lord of the blog

« December 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Foreign born mothers

As soon as I saw Lord Tebbit trying to intervene on this question I knew I would have to say something!

Foreign-born Mothers

2.44 pm

Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is the case, as recently reported, that 20 per cent of all births in England and Wales in 2004 were to foreign-born mothers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is broadly accurate. Birth registrations gave a total of 124,563 live births occurring in 2004 to mothers who were born outside the United Kingdom, out of a total of 639,721 live births. That has been presented as 19.5 per cent in published statistics and, in turn, rounded to 20 per cent in press reporting. What is not reported is that 7 per cent of that 19.5 per cent have a British-born father and that the 19.5 per cent figure includes those who were born abroad but have United Kingdom citizenship. The figure also ignores the valuable and disproportionately positive contribution that migrants make to the United Kingdom economy.

Lord Renton: My Lords, should we not bear it in mind that in most countries where British mothers give birth to children, those children do not have British nationality but will have the nationality of the country where they were born? On the other hand, is it not highly desirable that children born here of foreign parents should not have British nationality because it would give them a status in this country that they may never be here to enjoy again? I know that this is a big subject but, bearing in mind the complexities of it, would the Government consider a change in the law?

with the impression that migration to the United Kingdom is a force for good and a very positive thing, not just economically but in diversity and in what generations of migrants have brought to the culture and quality of life of this country.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal

30 Jan 2006 : Column 5

Tribunal. My understanding is that a child born of foreign-born parents in this country, where those parents have not had British nationality conferred on them, remains a child of the nation of the parents' birth.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in most circumstances that is absolutely right.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my children were born here at a time when they would be British although they had two Australian parents. I clearly recall when your Lordships' House changed the law on that. If my children were born here tomorrow, they would not be British. As I understand it, they must have one British parent. It used to be that if you overflew the country and dropped off the plane to have the baby, it would be British because it was born here, but that was changed some time ago.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for her interpretation.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that successive census data have confirmed that a large number of foreign-born people who enter this country, particularly women of child-bearing age, are economically active? In a country that is ageing so rapidly and where the birth rate has dropped, should we not be celebrating the fact that these people are contributing so fundamentally to economic development?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am inevitably drawn to agreeing with the noble Lord. The 2001 figures show that migrants generated 10 per cent of GDP despite accounting for 8 per cent of the working-age population. In 2003–04, migrants accounted for 10 per cent of government tax receipts but 8.1 per cent of government expenditure. Obviously those are broad figures that no doubt include a lot of other detail within them, but the case is inescapable. Migrants to our country not only help the economy but contribute an enormous amount to British life. We should celebrate that.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether the Government think that the figure of 20 per cent is too great, too little, or exactly right and in accordance with a policy that they have pursued?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a statistic. I have tried to be as factual with your Lordships' House as I can. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is at variance with his party leader on the subject of migration. Perhaps he is trying to make a political point. It may be worth reminding him that David Cameron recently said:

"Over the centuries, Britain has profited immeasurably from the skills and vitality brought to these islands by immigrants from all over the world".

30 Jan 2006 : Column 6

Perhaps the noble Lord does not agree with him.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I do not think that I can remember an occasion when I have gone up to the parents of a newborn child and said, "Can you tell me where you are from?". That is not the first question that you ask a parent; you usually congratulate them on having a child. As we are so proud of our nation's history, because it is so diverse and has given us such strength, not just in recent years but over hundreds of years, we really ought to be very proud of that diversity and strength. Let us stop knocking it in the way that some people do by innuendo.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Not for the first time, he has hit the nail on the head.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a question and give a straight answer instead of asking me a question?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that from time to time I am entitled to pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. However, I have given a straight statistical answer, and I am happy with that.

Lord Renton: My Lords, have not the questions put by noble Lords indicated that it would be far better if there were a degree of flexibility in this matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is, and I think that we have benefited from that. I am grateful for the noble Lord's contribution.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60130-01.htm#60130-01_star1

Friday, January 27, 2006

Palestine

I may be over optimistic but I think the election of Hamas might be quite helpful in the longer run. They have adopted a policy similar to Sinn Fein and there have been signs of political movement for some time as I indicated in my question in the Lords the other week.

There is another important milestone here. This is the first time in the Middle East that an existing government has been changed by a democratic election. I don't think we should underestimate the importance of that.

The response by Western governments has been quite hopeful too. Talks have been going on for some time between Hamas and Western contacts.

There are now many signs of change in the Middle East which have been accelerating since September 11th. For once I am cautiously optimistic although I don't doubt that  more blood will be shed before peace and stability comes to the region.

Afghanistan

There was a statement on the deployment of British troops to Afghanistan yesterday.

Lord Soley: My Lords, the Minister has described a very welcome and extensive international co-operation, but could he tell us a little more about our efforts to involve some of the Islamic nations? I understand the problem for Pakistan, particularly—but Malaysia, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco, all of which support our aims and objectives in Afghanistan and all of which have experience of peace-keeping operations, should make some contribution. That

26 Jan 2006 : Column 1328

would give an even wider degree of support for the international effort. Could the Minister tell us a little more about our efforts to get them involved?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60126-14.htm

Thursday, January 26, 2006

DNA database

This question raised the issue of a national DNA data base. The question of consent is particularly important and it is difficult to defend a position where adolescents who have not been formerly cautioned or charged should be kept on the database without their consent.

My view however is that we ought to debate the case for a national DNA database for the whole population. It is difficult to see what disadvantages such a data base would have and it could act as a very effective deterrent to people inclined to think about committing crimes such as rape and murder. It would certainly increase the chances of catching them more quickly if they do commit such an offence.

It would also enable us to avoid charging and convicting the wrong person.

The national debate starts here!

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, but is the noble Baroness aware that, according to the document published today by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology entitled The National DNA Database, of the 3.5 million-plus DNA samples held on that database, over 200,000 are of citizens who are not even charged with an offence and, of those, more than 24,000 are of juveniles not even charged with an offence? Would it not therefore be consistent to put the DNA particulars of all of us on the national database? And, while we are about it, and given that the Government's reply to this is, "If you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear", are the Government contemplating giving the police a general right to search our premises or listen to our telephone conversations? That would be consistent with present government policy.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords, that is not the Government's intention. We should not mistake the importance of the changes that we have now brought in as a result of the 2001 and 2003 legislation. Early research has shown that sampling persons who are arrested but not proceeded against has yielded a match with a crime scene stain in over 3,000 offences. We have been able to detect 37 murders or manslaughters, 16 attempted murders, 90 rapes and 1,136 burglary offences. I do not know about the noble Lord but, so far as the people of this country are concerned, that is a prize worth having.

Lord Henley: My Lords, if, as the Minister implies, the collection and storage of DNA samples will be of some use in catching criminals and preventing crime, it is presumably important to collect the samples from scenes of crime. Can she therefore give us some figures on what percentage of burglaries, for example, are properly investigated by scene-of-crime officers and what percentage of those investigations yield useful DNA samples?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there have been over 260,000 crime scenes profiled on the

25 Jan 2006 : Column 1179

database, and in 2004–05 police forces submitted DNA from 84,000 crime scenes for examination in a laboratory. So far as I am aware, we do not have the precise breakdown between burglaries and other matters, but if those figures are available I will seek to acquire them and give them to the noble Lord.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that, with the exception of herself, some of the lawyers in this House, particularly since Monday, have been making strong efforts to be totally paranoid? Is it not true, as she has already demonstrated, that there are real benefits to be gained from the preservation of DNA samples, as many people who were caught up in the tsunami tragedies realise?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is absolutely right about those benefits: they are very real indeed. DNA has enabled us to correctly identify those who are culpable of very serious offences. I should also remind the House that it has enabled us to discount those who may have been improperly identified, so this has benefits for those who are wrongly arrested and those who are incorrectly released.

Lord Soley: My Lords, is the time not right for a wide debate on the issue? I would not mind my DNA being on a national database. I agree that the issue of consent is vital, but we could go a long way towards preventing some of the rapes, murders and other particularly brutal crimes and identifying those people who decided to go on them if we were more willing to consider this as a national issue and one that we should all consider for the benefit of others. The civil liberties of those who are abused in some of the most appalling ways also ought to get a look-in on this argument.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that that view has been strongly expressed by a number of people, both in the House and elsewhere. In relation to our current legislation, it is not the Government's intention, but I agree with my noble friend that the time may soon be ripe for a fuller debate.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords—

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is the Liberal Democrats' turn.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the disproportionate representation of certain groups on the DNA database? Who polices the police to ensure that arrests are not used simply for the collection of DNA samples?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have looked at the figures in relation to the distinction. About 82 per cent of people on the database are identified as white-skinned and about 7 per cent are identified as black. That does not appear to correlate

25 Jan 2006 : Column 1180

with the noble Lord's fear about disproportionality. He will also know that we are being rigorous in trying to remove any improper element of disproportionality from the whole criminal justice system. I acknowledge that we have to be vigilant about the issue. It has always excited my personal attention.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, as the Minister has admitted that 24,000 juveniles had their DNA taken without any consent or charge, surely those records should now be deleted. It is intolerable that the state should take records just for its own information come hell or high water. That is what our ancient liberties are all about, but I know that the present Government totally fail to understand that.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely reject the noble Earl's last assertion. The individuals who have had DNA samples taken were properly arrested. Noble Lords will know that the 2003 legislation gives the police the discretion to retain samples. That discretion is held by the chief constable, who is able to exercise discretion not to keep any DNA samples if he or she determines that it is in the interests of justice not to do so.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60125-01.htm

Monday, January 23, 2006

Responses

A few brief responses

House of Lords. No party can now control the Lords because no party has a majority and we have all given a committment to try and keep it that way.

There will be a debate soon on having a speaker which will give the Lords an opportunity to lead the reform of the House. I hope it takes it. My views on reform have been on this blog several times over the last few years. They haven't changed very much. Track back and have a look.

ASBO's. You can be imprisoned for breach of an ASBO. You can also be imprisoned for breach of a conditional discharge or a fine. Are we suggesting the sentence of the Court should not be enforced?

The problems on legal aid may be leading to more inappropriate use but I want the Courts to have flexibility. Some of the critics should put their names forward as magistrates. Why do so few people volunteer?

CICB. For once I thought Lord Tebitt had a good point about an ongoing payment for the seriously injured. Peter, you should put your views into the review process.

Fear of crime. The figures were quoted in a very short news item in the Guardian on the 18th January. They came form a MORI poll but apparently it was only done in London and therefore only applies to London. I can't find it on the MORI site yet but I haven't looked today.

