Lords Hansard text for 4 Jul 200604 July 2006 (pt 0828)

Prisoners: Women

3.07 pm

Baroness Stern asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Brockhill and Bullwood Hall had 282 women prisoners allocated to them on the day of the announcement. The Bullwood Hall prisoners have all been transferred to other women’s establishments. The transfers from Brockhill are still in progress. Transfer plans focused on individual assessment and on careful case management of those women identified as having complex needs and vulnerabilities. Closeness to home was a main consideration.

Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, does she accept that in spite of what she has told us, the disruption to the treatment of these 282 women is likely to be considerable? Can she confirm that, in 2004, the Home Office dismantled its separate management structure for women prisoners? Does she agree that such short-sighted policy decisions as the appropriation of these prisons for men might be prevented if there was a senior person in the Home Office with operational responsibility for women prisoners?

4 July 2006 : Column 130

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that there has been minimal disruption of treatment for each of the women. A care plan was carefully worked out with each woman prisoner before the move and an assurance made that appropriate arrangements for continuing treatment were available. In relation to the separate management, I think I have said from this Dispatch Box before that the team is specially identified as dealing with the women’s estate. I assure the House that the women’s issues in our prisons are well and fully managed.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how affected by the changes are the prisoners’ families?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is one of the issues that we considered. We looked at distance; we looked at need. The prisons to which the women have been returned are of a good order—the newer prisons have been specifically built—and those issues were very much taken on board.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I declare an interest, having carried out an inspection of the treatment of women in prison some years ago for several of the prison NGOs. Is the Minister aware that in 2004 the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told the House that the case for a women’s justice board to deal with women offenders was very strong? Does she accept that the time has come to establish such a board to prevent women's special needs being subsumed by the overwhelming demands of the men’s prisons?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that a women’s justice board is necessary at this time, but that is predicated on the changes that we have already made to the management of women in our prisons. Noble Lords will be aware from the debate that we had last week that we have specific programmes now in relation to the rehabilitation and settlement of women, and those issues are being energetically pursued. However, the issue is not closed.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report from the independent monitoring board of 2005 on Brockhill prison, which noted that the staff there had built up many years of expertise in reducing self-harm? Would she now expect the level of self-harm to rise as a result of the dispersal of the women prisoners from Brockhill?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope not, because the new regime that we have put in place appears successfully to have reduced the level of self-harm. All the prisons to which the women have been transferred have had those issues highlighted. It is a matter of acute concern which we have monitored with the greatest of care.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, Bullwood Hall is in my diocese, so I should be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on the

4 July 2006 : Column 131

effects of these hasty decisions on a wider community of people. She may know that, for example, a new woman chaplain was appointed with a view to serving the prison as it was and that dozens of people have been preparing themselves as volunteers to work in the visit centre. What does the local community need now to prepare itself to accept and seek to support? Would she accept that the decisions, made in such haste, can undermine the confidence of the local community in its local prison?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I can understand what the right reverend Prelate says, but we hope very much that the community will not be undermined. I regret to say that there is a great deal of work to be done with offenders in the community and in our prisons. I hope that good work could be done with those willing volunteers, better to support offenders when they come out into the community and better to support the men who will be going to Bullwood Hall and their families.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, one problem frequently raised in poor prisons is the standard of training of staff. What has happened to the staff who have been trained to work with women at Bullwood Hall and Brockhill, particularly the staff who looked after the young offenders at Bullwood Hall, whose activities were so praised by the chief inspector in the most recent report?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that there is a clustering process for these prisons, so that a number of officers who were in one prison will be transferred to another. I reassure noble Lords that the use and skill of those trained staff will not go to waste.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Minister has assured us of the steps that she will take to keep the families as close as possible to the prisoners. Can she assure us that the practice of churning, which is so unsettling, particularly to women prisoners, will be abandoned as soon as possible?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is always important to keep the level of churn to a minimum. Your Lordships will know that one of the prisons was used as a remand prison in the main, so people would be moved anyway. Some of the prisoners who were moved are longer-term prisoners who will now be settled in a way that is appropriate. I reassure the House that I ensured that each individual woman was spoken to and that her particular interests and needs and those of her family were considered before any move. I am assured that each and every person got the prison of their first choice, although of course there is a limit to how many one can choose from.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how delightful it is to hear about such meticulous trouble being taken with regard both to distance and

4 July 2006 : Column 132

to families? Will she confirm that none of the women with children under 16 is to be held more than100 miles from home?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that that is so. The information that I have been given—I will confirm it—is that, although the distance may have increased, the speed with which one can travel to the new prison is greater. I am told that for many of the families the travelling has become easier because of the proximity to arterial roads and matters of that sort. I will write to my noble friend if what I have said is in any way inaccurate.

