24 Oct 2006 : Column 1077
House of Lords
Tuesday, 24 October 2006.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Immigration: Yarl’s Wood Removal Centre
Lord Judd asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons on action to be taken at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, especially those relating to children.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons published the report of her inspection of the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre on26 July. In line with the protocol agreed between the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the chief inspector, an action plan has been drawn up to respond to the report’s 79 recommendations, of which 58 have been accepted, 15 accepted in principle or in part and six rejected.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us are greatly cheered by the Government’s decision to keep the inspectorate independent, after the case so well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others? Does she not agree that the seriousness of the situation at Yarl’s Wood is underlined by the fact that when the chief inspector made a visit early last year she made 42 specific recommendations on what should be done? When the inspector returned early this year, virtually nothing had been done on the 42 recommendations.
As I am sure my noble friend will agree, the inspector was particularly concerned with the plight of children—the number of children and the length of time they were there. She found it difficult to reconcile with our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child as ratified by the United Kingdom in 1991. Are children in Yarl’s Wood regarded as children or not? If they are, why are the obligations under the convention not applied in spirit as well as letter at this institution? Does she not agree that it would be a good idea if periodically, perhaps every quarter, she was to publish a specific progress report on each of the 42 recommendations?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. However, I remind him that we always intended the inspectorate to remain independent, though perhaps in a slightly different form.
On the inspector’s recommendations, I do not think that my noble friend is right to say that nothing has been done. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1078
Lord Avebury: My Lords, there were in fact two visits by the chief inspector to Yarl’s Wood in February, the second being concerned with healthcare. The report on that has only just been published and will therefore not result in an action plan for another three months. Should there not be a statutory obligation on the Government to publish the reports of the chief inspector within a reasonable timescale and to place copies of the action plans resulting from them in the Library of the House, where they are accessible to Members?
Does the Minister acknowledge that the healthcare report contained 48 recommendations additional to those referred to in the Question? Has any progress been made on implementing those? Has the Minister given attention to the complaints that I have made about the separation of breastfeeding mothers from their infants?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is in active correspondence with my honourable friend Liam Byrne, the Minister of State responsible for the IND estate. I understand that he is in the process of inquiring into those matters and responding to the noble Lord. I assure the noble Lord that the additional recommendations will form part of an action plan that will be pursued vigorously. I shall think carefully about what the noble Lord said about publishing reports.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, sadly, my experience of action plans is that often much is stated on paper but not all of it is carried out. I am worried about the children in Yarl’s Wood, but there are also children in other detention centres. Is anyone in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate responsible for overseeing the treatment of children wherever they are held in the system and therefore for overseeing the action plans and the spreading of similar good practice throughout all the places in which children are held?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this is very much part of IND’s work. Indeed, the recommendations for children have had a beneficial effect. For example, the system for IND to provide a centre with secure and risk information on detainees arriving from prison is now in place. The examination of processes for handling torture reports from centre doctors is under way. Detainees now have access to mobile phones. There are now activities and classes specifically for women. Youth leaders have been employed to organise children’s activities and revise the programme. Children’s PE and games have been introduced. A comprehensive range of educational books and materials is supplied. Many things have been pursued directly as a result of recommendations. Those recommendations have been beneficial and have helped this agenda very much.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1079
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having heard the question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the Minister’s reply, I was left unclear on whether the Government intended to implement their legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Will the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that it is the Government’s intention to do so?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord will be aware that we currently have a reservation against the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That issue has not yet been resolved, but the House will appreciate that this Government have an exemplary record on taking children’s interests properly into account and seeking to protect them.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what progress is being made on the review of the care of children in the system by Jeremy Oppenheim, the director of the National Asylum Support Service and a children’s champion in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, particularly as it looks at extended lengths of stay for a small number of families, case management and the involvement of social work at institutions such as Yarl’s Wood? Has the prison gate in the reception area of the converted category C prison, which is Yarl’s Wood, yet been addressed? That causes particular concern.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, a lot of work has been undertaken in this area. I cannot give the noble Earl a specific answer on the stage that the work is now at. I am not aware of whether we have received further reports on it recently, although we are anticipating them. I shall be happy to write to the noble Earl on that matter and on the prison gate issue.
