Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (Cm 8423)

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Grand Committee

Otherwise, the guidance states that refusals made on the basis of requirements now decided to have been unlawful are nevertheless lawful unless and until they are overturned on appeal or by JR. That cannot be right. The appeal or JR cannot make the original refusal unlawful; it merely declares whether the refusal was or was not lawful. The inference must be that the UK will not be working to ensure that persons who were wrongly refused have their applications and claims reconsidered. I would be grateful for an assurance that I am wrong on that point because it could be of material importance to a great many persons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I welcome the debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling it. To some degree, scrutiny requires us to find opportunities like this to discuss substantial and important documents such as these statements of changes to Immigration Rules. Although they are frequently introduced under the negative resolution and are of only minor consequence and not debated, they are important for the people whose lives they are designed to affect.

Command Paper 8423, was laid, as the noble Baroness said, in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Alvi. It was, in terms of volume, a substantial change to the Immigration Rules. However, it is not a change of policy: it transferred a number of existing requirements that migrants are required to meet from UKBA guidance into the Immigration Rules so that they could continue to be lawfully imposed.

In the case of Alvi, the Supreme Court established the principle that any requirement which, if not satisfied by the migrant will lead to an application for leave to enter or remain being refused, is a rule—it defines a rule—meaning that all such requirements need to be laid before Parliament, albeit through a negative procedure, in the immigration rules in order to be lawful. Prior to this judgment, the law as to what did and did not need to be in immigration rules had been unclear, resulting in numerous legal challenges and uncertainty. For this reason, we welcomed the judgment in Alvi, which overturned some unhelpful case law and provided a clearer framework for the future which will help inform our ongoing work to improve the immigration system.

Although we welcomed the judgment on 18 July when it was handed down, some requirements in the Immigration Rules and associated guidance that still exist were not consistent with its findings. In particular, the visitor, the points-based system and family rules all to varying degrees imposed requirements on applicants by way of guidance. In order to preserve the integrity of the immigration system and to minimise the impact on applicants and case workers, we acted quickly to move the necessary guidance into the Immigration Rules. We laid these changes the day after the judgment and it was in this context necessary to bring the changes into force the following day.

This rule change has raised questions both today and in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which I welcome. Some questions are a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s judgment; others are in relation to the general approach and style of the rules; and some are in relation to the specific policies contained within this change. I shall answer the questions in that order.

Questions have been asked about the status of the cases decided before the Supreme Court’s judgment, some of which have been based on the failure of the applicant to meet requirements subsequently found to be unlawful because they were in guidance and not in the rules. I can confirm that all applications decided before Alvi were on the basis of Immigration Rules and guidance which were understood to be lawful under the case law of the time. Current Court of Appeal case law makes it clear that these decisions remain lawful unless and until they are quashed in a judicial review proceeding or a statutory appeal succeeds. To that extent, I bow to the fact that this was the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Avebury in this debate.

Further to this, on 6 September, the Home Office published guidance to case workers on how to deal with applications potentially affected by Alvi. This stated that when a case was within time for a legal challenge it would be reviewed on request; this could be done by making a decision without reference to the unlawful guidance or, if that were not possible, because the rule simply did not work without the guidance, it would be remade under Immigration Rules in force at the date of the fresh decision.

I can confirm also that only those requirements that need to be put into rules following Alvi were included in this rules change. The majority of the UK Border Agency’s guidance remains outside these rules and sits alongside it. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee mistakenly understood this change to be a wholesale importation of guidance into rules, but that is not the case.

It has been suggested that the Home Office should have addressed the distinctions between rules and guidance in a more planned and orderly way. However, that was not possible until the Supreme Court clarified what as a matter of law needed to go into the Immigration Rules. The earlier lead case of Pankina failed to settle the law around what needed to go into the Immigration Rules, but the case of Alvi has. This has necessitated another round of changes, but having settled the law in this area we do not anticipate any similar problems in future. It is undeniable that, as a result of the statement of changes under discussion today, the rules have become much longer—it has been suggested, impractically so, since the full rules now occupy 778 pages. It is important to remember that as the underlying policy remains the same, in that sense they have not made the system as a whole more complicated. Published guidance continues to assist applicants and UK Border Agency staff to navigate and understand the rules. That said, we recognise that the system is complex and are undertaking a more substantial review of rules to consider how they might be made more practical. Indeed, the Migration Advisory Committee has already reported on how codes or practice could be updated and improved, for example by simplifying the resident labour market test. We are currently considering its recommendations.

I turn to the contents of the rule changes. Although the change did not alter the underlying policy, part of it can be seen as belonging to a series of three rule changes, including HC 194 in June and HC 565 in September. Together they constitute a major set of reforms of the requirements for entering or remaining in the UK on the basis of family or private life, and the form part of the Government’s programme of reform of all routes of immigration into the UK. People have a right to respect for private and family life under Article 8, but it is a qualified right; it is legitimate for the Government to interfere with its exercise when it is in the public interest to do so and when the measures taken are necessary and proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim of protecting the public or safeguarding the UK’s economic well-being. For the first time, the Immigration Rules properly reflect the public interest in controlling immigration and protecting the public.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked whether the Immigration Rules would fully achieve this aim and specifically whether the approach could be sustained through the courts. It is right to highlight that it remains to be seen what view the courts reach on the effect of the rules and their compatibility with the qualified right with respect to private and family life under Article 8. The courts have a clear constitutional role in reviewing the proportionality of measures passed by Parliament and the executive decisions made under them, but the Government now expect that the courts will give due weight to the views of the Government and Parliament on these matters of public policy. These matters were not, however, introduced by this statement of changes. This rule change was quickly and effectively implemented under the Supreme Court’s judgment in Alvi, successfully maintaining the integrity of the immigration system with minimal disruption to applicants and case workers alike. That was the objective of the prompt response which we made.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2012

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan, known as Ansaru, to this category. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that Ansaru meets the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe it. This is the eleventh proscription order amending Schedule 2 to the Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is currently concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These factors are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation, invite support for a proscribed organisation, arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation, or wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available relevant material on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order proscribing a new organisation.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that Ansaru is concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to go into much detail, but I am able to summarise. Ansaru is an Islamist terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, which publicly emerged in January 2012. It is motivated by an anti-Nigerian government and anti-Western agenda and is broadly aligned with al-Qaeda. Ansaru is believed to be responsible for the murder of British national Christopher McManus and his Italian co-worker, Franco Lamolinara, in March 2012.

The proscription of Ansaru will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of this organisation and its activities. I should make clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.

Finally, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of this, the legislation provides for an appeal mechanism. Any organisation that is proscribed, or anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation, can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal that is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. I believe it is right that we add Ansaru to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend this order to the House.

[Lord Patten]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend in what he said about the proposed proscription of this organisation. Acting swiftly and early is one of the best ways of attempting to prevent terrorist activity, and I wish that we had done more of that in earlier decades. The swift action that my noble friend proposes is excellent.

I also welcomed what the Minister said when he stressed again the view that proscription is not aimed at any particular religious faith, calling or group. That is something that we have to shout from the political and ministerial rooftops, because there is always the suspicion that, as news of an action mutates and develops around the world, people will think this is anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic or whatever. I applaud what my noble friend said and I hope that government Ministers such as him will never miss the opportunity of saying that we are blind to religion but eagle-eyed in the prevention of terrorism.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation on the SI today and for ensuring that a copy of the Home Secretary’s letter was sent to me prior to the debate. As I made clear when we had a similar order previously, of course we support the Government on issues of national security and we work on the basis of cross-party co-operation. I am grateful to him for his explanation of how decisions are reached, which is helpful for the House. I appreciate that the process of obtaining evidence on which action can be taken is often complicated. This week, and during the Committee stage of the Justice and Security Bill, we have discussed how the Intelligence and Security Committee operates. One of the things that became clear is that evidence is obtained from a number of different sources and it is often only by putting it together like a form of jigsaw that the true picture can be obtained. That is a complex matter to address. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied on the basis of the accuracy of that information in deciding what action can be taken—and taken as quickly as possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, pointed out.

As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,

“commits or participates … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism, or … is otherwise concerned”.

That illustrates why it is so important that information is accurate and up to date. My understanding, which was confirmed by the Minister’s comments, is that the Government are acting today against a group that was only indentified as a separate, independent entity earlier this year, in January 2012. I also commend the Government on their speedy action, given the processes that have to be gone through to reach this stage.

Obviously the Opposition do not have access to the same information or intelligence data as the Government, but we have seen some of the publicly available information and we are satisfied that the Home Secretary is justified in her judgment that Ansaru meets the criteria required under the Act and we support the Government in the Motion to proscribe this group. We are particularly concerned about the links, which the Minister confirmed, between Ansaru and the kidnap and murders of Christopher McManus and his Italian colleague Franco Lamolinara. The treatment of these two men was barbaric and despicable. It is quite right that the UK Government take action against any group which is prepared to commit such acts of terror against UK citizens.

From reports, it would appear that Ansaru is linked to, or is a breakaway group from, the long-established Boko Haram sect. That sect is not proscribed. I appreciate and understand that the Minister cannot always provide detailed information to your Lordships’ House, but will he ensure that the status of Boko Haram is kept under review? I appreciate that, so far, the actions of this group have been mainly confined to Nigeria. I hope that the Government will not hesitate to take action to proscribe Boko Haram if links to the UK, or any credible threats to UK citizens at home or aboard, were to emerge.

Finally, as I mentioned in similar debates, when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was in opposition he repeatedly attacked the then Labour Government for not proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Minister has been very clear on this today—that any action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it can be to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. The party opposite has now been in power for two and a half years and Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been proscribed. I am not going to make the same points as were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time those comments were inappropriate and irresponsible, and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible of me to make similar ones now. All I ask for is an assurance that the Government are keeping the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir under observation and review and that should there be evidence that this group should be proscribed, that matter will be presented to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for her positive support of this measure. She will understand totally that the Government do not talk about other groups that they may be looking at. The Government keep a range of options open and have a global view of the terrorism threat. I hope that the noble Baroness will therefore understand why I do not go into any detail about any of the groups that she has specifically mentioned. However, I think that she can see by the way that the Government are acting in this case that we are undertaking our responsibility to try and maintain the security of our nation, of our citizens overseas and others as best as we can.

We are concerned about Hizb ut-Tahrir, and we will continue to monitor its activities very closely. Such groups are not free to spread hatred and incite violence as they please. The police have in any case comprehensive powers to take action under criminal law to deal with people who incite hatred, and will do so.

I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Patten, who made a very important point. This is directed against terrorism, not against faith or beliefs. It is about the way in which people dispense with their humanity in the pursuit of objectives which we cannot tolerate. I hope that noble Lords will support this measure and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedule 2, Clause 5, Schedule 3, Clauses 6 to 8, Schedule 4, Clause 9, Schedule 5, Clauses 10 and 11, Schedule 6, Clause 12, Schedule 7, Clauses 13 to 15, Schedule 8, Clauses 16 and 17, Schedules 9 to 11, Clause 18, Schedule 12, Clause 19, Schedule 13, Clauses 20 to 24, Schedule 16, Clause 25, Schedule 17, Clauses 26 to 28, Schedule 14, Clause 29, Schedule 15, Clause 30, Schedule 18, Clauses 31 to 33.

Motion agreed.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate, as was the debate we had in Committee. I am at something of a disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—as the Minister and I are the only speakers in this debate who have not been members or indeed esteemed chairs of the ISC. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, say, “Good”—I hope it is.

I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, and I will explain the reasons why. I join the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours because the way that he has brought forward this argument today does the House a great service.

In Committee, many Members of your Lordships’ House, who have had a lifetime’s experience of these matters, proposed a number of different ideas for reform of the Intelligence and Security Committee, ranging from the designation of parliamentary privilege through to issues such as public hearings. What was striking in that debate—and is again today—was that there was an overwhelming consensus on all sides of the House that the Bill could be significantly bolder. It has been evident throughout the debate that there is some dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach. Your Lordships’ House does not feel that what is before it today adequately addresses some of the concerns raised in Committee.

We fully support the Government’s stated aim, which is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said at Second Reading,

“improved parliamentary and independent oversight of the security and intelligence agencies”.—[Official Report, 19/6/12; col. 1661.]

What we have in Part 1 of the Bill, as illustrated by this and the next group of amendments, is a missed opportunity. In Committee, we discussed a range of different options for strengthening the independence of the ISC beyond what is proposed in the Bill. What emerged were two different blueprints for achieving pretty much the same aims and objectives. First, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, two distinguished members of the committee, proposed an arrangement along the lines of existing parliamentary committees established by statute, such as the Ecclesiastical Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and the House of Commons Commission. The committee as envisaged would have the independence and powers afforded by being a creature of Parliament rather than the Executive, but would retain the security of checks and balances provided for in statute. The second way forward, proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, seeks to establish the Intelligence and Security Committee as a fully fledged Select Committee of Parliament, having all the privileges attached to that arrangement, but with safeguards or restrictions provided through resolutions of Parliament rather than statute. I think my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours used the phrase “hermetically sealed”.

However, both these blueprints are seeking to achieve the same end point. They are both seeking a concept of the ISC as a creature of Parliament rather than the Executive; independence that is recognised by the public but still guarantees the absolute security of sensitive information disclosed to the committee; and maintaining the good relations and trust that have been established with the agencies. It seems that the choice between the two concepts is one less of principle and more of practicality: which proposal will best achieve this end? My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, have both confirmed that they are seeking to achieve the same ends.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has already stated, chief among the advantages gained by being a parliamentary Select Committee is parliamentary privilege. This would grant the ISC, among other things, protection of members and witnesses by parliamentary privilege, which encourages free disclosure within the secure confines of the committee; the power to take evidence under oath; and the power to hold witnesses in contempt for deliberately misleading the committee.

I have listened carefully to my noble friend’s arguments about the designation of parliamentary privilege, and in Committee we debated and supported amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to grant the ISC parliamentary privilege by amending the Bill of Rights. Indeed, I have attached my name to similar amendments in the next group, because I fully support the ISC obtaining parliamentary privilege. However, if, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, has compellingly argued today, there are serious problems with seeking to designate privilege in this way, it would appear that a Select Committee arrangement is the only option that would satisfactorily guarantee the committee these powers. The notion that privilege, if gained in the way that has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, may be struck down by the courts, which I am absolutely clear is not what they are seeking, is hugely concerning. If witnesses and members of the committee had given evidence to that committee under the assumption that they had immunity, only later to have that immunity revoked, it would have huge implications for the work of the committee. The absolute and total guarantee of parliamentary privilege is therefore a compelling reason to support the ISC’s move to full Select Committee status.

The question then rests on whether a Select Committee arrangement could be relied on to act in a way that absolutely guaranteed, without qualification, the protection of our national security. The Opposition would support the establishment of the ISC as a Select Committee only where such a guarantee could be satisfied. Under no circumstances should any change in the structure of the ISC result in sensitive information being disclosed that could put at risk our national security or the safety of intelligence sources or operations. Restrictions or safeguards on the committee’s powers could include a number of areas—we have heard of some of them today—and others that may be agreed by Parliament. For example, the Prime Minister could veto the publication of material by the committee for reasons of national security; proceedings of the committee could be closed to the public unless agreed by the Executive and/or provided for under its own terms of reference, such as annual public hearings of the heads of the agencies; there could be an executive prerogative to instruct the Leader of the House to dissolve the committee or to remove one of its members by a resolution of Parliament; or there could be a veto or agreement of a nomination to the committee. I use those just as examples— there will be others that I am sure will occur to your Lordships, particularly those who have been members of the ISC—but providing for such safeguards in legislation, as in the Bill before us, is perhaps the clearest way of ensuring that they are met.

In Committee, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, argued against a Select Committee structure on the basis that it would necessitate public evidence sessions. He rightly said that,

“there are many occasions when to attempt to take evidence in public would create an even less high regard for the committee that it maybe has at the moment, because questions would be answered by the agency heads with the words, ‘We cannot answer that question’”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. 923.]

I completely agree with the noble Marquess on that point. In the majority of cases, the committee must sit in private. To do otherwise would not only damage the reputation of the committee, as I have said, but, most seriously, undermine its core function of effective oversight over the intelligence services. However, as has been argued by my noble friend, the mechanism by which Select Committee powers and terms of reference are constituted are sufficiently flexible conceivably to provide for any one of those concerns.

I understand from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that he has it on the authority of clerks of both this House and the other place that Parliament may, either through the committee’s order of reference or by instruction, specify the terms under which the committee may sit, may take evidence and report, including requiring the consent of another body including the Government. Indeed, there are already known precedents for such restrictions. The Defence Select Committee already holds evidence sessions in private in order to hear classified and national security-sensitive information. For its recent report on maritime surveillance, published in September this year, it held part of its first evidence session in private. As my noble friend has indicated, there have been instances in the past where the House has resolved that a committee report to the Prime Minister and it may even be precluded from publishing certain material on the grounds of national security. Given those assurances, a Select Committee arrangement would both guarantee the ISC parliamentary privilege and ensure the necessary safeguards for our national security.

My understanding is that, if the House were today to pass my noble friend’s amendment and the Government accepted the will of your Lordships’ House, the Government could seek to withdraw Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill in the Commons and then issue a statement that they would seek agreement through a resolution of the House to establish the ISC as a Select Committee of Parliament. If the Government and the Opposition were unable to reach agreement over the terms of such a resolution—including all the necessary safeguards that I have referred to and others—then presumably the ISC would continue under its present arrangements.

We have heard a compelling argument from my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that it is not possible to designate a body of parliamentary privilege such as the ISC simply by amending the Bill of Rights or by other statutory means. If this is indeed correct, it is undeniably a compelling reason for pursuing the Select Committee route rather than the statutory one. However, even if it were possible to do so, there is a further reason why we believe that the Select Committee should be the model that we aim for. That reason was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am sorry that he is not here today as his contribution in Committee was valuable. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, was supported by the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, when he asked:

“Is it not better to use the strength of the Select Committee process and procedure and, above all, of public understanding rather than to try to create something special”?—[Official Report, 9/7/12; col. 926.]

This is more than just a cosmetic change. The parliamentary Select Committee structure is one widely recognised as being capable of serious and robust scrutiny. It is a concept that is familiar to the public and one that they understand as being independent. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about public confidence in the committee I do not think that most of the public know of the existence of the ISC, whereas they are aware of the structure and work of Select Committees. Even if it were possible to guarantee the committee watertight parliamentary privilege, as I now seriously doubt, it would still ultimately be a hybrid committee. A halfway house would undeniably be better than what we have in the Bill but it would still be a peculiar body. If we are to go to all the effort of dressing up the ISC to look and sound like a parliamentary Select Committee, although with question marks over parliamentary privilege, why not simply have a Select Committee to do the job fully?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for presenting his amendments in such a typically articulate way. He draws to our attention the challenge that faces us in achieving confidence—the word that was used by many noble Lords and spoken of by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. In a nutshell, this is about the scrutiny of Parliament and the responsibility of government, and how those two can be reconciled. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, talked about not wishing to create a special committee, this is a special committee because it deals with matters that are self-evidently outside normal public scrutiny.

This group of amendments, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others for bringing to the House, concern the status of the ISC and, although we have not talked about it much, the remit of the Intelligence Services Commissioner. As my noble friend Lord Henley previously noted, the Bill proposes a number of important changes to the ISC’s status. Members of the ISC would be appointed by Parliament, rather than as at present by the Prime Minister, and those members would be free to choose their own chair. The ISC is created by statute to ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect against the disclosure of sensitive information and therefore the Government do not consider it appropriate for the ISC to be a full Joint Committee established under the Standing Orders of each House, as other Joint Committees are. I hope that noble Lords will find it useful for me to expand on this reasoning.

It is essential that the ISC operates within a framework that protects the highly sensitive material to which it has access. In particular, the Government must be able to prevent the publication of sensitive material by the ISC. They must be able to withhold the most sensitive material from the committee—albeit that those powers are rarely used currently and can be expected to be rarely used in future—and must have some role in the appointment of members of the ISC. Without guarantees in those three areas, the risk of disclosure of information that might damage national security would be increased. That might, in turn, lead to a situation where agency heads found it hard to reconcile their statutory duties to protect information with their duty to facilitate oversight. That could therefore lead to the sharing of less sensitive information and a corresponding reduction in the effectiveness and credibility of oversight.

The Bill provides the necessary guarantees in each of those three areas. The Prime Minister would be able to require matters be excluded from the ISC’s reports if the matter would be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of the agencies or the wider intelligence community. Ministers would be able to withhold information from the ISC in the limited circumstances provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1. A Member of this House or of another place would not be eligible to become a member of the ISC unless they had first been nominated for membership by the Prime Minister.

Although it may be possible to replicate those safeguards in Standing Orders of this House and another place, Standing Orders can be amended at any time, as noble Lords will know, and can be suspended for a specific period, or dispensed with for a specific purpose, by a Motion in the relevant House. Standing Orders do not therefore have the same permanence, or provide the same level of protection to sensitive information, as statutory provisions to the same effect.

It seems to me that we can divide the noble Lord’s amendments into two sets. Both are concerned with the same aim—that the new ISC should be a Select Committee—but they get there by different routes and with different consequences. It is not absolutely clear what the effect of the noble Lord’s first two amendments would be. If we were to accept them and the amendment that he proposes to Schedule 2, the ISC would still be created by statute in the Bill and safeguards would still exist to protect national security in the three areas that I have listed. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater drew attention to the inconsistency of the amendments, but we accept the noble Lord’s wish to draw the issue to the attention of the House in the way that he has by tabling Amendment 1.

The noble Lord’s amendment would not create a full Joint Committee, because that can be done only by the Standing Orders of each House. It would create an entirely novel body—a Select Committee established by statute. To what extent would such a body share the characteristics of other Select Committees? The Bill makes clear, even were it amended in other respects according to the noble Lord’s wishes, that the ISC is quite different from other Select Committees in fundamental respects—for instance, in relation to appointments and reporting. That being so, it is unclear whether or to what extent changing the ISC in this way would give it the other characteristics of a Select Committee. Indeed, the risk is that describing the ISC as a Select Committee when it has characteristics that are not shared by such committees could mislead as to the ISC’s true character. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment and that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, will reconsider her position on it.

The noble Lord’s next four amendments would, together, remove the first four clauses, which deal with the ISC. It is to be assumed that the noble Lord’s intention with those amendments is that a new ISC should be created solely by the Standing Orders of each House. Indeed, the noble Lord said so in his speech introducing his amendment. I have already listed the vital safeguards relating to appointments, reporting and provision of information contained in the Bill. Without these safeguards, we will increase the risk of unauthorised disclosure of the sensitive information to which the committee has access. As I have already said, Standing Orders cannot adequately replicate the safeguards against disclosure of information that might damage national security contained in the Bill. It is only by enshrining these safeguards in statute that we can ensure that they are sufficiently robust and enduring.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend has put much more clearly what I tried to allude to. The only correct position that would seem to emerge from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and the noble Baroness who speaks for the Opposition is that nobody should vote in favour of Amendment 1. If they vote for it and do not carry Amendment 6, we will have a complete muddle. What is involved here is actually not voting on Amendment 1; the issue about the Select Committee should properly be addressed under Amendment 6.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend may well be quite right.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If Amendment 1 were to be carried, there would be discussions in the House of Commons. It would probably come back with a decision and an announcement to the House that it intended to set up a committee by way of parliamentary resolutions, so none of those issues would arise.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Lord that I intend to use my eloquence so that the House is not presented with this issue of confusion. That must be my task, and I will pray in aid the words of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I hope that the House will not mind if I quote him at length. In Committee, he said:

“I think we all agree that the ultimate purpose is that the public should have confidence in the committee’s scrutiny of the intelligence services. However, it was clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that if this were to be a Select Committee, it would have to be hedged around by a very large number of parliamentary resolutions, and that would have the same effect as the constraints that are written into the Bill. The question is: would that make it more convincing if it were a Select Committee when it was a Select Committee unlike any other because it would be so inhibited by those restraints?

They say that something which looks like a duck and quacks like a duck can be regarded as being a duck, but this would not look like or quack like a Select Committee; it would be something completely separate”.—[Official Report, 9/7/12; cols. 933-34.]

I hope noble Lords understand why I wished to quote the noble Lord; it was such a brilliant précis of the position.

I can see much force in that argument. It was reinforced today by the noble Lord and by the former chairman of the ISC, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of parliamentary privilege. It may be possible to give the committee bespoke statutory immunities that would provide it with protections which would replicate aspects of privilege. The noble Lord said that that might well be what the Government are proposing, but it would not be the same as legislating to provide the same privileges for the committee. If the ISC were given privilege by statute, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, that might encourage courts to rule on proceedings in Parliament. Courts already rule on this question. The Supreme Court judgment in the recent Regina v Chater case is an example of that. For instance, it might be possible to give protection for witnesses before the ISC so that the evidence they give to the ISC in good faith cannot be used against them in criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings. The Government are considering whether that is a viable approach and whether it is the best approach to tackle this issue. We may bring forward amendments to deal with this issue at a later date.

The addition of the “of Parliament” amendment, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian—accepted in principle by the Government and to which we will come presently—would have a number of consequences. One possible consequence is that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. This, in turn, raises the possibility that those who intentionally mislead the committee, while giving evidence under oath, would be subject to the same sort of sanctions which might apply in similar circumstances to a witness before a Select Committee. If, on further analysis, that is not a consequence of that amendment, we would be content to look at whether there is the need for a provision in the Bill to make clear that the ISC may take evidence on oath. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, will be happy not to move his amendment in the light of what I have described of the Government’s position on these matters of privilege.

I turn to Amendment 30, which again is tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and relates to the role of the Intelligence Services Commissioner.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

That is an error on my behalf. I tabled it over the weekend when we were not here. I will not move that amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I apologise for that and will move on to deal with the substantive issue. The work of the commissioner is a different role from that of the committee. Of course, it complements it. I hope that we will be able to use our ability to enhance it and ensure that it continues to meet our needs. The Government believe in strengthening oversight and, clearly, the commissioner has a role in that.

On the basis of the arguments that I have presented, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I do not know whether that is better or worse. It is disappointing that the Government have not been able to reach a conclusion, given the overwhelming desire on all sides of the House to get this right and to ensure that the committee has the privilege that it will need to do its job properly. I remain concerned about the process that is being used. I wait with interest to hear what the noble Lord will say about the consequences of pursuing parliamentary privilege in this way. Without assurances that the committee will have full privilege, I will have serious reservations about the viability of the proposed amendments, despite the fact that I fully support the aims behind them.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I was tempted to make a relatively short summary for this debate, but the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, give me the chance to elaborate on certain matters to which other noble Lords alluded. As we know, the proposal of the Government in the Bill is to change the ISC’s status. It will be appointed by Parliament and will report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. The two amendments in this group concern the status of the ISC. The first would change the name of the Intelligence and Security Committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. The Government’s intention is that the ISC will be a committee of Parliament created by statute. It will not be a classic Select Committee that covers departmental bodies, but a statutory committee of Parliament.

The Government are in principle supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, to change the name of the committee to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. While we are not in a position to support the amendment at this stage, we will be in a position to do so later. I hope that in what I say I will give the House reassurance that the time since July has not been totally wasted, and that the Government are quite a long way down the road of sorting out the particular issues to which noble Lords quite rightly drew the attention of the House. If the ISC becomes a committee of Parliament, it may even be necessary to make some consequential amendments. The amendment may bring the ISC within the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by making it a part of the House of Commons and the House of Lords for the purposes of the Act, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. It may change the ISC’s status under the Data Protection Act 1998, as Section 63A of that Act may become relevant, making the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords the relevant data controllers for the ISC’s data-processing activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord has repeatedly said, “We are considering”, and “It might be possible”. There is an element of doubt. It may be possible, but if it is not possible, are they then ruling out Select Committee status?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have every confidence that a solution to the issues and challenges of providing the necessary protection will be found. However, I was not intending to use this debate to present those conclusions to Parliament. I am sure the noble Lord will look forward with interest to hearing them in due course.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for tabling these amendments. I hope he will feel able to withdraw this amendment in the light of my reassurances on progress.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I wish to make two points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is being a little unfair in describing the Intelligence and Security Committee, even in its present form, as detached from Parliament. We do not feel detached from Parliament and, certainly in the circumstances described by the Minister, when we are more closely appointed by and report to Parliament, we will be even less detached. So there is some point in adding the words “of Parliament”.

Secondly, the Minister raised a point about the certificate of exemption under the Freedom of Information Act. He said that a Minister’s decision can be challenged at a tribunal whereas, on his understanding, the Speaker’s certificate cannot, and so the committee would be safer in the hands of the Speaker than in the hands of the Minister. I had hoped, when he raised this point in the previous debate, that a lawyer would intervene and advise us. My understanding is that the Executive always has the last say on this. The Minister is quite right that a tribunal can overrule a Minister but, in the end, a Minister can overrule a tribunal. An example which the House will remember is the risk register on the Health Bill where, in the end, the Minister overruled the tribunal. My understanding is that a Minister always has the last word. I pause for a moment in case there is a lawyer in the House who can correct me but, if not, I offer that as my belief.

On the basis of what the Minister said and in the expectation that a solution can be found to providing the protections that the Intelligence and Security Committee needs other than by means of conferring parliamentary privilege, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser have been added to this amendment, as was the case in Committee. We argued then, and argue again now on Report, for the establishment of the ISC along lines similar to that of a Select Committee, and indeed preferably the same lines. It would therefore be inconsistent not to argue that the chair of this committee should be remunerated in much the same way as the chair of a Select Committee. The work that is undertaken is enormously serious and therefore the role should be recognised and fairly compensated on par with that of a chair of a Select Committee.

We have just heard comments about whether IPSA is the appropriate body for this role, and in Committee it was the Minister who said that it was. I have been involved in politics both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place for a good many years and I still enjoy irony, which is much underused in politics, so I find the argument of the Government rather ironic given the debate over Select Committee status which has underscored the difference between this committee and a committee of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can change the Government’s position and we will accept the amendment.

The details of the committee’s arrangements are to be established in statute, but when it comes to discussing remuneration, it will be for IPSA to decide. It really does not seem appropriate for that body to do so, and the Government cannot have it both ways. If the ISC is to remain a body provided for in statute and ultimately accountable to the Executive, which is the case in this Bill, then regardless of any closer ties to Parliament it remains a creature of the Executive. It therefore seems completely illogical for IPSA to be the body which decides on the remuneration of the committee’s chair. I support the amendment. If the Government think that IPSA is the way forward, they have got it wrong, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we turn now to the remuneration of the ISC chairmanship. I have to say that the loyalty which members of that committee have shown to the chairmen and the work they undertake reflects the commitment that those who have held that office have demonstrated to the security services. I note the widespread view that this position should be properly remunerated in some way or another, and the Government support that view. There is no real consistency in the way that Select Committees are treated and no absolute rule that all Select Committee chairmen will be paid. In the Commons at present, not all Select Committee chairman receive a salary for those functions. In the Lords, there is only one such salaried chair, the chairman of the EU Select Committee, who is paid a salary—not by virtue of holding that position but by virtue of also being the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gilbert]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Have the Government given any serious consideration to the possibility that the chairman of this committee, like the chairman of the PAC, should always be a member of the Opposition?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have indicated to noble Lords that the chairman of this committee will actually be elected by the members of the committee itself, from within the membership of the committee. It is a matter for the members who they choose, in the customary manner. The chairman does not have to be a member of the Opposition or a member of the Government; he has to command the confidence of the members of the committee, who vote for the position.