Gold Reserve

3.15 pm

Lord Swinfen asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, 395 tonnes of gold were sold from the reserves between July 1999 and March 2002. The total proceeds were around$3.5 billion, equivalent to around £2.3 billion, using exchange rates at the time of the sales. On 3 July, the current market value of the gold sold was around$7.9 billion, equivalent to around £4.3 billion. The programme was part of a restructuring of the foreign currency and gold reserves aimed at achieving a better balanced portfolio. As a result of the programme, a one-off reduction in risk of approximately 30 per cent was achieved as measured by value at risk.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. What securities were acquired with the proceeds of the gold sales, and what is their current market value in the same denominations as he gave in the original Answer?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the proceeds from the sales were invested in interest-bearing foreign currency assets in proportion to the then held reserves: 40 per cent dollars, 40 per cent euros and20 per cent yen. The current aggregate position of the reserves is included in the exchange equalisation accounts, which are published annually, and there is a monetary report on the reserves. It is not possible at this stage to unpick the particular transactions from that time, but the accounts show the aggregate position and do so on an annual basis.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the case for a more balanced foreign reserve portfolio is well made, regardless of the present price of gold? The plain fact is that an unremunerated, risky and volatile asset like gold is better reduced in the foreign reserve portfolio. Indeed, there is a case for reducing it even further. Does my noble friend accept that we made an agreement in the European Union—with 14 member states as well as

4 July 2006 : Column 133

the European Central Bank—that there would be a sale of no more than 2,500 tonnes over five years? What proportion of that total would be available for us to sell over the next five years?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I agree with the first part of what my noble friend said. This was about change and getting a more balanced portfolio. We achieved that 30 per cent reduction in risk as a result. It is wrong to evaluate the success of the programme in terms of the short-term movements in gold prices. The Government have no plans for further disposals of gold. We think that the arrangement in the portfolio is now about right.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, at a time of floating exchange rates, what is the purpose of the gold reserve at all?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting observation. The importance of gold generally in the reserves of this and other countries has lessened. So far as the UK is concerned, because we have a strong monetary and fiscal framework, we allow the market to determine what exchange rates are going to arise.

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that at the time the Treasury said that the decision on gold sales did not involve taking a view on gold prices. It was vastly mistaken to sell off gold when the price was at a 20-year low. Does he accept that, had the Treasury held on to it until the market rose, it might now have been able to sell it to realise an additional£2 billion?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I believe that is the wrong analysis to make, as I have said earlier. Gold is extremely volatile in its price. It was about $100 above its current price a month ago, and$45 below its current price when the first draft Answer was produced for me to give to the noble Lord. That underlines the volatility of gold prices.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would the Minister admit that with hindsight the timing of the sale of gold seems a little eccentric?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: No, my Lords, I would not. Again, you have to evaluate this in the long term. If the noble Lord is inviting me to say something about this Government’s stewardship of reserves in comparison to their predecessors, I am happy to do that. We do not need to go back very far. On16 September 1992, we sold £28 billion of reserves on a single day and £40 billion of reserves were sold in August and September of that year. Information released fairly recently under the Freedom of Information Act shows that the cost of that mismanagement of the economy was £3.3 billion.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, would it not be a good idea to increase the holdings of euros, anticipating future entry?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I think it was suggested at the time that this process was part of softening the approach to entry into the euro, and the

4 July 2006 : Column 134

Government’s position remains unchanged on that. If it were to be the case, and we were looking to enter, the last thing that we would want to do with our foreign currency reserves would be to get euros. That would be our functional currency.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Government claim to have removed about 30 per cent of risk from their reserves portfolio, but the other side of reducing risk is reducing returns. Do they think that giving up more than £4 billion of gain in the value of their gold reserves represents a good risk/reward calculation?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, you have to make that evaluation in the long term. The process of dealing with risk does not always mean that you have a less risky portfolio with smaller returns. Part of the process of evaluation is to get the best of both worlds.

Extradition: UK and USA

3.22 pm

Lord Anderson of Swansea asked Her Majesty’s Government:

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we are unaware of representations about modifications to the treaty with the United States. There have been representations to amend the law that deals with extradition requests from the United States, and many of these have called for the United States to provide prima facie evidence with their extradition requests, as they used to do. However, we think that this is misconceived. The respective evidential requirements, having previously been unbalanced—placing a greater burden on the US than on the United Kingdom—have now been broadly evened up.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, does it not shriek with injustice and is it not grossly unfair that British citizens can be extradited to the US by the expedited process under the treaty, when the UK Government will have to provide prima facie evidence to the US? That is not, as my noble friend suggests, a rebalancing. Should we not have ensured at the time of negotiation that there was reciprocity in the coming into operation of the obligations? Would it not make sense and be just for us to give adequate notice to our US partners under the treaty that we intend to suspend its operation until such time as the US Senate ratifies it and puts the same obligations on their citizens as we have imposed on ours?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I have now said on a number of occasions, I understand the concern expressed by my noble friend, but the point is in fact flawed. The new arrangements enable us to have a comparable system to that in the United States. This is a rebalancing that makes the system fairer, as opposed to the unbalanced situation before, in which they had to provide prima facie evidence to us and we did not have to provide prima facie evidence to them.