Transport: Buses
2.43 pm
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the number of journeys by bus has been falling since the 1950s. This is due primarily to the continuing increase in car ownership and usage. Although in recent years London has seen an increase in bus use, the trend has not been reflected in most areas outside the capital. The Government are currently carrying out a review of bus issues to see where changes can be made that could increase bus patronage.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the problem outside London is that local authorities contribute sometimes quite large sums of money to subsidise bus services but have no control over service provision or charges? I welcome the latest review on buses. The Secretary of State for Transport recently
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1080
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend takes a keen interest in these issues. I assure him that formal franchise will be looked at seriously. He will recognise that local authorities have access at present to quality contracts, although on the whole they have not taken those up, because they have regarded the legislative constraints as being too onerous. We are looking at that matter.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, can the Minister give us any further details of the review that he has mentioned, including a timetable? Will he assure us that, as part of any consultation that may arise, the views of bus owners and operators will be seriously considered?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we certainly intend to include all stakeholders in the discussions that we are holding, which are ongoing. As far as the timescale is concerned, it is not exactly a formal review, but there is an indication from the Minister that we intend to complete our work in this area before Christmas.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords would agree that competition does not actually work in many areas of the country, and they would further agree that some of the big groups,by abusing their dominant position, are frightening off small competitors by targeting fare cuts andbetter services whenever a competitor arises and subsequently withdrawing them. Will the noble Lord please ensure that, in reviewing the bus industry, the Minister addresses the competition issues, so that the intentions of the 1985 Act, that there should be competition, are actually realised?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, competition issues are important, and we are aware that certain practices may militate against fresh competitive opportunities for smaller companies. Equally clearly, some large companies provide a very good service. We are looking at this closely, and I assure the noble Lord and the House that all the points will be taken seriously into account.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate how important the bus service is in rural areas for young people who need to be able to get to employment and for elderly people who need to be able to get to post offices—if village post offices are going to be closed—and to the shops at convenient times and at sensible rates? In my village, at one stage, we had one bus on the third Thursday of
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1081
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, certainly the bus plays a crucial part in the rural economy, and it will be recognised that we have taken measures that will increase the demand for buses. The concessionary fares scheme, which will be universal in 2008, should result in an increase in patronage, and we are helping young people still in education who use buses. My noble friend is absolutely right that the bus is a crucial form of communication and transport for those who have the fewest resources.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will the review that my noble friend has referred to on more than one occasion this afternoon include a good look at the use of postbuses? Will the Government designate postbuses in the same way as they have designated the rest of the British Post Office—as dispensable? Will he reassure me that the Post Office will be a stakeholder? It could certainly provide a service more than once a week on a Monday morning.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend introduces an important point. I should emphasise that some solutions to our rural problems may lie in ensuring that those who provide one service are able to extend their activities to provide other services. The postbus is an important concept in that respect and will be taken into account.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would not a simple way of getting people into buses on motorways be to extend the park-and-ride principle to a 50-mile circle round London and all other major cities? Large car parks there would make life much easier for commuters, who could get into a coach and do their work on it, instead of sitting behind a wheel.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting concept, although the noble Lord will recognise that identifying destinations in London for bus routes from 50 miles outside would present significant problems. The noble Lord is right in that this is what is happening in places such as Cambridge, where car use is restricted in the city centre and buses have access, and it is expected that the park-and-ride scheme will be widely utilised. The more that such schemes are developed, the more that both transport and the environment in which people live and work in cities will be improved.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, the Minister hinted at the concessionary fares scheme that will come to England in 2008. Does he agree that one of the major achievements of the Liberal Democrat/Labour partnership Government in Wales has been free travel for pensioners and others throughout the Principality, which has saved bus routes and has been a boon to the elderly?
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1082
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course I am always prepared to learn from the Principality on the advantages derived from the Labour/Liberal partnership, but the noble Lord will recognise that England’s extensive geography has always presented a much greater challenge in terms of concessionary fare schemes. However, this Government have now acted for England as well.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
2.51 pm
Lord Teverson asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What action they are taking to contain the extra-territorial aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on corporate accounting and its effect on United Kingdom businesses.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, UK companies are within the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act if they choose to list on the main US markets or are a subsidiary of a company so listed. I am aware that business has concerns about the prescriptiveness of some of these provisions, and I welcome the US authorities’ review of their application. In the UK, we consider that our more principles-based approach strikes an appropriate balance between regulatory costs and benefits.
Lord Teverson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has certainly been a great promotional measure for the London Stock Exchange and the Alternative Investment Market. However, does the Minister agree that there is an increasing danger of regulatory creep from American regulators that threatens our own light-touch approach to financial regulation and some duplication of company reporting as well? For instance, companies with over 300 shareholders resident in the United States can be called to account by the Securities and Exchange Commission; it is not unlikely that the London Stock Exchange will become a subsidiary of NASDAQ next year, bringing US regulation to the heart of the City; and there have already been a number of visits to British companies by the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. How do we protect the light touch which the Minister himself says that we have?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is absolutely right that we are mindful of the risks of regulatory creep, which is why the Government have announced that they intend to introduce a Bill in the next parliamentary Session to enhance the FSA’s powers. The proposed changes will allow the FSA to stop recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses from making changes in their regulatory provisions when those changes are likely to be disproportionate to the end that the FSA seeks or would not pursue a reasonable regulatory objective.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an equally serious threat comes from the European Union’s ambitions to have European regulation of financial markets? Will he assure the House that the British Government will resolutely resist that?
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1083
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, a range of issues arise under that, particularly concerning the eighth directive, which relates to auditing. Most of that directive is already included in UK provisions, and consultation on the residual issues should start next year. There are other issues to which accounting standards apply, and there is discussion with the US and UK authorities about convergence on those as well. There is a range of issues to consider.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not rushing into heavy and detailed regulation to counteract fraud, as the US Congress did. At the same time, does my noble friend agree that companies must demonstrate a culture of trust, openness and common purpose if the looser regulation is to be retained?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, my Lords, I agree. As my noble friend will know, UK corporate governance has undergone a substantial number of changes since the mid-1990s. The UK approach places more emphasis on the application of principles rather than rules to provide flexible but robust standards. The combined code is the result of that process. However, we need to be mindful that, whether it is Sarbanes-Oxley or the UK approach through the combined code, this is about getting good corporate governance. Along the way on issues of fraud, we must get out of the habit of thinking, as I believe some have done, that there are no victims of white-collar fraud. It was the major corporate scandals in the US, in particular, that drove Sarbanes-Oxley.
Lord Tugendhat: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while the Government certainly deserve to be commended for their actions on the extraterritoriality of Sarbanes-Oxley, the really big thing that they ought to do is safeguard the position of British citizens from the unequal treatment of the extradition laws as between the United Kingdom and the United States? This is now not only a real threat to the liberties of British subjects but is causing increasing concern.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, noble Lords would not expect me to comment on individual cases that have been the subject of some discussion in the House in recent times. The noble Lord will be aware that an extradition request is considered by the courts under the Extradition Act 2003, which contains full safeguards for defendants, and that, as defined by the Extradition Act, for the US to make an extradition request to the UK for an offence in which no conduct took place in the US, it will also have to be an extraterritorial offence under UK law. I understand that the US is moving towards ratification of that treaty.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |