Lords Hansard text for 24 Oct 200624 Oct 2006 (pt 0001)

24 Oct 2006 : Column WA223

Written Answers

Tuesday 24 October 2006

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal

The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:

How many non-legal members of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal have sat on (a) second-stage reconsiderations; (b) conducive deportations; (c) country guidance; and (d) unaccompanied minors’ hearings since April 2005.[HL7648]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) does not collate information on the volume of sittings by non-legal members according to specific types of appeal.

Deployment of non-legal members is a matter for the president of the tribunal. He has decided that, where possible, non-legal members can be deployed on (a) asylum appeals where further evidence is required at second-stage reconsideration, (b) appeals against notice of intention to deport on the grounds that deportation is conducive to the public good, (c) appeals designated as country guidance cases and (d) appeals brought by unaccompanied minors.

The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is the current backlog of first-stage reconsideration cases lodged with the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. [HL7650]

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Of the 72,000 cases currently before the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT), approximately 4,000 appeals which were granted an order for reconsideration under Section 103A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 are awaiting the allocation of a hearing date before senior immigration judges.

British Citizenship

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will place in the Library of the House the note verbale to the Government of Nepal (ref: ADM/195/2006) of 29 June, together with any other information that is held pertaining to it; and whether they have explained to the Government of Nepal that (a) the United Kingdom is seeking clarifications with respect to Nepalese law as in force on 4 February 1997; (b) British national (overseas) status could not be acquired through jus soli; (c) both adults and minors were required to make a written application to register as a British national (overseas); (d) to make acquisition of British national (overseas) status involuntary or automatic would have been contrary to the assurances given to the Government of the People's Republic of China which led to the words “eligible to” being used in paragraph (a) of the United Kingdom memorandum to the Sino-British joint declaration dated 19 December 1984; and (e) those British nationals (overseas) who are not considered citizens of Nepal on 4 February 1997 could become eligible to register as British citizens.[HL7721]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): The note verbale ref. ADM/195/2006 of 29 June was placed in the Library on 6 October. A digest of information pertaining to this will also be placed in the Library. In the interests of making progress, nationality experts from the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are seeking an early meeting with their Nepalese counterparts in Kathmandu to obtain clarification on a variety of issues surrounding the application of Nepalese nationality law on 4 February 1997.

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

In which countries their contingency plans for emergency evacuation of British nationals exclude British overseas citizens, British subjects and British protected persons; and in which countries their evacuation plans envisage that those categories of British nationals will be treated differently from British citizens.[HL7722]

Lord Triesman: In the event of a crisis in a foreign country that puts British nationals in life-threatening danger, the Government would not distinguish between categories of British passport holder. If an official evacuation were organised, all categories would be eligible. Contingency planning at missions overseas takes account of this policy. Contingency planning also takes account of unrepresented EU nationals and unrepresented Commonwealth nationals in the third country, for whom we may have consular responsibility in the event of an evacuation.

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

What details have been given to the Government of the People's Republic of China on which former Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizens have successfully registered for British nationality under (a) the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986; (b) the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990; (c) the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996; and (d) the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997; and why it was necessary to divulge those details.[HL7723]

Lord Triesman: No details have been given to the Government of the People's Republic of China on which former Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizens have successfully registered for British nationality under the categories specified by the noble Lord. Public access, including foreign government access, to these records is subject to the restrictions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Child Support Agency

Lord Skelmersdale asked Her Majesty's Government:

What progress is being made by Sir David Henshaw in his review of the Child Support Agency.[HL7585]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): In July 2006, and in response to Sir David Henshaw's report, we set out the broad direction of redesign of the child support system. We are undertaking an intensive programme of work to determine the way forward. We have asked Sir David Henshaw to give continuing advice on the more detailed assessment of the transition to the new system and the creation of the new organisation. We will publish a White Paper with detailed proposals later this autumn.

Civil Service: Face Covering

Lord Greaves asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether guidance has been issued to civil servants and other officials carrying out government business on the permissibility of asking members of the public to remove items of clothing, helmets or other items which cover their faces; and, if so, in what circumstances such officials may make such requests.[HL7608]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The issuing of guidance to civil servants on the permissibility of asking members of the public to remove items of clothing is a matter for individual departments. No central guidance has been issued by the Cabinet Office.