4 July 2006 : Column 135

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, where does the Minister get the extraordinary idea that the test of “probable cause” that the Americans apply is much less demanding than the test of showing that there is a case to answer, which we applied until 2003, when the Government made the new order? Is it not clear that, in the present extradition arrangements, there is a substantial unbalance that needs to be remedied? Will the Government now get around to revoking their 2003 order and the 2003 treaty itself?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, no. The noble Lord and I enjoyed ourselves enormously during the 2003 debates on that Bill, as did a number of noble Lords. We went through the matter again and again. Nothing appears to have changed since we enjoyed those lengthy debates.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, is not the present unbalance a consequence of the failure of the Government to foresee, as they should have done, the possibility that the United States Senate would not ratify the treaty?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the issues were foreseen. There are difficulties, which we explored when we debated the issues on other occasions. The Senate has its processes that have to be gone through, and we have, of course, strenuously encouraged our American partners to deal with the matter as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. We continue to press that case in a very direct way.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, on the last occasion when this question was raised, were we not told that it made no difference in practice that the treaty had not yet been ratified by Congress and that extradition continues to take place and will continue to take place both ways, as one would expect?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, extradition continues both ways. The noble and learned Lord is right. Whether under the old or the new treaty, proper cases are still going forward.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, many people are puzzled as to why it is proper to extradite British citizens to the United States for offences committed in this country. Could my noble friend explain the rationale for that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the issue is whether there is an offence in another country that falls within our current extradition rules. If there is such an offence, the treaty would bite and, applying those provisions, the extradition would take place. We have benefited greatly from those provisions, as do our partners. The United States are in the same position as every other country in the schedule of which they are part.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not see the unfairness? Three bankers were extradited for something that the Americans accused them of doing in this country, which our Crown Prosecution Service took no notice of and said that no offence had been committed. The noble Baroness simply looks away and cannot understand the unfairness of

4 July 2006 : Column 136

it. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is driving at and that is what irritates so many of us on this side of the House.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Earl has been in the House longer than I have. Therefore, I am confident that he understands the rules of sub judice, just as every other person in the House does.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the opposition in Congress to ratification was based very much on American domestic politics and, in particular, the views of the Irish-American lobby, which resists anything that could extend British jurisdiction over cases in that country? Are the Government making representations to say that it is not an issue of British/Irish-American relations but a much broader set of judicial issues?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord touches on issues that are, of course, sensitive to the United States. We have made it absolutely clear that the issue should be dealt with expeditiously. When I saw the Deputy Attorney General very recently, I impressed on him that very point. Those matters are being pressed with our American partners at every possible opportunity.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Minister says that the case was sub judice. Has she taken any advice from the House authorities to prove that that is so?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, those cases are currently being debated judicially. I have not taken advice, but we know well that we are not entitled to speak about cases that are currently being dealt with by the courts.

Lord Elder: My Lords, does the Minister accept, notwithstanding the extreme robustness of her response, that there is huge disquiet on all sides of the House about the situation? As there is before the House a Bill that would seek to redress what many of us see as an issue that needs to be resolved, does she also accept, again notwithstanding the robustness of her response, that that opportunity should and, I suspect, will be taken by this House, to ask the Commons to think again about the matter and to seek to change the view of the Executive?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiment that is being expressed. The law is as it currently is; obviously, it is up to this House to debate the issue, as I dare say it will when the matter comes before it later.

Criminal Defence Service Orders and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2006

Criminal Defence Service (Financial Eligibility) Regulations 2006

4 July 2006 : Column 137

Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders: Appeals etc.) Regulations 2006

Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2006

Regulatory Reform (Registered Designs) Order 2006

Adoption and Children Act 2002 (Consequential Amendment to Statutory Adoption Pay) Order 2006

Maternity and Parental Leave etc. and the Paternity and Adoption Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2006

Television Licensable Content Services Order 2006

Radio Multiplex Services (Required Percentage of Digital Capacity) Order 2006

3.31 pm

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the nine Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft regulations and orders be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker on the Order Paper.

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

Clauses 1 to 14

Schedule 1Clauses 15 to 17Schedule 2Clauses 18 to 26Schedule 3Clauses 27 to 30Schedules 4 and 5Clauses 31 to 33.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

4 July 2006 : Column 138

Next Section

Back to Table of Contents

Lords Hansard Home Page