European Union Migration: National Insurance

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Campbell-Savours

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I believe that is the target the Government are aiming for, and I certainly have not been told that it has changed. The question is, what would the noble Lord like to see happen? At the moment, we believe that being in the single market and having free movement of people is a net benefit to this country.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, would not this confusion be reduced if we returned to discussing a biometric-based national identity card, whereby people would be swiped in when they entered the United Kingdom and swiped out when they left?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, this is a well-worn theme from the noble Lord and it is slightly outside the scope of today’s Statement on the Office for National Statistics report, but I take his point and I am sure he will raise it again.

Crime: Historic Sex Abuse Allegations

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Campbell-Savours

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what meetings have been arranged between Home Office ministers and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on historic sex abuse allegation enquiries.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, Home Office Ministers have regular meetings with chief police officers on a wide range of subjects, but no meetings have taken place or been arranged between Home Office Ministers and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the subject the noble Lord has raised.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is there not now a gross imbalance in the treatment of suspects and complainants in sex abuse cases, with the result that the reputations of the falsely accused are shattered while the reputation of the false accuser remains intact behind a wall of secrecy—particularly in the case of this man “Nick”—unless of course they are prosecuted? In that light, should Ministers not be spelling out to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe that the leaking of operations in these cases and the subsequent identification of the accused, when often they are innocent, is an affront to human rights and natural justice? It is far too easy in this society to destroy the reputations of perfectly innocent people.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I have to acknowledge the noble Lord’s persistence in this matter. I think he will appreciate that it is a complex one. We recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike between the operational advantages of naming suspects in some criminal investigations and respecting suspects’ right to privacy. As my noble friend Lord Faulks said in answer to the noble Lord last month, Parliament itself has changed its mind on this issue. The Government’s position is that although in general there should be a right to anonymity before the point of charge, there will be circumstances in which the public interest means that an arrested suspect should be named. The College of Policing guidance is that the police should not routinely release information about suspects before charge and that the decision to do so should be made on a case-by-case basis by a chief officer, and only when the circumstances justify it. Notwithstanding that, and bearing in mind what the noble Lord said about human rights and justice, the former High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques has been commissioned to examine the way in which recent cases involving non-recent sexual allegations have been conducted, and to report to the commissioner.

Taxpayer Confidentiality

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Campbell-Savours

Monday 14th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is a debate to be had about greater transparency, whether on the part of HMRC or on the part of large businesses. The Government have signalled this by recently proposing to take forward a system of country-by-country reporting for large businesses on a multilateral basis. But we think that there are good reasons for having confidentiality within which transparency can work. It promotes trust and voluntary compliance and it encourages businesses to be more open and to share proprietary information with the tax authorities.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, how can the Minister possibly say that when Clause 88 of the Housing and Planning Bill will make it possible for HMRC to reveal information to people who are not in the government department? There is an inconsistency in the Government’s position. I am sure that the Minister sitting next to him will explain that what I am saying is correct; I have the Bill here.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do not need the Minister who is sitting next to me to believe that what the noble Lord has said is correct. The fact is that HMRC has a principle of confidentiality. It is obliged under a law passed by the Labour Government in 2005 to respect confidentiality. The only time that it is able to divulge information is when it has statutory authority to do so as passed by Parliament.

Royal Bank of Scotland

Debate between Lord Ashton of Hyde and Lord Campbell-Savours

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My noble friend has put it like that; I was trying to be a bit more conciliatory.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, is the driver behind this policy the prospect of the price of the shares falling?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

That is not the prospect. Since the policy was announced, the shares have actually gone up. The independent advice we received from Rothschild said that giving a strong signal that it was ready for sale would help the share price. By letting some shares go now, the free float would increase and the benefit to the taxpayer would be increased. The Governor of the Bank of England concurred.