end loaded, in police budgets—a 6 per cent cut in the year before the Olympics and an 8 per cent cut in the year of the Olympics—can the Minister assure the House that, given the extra strain that police resources will face, this does not pose an unacceptable risk to fighting crime and to our national security? Finally, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the events of the past few days, the issue of resources should now be looked at again alongside the counterterrorism review?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his willingness to support the Government in the next measures that will have to be taken in what the House will agree is a challenging task concerning the transport of freight around the world. I am sure the police and the security services are grateful for his joint commendation of them.

The noble Lord asked a number of detailed questions, and I will do my best to answer them. First, he asked when people were informed. I can say that the device was removed from the plane at 3.30 in the morning and work continued through the night. In the early morning, the information was fed to London, and Ministers began to be informed shortly after 8 o’clock. The Home Secretary was personally informed nearer lunchtime. The Prime Minister was also informed then, and at that stage they were given a significant analysis of the investigations that had taken place and the information and assessment that was then available.

The noble Lord asked about the police investigation at the airport. There are two aspects to this: the intelligence tip-off and the process of investigation of the device. He rightly remarked that these packages were looked at following an intelligence tip-off. I might say that any implication—I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was implying this—that this was somehow accidental and that we were very fortunate, as we undoubtedly were, is slightly beside the point. I think the House will agree that we pursue a multilayered approach in this, and that it is the combination of the physical measures that we take, the protective procedures that we put in place and the intelligence context that we maintain around the world that enables us to give the people of this country the security that they are entitled to receive. It is very fortunate that our security relationships worked on this occasion and that the tip-off proved extremely accurate.

The police investigation proceeded in stages. Of course, the police are extremely careful about the way in which they dismantle a device not only because it may be dangerous but because they need to retain the evidential information. It is fair to say that they did not discover the device immediately, but they were still proceeding with their investigation when information came from Dubai that it had found evidence of a device. Subsequent work done at East Midlands Airport unravelled the precise nature of the device, which was then explored in detail.

The noble Lord also asked about the precautions that may be taken for cargo security while the wider review, which I mentioned, is under way. Those regulations are pretty stringent; they require any cargo that does not come from a trusted, listed consigner known to the airport authorities and approved by the Department for Transport to undergo stringent security tests. Therefore, only those items whose origin is known have a relatively easy passage, but I can assure the House that these regulations will be enforced with the utmost stringency in the foreseeable period. Very clearly, we will need to look in great detail not only at the procedures that we ourselves enforce in this country, but at what happens to cargo coming towards the United Kingdom—obviously something on which we will need to consult widely. There obviously has to be international co-operation and, in co-operation with other countries, we might wish to lay down new standards.

The noble Lord also asked about the relationship between what this episode tells us and our wider counterterrorism policy. Clearly, this episode tells us that we face a threat not just to passengers but to cargo and freight, unaccompanied and accompanied. It is perfectly possible, after all, for these people to do what they were doing on the basis of accompanied freight. Therefore, the Government are not relaxed and will not confine their investigation or the measures that they take to unaccompanied freight. We will look at a number of measures that may be necessary, and the Transport Secretary’s consultation and investigation will be quite wide-ranging, because we clearly need a higher level of assurance about cargo transit and transport.

On the relationship between our wider counterterrorism policies and on the Security Service, which the noble Lord asked about, I can assure the House that, based on an assessment by the head of the Security Service, we will be able to maintain, on proposed funding, the same assurance about our coverage and knowledge of terrorist activity in this country and elsewhere that we have had previously. That also applies to the role of our police in counterterrorism where we are protecting the Olympics budget and where we have confirmation from the head of counterterrorism command that he is able to carry out his duties on the basis of the funding that he will get. There is no reason to suppose that the measures that the Government are taking will in any way detract from, inhibit or prevent this country taking care of the security of the population of the United Kingdom.

Subsidiarity Assessment: Seasonal Workers (EUC Report)

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, along with the Benches opposite, I am grateful to the committee for its report and for the unusual degree of unanimity and agreement that has arisen in consideration of a matter concerning the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, this is a first and our debate is about an important issue—the test of compliance of the draft directive with the principle of subsidiarity. Indeed, as he pointed out, the fact that something is desirable is not enough to meet the principle of subsidiarity; it has to be necessary.

I start by responding to the important points raised by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. The Government are a strong supporter of the Lisbon treaty arrangements for national parliaments to be given a direct say in the application of what we regard as the crucial principle of subsidiarity in EU lawmaking. That is defined in the treaty and the Government respect the right, irrespective of their own view, of the Houses to take their view on the European institutions to ensure that the Commission’s application of the principle remains within the bounds of the treaty. We believe that this constitutes an important step towards the democratic legitimacy of the European Union.

I was asked about the relationship between subsidiarity and the policy objective. When considering any directive, the Government’s policy is to assess as a matter of course the proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity irrespective of its substance. The Government carry out the subsidiarity test by checking whether, where the treaty allows for action by both the Union and member states, the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states by reason of the scale or the effects of the proposed action and so could be better achieved by the Union. That is the high test. Should the Government conclude that the action cannot be better achieved at the Union level, they would submit their views to the Commission. I hope that that makes it implicitly if not absolutely explicitly clear that the Government’s view is that subsidiarity takes precedence.

Before moving on to the specific issues raised by the committee, I should like to set out the Commission’s position on this directive. As a number of speakers have noticed, the Government have decided that the UK will not opt in to the measure. The UK’s immigration system does not currently provide for the admission of seasonal workers and our view is that our seasonal labour needs can be met from an expanded EU labour force. The seasonal agricultural workers scheme was closed to third-country nationals on 1 January 2007 by the previous Government and within the EU it is now open only to nationals of Bulgaria and Romania. We have no reason to suppose that that supply of labour will be inadequate. The Government have proposed setting a limit on the future volume of non-EU migrants allowed to enter the UK and are carrying out consultations on the options for implementing this policy.

Against that background, it would not have made sense for the UK to participate in an instrument that provides for common rules for the admission of third-country nationals for seasonal work, nor would it be sensible to lock ourselves into a directive that limits our freedom to decide what kind of controls we might want to apply to seasonal workers in the future.

The subsidiarity test is not always as straightforward as it seems, as it depends on an assessment of whether the proposal would have the results that it sets out to achieve. It is clear that in given instances it is possible for lawyers to disagree on these matters and for legal advice to be different, as implicitly noted in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Commission’s view is that the need for seasonal workers is a “common occurrence” in most member states and that the terms on which one member state admitted such workers could distort migratory flows; it suggests that decisions by one member state could affect other member states. The committee argues that the need for seasonal workers may nevertheless differ between member states and that the treaty on the functioning of the EU recognises that volumes of admissions are for determination by each member state.

The Commission argues that the action is needed to reduce overstaying and illegal entry in an area without internal borders. The committee rejects this view on the basis that it does not see why having common rules would reduce this risk. The Commission’s proposals include provisions that would facilitate repeated re-entry as a seasonal worker on the basis that those admitted as seasonal workers would be less likely to overstay if they had some certainty that they would be able to re-enter after they left.

The Commission’s third argument is that exploitative working conditions need to be addressed by a,

“binding and thus enforceable EU-level agreement”.

The committee has objected that national measures may be equally binding and at least as effective. The test in this case, therefore, depends on whether we think that the intended result is better achieved through collective action.

Finally, the Commission suggests that the measure is crucial for effective co-operation with third countries. The Government share the committee’s assessment that this is unpersuasive given that nothing in the measures provides leverage for negotiation of wider agreements with specific third countries.

The Government take the view that the case for compliance with the subsidiarity principle is arguable, as noble Lords on the Benches opposite have noted, in respect of migratory flows and the risk of overstaying. However, the fact that there is a divergence between the applicability of compliance with this directive and the principle of subsidiarity does not detract from our belief that the view of the House on the European institutions and their duties should take precedence and should not be trumped by the Government’s view on compliance with given articles. The earnest of our view is that we give precedence to the committee’s view despite our differing opinion on the application of subsidiarity in relation to a couple of the clauses.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sure that the House will be gratified to learn that the Government are not going to disagree with the Motion being put forward tonight, which is the implication of what the noble Baroness has said. Yet the fact is that the Minister clearly said, at least to the Commons scrutiny committee, that he believes the draft directive complies with subsidiarity. If that is the case on that particular aspect, to what extent does that create a precedent in relation to the Government’s approach to the EU’s clear wish to develop a comprehensive immigration policy? For instance, if the Government are unwilling to argue with the Commission on subsidiarity in relation to this order, does it go wider than that?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord grossly overstates what I have just said, which was that in these two instances there was an arguable case. Every single proposition put forward by the Commission will be treated on its merits by the Government and, as I have indicated, it will certainly be subjected first and foremost to the test of subsidiarity. The general position of the Government is well known; we regard immigration as something which is in the purview of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again, but when she says it is arguable that that is the Government’s case, that is not what the Minister in the other place told the scrutiny committee. I have already read out what he said. He does not say it is arguable, but that he is satisfied that the draft directive complies with subsidiarity. I would have thought that that sets a precedent for other areas of immigration in which the Commission may wish to involve itself in future.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am saying that we will treat each of these proposals as put forward by the Commission on its merits. I hope that it will be discouraged from putting forward further proposals by the reaction from member states. It does not follow that, because we have taken a view on a couple of these articles, we will take a wider view of the rights of the European Commission or the competence of the European Union in immigration policy.

I turn for a moment to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He asked what was likely to happen next. As a student of these matters, he will know quite as well as I do that if one-third of national parliaments object on subsidiarity grounds, the proposal is sent back to the Commission. That is the yellow card; if a majority of parliaments oppose a Commission proposal, it gets the orange card. I do not know how many cards there are on the table, but we certainly regard this process of showing the European Commission what position the national parliaments take as being an important part of the process—and well said that this is a direct intervention in the legislation process of the European Union.

The noble Lord’s other point was about financial supervision and the progress of what the Commission is doing. I am afraid I will have to write to him on that, as it is not something on which I have been briefed. I think it is something in the purview of the Treasury, but I undertake to write to him.

Northern Ireland: Police Evidence

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

As my noble friend says, active co-operation between the police forces on the ground is very good, as I think his parliamentary committee had reason to say recently. On the involvement of the central authority—that is, the Home Office—it is normal form for letters of request to come into the central authority for the purposes of ensuring that they are properly dealt with. The central authority in London has taken considerable pains to reduce the backlog and to improve its performance, as we were aware that there were complaints; indeed, the previous Government took some measures to improve the situation. It is fair to say that the performance now by the central authority is regarded as good and the Irish authorities have so said.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware of discussions in March this year between the police forces on both sides of the border, which identified the desirability of a faster transfer of evidence and suggested bypassing London and Dublin. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to look seriously into that proposal?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

On the transfer of information, the outgoing request goes from the local authority—that is, it would go directly from Northern Ireland—while the incoming goes via the central authority. That is the system that is normally used. Occasionally, there are instances of that not happening but, as a general proposition, requests come that way. Our understanding is that that is what Dublin prefers.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will take note of what has just been said.

Those are the exiguous outputs of the scheme and confirm our long-held concerns that the scheme was expensive, ill thought out and unlikely to find favour with the public. I will return to those aspects and to the issue of passport security later, but I will concentrate for a moment on our fundamental concerns, which lie in the gathering by the state of information that is neither proportionate nor necessary.

The setting up of the national identity register has meant gathering voluminous biographical and biometric personal data on the individual, on the sole criterion of having applied for an identity card. Under the 2006 Act, the individual is required by the state to notify any change in personal details—for instance, a home address—for the lifetime of the card. As things stand, any failure to do so within that period of 10 years could result in the cardholder paying up to £1,000. One has to ask what kind of big brother state that is.

The crux of our deep concern with the ID card scheme is that the purpose of gathering and retaining data was not clear either in the 2006 Act or in how the national identity register operated since its inception. There is the potential for the state to use gathered information for any purpose which it thinks fit. In effect, each cardholder has paid £30 to be photographed, fingerprinted, put on a database and tracked by the state for the following 10 years. Your Lordships may consider this an exaggerated view of the ID card scheme, but sadly it is the reality. We do not always agree with Liberty, but in this instance it is spot on. In its oral evidence in Committee in the other place, the director of Liberty said:

“One of our fundamental concerns about the national identity register was that it was a multi-purpose and non-purpose-specific database, which meant that by definition the amount of information on it would inevitably grow and by definition it was not necessary and proportionate to a particular cause”.

That view was echoed by Justice in the same Committee, and it reflects the importance of ensuring that databases are subject to openness, accountability and proportionality. In our view, the ID card scheme meets none of those key requirements. Instead we have a scheme with little or no purpose that allows the state to intrude into the life of the citizen. There was no attempt in the legislation to achieve the right balance between national security and public protection and the rights to safety and privacy of personal data. The ID cards legislation is a measure without equal in gathering large quantities of personal data from members of the public not suspected of any wrongdoing, which added insult to injury somewhat by requiring them to pay £30 for the privilege.

On cost, the previous Administration expended a total of £251 million. This went on projects to establish identity cards, passports with a second biometric feature and other related programmes. Prior to that, the Home Office spent an additional £41 million developing the policy, legislation and business case for the introduction of identity cards. Furthermore, it was estimated that a further £835 million would have to be spent on the national identity scheme by 2018. This is a huge waste at a time of financial stringency.

When promoting ID cards, the previous Government indicated that the existing and proposed spend was an investment and that the return from ID card sales would recoup taxpayers’ money, but the reality has been different; £251 million to issue 12,000 chargeable cards might be called reckless, which is why we have stopped all spending on the scheme and closed down the existing card-issuing operation, pending the outcome of parliamentary consideration of this Bill. We anticipate savings of £86 million over the next four years through cancellation.

Your Lordships will be aware from consideration of the Bill in the other place that there was a great deal of debate on the issuing of refunds or the provision of discounts or credits against future passport applications. The cost of providing refunds would be in the region of £400,000, which is not a trivial sum. We have come to the conclusion that it would not be right for the taxpayer to foot this bill and to add to the already excessive spending on the scheme.

We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but 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.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is a general principle that members of the public are meant to read through the manifestos of all the parties before making a decision, and that that decision is at risk if another party wins? That is an extraordinary argument.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, 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. I shall deal in a moment with one or two of the other points that were implicit in the noble Lord’s question.

Another idea that was advanced in Committee in the other place was to allow existing cards to remain valid until expiry. That would have required maintaining the infrastructure for the next 10 years or so—another problem. The cost of so doing would have been in the estimated region of between £60 million and £80 million, and we do not consider that spending at that level is justified.

My final point on refunds relates to the statutory basis for the issue of ID cards. There is no contract here; an identity card has been provided in the context of a statutory framework and is not available for the remedies that might be forthcoming where an agreement is governed by contract or consumer law.

The 2006 Act makes no provision for a refund policy, either in the case of early cancellation of the scheme or withdrawal of the card by the issuing authority, or by the individual who simply wishes to get out of the ID card scheme. There has been no provision in the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. My first point is that the various speeches have shown a philosophical divide in the House between those who think that it is a good idea for the state to amass information about citizens and that this is somehow empowering, and those who think that it is a good idea for the state to have as little as is necessary for the discharge of its duties and functions. That is one of the things that divide us regarding the national register and it lies at the heart of the way in which this scheme was constructed.

The Benches opposite challenged me personally on why I had changed my view. I will tell them. My reasons were expressed more eloquently than I can put them by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who raised all the charges that one could about the flaws in the system, and he was right. This national register would have contained up to 50 items about individuals. That is a very large amount of information and would have included ephemeral details such as one’s address. A constant process of change would need to have taken place and there would have been a penalty for failing to provide the information.

Some noble Lords mentioned the view of Microsoft. It was Jerry Fishenden, an expert in this area, who said that bringing together in a single place all this information about the citizens of this country was a great honey pot and that the likelihood of it being invulnerable to attack and hacking was zero. Those were the moments when I began to have very serious doubts about the wisdom of this scheme, and the more I saw of it the less I liked it. It is partly for practical, but also for many philosophical, reasons that I concluded that the scheme was a bad idea.

The history of the way in which the previous Government’s thinking evolved was spelt out by other Members of the House, and I will not go into that again. Various arguments were put forward and eventually the scheme turned from being a good security precaution into being a good entitlement route. Part of the difficulty shown in defending this was the fact that the previous Government had constantly to change their justification for this extremely expensive scheme. I repeat that it is extremely expensive and it is quite right to say that it was to be the only one of its kind. One could have imagined that every time a swipe was made and the register had to incorporate a transaction—because it was going to be used in that fashion—the number of transactions would undoubtedly have crashed the system.