ID cards. The Government legislation does not make it compulsory to carry ID cards. The legislation would require a debate and vote in Parliament if the information carried on the card was to be increased.

Palestine. I'm not an "appeaser" and I wouldn't know if I'm "deluded" because if I was I would be "deluded"! Cogito ergo sum!

The point is, that if there are signs of movement by Hamas then we need to signal that we have noticed and encourage more movement. That's what we did with the IRA and unionist para military groups in Northern Ireland.

There is a very difficult balance between condemning and  encouraging in such situations and I don't pretend I, or anyone else, gets it right all the time.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

Although there is some inappropriate use of ASBO's I would rather Courts have the flexibility to make imaginative orders then to try and box them in too tightly. People can challenge them in court if they think they are not fair and reasonable.

The following exchange in the House of Lords is interesting.

Anti-social Behaviour Orders

2.58 pm

Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will put forward proposals to restrict the circumstances in which anti-social behaviour orders can be granted.

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, no. The circumstances in which a court grants an anti-social behaviour order are already clearly set out in statute. Such an order can be made where the defendant has behaved in an anti-social manner: behaviour that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress; and that an order is necessary for the protection of persons from further anti-social behaviour. The position is reinforced by decisions of higher courts, which have set out clear guidance on how such orders should be drafted and to ensure that they are proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting the community from further abuse.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for that Answer. Is he aware of the lady in Aberystwyth who, after several attempts to take her own life, has been given an ASBO which bans her from walking on the beach or going into the sea? That case follows on at least one other last year, when a lady in Bath was banned from jumping into canals and rivers or on to railway lines. Do the Government really think

18 Jan 2006 : Column 663

that if people are intent on taking their own lives in such tragic circumstances, serving an anti-social behaviour order on them is the best way to help?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I do not know about those two particular cases. I am always happy to look at cases if enough details are sent to us so that we can examine them. But, of course, the orders are made by the courts; it is their decision whether an order should be made. It is often forgotten that anti-social behaviour orders are often a very important way of getting urgent intervention to people who are in need of help which otherwise they would not get. I have a host of cases in my briefing; for example, of young people against whom anti-social behaviour orders were made whose lives have been turned around because of the intervention by social services and others which has come about as the order has been made.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that ASBOs have been a shaft of light for people afflicted by persistent anti-social behaviour in their neighbourhoods? While of course common sense must be applied in the issuance of ASBOs and they should not be available casually, does he further agree that when ASBOs have been handed down they should be enforced unfailingly and that there should be severe penalties for breaches of these orders?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I agree with both the points made by my noble friend. The evidence is clear that people believe their quality of life has been significantly improved where appropriate anti-social behaviour orders have been made. The Home Affairs Committee in another place recently made clear its view that anti-social behaviour orders have helped. They are only a part of the overall approach to helping with quality of life problems and dealing with the nuisance and harassment that people suffer in their communities. I also agree that where orders are made they need to be enforced.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Attorney-General will be aware that the number of ASBOs per head of population varies among different authorities by as much as 90 per cent. In view of the potentially serious penalties for breaches of ASBOs, will the Government take steps to follow the lead of, for example, Camden, where there is a procedure for a number of preliminary cautionary steps to be followed before an ASBO is applied for?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the Home Office gives guidance as to the steps which ought to be taken. I know that local authorities, in partnership with other agencies, discuss and debate what procedures ought to be in place and I am sure that they look to the examples of particular authorities to see whether they work. Other authorities will find that they have different problems to deal with and that different responses are appropriate.

18 Jan 2006 : Column 664

Lord Laming: My Lords, following on from the previous question, does the noble and learned Lord agree that local authorities and voluntary organisations need to be encouraged to develop new and more constructive ways to engage with those young people who feel alienated from our society and behave in destructive ways, to themselves as well as to others?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Of course, the Respect Action Plan, which was launched last week, indicates the range of measures which the Government hope will be taken—including by authorities, which will be helped by the Government to do so—in a number of areas. A very important area is how to divert young people, through sport, culture, the arts and other programmes, from causing trouble and being a problem.

Lord Soley: My Lords, can the Attorney-General confirm that one of the great advantages of ASBOs is that they give a great deal of flexibility to local courts for what are very often local problems? If we try to over-centralise and over-control on that, we will remove one of the great assets that they bring to local communities.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. In the past we perhaps concentrated a great deal on the most serous offences and did not concentrate enough on the offences which affect far more people ultimately than the most serious offences do. My noble friend is absolutely right that flexibility to respond to local needs is important, and the Government believe in working in partnership with local agencies and authorities to achieve that end.

Lord Woolf: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that, in relation to the enforcement of ASBOs—that is, dealing with the breaches—it is very important that the response is proportionate to what was done originally to justify the ASBO and the nature of the conduct which is said to be the breach? Is this an area where perhaps, in due course, the Sentencing Guidelines Council might give assistance?

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60118-03.htm

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

crime

I see the fear of crime has fallen by around 19%. This reflects the fall in crime generally.

It was very encouraging to see 63% of people saying they don't feel afraid going out at night now. Still not good enough but a really marked improvement. All we need now is a few tabloid headlines saying "Crime Down, Fear of Crime down" and the figure might improve some more.

Alas, such headlines don't sell newspapers!