Commonwealth: Secretariat

Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will place in the Library of the House a copy of the report by the panel under the chairmanship of Mrs Glenda Phillips, High Commissioner of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, on conditions of work in the Commonwealth secretariat; and what is their response to the recommendations made by the panel.[HL7683]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): The report was commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretary-General. Whether it is released publicly is a matter for him. We understand that the panel's recommendations, which are an internal matter for the Commonwealth secretariat, are being implemented.

Government Departments: Financial Reporting

Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Scotland Office has any arrangements to enable staff of that department to raise, in confidence, concerns about matters of financial reporting, disclosure of other information or value for money; and, if so, whether they will give details of the arrangements.[HL7666]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Staff in the Scotland Office are on secondment from the Scottish Executive or the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). If an officer feels unable to raise his or her concerns with their line management, these can be raised directly with the head of the Scotland Office. If this is considered inappropriate in the circumstances, concerns may be raised directly with the office's internal auditors, who are not part of the Scotland Office, or the designated nominated officers in their parent departments.

Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Wales Office has any arrangements to enable staff of that department to raise, in confidence, concerns about matters of financial reporting, disclosure of other information or value for money; and, if so, whether they will give details of the arrangements.[HL7669]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Wales Office has adopted the whistle-blowing policy of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Under the policy, staff may turn to any of the three nominated officers to discuss concerns and speak confidentially. The director of the Wales Office is one of the nominated officers under the policy. In addition, if their concern relates to the director, staff have the alternative option to contact the chair of the Wales Office Audit Committee.

Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Department for Work and Pensions has any arrangements to enable staff of that department to raise, in confidence, concerns about matters of financial reporting, disclosure of other information or value for money; and, if so, whether they will give details of the arrangements.[HL7670]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The department has in place well established arrangements which encourage and enable staff to raise concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace. Concerns might cover such issues as fraud, breaches of legal obligations, miscarriages of justice, dangers to health and safety, damage to the environment or indeed concealing matters relating to any of the above. These arrangements meet the department's obligations under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, but also enable staff to raise more general concerns including value for money and financial reporting issues.

Internal procedures give staff the choice of raising concerns with their local manager, specialist investigation managers within the department’s corporate risk assurance division, via a confidential “whistleblowers’ hotline” or to a nominated senior manager. All concerns raised are treated in confidence, taken seriously and investigated formally where this is considered appropriate.

These arrangements are publicised on the department's intranet and were included in a leaflet issued to all staff in May 2006.

Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether HM Revenue and Customs has any arrangements to enable staff of that department to raise, in confidence, concerns about matters of financial reporting, disclosure of other information or value for money; and, if so, whether they will give details of the arrangements.[HL7691]

Lord McKenzie of Luton: HMRC has arrangements for reporting concerns about malpractice and wrongdoing (whistle-blowing), under the Civil Service Code (CSC) and the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and serious concerns about wrongdoing or malpractice at work that are not specifically covered by the CSC. A copy of the department's guidance has been placed in the Library.

India: Caste-based Discrimination

The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:

What guidelines they give to Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff and human resources managers in India on caste-based discrimination; and how they ensure that there is no discrimination against dalits in their employment policy.[HL7754]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): In line with Foreign and Commonwealth Office global policy, all our recruitment and employment practices at our posts in India are competency-based and focused on valuing diversity. Discrimination in any form is unacceptable.

The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether caste-based discrimination was discussed at the latest annual European Union-India summit; and whether they will raise it during the consultations on human rights between the European Union troika and India.[HL7755]

Lord Triesman: At the recent EU-India summit, caste-based discrimination was not specifically discussed. The Presidency stressed to India that human rights are a fundamental part of all the EU's strategic partnerships. India expressed an openness to work with the EU on the Human Rights Council and reaffirmed its commitment to upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms and to continue, in a spirit of equality and mutual respect, multilateral and bilateral dialogue on human rights.

Caste-based discrimination was raised at the1 December 2005 EU heads of mission troika meeting with India, during the UK's Presidency of the EU. The UK is actively consulting EU colleagues in New Delhi in the lead-up to the dialogue on human rights between the EU troika and India, which we hope will take place later this year.