[Lord Gilbert]

We have a long-standing convention that the chairman of the PAC is a member of the Opposition. I think that is thoroughly healthy and am just trying to find out—or tease out of the Minister—whether the Government have a view one way or another whether it would be appropriate to have a similar arrangement for this committee.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is persistent but he is more persistent than the committee has been long standing. The committee in its present form has not yet been set up. The new committee will establish its own traditions and it is not for me standing here at the Dispatch Box as a member of the Government to say how the committee should conduct its affairs when I, and the Government, have said that the committee will elect its own chairman. It is a matter for the committee to decide.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend will recognise that this is a long-standing issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I happen to strongly support what he said and believe that it would be in the interests of the reputation and credibility of the ISC—which is of great advantage to the Government and the nation—if it is seen to be a committee that is in no sense government-led, or led by a member or supporter of the Government, but is chaired by a member of the Opposition.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not at all doubting the value, for example, of the Public Accounts Committee, to which the noble Lord referred. However, it is up to this committee to decide whether to establish its own tradition. To predetermine its traditions, as suggested by the noble Lord, gives a false description of what “tradition” really represents.

I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to move on, because I was going to suggest another scenario: of course, there is no reason why the chairman of this committee should be a member of another place. It is a Joint Committee of both Houses, and although noble Lords may consider it unlikely that a Member of this House would be elected its chairman, that may indeed happen, and it probably would not be appropriate for the salary to be determined by IPSA in that respect. It would be a question of us seeking to resolve the issue should the occasion arise.

I understand what noble Lords and the noble Baroness are trying to achieve; that is, some sort of established practice within existing committee procedure. I have some sympathy with the argument. The ISC is an important committee, carrying out a very valuable oversight function, and the chairman of that committee has a critical role in that respect. However, deciding on the appropriate level of financial support for the chair of the ISC is very much a matter for existing mechanisms within the two Houses and would be best resolved in that way. It is for Members of the House of Commons and, for Peers, the House Committee to resolve this issue, not the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords, on the basis that Members of your Lordships’ House receive no remuneration for being chairs of Select Committees, I am happy to have removed any incentive to run for this position. On the basis that it would be within the power of the House of Commons to move a resolution referring this to IPSA, and that the Government would give a favourable recommendation and support that matter, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, the amendment makes heavy weather of finding a chairman. Most, if not all, members of this committee will have a long history and reputation in both Houses. I do not see where the difficulty would be if at the first meeting the members chose a chairman. I do not see anything wrong with that. That is a tradition that I found in local government. The first time we met after we were elected, we picked a leader of the group. That happens in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons, where I used to belong.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I have a very full response to give to this amendment, but we have had a very full debate. It has been a very useful debate. I know that it is customary for Ministers to thank noble Lords who have presented amendments, but I thank my noble friends because they have brought to the Report stage an interesting idea about the relationship between the ISC, Parliament and the Prime Minister. Having said that, with even the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, having some doubts about the efficacy of this amendment, I am at one with the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Gilbert, and my noble friend Lord King in seeing the great difficulties that this election might present. It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Reid, analysing the motives that people might have for seeking to be rejected by the Prime Minister as being a suitable candidate. I have little doubt that some people would seek to exploit that situation.

I shall reiterate the Government’s position on this matter. This committee will be elected by Parliament and nominations will be provided by the Government. Parliament will be the final arbiter of who sits on the committee. The Government propose that the chairman of the committee will be elected by the members of the committee. That represents a sufficiently practical solution to the particular task that this committee undertakes. We have had some speculation about whether the chairman of the committee should be drawn from the Opposition. I have given the Government’s position, which is that it is for the committee to decide who should be the chairman of the committee. I do not believe that it can be done by an election by another place or by this House electing the chairman. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I think I am probably the only person who has not served on the ISC. I think all the other speakers have served on it, so I am probably slightly blind-sided on some of this. The noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said that the problem is that it would exclude Members of the House of Lords. It may possibly do so, but not necessarily. Secondly, he said that it would prevent the chairmanship going to a member of the Opposition. Again, it may possibly do so, but not necessarily. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, talked about the political fallout. Yes, but this is a very important committee, and it will be even more significant when we pass the rest of the provisions of the Bill. If the price of that is a little political disturbance, I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. I understand his fourth argument, which was about political campaigning. At this end of the Palace, the arrangements for electing chairmen of Select Committees have gone pretty well. They have been shared out and fought over, and both parties have ended up with some chairmanships, but not all of them.

The issues are answerable. I am not saying that they are not challenging. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, we have had an interesting debate, and Amendments 9 and 11, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seem to have gained a significant degree of support from around your Lordships’ House. In response to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, about the televising of proceedings, I suspect that if this debate were being televised at 4.30 am it would not get a great deal of viewership. Having said that, we will probably now receive letters from those who watch TV at 4.30 am.

Amendment 9 would provide the committee with a remit to hold pre-appointment hearings for the heads of agencies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spotted my tabling of her amendment from Committee, when she convinced me that having a permissive amendment was a good way forward. She has now tabled a further amendment that would make the proposed hearings compulsory, but I do not think that that has found favour with your Lordships. We are very much in favour of pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees; indeed, the Labour Government in 2007 pioneered them. This Government have suggested that they are equally keen on pre-appointment hearings. The coalition agreement contains a specific plan to strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments as part of improving government transparency. This seems to be one of those areas that would benefit from such hearings.

I take on board the wisdom, as usual, of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, on these matters and the concerns he raised. However, as to what he said about there being a veto on information, the committee would use its customary wisdom in passing on advice or information to the Prime Minister as it saw fit.

As regards Amendment 11 on annual public hearings, I must admit that I had not envisaged many separate hearings but perhaps one or two hearings a year at which heads of agencies could be questioned. There is an issue of public confidence, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller did a huge amount during her time as head of MI6 to open up the so-called secret services and increase public understanding of and trust in what the agency and other agencies do. She, more than anyone, understood how important it was that the public needs to have confidence in those at the head of organisations that have to, by necessity, operate outside the public view.

I also do not disagree with those who said in Committee or in this debate that the credibility of the ISC would be undermined by farcical staged hearings, as we have seen on TV elsewhere when the only answer to questions has been, “I’m sorry I can’t answer that or provide that information”. Obviously, we would want any hearings to be genuine, give confidence to the public and not have a block that would provide a lack of confidence.

As has been pointed out in Committee, the ISC already has the power to sit in public if it so chooses. Amendment 12, which proposes that there be a presumption that the ISC would meet in public unless it were to meet in private, could create the kind of difficulties that have already been outlined. A presumption that the ISC would meet in public would be difficult for that committee to manage, but hearings taking place in public from time to time are useful and have a large part to play. We have to recognise the sensitive nature of the committee’s work and information that cannot be made public.

When considering the amendments and the support for them, I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment 9. He has heard that it has significant support from around the House. If he is unable to accept that amendment, I will consider testing the view of the House.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we have an opportunity to consider this group of five amendments. Although Amendments 9 and 10 are similar, the noble Baroness has pointed out the difference between them. Under Amendment 9, the ISC “may” consider the proposed appointment of individuals to the posts of director-general of the Security Service, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, the director of GCHQ and other such persons as the Prime Minister may direct. The committee would do this by questioning the prospective appointee at one of its meetings. Under Amendment 10, the ISC “must” consider the proposed appointments.

Pre-appointment hearings are a relatively new phenomenon in the United Kingdom. Since 2008, Select Committees have conducted pre-appointment hearings for a list of posts. There is guidance published by the Cabinet Office on the process followed for such pre-appointment hearings, which includes the list of posts. In general, this process has been a welcome development and gives departmental Select Committees a role in questioning proposed appointees. However, the important thing to note about the list of pre-appointment posts is that the posts concern public bodies—for example, the chairs of Ofcom and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The pre-appointments process has never been used concerning the appointment of civil servants. The heads of the intelligence and security agencies are civil servants at Permanent-Secretary level, and the recruitment process is therefore expected to follow the process for the appointment of civil servants of such seniority.

Noble Lords may find it helpful if I provide some detail on the present process for appointing the agency heads and their status. The agencies are excluded from the provisions of Part 1 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned. That legislation places the management of most of the Civil Service of the state on a statutory footing. Exclusion from the provisions of that Act merely reflects the specific nature of the agencies’ operations. The agencies’ staff, including their heads, are and always have been part of the Civil Service of the state. This is clear from the Act. If it were not so, the specific exemption for the agencies in Section 1(2) of that Act would not be necessary. Staff of the agencies are not, however, part of what is generally referred to as “the Civil Service”, with a capital C and a capital S—that is, the Home Civil Service—nor are they part of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service. They form a separate category of civil servants, but civil servants they are. They are also “Crown servants”, but that is a wider term, covering, for example, members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and non-civilians in the service of the Crown.

While the agencies are not bound by the Civil Service recruitment principles, I can reassure noble Lords that they do, in practice, follow the spirit of the principles, and the Civil Service Commission is expected to be involved in the process. Pre-appointment scrutiny by Parliament is not appropriate given that these roles are Permanent-Secretary level roles, and in practice those who fill them will be recruited by a process involving a Civil Service commissioner to ensure that the appointment is made on merit. In particular, I see no reason why agency heads should be treated differently from any other Permanent Secretary appointment.

Certainly, the roles that the agency heads play are very important and the appointments must be the right ones, but all Permanent Secretaries in the UK Government play very important roles. There is thus no reason for singling out this particular group for special treatment. The fact that all these posts are posts within the Civil Service of the state, serving successive Administrations, means that the pre-appointment process is not appropriate.

I hope I have given the noble Lord and the noble Baroness reassurance that the process which presently exists—

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Unfortunately, the noble Lord has given me anything but reassurance. To argue partly on bureaucratic grounds, partly on the grounds of process and partly on the one substantive contention that there is no difference between a Permanent Secretary and the head of MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, is to me entirely unpersuasive. I have known, I think, 14 Permanent Secretaries in my relatively brief ministerial career, all of whom were excellent and very able Permanent Secretaries. They fulfilled a role, had a function and an importance in the life of this nation which was not the same as that of the heads of MI5, MI6 or GCHQ, on whom the very security of the nation depends. I hope that the Government will at least say that they will go away and reflect on this matter because, if there is a political will, all the apparent obstacles to procedure can be overcome. However, if the Government are saying that there are insurmountable bureaucratic obstacles to the ISC carrying out pre-appointment interviews, which are carried out in many countries of the world, I am afraid that they will be seen to be hiding behind process and lacking a real understanding of how substantial these positions are.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention but, as I have explained, the reality is that these posts are special and important. They are exactly as a Permanent Secretary’s post is in terms of the continuity of Government over changes of Government. There is nothing bureaucratic about this. This is the way in which public servants are appointed. I hope that what I am describing is clarifying the Government’s argument—namely, that these posts, important though they are, are Civil Service posts occupied by servants of the Crown performing the duties of particular posts. Procedures are in place for making sure that those appointments are made on merit. They are not political appointments subject to political scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will accept that argument.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My noble friend has set out admirably and very clearly what the position is as seen from the Civil Service point of view. However, there is a serious point here. I think that a number of newly appointed heads of the agencies would have welcomed the opportunity to have this sort of a hearing, possibly even in public, given the importance of credibility for the Intelligence and Security Committee, as we discussed earlier. Given the importance of gaining public credibility and confidence for those who have been appointed to lead these critical national security agencies, this would be a very important opportunity. Therefore, although there may be technical reasons why such a procedure does not square with the Civil Service code, or whatever, I hope that my noble friend, who has manfully explained the current position, will consider whether there is an argument for establishing such a permissive arrangement in this area.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I note my noble friend’s guidance and assistance. However, I do not flinch from presenting the Government’s position in this respect. These are not conventional public appointments. They are Civil Service appointments which provide for political impartiality and, indeed, are outside the scope of Parliament. Once we start to argue for public scrutiny of an appointment, we argue for a political process. However, we have always sought to avoid such a political process in Civil Service appointments.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He devoted almost all his argument against my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, to stressing the uniqueness of these particular positions and organisations and explaining why, because of that uniqueness, you could not involve a Select Committee, as was being suggested, and that his argument had many benefits. Now, in order to defend the status quo, he is stressing not the uniqueness of these posts but their similarity with other departments and departmental heads. However, this is not a matter of what we have done in the past but of what we might do in the future. If the Government had the will to see the benefits in the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord King, and in what I have said, a way could be found in the future to allow the ISC, at least in a permissive sense, to interview appointees prior to final ratification. That would have enormous benefits for everyone involved in the process. The uniqueness of these positions has been recognised in a previous debate. However, that is now apparently being put aside and they are being compared with other appointments in the Civil Service.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not wish to prevent the noble Lord intervening but we are on Report. Therefore, I remind noble Lords—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I agree with the Minister, who I think has made a good case, and disagree with my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan. Members of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy have already had a report that the line management of the heads of the various intelligence and security services is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary. That has been made absolutely clear to us. We raised some concerns about that point and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, will comment on it. If the Permanent Secretary has that line management responsibility, it would seem strange if these post holders were considered for appointment by a committee rather than by the procedure that the Minister has described. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench is a bit irritated at what I have said, but I am glad to say that on this side of the House we have the freedom to say what we think.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Although I am encouraged by what the noble Lord had to say, I should remind noble Lords that we are on Report and it would probably be as well if I was allowed to finish what I was saying. The key thing is that the coalition agreement expressly says that we want to strengthen the role of committees in scrutinising public appointments. The Government are committed to doing that. However, the coalition agreement does not refer to Civil Service appointments. The pre-appointment scrutiny process, which we have in place for public appointments, is not the same as appointments to the Civil Service. Therefore, although the Government have made important progress in meeting the commitment on public appointments, that is not relevant to these appointments if they are Civil Service appointments.

I know that the roles that the agency heads play are very important and the appointments must be right. That is why I hope that I have given the noble Baroness and the noble Lord the reassurance that the process that presently exists for appointing the heads of these agencies is appropriate to the nature of the posts. It would not be appropriate to adopt the pre-appointment process that exists for posts in public bodies. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks will respectively see fit to withdraw their amendments.

I now address Amendments 11 and 12 which concern the ISC holding an annual hearing with the agency heads and the Secretary of State giving evidence before the committee in public. I can appreciate the intention behind the amendment but I have a number of concerns about the idea of creating a duty to hold annual public hearings. As noble Lords will know, The Governance of Britain Green Paper in 2007 made a series of reform proposals aimed at bringing the ISC as far as possible into line with other Select Committees. One of those proposals was for some hearings of the ISC to be structured to allow unclassified evidence to be heard in open session. Those sessions did not subsequently happen. Building on this, the Justice and Security Green Paper noted that while the ISC’s meetings will still have to take place, as a rule, in private, both the Government and the committee were committed to the concept of public evidence sessions where they can be held without compromising national security or the safety of individuals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke powerfully in Committee on the issue of public hearings and she has done so again today. We fully agree that they can be valuable but she noted that public hearings should never be automatic for the ISC but argued that they should become more routine as public confidence is taken into account. We fully agree that public hearings may improve public confidence in the ISC and its work.

The Bill does not need a specific provision for this; the existing ISC, created by the Intelligence Services Act 1994, has power enough to determine its own procedures and that is sufficient for its purposes—the ISC is provided for in the Bill. In that way, there is actually very little difference between the position that we take on the Bill and the position proposed by the noble Baroness. However, there are significant practical issues that have to be addressed before public evidence sessions can take place. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate introducing public evidence sessions for a committee whose work is mostly concerned with sensitive and highly classified information. That will be challenging.

The Government remain committed to making public hearings work better in practice, and are currently in discussions with the committee about how to do so—for instance, on issues such as appropriate subject matter, timing and having appropriate safeguards against unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Lothian, a current member of the ISC, made the valuable point that public hearings would be counter-productive so far as public confidence in the committee is concerned. If either the majority of the questions posed are met with a response, “I cannot answer that”, or the subject matter for the hearing is anodyne and the process completely rehearsed, I am sure that noble Lords will feel that the process has not been worth while. The ISC will already have the power to hold public hearings with agency heads and with relevant Secretaries of State without any of these amendments. Leaving it to the ISC’s discretion to determine when and how frequently to hold such meetings will enable it to make the best use of its available resources. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that that is the right approach. I hope, on the basis of this information, that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will withdraw her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Marks will not move theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

14: Schedule 1, page 14, line 34, at end insert—
“( ) In deciding for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) whether it would be proper not to disclose information, the Minister must have regard to any guidance issued by a Minister of the Crown or a government department concerning the provision of evidence by civil servants to Select Committees.”

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may be useful if I start by explaining why paragraph 3(3)(b) of Schedule 1 is necessary. There are a number of long-standing conventions that have developed in the relationship between Parliament—in the form of its Select Committees—and successive Governments. These conventions recognise that there are categories of information that in certain circumstances may be withheld from Select Committees on grounds of public policy. Noble Lords may know a good deal about this. Examples of this type of information are given in the Cabinet Office guide, Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees. Some noble Lords will know this by another name: the Osmotherly rules. The categories of information set out in the guide include information about matters that are sub judice, information that could be supplied only after carrying out substantial research or research that would incur excessive costs, and papers of a previous Administration.

The provision in the Bill is necessary to safeguard the long-standing conventions that are reflected in the Osmotherly rules in the context of the relationship between government and the ISC. It provides a basis for withholding from the ISC the sorts of categories of information described in the rules. As I explained, we intend the ISC created by the Bill to be a committee of Parliament and not simply a committee of parliamentarians, so there is all the more reason for the ISC that the Bill would create to be subject to these conventions.

The provision gives only a Minister of the Crown the discretion to withhold material. In exercising that discretion, the Minister would of course have regard to the provision that the ISC has for keeping material confidential. The Osmotherley rules state:

“If the problem lies with disclosing information in open evidence sessions or in memoranda submitted for publication, Departments will wish to consider whether the information requested could be provided on a confidential basis”.

For this reason, we would expect these powers to be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. As I said, the powers to withhold information from the ISC have been used only sparingly in the past, and we expect this to continue. However, it is important that the safeguards are retained.

In Committee, the debate focused in particular on the word “proper”. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is not in his place, queried the use and meaning of the word. In addition, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, was concerned that paragraph 3(3)(b) lowered the threshold for information being withheld from the committee compared with that which currently applies under the Intelligence Services Act. I assure the noble Baroness that that is not the case. The Intelligence Services Act contains a provision equivalent to paragraph 3(3)(b). In fact, the categories of information that can be withheld from the ISC, and the thresholds for withholding information, will be the same under the Bill’s provisions as they are currently under the 1994 Act.

The noble Lord withdrew his amendment. I hope that Amendment 14 clarifies the situation and addresses his anxieties in this respect. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the matter. As he said, I raised my concern on this in Committee. Perhaps I may ask one question. If he is unable to answer today, perhaps he would write to me. I am not 100% convinced that Amendment 14 is sufficient to prevent paragraph 3(3)(b) being used as a justification, as the Minister claimed. Amendment 14 stipulates merely that the Minister “must have regard to” the Osmotherly guidance, as set out in sub-paragraph (3)(b). Will the Minister tell us whether, after considering the guidance he referred to, the Government could still use the conditions set out in sub-paragraph (3)(b) to refuse disclosure of information to the ISC even if the guidance was not relevant to the material in question?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not in a position to answer that directly, but if the noble Baroness permits, I will write to her and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Amendment 14 agreed.

North Wales Abuse Allegations

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on historic allegations of child abuse in the North Wales Police force area. In 1991, North Wales Police conducted an investigation into allegations that, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, children in homes that were managed and supervised by Clwyd County Council were sexually and physically abused. The result of the police investigation was eight prosecutions and seven convictions of former care workers. Despite the investigation and convictions, it was widely believed that the abuse was in fact on a far greater scale. But a report produced by Clwyd Council’s own inquiry was never published because so much of its content was considered by lawyers to be defamatory.

In 1995, the then Secretary of States for Wales, my right honourable friend the Member for Wokingham, appointed a QC to examine all the relevant documents and recommend whether there should be a public inquiry. The recommendation was that there should be not a public inquiry but an examination of the work of private care homes and the social service departments in Gwynedd and Clwyd councils.

This work revealed not only shortcomings in the protection of vulnerable children, but that the shortcomings had persisted even after the police investigation and subsequent prosecutions. In 1996, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, then the new Secretary of State for Wales, therefore invited Sir Ronald Waterhouse to lead an inquiry into the abuse of children in care in the Gwynedd and Clwyd council areas.

The Waterhouse inquiry sat for 203 days and heard evidence from more than 650 people. Statements made to the inquiry named more than 80 people as child abusers, many of whom were care workers or teachers. In 2000, the inquiry’s report, Lost in Care, made 72 recommendations for changes to the way in which children in care were protected by councils, social services and the police; and, following the report’s publication, 140 compensation claims were settled on behalf of victims. But the report found no evidence of a paedophile ring beyond the care system, which was the basis of the rumours that followed the original police investigation, and indeed one of the allegations that has been made in the past week.

Last Friday, a victim of sexual abuse at one of the homes named in the report, Mr Steve Messham, alleged that the inquiry did not look at abuse outside the care homes, and renewed allegations against the police and several individuals. The Government are treating these allegations with the utmost seriousness. Child abuse is a hateful, abhorrent and disgusting crime, and we must not allow these allegations to go unanswered. I therefore urge anybody who has information relating to these allegations to go to the police.

I can tell the House that Mark Polin, the chief constable of North Wales Police, has invited Keith Bristow, the director-general of the National Crime Agency, to assess the allegations recently received, to review the historic police investigations and to investigate any fresh allegations reported to the police into the alleged historic abuse in north Wales care homes. He will lead a team of officers from the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, and other investigative assets as necessary, and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will act as the single point of contact for fresh referrals relating to historic abuse in north Wales care homes. He will produce an initial report reviewing the historic investigations and any fresh allegations by April 2013. I have made it clear to Mark Polin and to Keith Bristow that the Home Office is ready to assist with the additional costs of this work.

In addition, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government will ask a senior independent figure to lead an urgent investigation into whether the Waterhouse inquiry was properly constituted and did its job. Given the seriousness of the allegations, we will make sure that this work is completed urgently.

Given that there have also been serious allegations about other historic child sex offences, I should also inform the House of the work being conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. This will establish a full picture of all forces that have received allegations in relation to Jimmy Savile, examine whether the allegations were investigated properly, and identify wider lessons from the responses of the police forces involved. I have been assured by HMIC that its work will also take into account any lessons that emerge from these latest allegations.

Before I conclude, I would like to warn honourable Members that if they plan to use parliamentary privilege to name any suspects, they risk jeopardising any future trial and therefore the possibility of justice for the victims that I believe the whole House wants to see.

I believe that the whole House will also be united in sending this message to victims of child abuse. If you have suffered and you go to the police about what you have been through, those of us in positions of authority and responsibility will not shirk our duty to support you. We must do everything in our power to do everything we can to help you, and everything we can to get to the bottom of these terrible allegations. I commend this Statement to the House”.

That concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her response to the grave Statement that we have had to make to the House today and for her general welcome for the way in which the Government are responding promptly to the issue. I agree with her that perhaps the most serious issue is whether there has been institutional blindness, if one can put it like that. I absolutely agree that this must be the key to the agenda going forward in order to make sure that the interests of victims are properly recognised, that the police prosecute without fear or favour, and that justice is seen to be done.

The noble Baroness asked whether there would be restrictions on these investigations. Police investigations are police investigations and they go wherever the evidence takes them. She asked, too, about the funding. The Government understand that there will be resource pressures because these investigations will involve all of the authorities engaged in them in additional work. The Home Office will encourage those organisations to apply to it so that any extra additional costs can be considered as part of the funding provided to them by the Home Office.

The thrust of the noble Baroness’s questions was whether it would be better to wait and set up an overarching inquiry in order that the lessons may be learnt. I do not believe that that is the right approach. I believe that these allegations demand immediate investigations. The lessons that will be learnt by these investigations may well require a comprehensive review of child protection in this country—that is a reasonable conclusion to come to—but I do not believe that the House would thank us if we stood by and delayed the investigations involved. I hope that I have the support of the noble Baroness in that. If I have misunderstood the noble Baroness, I apologise. I think the Government are on the right track here and doing what the House would wish of them.

On the question of organisational change and whether it will impede or assist these investigations, as the noble Baroness said, this issue has been debated over time and in all ways. All I can say is that Keith Bristow will be heading up an organisation which has considerable resources available to it through the National Crime Agency. These bodies will be there to do their task, to assist him to achieve our objective of better child protection for all young people.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, perhaps I may assist the many noble Lords who I am sure will want to contribute today by reminding them that the Companion advises that, in order that as many people as possible are able to contribute, today is an opportunity for brief comments and questions only.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, one area which has not been mentioned in the Statement is support for the victims. Justice will be one form of reparation, but can the Minister say anything about any other form of support that will be given to individuals?

Quite separately, following the question about what is meant by inquiring,

“whether the Waterhouse inquiry was properly constituted and did its job”,

can the Minister assure the House that for every inquiry—I am not talking only about police inquiries—there will be consultation as to its terms so that the best, most proper terms are put in place? If the remit is not right then the outcome will tend not to be right. In this case, for instance, the involvement of the Children’s Commissioner in the terms of the inquiry seems quite obvious.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for her questions. Clearly, the victims are at the heart of this inquiry and providing them with the confidence to come forward is one of the most important things that we can do. I hope that we in this House will echo the wishes of the Home Secretary by giving that support.

The terms of reference of inquiries are very important to the outcomes they produce. I am particularly concerned that we make sure that the original inquiry in North Wales, the Waterhouse inquiry, was indeed set up in such a way. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about that but I did not reply to her. However, my noble friend has given me the opportunity to do so. We must make sure that that inquiry addressed the right issues. We now have an opportunity to revisit the inquiry and to make sure that it was not too restrictive in what it was seeking to do.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, am I right in thinking that Mr Justice Waterhouse was appointed to investigate allegations of abuse within the care system but he in fact investigated allegations of abuse outside the care system? We know that he sat for 203 days and found no evidence at all to support those allegations. Should that not have been an end to the matter? I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of the principle that there should be an end to litigation; so also there should be a principle that there should be an end to investigations.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Were it so easy just to put an end to these things, that would be fine, but we are faced with a situation where it is quite clear that this matter was not at an end. Allegations are still being made that should cause a responsible Government to be prepared to revisit the matter. That is not to cast aspersions on the work that was done at the time, but everybody would expect us to look again to make sure that we know exactly what the scope of child abuse was in those very far-off days.

[Lord Roberts of Conwy]

My Lords, I have a copy of Lost in Care, the late Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s report—all 937 pages of it. It is a very thorough piece of work, as one would have expected from a High Court judge. The terms of reference are spelled out in this report, as is an explanation of why he ordered that names should not be published, largely for the protection of the victims, as in rape cases. Does my noble friend really think that, after all these years, any new evidence will actually emerge as a result of these further inquiries? I have heard most of the media reports over recent days and, frankly, I have heard nothing new. There is also the further point that the report contains a subsidiary report by Sir Ronald Hadfield, the assessor of the police activity in this context. His report comes right at the very end of the Waterhouse report and is critical of some of the police operations.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am very pleased that my noble friend has made that contribution to the debate. If I disagree with him, it is not because I do not respect his experience and the fact that he was active in politics in that part of the country at the time when this report was being produced. He has a copy and has no doubt studied it. However, if I thought that nothing more was going to come out of this further investigation, all I would say is, “Fine. That is very good”. If there is nothing more to be found, we can rest content that the matter is indeed closed. However, if we find that there is other material, we should know of it. We are right to seek to pursue this matter even though many of the individuals involved may long ago have disappeared.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, on 17 June 1996 I asked the then Secretary of State, Mr Hague, whether all the cases that have been referred to in the appendices to the Jillings report had led to prosecutions. I was told that that was not the case, and that there were names which were still outstanding. Can we be assured that, as a result of what the Government are planning, those outstanding names will be reconsidered with a view to prosecution if at all possible?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that is the purpose of the further inquiries that are being made.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will be a considerable comfort to those children who were abused in the past to know that children are not abused in this way in the care system today? However, he will know that it is unfortunately still the case that children are being abused; the deputy Children’s Commissioner’s report finds that thousands of children are still being abused and sexually exploited today. Does he hope that this report might contribute to the swell of public feeling to say that we will do better for these children in care, ensure that their staff have the qualifications they need to give the excellent care and protection that these children need and change legislation to ensure that these occurrences will not take place so frequently?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The whole House will be awaiting the results of the inquiry from Sue Berelowitz which is likely to come out later this month. However the noble Earl is absolutely right: we have perhaps been complacent in the past. We can no longer be complacent on this issue. I hope that the Government are making it clear that they do not intend to be complacent and will pursue all these matters so that we have a better environment for child protection in this country.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Earl has just asked, will the reports that the Minister has just announced be free to make recommendations to public services and organisations? It seems likely that recommendations will be made to social services, the criminal justice system and the police. Health services, such as STD clinics where young girls go over and over again, are very often in a position to pick up warning signs, which they do not always pass on. This has recently come out in the report referred to by the Children’s Commissioner. Similarly, in the education service, schools can help to prepare children to understand the dangers and to protect themselves.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend is absolutely right. A multi-agency approach is the way in which this issue needs to be addressed across government. She quite rightly points to the fact that different aspects of government are able to assist in this process. It is certainly the Government’s objective to have a cross-departmental, cross-agency approach in order to make sure that the information that we have gained through these unfortunate events, and the public attention which has been drawn to the exposure of the Jimmy Savile case, can be properly addressed so that we can create a better place for young people in this country.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House. I had to absent myself from the Chamber for the first couple of minutes of the Minister’s Statement, but I did hear it in full in the other place. I have one question for the Minister. Clwyd County Council carried out an inquiry and produced its own report which was never made public, for legal reasons I believe. Can the Minister tell us whether the new inquiry will have access to examine this report?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sure that any new inquiry will have access to all relevant papers, including that original report.

[Lord Bates]

I commend my noble friend on the report that he has brought forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on the potential dangers of having multiple inquiries going on at the same time. Will my noble friend reflect on the possibility of consulting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on the best way forward, the Lord Bishop having delivered a widely respected and thorough investigation into highly complex issues, illuminating a great tragedy and bringing out truth that previous investigations had failed to do?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As someone who holds the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in the highest possible regard, I would always be happy to consult him. I am not suggesting for one moment that there are not lessons to be learnt from these different inquiries that will need to be pulled together at some stage, but the House and the broader public would not thank us for failing to deal with the immediate issues facing us in order to get to the bottom of this.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe]

My Lords, I express and share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, about the characterisation in the Statement about whether the inquiry led by the distinguished jurist and High Court judge was properly constituted and did its job. There is already a commingling in the media between that aspect and new evidence that is contained further on in the Home Secretary’s Statement. For the benefit of people involved here, we should seek further clarity.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have tried to provide a proper balance between my regard for the way in which the original report was undertaken by Sir Ronald Waterhouse and what we are seeking to achieve today. We would be wrong to ignore the terms under which that inquiry was held. It has much to contribute to discovering what went on in the light of the allegations being made today. We would be mistaken if we chose to preserve that inquiry in aspic and say that it did not have lessons to teach us about how to investigate these matters today.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the fact that there is to be a new police inquiry into these matters, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the thinking behind this being led by Keith Bristow, who is heading up the new National Crime Agency. I have enormous faith in Keith Bristow himself. However, given that the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the yet-to-be-created National Crime Agency are going through a period of enormous flux and confusion while this happens, and the job of the chief executive of an agency that is being set up is usually pretty highly committed to setting up that agency, how will it be possible for him to lead the sort of inquiry that all noble Lords have said they want—very thorough, potentially extremely lengthy and potentially extremely involved? In practice, where will the resources come from? I am not talking about the money but the individual officers. Who is going to co-ordinate that? How is that going to be practically done when the person you are asking to lead the inquiry is supposed to have a more than full-time job setting up a new government agency?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I remind the noble Lord that the Statement made it quite clear that it was the chief constable of North Wales Police, Mark Polin, who actually requested Keith Bristow to head up this investigation, and to do so using the resources that are available to him through SOCA and other assets that are available for serious investigations. Indeed, we will face a new world with the National Crime Agency, but that still has to come before your Lordships’ House and I would not presume on that. This is a recognition that the inquiry itself may well cross police boundaries; it may well be a matter that is quite properly addressed by an agency set up to deal with serious organised crime.

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former child protection worker. Will the inquiry say why 80 people were named in the inquiry, but only eight prosecutions took place and seven convictions were made? It would be interesting to know what the Minister intends to do, not just in supporting and listening to those victims and survivors who are coming forward, but in terms of long-term support, which is critical. If I may echo what my noble friend Lady Smith said, this is a great opportunity to look generally at the level of abuse in different institutions. As the noble Earl also said, this is rampant and still the experience of hundreds and thousands of young people whom we are continuing to fail.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution, particularly as she speaks from direct experience as a child protection officer. I said earlier that the police will prosecute without fear or favour. The reason why these matters are being reopened is to make sure that the judgments that were made at that time were correct. Further information that the investigations uncover will, I suspect, lead to other prosecutions being brought; certainly, they should do if the investigations discover further evidence of child abuse. I hope that that will be one of the consequences.

A second consequence, to which the noble Baroness alluded, is support for victims. The Government are mindful of the fact that it is victims of crime who need support and we intend to implement policies to provide exactly that.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance is being given to electors for the election of police and crime commissioners who have not received election communications from the candidates in their constituencies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, information about every candidate is published online and can be delivered in written form to anyone who wants it. Details of our website and how to request paper copies are on every voter’s poll card. Furthermore, every household has received information about the elections from the Electoral Commission. Knowing my noble friend’s particular interest, the website and the booklets are bilingual in Wales, as are the ballot papers.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I appreciate part of the Minister’s Answer. However, would he not agree with me that universal suffrage is the cornerstone of democracy, where every candidate has equal access to every elector? In this election we have no free post for candidates so only the wealthy can hope to pay their own postage to reach the electors. Millions of people are not online. Does the Minister not agree that this election is totally undemocratic and the result could be open to legal question?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend’s supplementary question was in two parts. I endorse all that he had to say about democracy. However, on the second point, I would have to say to him that there is no such thing as a free mail shot. It would have cost more than £30 million to have provided free post for all candidates. As I said in my original Answer to him, individual candidates have equal access to the Home Office website. That address is available on every poll card. Anybody who does not have access to the internet can get hard copies delivered to them if they wish. It may interest noble Lords to know that the website has received more than 1 million hits since it went up and more than 100,000 hard copies have been posted.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, those figures are derisory compared with the size of the electorate. Is it too late to do something about this?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Noble Lords will know that we are capable in this House of a certain amount of last-minute legislation but I think that it is too late for this election. My noble friend and I have homes in the same county. He will know that local television and newspapers are covering this election strongly. Here in the metropolis there are no elections and it may seem to those who are based here that there is not much going on. But I assure noble Lords that this election is a very live issue in the provinces.

[Lord Morgan]

My Lords, is not one group of electors particularly disadvantaged in this election? I refer to those who are Welsh speaking. What progress are the Government making in answer to the excellent points raised by my noble friend Lord Touhig?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The website is bilingual in Wales. All the forms for the election are bilingual and the ballot papers are bilingual. I hope that that shows our proper respect for the Welsh language.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, is there a level below which the number of people voting would make the result invalid?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, this is a very brave experiment in democracy. When the Bill was going through this House, Ministers told us that we should not criticise the cost of these changes in governance because you could not put a price on democracy. Surely, the Minister has done just that. He said that the extra £30 million for ensuring that every elector knows who the candidates are and what they stand for simply cannot be afforded. Can he tell us how much the other changes to governance with regard to police forces have cost and why he thinks that the extra £30 million is not a proper investment in effective democracy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord. Of course, £30 million is a significant sum. This election has given us an opportunity to show that it is possible to communicate with electors in different ways. I have given noble Lords the figures: 1 million hits on the website is not an insignificant number and 100,000 requests for printed forms is not a modest number. I believe that the Government have done the right thing in this way. I hope that all noble Lords will see this as an opportunity to bring democracy into police governance in a way that has not existed before and that they will support their favoured candidates for these elections.

[Lord Crickhowell]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I received a bilingual address from the Conservative candidate but not from the Labour candidate and I have cast my vote accordingly?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is very good news for the candidate in my noble friend’s constituency.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, for a moment when the noble Lord referred to late legislation, I thought that the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill was being withdrawn to have new legislation on this but unfortunately he has not agreed with us on that point. Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, is he satisfied that the level of public awareness of and interest in these elections is adequate at this stage? Secondly, he will have seen the reports of shockingly low police morale. Does he think that this flagship policy on police from the Government has improved police morale, made it worse or made no difference?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My answer to the second part of that question is that I am certain that it will have done. It has focused public attention on the police as an institution in a way that has not existed before. It has made it quite clear that the services of those who work in the police service are valued. Indeed, people will be voting for the police and crime commissioner who will be responsible for the governance of police in local areas. I am sorry but I have forgotten the first part of the noble Baroness’s question. Perhaps she would not mind repeating it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I asked whether the Minister was satisfied with the level of public awareness of and interest in these elections.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I have given that answer already. The poll conducted showed that 85% of the people who were eligible to vote in these elections were aware that they were taking place. I am satisfied. It is up to those of us engaged in democracy to get involved with making sure that these elections return good candidates to do the task that is set before them. It is an important job and it will make a lot of difference to policing in this country.

Universities: Overseas Students

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Giddens]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of current immigration policy on the attractiveness of United Kingdom universities to overseas students.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the UK continues to make a great offer to international students. Those with an adequate command of the English language and enough money to support themselves can come with no limit on numbers. When they finish, they can stay if they are doing a graduate-level job, again with no limit on numbers. Universities UK has reported that the number of international students continues to rise and UCAS acceptances are up 4%.

[Lord Giddens]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The point is that government migration policy threatens to do huge reputational damage to British universities, institutions which bring in some £8 billion in earnings from overseas students. Why cannot the Government adopt the same scheme as our competitor countries, especially the United States and Australia, and list overseas students separately from migration statistics, since we know that almost all overseas students—about 97%—go back to their country of origin?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I think it must be agreed throughout the House that the previous system was open to abuse, with too many students just coming here to work rather than to study. The Government have sought to protect our world-class universities while targeting the less compliant new colleges, driving some 500 of the latter off the sponsor register. We want to continue to attract the brightest and best international students who will drive growth in our economy. Most observers would agree that our reforms are no more than common sense. We are not adopting the Australian or American model. We believe that it is right to have these figures as part of general migration although the net migration figure is obviously less than the top line one.

[Lord Bilimoria]

Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that it makes sense to remove student figures from the overall immigration figures as countries like the United States, Canada and Australia do? The Government are creating a rod for their own back. Does the Minister also agree that the treatment of London Metropolitan University’s foreign students was appalling, unfair and unjust? Is that the way that we, a fair and just nation, behave? More importantly, does the Government agree that the signal that it sent out to foreign students around the world is, “Britain does not want us”?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No student who was engaged in a course at London Metropolitan has been asked to leave at this stage. There was serious abuse of the process, despite the UKBA working alongside London Met. The UKBA felt that it could no longer rely on London Met to sponsor students and that is why the permit was withdrawn. As noble Lords will know, there is a judicial review going on and these arguments will, no doubt, be vented there. I am, however, confident that the UKBA made the right decision in this case.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, perhaps I may tell the Minister that last night I got off a plane from Beijing, where I had been visiting two of the most outstanding and internationally minded universities in China—and that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Not only are we helping to destroy our own best universities, we are cutting off the contacts we need for future relationships, for future foreign influence and, of course, for future exports. I would therefore beg the Government to reconsider their current position. It is vital that students are excluded from the immigration policy, as they are in Australia, Canada and the United States. We are an exporting and internationally minded nation which is cutting itself off from contact with some of the most outstanding future leaders of the very countries with which we need to work most closely. I ask the Government to reconsider the situation very seriously.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for raising this issue because, as she will know, the number of students from China is increasing. Indeed, the number of students from some parts of south-east Asia is increasing enormously: there is a 26% increase in students from Hong Kong and a 10% increase in students from Singapore. I do not believe that a policy which seeks to control this area of immigration in a proper and manageable fashion is in conflict with an education policy which is designed to give an opportunity for our excellent university education to be shared with students from around the world.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, at the University of East Anglia in Norwich we are seeing a very marked downturn in applications from postgraduate science students from India. This is consistent with evidence from 2010-11 that, when one lifts China out of the figures, there has been a rapid reversal in Britain’s relative attractiveness to overseas students. If the Government are not going to lift students out of the net migration figures, how do they propose to respond to these facts?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not sure that the right reverend Prelate is correct in his assumptions. I know that the numbers from the Indian subcontinent are indeed down, but graduate-level jobs are available, and students are able to go on to postgraduate studies. We welcome that. I am therefore not sure that the right reverend Prelate’s reading of this is correct.

[Viscount Hanworth]

My Lords, a recent survey of UK universities has shown that, excluding students from China and Hong Kong, whose numbers continue to increase, the numbers of non-EU students in UK universities decreased in 2011-12 compared with the previous year. Does the Minister have figures in his brief that would illustrate this and, if so, is he prepared to share them with this House? Could he also tell us whether the Government intend to take any measures that might reverse this trend?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps I can help the noble Viscount with some figures. Up to the year ending December 2011, overall student immigration was 232,000—the second highest year on record. Of those, 180,000 were non-EU nationals, which is almost 60% of total non-EU inflows.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Crime and Courts Bill [HL] be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Schedules 16 and 17.

Motion agreed.

Alcohol: Pricing

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the recent Panorama programme about the scale of alcohol-related illness among the over-65s, when they will make a decision regarding plans for a minimum price per unit of alcohol.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, it is clear that harmful consumption of alcohol affects all age groups, not just the over-65s. The alcohol strategy published earlier this year sets out the Government’s commitment to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol. The Government will consult on this and a number of other proposals in the strategy this autumn.

[Baroness Bakewell]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should declare an interest. I was the journalist who made the “Panorama” programme. Last week, there was an indication that the plans to announce the minimum pricing of alcohol were being delayed and considerable concern about that was expressed by, among others, the BMA. Will the Minister press the Government to move urgently on this matter to stop wholesalers who are flooding the market with cheap ciders and cheap vodkas, which do a great deal of damage?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Although I missed the programme the first time around, I have been able to view the noble Baroness’s programme on iPlayer, and I congratulate her on the way she drew graphic attention to the issue. She makes a very good point. We are not dragging our feet on the issue, but we want to go out for consultation with all the details of an impact assessment to go with it, which will help inform the debate about at what level the minimum unit price should be set.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to two drinks companies. Details are in the register. Is the Minister aware that the BBC has now withdrawn the programme from its iPlayer service, having acknowledged that in the original broadcast wildly inaccurate and exaggerated claims were made about the likely impact of minimum pricing? Can he assure the House that when the Government finally come to their conclusions on the issue, it will be genuinely evidence-based policy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Baroness for drawing that to the House’s attention. I saw it this morning, so it must have been a pirated copy or something. I apologise if I misled the House, but, none the less, the programme did contain a particular inaccuracy about the calculation of the number of deaths that might be saved by a minimum unit pricing policy. Of course, that is the whole point of getting impact assessments right: so that we can consult on facts. But that does not reduce the effectiveness of the programme.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, having regard to strong results from Canada and from the Sheffield University research, which seem to indicate a very strong link between prices and the beneficial effects on hospital admissions, crime, absence from work because of alcoholism, and unemployment due to alcoholism, will the Government also consider a minimum price per unit of 50p, and will they link that with banning discounts, because the joint effect is all the more beneficial?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The consultation is likely to cover both those elements—when I talk about discounts, I mean the multi-buy type of arrangement. That may well be included. The Scottish Government have already come forward with the 50p figure, but there could be different figures. We need to ensure that we are getting the maximum benefit without unnecessarily impeding the business of retailing alcohol, which is a perfectly legitimate one, or the pleasure that most people get from restrained consumption of alcohol.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, as a contributor from time to time to the BBC, I ask the Minister to recognise that occasionally the BBC withdraws programmes from iPlayer on the basis of just a single complaint, often not really related to the content of the programme. That may be important in the case of my noble friend Lady Bakewell.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I have made it clear that that does not, in my view, detract from the central thrust of the noble Baroness’s Question and, indeed, the programme: that excessive consumption of alcohol can be harmful and that we should take what measures we can to restrain it.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, in acknowledging that there is a huge problem regarding older people and their intake of alcohol, will the Minister assure us that if the Government go through with these plans, the treatment that older people need to give up their habit will be at the same level as that for younger people with alcohol-related conditions, particularly given the change in the law since the beginning of October, which bans discrimination on the ground of age?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Baroness raises an interesting question, which arose in the programme: a lot of people drink because they are lonely. The Government’s alcohol strategy is part of a broader strategy that needs to take into account the social support that is given to older people and indeed, if I may also say so, the rehabilitation of people who have had a lifetime of drinking to excess.

[Lord Naseby]

As the BMA consistently supports the moderate consumption of red wine, how will this measure affect those retailers who normally sell by the case, particularly, though not exclusively, in the wine trade, the unit price thereby quite often being considerably below the normal price of a single bottle, whether that be wine or beer?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can reassure the noble Lord that the consultation is very much aware of that issue.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, is it true that more over-65s are admitted to hospital with alcohol-related problems than 18 to 25 year-olds? If so, what are the Government doing about this?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, that was one of the assertions in the programme—that the number had indeed increased—and it is a matter of concern. Although we have amused ourselves with this issue to some degree, there is a serious context in which we are discussing it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, at the risk of spoiling the consensus, will my noble friend explain how it can be right to make responsible drinkers pay more for their drink in order to deal with a problem that is perhaps best addressed specifically rather than by putting up the price for everyone?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of putting up the price as of stopping the price dropping. The real price of alcohol has halved over recent years, which is a substantial reduction. I think the noble Lord would agree that some of the offers that are available to people are there to tempt them to buy more alcohol than they need.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2012

Lord Taylor of Holbeach Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Welsh Forms) Order 2012 laid before the House on 15 October be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the House will know that on 15 November the people of England and Wales will go to the polls to elect their first police and crime commissioners.

The Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 sets out the basic rules for the elections, and the detailed rules, forms and notices can be found, in English, in the Police and Crime Commissioner (Elections) Order 2012. The Government are, of course, committed to ensuring that the Welsh language is given full parity with English in Wales, so have brought this further order to establish a bilingual ballot paper for use in Wales on 15 November. Our commitment to ensuring that the Welsh language is given equal status with English in these elections is shown by the fact that we have established Welsh names for the four offices of PCCs in Wales formally. We are also ensuring that our candidate website in Wales is also in Welsh, with a website address in Welsh too.

Should they wish, police and crime commissioners on election will be able to take their oath in Welsh. I can assure noble Lords that all other forms and notices for the election can be issued bilingually without an order. These suggested forms are available on the Electoral Commission website. However, ballot papers require an order and I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in supporting the need for these forms to be available bilingually. I beg to move.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, what a complete shambles this has become. We are less than 48 hours away from the deadline of five o’clock on Wednesday when the first ballot papers in both languages should be sent out to postal voters. Until we conclude our business this evening, there is no authority to use ballot papers in both languages. This is further evidence of the lack of interest that this Government show to Wales, her people and the Welsh language. The Electoral Commission points out in its helpful briefing for this debate:

“Welsh language legislation requires that in Wales the Welsh language is treated no less favourably than the English language”.

We are barely two weeks away from the first election for the police and crime commissioners and until this order is agreed there will be no bilingual ballot papers available. Some of us are sceptical about the whole idea of police and crime commissioners, coming at a time of the difficult economic situation in our country. Many of us question spending £75 million on this election. On top of that, I see in an Answer given to my right honourable friend David Hanson, the Member for Delyn in the other place, a further £350,000 has been spent on printing ballot papers in English only in case this order is not made in time. With the passing of this order allowing for the use of bilingual ballot papers, the English-only ballot papers, which have already been printed, will be thrown away. That means that £350,000 will have been spent on creating waste paper.

I share the Electoral Commission’s view that rules relating to any elections should be clear at least six months before the election. The commission has already told the Government of its concerns and about the unacceptable lateness of the Welsh ballot forms order that we are now considering. Indeed, in a letter of 28 September from Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission to the Minister, Damian Green, she said:

“No draft legislation vital to the conduct of an upcoming election should be made only 16 days prior to polling day after candidate nominations have opened. In this case, the legislation is likely to be made only just before postal votes are dispatched, with the result that there will be significantly increased costs for the public purse”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Well, I thank the noble Lord for that support. This has been a stimulating and useful debate. It has given me the opportunity to inform the House and to some degree clear the air on some of the issues that have been raised, and I know they have been raised with some considerable passion.

As we know—and with this being a shared objective of all noble Lords who have spoken—the order will ensure that voters in Wales will have the opportunity to mark their vote bilingually. The House’s support of this measure means that it can be done in Welsh and English and both languages will have full parity.

Noble Lords can be assured that throughout this process the Government have consulted with the Electoral Commission and returning officers. As noble Lords will know, these are independent officers acting within local authorities, running the election, in developing the design of the ballot papers and the mechanics of delivering a Welsh and English bilingual ballot paper for the electors in Wales.

I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who I think had expected to find a Welsh Minister here today, that no criticism should be made of the Wales Office; the Home Office is the responsible organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made quite clear, the Home Office is responsible for conducting this election. The focus of the issue should be directed to the Home Office. It is indeed the Home Office’s intention to ensure that we have a long-term way of dealing with the Welsh language element of elections. As noble Lords will know, currently this requires a separate order from the general secondary legislation that is required to bring about publication of other forms.

The Law Commission is investigating the whole question of elections. Although it will take some time for the Law Commission to report, it is the Government’s intention to respond to that. It may well be that in future it will not be necessary to keep coming back for each election. I remind noble Lords that for the previous general election, the Government had to bring in a special order in April for the May 2010 election for exactly this issue: to produce a bilingual ballot paper. The process is complex, to the extent that we need to ensure that we have the form of the election material right in the English language before we seek to translate it into a Welsh or bilingual format. This has been a more convoluted process than noble Lords might at first think.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Is there any good reason why translation from English into Welsh should not be the exclusive purview of the Welsh Assembly? That would avoid all these complications, would it not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That will have to be for future legislators to consider. It is certainly not possible under current law. As I have explained, the responsibility lies with the Home Office to deliver these elections in England and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, showed a great deal of understanding about the complexity of statutes under which Welsh language elements of elections have to be conducted. He mentioned the two statutes and the complexity of the issue. I thank him for his understanding of that matter.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Rosser, mentioned the cost of £350,000. That is within the £75 million budget, and it will not cost any additional money nor extend the budget for these elections. It is within the contingencies that noble Lords have mentioned.

We take the Welsh language very seriously. I am an English-speaking Englishman who has to receive any part of the Welsh language culture second-hand. However, I appreciate it enormously. It enhances all our lives that we have a second living language spoken in these islands. It is greatly to our advantage and is one of the reasons why we support, in any way that we can, opportunities for Welsh speakers to express themselves in their Welsh language. Indeed, as I said, they can take the oath in Welsh if they wish on achieving office.

[Lord Wigley]

We all appreciate the noble Lord’s positive words towards the Welsh language and our heritage that goes with it. On the lessons to be learnt from these mistakes—I am sure he would accept that there have been mistakes somewhere, otherwise we would not be in this position—will there be an opportunity for the Home Office to review how they deal not just with Welsh language matters but with matters relating to Wales where there is an overlap with the National Assembly, such as the interface between crime and social services and the way in which they work with the devolved Administration, to make sure that we do not get into this mess again in any context?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I implied in my response so far that the key lies in getting mechanisms whereby some of these things that have required separate consideration by Parliament are automatic and part and parcel of the process. The translation of election material into the Welsh language is something that the Law Commission should be looking at. How that is delivered is a matter for the Government and Parliament to consider when the Law Commission eventually reports on elections. However, one lesson that comes out of this is that it gives us an opportunity to look at how we do these things in the future. I am grateful for that aspect of the debate, which has overridden, I hope, some of the other aspects of the debate that have not perhaps been quite so positive in the assessment of the Government’s intentions.

The Electoral Commission is right that we should take whatever steps we can to make sure that this order comes into effect by 31 October. That is the point at which returning officers can start to send their postal voting packs to voters. They cannot send them before. I hope that noble Lords will support this order and then I am sure that these voting packs will go out by 1 November.

There will be opportunities for us to look at this issue in the future and I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the debate today. I hope this order will have the support of the House and I commend it.

Motion agreed.