The design had many flaws. It also has limited validity and limited use because, as was rightly pointed out, the area of online fraud and losses, which increasingly is where identity authentication is needed and where fraud is taking place, would not have been helped at all by the existence of this register. So the design did not deal with one of the main areas where identity authentication was needed.

The noble Lord opposite asked how we would deal with identity issues. I entirely take the point that they are very serious and that further work and protection are needed. However, I am quite clear that the national register as it was constructed, with its associated card, was not the route to go down to get that degree of identity assurance.

Some noble Lords also raised the question of whether we would retain any of the technology that has been developed in relation to second-generation passports. As I said, the Government take the view that it is not necessary for the security of the British travel document, which we all agree is of high-quality, that it should incorporate second biometric data. Most Schengen countries are going down the route of asking for fingerprints. We are not going to do that and a large number of other countries are not going to, either. We do not take the view that there will be any barrier to the acceptability of our document. We also believe that other ways of increasing the security of the biometric data such as facial imaging, which we can certainly do at much less cost, are the way to go. Having said that, we will retain the technology in the Identity and Passport Service to ensure that, should we need to use it or should it be useful, we will have it available. However, we do not consider that it is needed as things stand.

Several noble Lords asked about how the destruction of information would be done and whether we could be sure that it would be done. It is a very important issue. As has been said, all biometric data and the vast majority of the personal data will be destroyed within two months of enactment. We have shared our approach with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is satisfied that all areas have been covered. The data destruction will be handled in accordance with the decommissioning guidance issued by the Cabinet Office and by the information assurance arm of GCHQ, the CESG. I believe that I am right in saying also that my honourable friend the Immigration Minister in the other place said that he would report to the House. I, too, am very happy to report to this House on the destruction process. We entirely agree that if we say we are going to do that, the public must be assured that it is happening. That will be a systematic process. We will not allow data that should no longer be legally held to be held by the Government.

Some noble Lords also raised the question of the power under the Act to sell data. Perhaps I may clarify that. Section 12 of the Act provides for the Identity and Passport Service to provide information to third parties for verification purposes. This permits the Secretary of State, under that power, to supply information to a person registered under the Act. The provision of this information requires the consent of the individual: at least that is a relief. For example, they may be applying for goods and services, which is why the information about them is required. Section 35 allows for a fee to be charged for the application of this provision, so one can see the intention potentially to make this a profit-making possibility for the Government. Our anxiety would have been about whether the information being provided was always accurate.

Some noble Lords asked whether there was an anomaly between our desire and intention to abolish the identity cards system and register and our continuation of biometric permits for foreign workers in this country. In fact, the latter is an EU requirement and, obviously, we undertake to continue to maintain our EU obligations. These are residence permits; they are not identity documents.

On costings, I cannot supply an immediate answer to the question raised by the noble Lord opposite. Our figures are very different, but I will write to him on that subject, as I realise that it is important to have clarity.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The point is that most of the long-term cost would have been met by people paying the cost of the card. It is rather inaccurate to give a globalised figure and to say that that is the total cost.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

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

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

Education: Overseas Students

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness acknowledge, contrary to the point of view put by the questioner, that in fact the previous Government took action against unscrupulous course providers through the sponsor licensing system? Can she say how many education providers were closed as a result of those actions?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the previous Government certainly began to put measures in place. This Government have built on those measures, very much strengthened them and are still evaluating whether we have strong enough measures in place. If we want to take further measures, we shall announce them before the end of the year. As to the numbers, 220 institutions have been suspended since the tier-4 system put in place by this Government took effect; 53 of those are permanent suspensions and 78 are still under evaluation. Real measures are being taken—with teeth.

Immigration: Detention of Children

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Neville-Jones

Monday 11th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am aware that this figure of a fortnight has got around to being perceived as some sort of deadline, whereas a fortnight is the absolute minimum period that the families are given to consider voluntary return. I do not want to set a timetable for the other end. We would obviously like to achieve a high rate of voluntary return which would take place as soon as was possible and at the least cost to the taxpayer.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

But, my Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered my noble friend. The coalition agreement states that the Government will end the detention of children for immigration purposes. Her honourable friend Damian Green said on 6 September in the other place that the policy was to minimise the detention of children. Why the change in policy?