Glorification of Terrorism

I have put the whole of Baroness Scotland's speech in the House of Lords on the clause dealing with the glorification of terrorism on the extended post below as it is one of the most contentious parts of the Bill.

It is worth reading other contributors to the debate and you can do that by following the Hansard link at the end of the extended post.

I suspect this part of the Bill will not be used much as it is now very constrained and defined (as it ought to be). We must wait and see.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is only right that I should declare to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that for many years I was brought up to admire her, and I still do.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, but not, I hope, to glorify me.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is absolutely true, because others have done it before me. The amendments in this group fall into two categories. One category of view, expressed and expanded with

17 Jan 2006 : Column 582

such great depth and elegance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, is that the Government's amendments are useless, pointless, confusing and make no difference. I adopt the short form, adopted the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; I think those words were his way of describing it. A number of noble Lords who have spoken join him in that view. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon, although he said so rather more elegantly, thinks that those words are correct. Others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who said so with his normal telegraphic style, agree with the substance but not the form. He agrees with the purport behind the drafting and the need to look at this issue, but does not believe that we have drafted the glorification provision in a felicitous way.

I was happy that, just by chance, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was in his place when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, made his remarks in support of this amendment. I think it is very important that we remember the clear advice he gave, accurately read out and to be found in paragraph 23 of his report, where he stated very clearly his view that the proposal the Government are minded to advance is correct because of the real and present danger of radically minded young people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts, wrapped in a religious or quasi-religious context.

It is very important that we bear that sound advice in mind when looking at this provision and whether its utility is actually made out. I absolutely understand the concerns of both my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when they say, together with the right reverend Prelate, that others look to how we present these issues in the UK and may seek to emulate what we do here. That position has prevailed for a number of years. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we are conscious of our responsibility to play our part as members of the international community.

Therefore, we bring forward these provisions with a proper understanding that the constraints imposed by the Human Rights Act and other legislation should bite on this. We bear those in mind, but we come back to the idea of proportionality, of balancing—something that we have been struggling with throughout this Bill. We, of course, come down on different sides. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition say that it is right in principle to address this issue, but wrong in the form taken; others say no.

It is very important that when we consider this issue we look at what the Bill in fact provides, as opposed to what some may think it provides, and look at it in context. If one looks at, for instance, the promotion of 4 July and American independence, it is true to say that the king who was then on the throne has now sadly departed and things have moved on. We have to look at context. Amendments that seek to remove the various references to glorification in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the consequential provisions in Clause 20 are of the same effect as the ones tabled in Committee. The Government's position remains the same and is clear.

17 Jan 2006 : Column 583

The Government do not believe that it is acceptable that people should be allowed to make statements glorifying terrorism and in so doing make it more likely that their audience will themselves commit acts of terrorism. The reasons why we do not think it is right are the same as those set out in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, as our reviewer.

I also think it is right for me to be clear about what the Government are proposing in Clause 1. It will be a criminal offence to glorify terrorist acts in such a way that others could reasonably take it as a direction for them to emulate those acts. Simply showing understanding for why a person commits a terrorist act will not be sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. Simply condoning terrorism will not be sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. Even simply glorifying terrorism will not be sufficient to constitute a criminal offence. It is only when a statement is made that glorifies a terrorist act, to the clear extent that others will reasonably infer that the act is being glorified in order for those persons to emulate that act in existing circumstances, that it will constitute a criminal offence. One has to emphasise the "existing circumstances".

There are a number of elements here. First, the act in question has to be a terrorist act or a convention offence. We do not think that some of the suggestions made at an earlier stage in the debate—Robin Hood, for example—would be a present circumstance that would constitute a terrorist act. Secondly, a statement would need to be made to members of the public. We are not talking about thought crime or private conversations in this regard. Thirdly, the act has to have been glorified. There has been some discussion about what the word means, but it means simply what the Oxford English Dictionary says it means. To glorify is to describe or represent as admirable, especially unjustifiably or undeservedly. We believe that this is clear enough.

Fourthly, the act would need to be glorified in such a way that members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that the glorified conduct should be emulated by them. This is crucial. The audience to the statement must be able to infer reasonably that they are being asked to emulate a terrorist act. Therefore, we are not talking about the celebrations for Bastille Day or 4 July, as it would not be reasonable for the audience to infer that the participants in, for example, Bastille Day celebrations, were urging them to commit terrorist acts. The likely effect on the audience has to come into play.

Fifthly, the public would need to be encouraged to commit that act in existing circumstances. Therefore, the glorification of the American Revolution, for example, is hardly going to be reasonably inferred as encouragement to others to terrorist acts against the British Empire or King George III who, as we all know, is now sadly deceased. The political disagreement in that instance is not, we think, a live issue. Finally, we need to be clear that this offence can be committed only either where someone intends to

17 Jan 2006 : Column 584

encourage others to commit a terrorist act, or where they are reckless as to whether or not such a statement is likely to be so understood.

Those provisions are, I respectfully suggest, relatively easy to understand and apply. I therefore hope that noble Lords will reflect that this does what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wants; he says that he agrees in principle. I thank him for that and for the clarity with which he represents his party in this regard, but I say to him that the draftsman has expressed what we need in a way that complies not only with that intent, but with the commitment the Government gave to the people of this country in relation to it.

The amendments rightly point out that there are references to glorification elsewhere. I hope that I have dealt with that. Clause 2(6) makes it clear that in answering questions about how a statement is likely to be understood and what the public can reasonably infer, the court must have regard to the contents of the statement or the publication as a whole and the circumstances of its publication. The test is not quantitative but qualitative: it is whether the surrounding material and context of the statement indicate that the whole statement does not have the effect that a mere extract which may be objectionable would have. That provision is replicated in Clause 1(4).

We believe that, for the reasons I have given, the concerns that were expressed by noble Lords are met by the way in which the provisions have been drafted. Although the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, would like the whole of this subsection removed, in order to protect appropriately the citizens of our country, I regret that even his own party is likely to disappoint him in that regard. I invite noble Lords to say that they are content with the explanation that I have given and are reassured sufficiently to enable us to allow this part of the Bill to remain unamended.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, which was as careful as always. I am also grateful to those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I want to make it quite clear that my objection is not just to the drafting of subsection (3). My objection is this: we are creating, by subsection (3), a brand new criminal offence which should not be on the statute book. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

5.42 pm

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 270; Not-Contents, 144

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60117-12.htm

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

House of Lords. Identity Cards

The contribution I made in the extended post below deals with my concern that the Lords are simply repeating the debates in the House of Commons.

It was interesting that one member said in response to my comments that the "Government had not listened". This must be one of the most misused phrases in the political lexicon. Hardly anyone could not have heard the debate about cost.

In this case the phrase "have not listened" translates to "didn't do what we wanted them to do." A dodgy argument for an unelected chamber to use so widely as it appears to be used here.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by this debate. When I read the amendments, I assumed that the debate would essentially be about costs. When one listens to the debate or reads the article by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in today's Guardian, it is pretty clear that the debate is still about the principle and this is becoming very close to a Second Reading debate.

I do not wish to go into it again, but if this is about the principle, bear in mind that many democracies around the world, which enjoy the rule of law, have identity cards. It is not crippling to the population; they are popular; and the idea is fairly popular here. I understand that saying the system will be costly undermines public confidence in the argument in favour of identity cards. As a party politician, it would be wrong of me to dismiss that as being without relevance. However, it seems to me that if the issue is about costs, I am not sure that the amendments address that at all. To give the noble Baroness her due, she focused on quite an important part: the tendering process.

I have a great deal of respect for my noble friend Lord Barnett who has a very impressive record on this. He has said that this House is at its best when it holds the other House and the Government to account. However, I am not convinced that it does it best in this way. If the matter really is about expense, frankly I would not have heard all these arguments before, as I have. I have heard them in the House of Commons and in the wider public area. So what new things are being said here other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, straightforwardly said in his Guardian article today, "I am against it in principle"? That is what it is really about.

There is a case for looking in detail at the expense, not because other countries have done it at a perfectly reasonable price and not because this country did not have an ID card before—which of course it did have in the rather special circumstances of the Second World War—but because we are employing so much new technology. The key question is how well the technology will work. Expense alone does not tell one that, which is why such matters are often better dealt with in the more detailed analysis of a Select Committee or a special committee of that type. I often

16 Jan 2006 : Column 440

wonder whether we would not be better placed to advance our arguments on the issue of costs if we did it that way.

It is true to say that if the expense of an ID card comes in very high and if it stays high, a great deal of political damage will be done to the government who introduce it. You only need think of the analogy of putting up the cost of the television licence. Think of putting up the cost of an ID card. Think of the initial cost of the ID card or, as my honourable friend the Minister indicates with the movement of his hands, a driving licence. There is a range of issues and arguments around this, but they are not being addressed today.

I say this cautiously, because I am a new Member of this House and do not like to jump to the conclusion that I have understood all the subtleties of this place when I obviously have not. I worry, however, that if we, as political parties—whether Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat—simply recycle the arguments that the parties had in another place, we do not enhance our status. We ought to be about enhancing our status as well as examining the evidence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Soley, sits down, he said that he did not think that this was the way to hold the other place to account on this project. What would be the way to do that?

Lord Soley: My Lords, I indicated that if noble Lords are going to look at the technology and costs, they might want to do that in a much more detailed way in Committee, as well as questioning Ministers. The broad thrust of my remarks, however, was that most of the arguments put today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have been heard before. That is not a reason for not doing it again. I am not saying that it should never be done again. I am simply saying that it is probably not the most effective way of holding the other place to account.

We need to be much clearer. I think the noble Lord ought to come out and say "I am going to use every trick in the book to undermine the political credibility of this enterprise because I am against it in principle". I could understand that, and would have no problem with it. However, the noble Lord has put forward an amendment which—as my noble friend Lord Barnett said—is not very effective in doing what he, and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said they wanted it to do.

Soley: My Lords, I am slightly puzzled by this debate. When I read the amendments, I assumed that the debate would essentially be about costs. When one listens to the debate or reads the article by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in today's Guardian, it is pretty clear that the debate is still about the principle and this is becoming very close to a Second Reading debate.

I do not wish to go into it again, but if this is about the principle, bear in mind that many democracies around the world, which enjoy the rule of law, have identity cards. It is not crippling to the population; they are popular; and the idea is fairly popular here. I understand that saying the system will be costly undermines public confidence in the argument in favour of identity cards. As a party politician, it would be wrong of me to dismiss that as being without relevance. However, it seems to me that if the issue is about costs, I am not sure that the amendments address that at all. To give the noble Baroness her due, she focused on quite an important part: the tendering process.

I have a great deal of respect for my noble friend Lord Barnett who has a very impressive record on this. He has said that this House is at its best when it holds the other House and the Government to account. However, I am not convinced that it does it best in this way. If the matter really is about expense, frankly I would not have heard all these arguments before, as I have. I have heard them in the House of Commons and in the wider public area. So what new things are being said here other than, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, straightforwardly said in his Guardian article today, "I am against it in principle"? That is what it is really about.

There is a case for looking in detail at the expense, not because other countries have done it at a perfectly reasonable price and not because this country did not have an ID card before—which of course it did have in the rather special circumstances of the Second World War—but because we are employing so much new technology. The key question is how well the technology will work. Expense alone does not tell one that, which is why such matters are often better dealt with in the more detailed analysis of a Select Committee or a special committee of that type. I often

16 Jan 2006 : Column 440

wonder whether we would not be better placed to advance our arguments on the issue of costs if we did it that way.

It is true to say that if the expense of an ID card comes in very high and if it stays high, a great deal of political damage will be done to the government who introduce it. You only need think of the analogy of putting up the cost of the television licence. Think of putting up the cost of an ID card. Think of the initial cost of the ID card or, as my honourable friend the Minister indicates with the movement of his hands, a driving licence. There is a range of issues and arguments around this, but they are not being addressed today.

I say this cautiously, because I am a new Member of this House and do not like to jump to the conclusion that I have understood all the subtleties of this place when I obviously have not. I worry, however, that if we, as political parties—whether Labour, Tory or Liberal Democrat—simply recycle the arguments that the parties had in another place, we do not enhance our status. We ought to be about enhancing our status as well as examining the evidence.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Soley, sits down, he said that he did not think that this was the way to hold the other place to account on this project. What would be the way to do that?

Lord Soley: My Lords, I indicated that if noble Lords are going to look at the technology and costs, they might want to do that in a much more detailed way in Committee, as well as questioning Ministers. The broad thrust of my remarks, however, was that most of the arguments put today, including by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have been heard before. That is not a reason for not doing it again. I am not saying that it should never be done again. I am simply saying that it is probably not the most effective way of holding the other place to account.

We need to be much clearer. I think the noble Lord ought to come out and say "I am going to use every trick in the book to undermine the political credibility of this enterprise because I am against it in principle". I could understand that, and would have no problem with it. However, the noble Lord has put forward an amendment which—as my noble friend Lord Barnett said—is not very effective in doing what he, and certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said they wanted it to do.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60116-07.htm

Friday, January 13, 2006

Palestine

There was an exchange on the floor of the House about Hamas on Thursday. It concerns the elections in Palestine.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60112-04.htm

Palestine: General Election

11.30 am

Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have a view on the possibility that the Palestinian general election, planned for 25 January, might be postponed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, President Abbas has stated that the Palestinian legislative election will proceed on 25 January. The Israeli Cabinet will vote on the issue of elections in east Jerusalem on Sunday 15 January. We hope that its decision will remove any possibility of the election being delayed. We urge both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities to co-operate in the facilitation of these elections.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he make sure that the Israeli Cabinet does its best to allow east Jerusalem voters—Palestinian voters—to vote in these elections? It has already indicated provisionally that it would do so. It is crucial for them to take part in what is the effectively de facto renewed attempt to secure a full, sovereign Palestinian state. That is very important. Will he also

12 Jan 2006 : Column 302

have discussions with the Israeli authorities about easing the restrictions on free movement of Palestinian voters in Gaza and the rest of the West Bank?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we are urging everyone to facilitate the elections in every way possible and to ensure—and this is important—that there is proper security and safety for those who will observe the elections. So far, acting Prime Minister Olmert has said that he will bring a comprehensive package to his Cabinet meeting. I do not doubt the difficulties of the discussions in that Cabinet given the security issues, but the signs so far are positive. We are urging that there should be a positive outcome.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I have just returned from the Middle East where I met many leading Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Does my noble friend agree that there is every chance that the elections will go ahead with Palestinian and Israeli support? But does he not regard as the greatest danger the refusal of Hamas to remove from its charter its determination to destroy and remove the state of Israel?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I agree with the proposition that it is vital that all parties throughout the region ensure that these elections and the Israeli elections that will follow shortly thereafter are a complete success. Our position on Hamas participation is clear. The Palestinians have a right to vote for whomsoever they want. We welcome the participation of a wide range of parties in all elections. But, ultimately, those who want to take part in the political process cannot engage in armed activity at the same time. We support the quartet's call on 28 December for all participants in this election to renounce violence, to recognise Israel's right to exist and to disarm. For its part, the United Kingdom will have no dealings with the leadership of Hamas, or any other organisation, unless it renounces violence and its charter commitment to the destruction of the state of Israel.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I also have recently returned from Israel—in fact, last night—where I had discussions with many Israeli leaders and experienced journalists who know what is going on in the Palestinian area. They are of the view that Hamas will take a large percentage of the vote from Fatah. If it takes as much as 40 per cent, which has been suggested might happen, how does the Minister think that that will affect the democracy of the Palestinian state if it does not say that it will give up its desire to get rid of or to wipe out Israel?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it would be dangerous in a parliament of another country to speculate on the likely outcome. The reality must be that the people of the area make their decisions and that we take a mature and responsible attitude to them. I hope that all parties in the Palestinian areas will not use any of the potential disruptions as an excuse for delaying these elections. It is very much in the interests of

12 Jan 2006 : Column 303

stability throughout the area that the elections take place on their scheduled date, and people will have to live with the results. As ever, that is the consequence of a democratic process. None the less—I repeat this and hope that I will be forgiven for doing so—we expect all parties to renounce violence and any charter demand for the end of the existence of the state of Israel.

Lord Soley: My Lords, has my noble friend taken note of the fact that, for what I think is the first time, Hamas has not put into its literature for the election a call for the elimination of Israel? If that is right, does it not indicate that there is movement within Hamas and other groups of that nature which we need to encourage? Although Hamas still has a deeply worrying philosophy, this approach indicates some movement within the organisation.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I can confirm that. I have been careful to refer only to the charter issues that were raised in the questions. There is also still talk of an armed struggle, a factor which has an impact. But it is true that no mention is made of the destruction of the state of Israel in the manifesto. That represents a significant change from all past literature in this regard.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

I intervened in a question on criminal injuries compensation on Wednesday. There is a consultation going on at the moment and if anyone wants to add their views they have untill March to do so.

Anyone with particular experience or knowledge would I'm sure, be welcome to give their views.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60111-01.htm#60111-01_star0

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Lord Thomas of Gresford asked Her Majesty's Government:

What proportion of awards in criminal injuries compensation in the last financial year were directed to claimants in categories of compensation which are to be abolished.

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, in our Green Paper issued in December, Rebuilding Lives—supporting victims of crime, we proposed refocusing the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme around seriousness, with more seriously injured victims getting more money and less seriously injured victims getting better support services rather than financial compensation. The paper has invited views on this concept and on how this idea of seriousness might be defined. Decisions about the scheme will be shaped by answers to the consultation, which runs until 1 March this year.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Is he aware that in 1996–97 the then government budgeted for the payment of compensation to the victims of crime in the sum of £230 million—the equivalent of £265 million today—but we were told by the noble Baroness Lady Scotland in November 2004 that the current budget was only £163 million, a cut of about £100 million? We have not been given an answer to my Question regarding the percentage of claimants who are to be excluded. How does the noble and learned Lord reconcile such savage cuts in compensation with the blather that we have to put up with from this Government that the victim is being placed always at the centre of the criminal justice system?

Lord Goldsmith: Well really, my Lords. If the noble Lord would read the Green Paper, which I am sure he has, he would see all of the things that we have already done for victims—the witness care units and the new provisions that are being made now. There is less chance of being a victim of crime today than in 1981—the lowest for 25 years. As to the figures, the compensation scheme provided in this country for criminal injuries, on the most recent assessment, provided more than all other EU countries put together.

The noble Lord will understand why I was not able to answer his Question, because this paper is looking at which of the bands should become those where

11 Jan 2006 : Column 156

people do not receive financial compensation, which they often receive a year after the event, but receive practical support instead. So I entirely reject the way that the noble Lord put his supplementary question.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I have read that wonderful document from cover to cover and we are very keen to encourage the noble and learned Lord in that endeavour, so my question is definitely for information. What consideration has the Minister given to the establishment of a separate compensation scheme to assist the victims of terrorist attacks perpetrated either in the United Kingdom or abroad?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not only for reading the paper, but for what she said in support. We are looking at how that issue can be dealt with. It emerged as a result of the events that we have sadly seen throughout the world. So we are looking both at ways of raising public awareness of insurance to deal with some of the immediate consequences of terrorist attacks and the option of setting up a national disaster charitable fund to provide immediate help to victims. These are complicated issues and the Government will make an announcement on them in due course.

Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, as he indicated, this is probably one of the best schemes in the world and we should all be very proud of it? But the problem has always been that if the scheme is spread too widely, those who are most in need, often from dreadful injuries, do not get sufficient help. That is really what we should be addressing in the consultation, which I am glad to hear will be going on until March.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We want to look at removing, or at least raising, the cap, which at the moment prevents those with the most serious injuries getting the most compensation. But we also need to look at the lower ranges. Something like over 50 per cent of the awards are in the £1,000 to £2,000 range. We have done a survey to look at what people spend the money on. Very little of it is spent, for example, on the things that would deal directly with the effects of crime, such as cosmetic treatment or surgery or something of that sort, and that is partly because the compensation is paid very late. That is why we want to look at whether it makes more sense to provide immediate practical support to those victims and free up some cash for the most seriously injured.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give some consideration to the fact that compensation may be far too little in the event that victims who may need lifelong care may live far longer than expected or that it may be far too much if, sadly, they live for only a short time, in which case their families will inherit money for no good reason? Can we not give consideration to making the award in terms of

11 Jan 2006 : Column 157

an annual sum, which would be available to the victim for life and for life only? That would seem to deal with both those problems.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valuable and important point and it is one that we should be looking at in the context of the response to the Green Paper.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Cycling safety

I didn't take part in the debate on the Road Traffic Bill in the Lords yesterday but I thought the debate on an ammendment to make it compulsory for children to wear helmets when cycling was interesting. The ammendment was withdrawn without a vote.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199697/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60110-22.htm

Big Brother

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about George Galloway on Big Brother. I couldn't believe it when he lectured a woman about her sexual morals given Gorgeous George's reputation!

Sitting there smoking a cigar in a rather snazzy dressing gown lecturing the working class on sexual morality strikes me as distinctly hypocritical!

Respect policy

It is difficult to defeat the 'yob' culture quickly but I like the new approach. Not least because it combines punishment with the opportunity of assistance and also increased youth funding - an area of policy where we have lagged behind what was needed.

The parenting is crucial. Older people in my more problematic areas when I was the MP never ceased to remind me that just because you had nowhere to play didn't mean you could terrorise the area. Combining a requirement to go on parenting classes along with an ASBO to control the delinquent behaviour is a good step  and to be welcomed.

The ability to evict a seriously problematic family without them losing their long term right to housing is also important.I don't know enough about Dundee Councils approach but it sounds like a good model. The killers of Stephen Lawrence were well known in the neighbourhood for bullying and violence and yet no action was taken against them. The current proposals could provide a useful way forward.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Charles Kennedy

About three weeks ago on the News at Ten programme I forecast the early demise of Charles Kennedy as leader of the Liberal Party. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who has a serious drink problem and admitting the extent of the problem is a first step to resolving it. So full marks to him for taking that difficult first step.

On the wider political point I can't help pointing out that we should get slightly less of the holier than thou attitude of Liberals to party infighting. It happens to us all!

The real problem for the Liberals remains the strategic decision as to whether they seek to replace the Conservative Party or the Labour Party. They almost succeeded in replacing Labour in the 1983 election and they missed a golden opportunity to replace the Conservatives during Ian Duncan Smith's leadership but for some bizarre reason they sought to present themselves to the left of Labour.

Frankly I think their rapid decline is now almost a certainty regardless of who is leader.

Tony Banks

I was very sorry to hear that Tony Banks is not now expected to live. I remember him making a speech once about people with high blood pressure (something that effects most men over 50 - me included!). He was wearing a monitoring device on his arm at the time and anyone sitting near him could hear it inflating.

I did the same once but didn't tell my neighbours in the Chamber who gave me some rather odd looks! Tony knew that high blood pressure puts you at risk of strokes although medication can control it. But he lived with a determination to contribute to the democratic process and he will be missed.

Tony had a great concern for the issue of animal welfare and his commitment to the abolition of fox hunting will be a long lasting memorial.

There was a sick comment on this site before I deleted it from someone who expressed pleasure at his collapse. Which reminds me of Ingrid's wish that I should be more brutal with the delete/edit button. You may be right Ingrid but let me give it some more thought.

Monday, January 02, 2006

Christmas: Muslims,Jews and Christians

The exchange of views on my post Christmas: Muslims, Jews and Christians has produced some challenging editorial decisions.

Surely the central issue is the extent to which we allow our own prejudices about types of religion to degenerate into religious or racial stereotyping. Like most commentators on this blog I will go a long way to protect free speech but free speech can be abused in a way that threatens the freedoms of others. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is the often quoted example.

Extreme forms of religious or political ideology can lead to the persecution of (usually) a minority. It can also tip over into racism. I may be wrong but I suspect Ingrid feels angry and misunderstood when she is accused of racism but if so then Ingrid, I think you do need to check carefully some of your more general statements and take care with the quotes of others which suggest a racist view.

It is one thing to attack a particular religious belief system but it becomes something different if you then assume bad motives for all the followers of that religion as though they are a homogeneous group.

So a quote like “Dafur shows the moral corruption to the world of Islam” is like saying that Bosnia shows the moral corruption to the world of Christianity. Similarly saying Islam is a "death cult" assumes all Muslims believe in suicide bombing if that is what is meant by a death cult.

During the Second World War it was not uncommon to hear people say “The only good German is a dead one”. This reflected the anger and fear arising from the war and the fear of Nazism in particular. Fortunately most people did distinguish between Germans and Nazis (as much as anyone is able to in a war situation).

The current outbreak of suicide terrorism produces the same type of fear and anger and almost always directed against Muslims. It is in my view extremely important that we don’t get our response wrong not least because those people who would like to see a religious war need that type of prejudice to take over from rational thought.

The genesis of some of these extreme militant Muslim groups was in Bosnia where Muslims saw Christians slaughtering their coreligionists while the European countries stood by wringing their hands. Wrongly in my view but not surprisingly, they formed militant groups to fight. By the time we intervened in Kosovo it was too late. The message had gone out that the West wouldn’t intervene to save Muslims even when they were European citizens.

I really had to work hard trying to understand problems like this when I was dealing with the politics of Northern Ireland. The Unionists use to make crude jokes about Catholics and I recall a poster showing a picture in Ian Paisley’s Party offices of the Pope kissing his foot which had been superimposed under the Pope's face when he was kissing the ground.

The Unionists fear was of Catholic supremacy hence their phrase “Home rule means Rome rule”. Discrimination was rife and you only needed to know the name of a person to have a good idea of their religion and the address confirmed it because Catholics lived in Catholic areas and Protestants in Protestant areas. So you didn’t need to ask about a persons religion to guess what it was and therefore to deny them a job or to shoot them.

Both sides did it although the jobs were mainly in the Protestants hands because they controlled the bulk of the economy.

I hope this dialogue can continue because it is a very important one but watch out for stereotypes!