| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is very difficult to argue that we should maintain the coal
industry for the purpose of maintaining the coal mining technology industry which depends upon it. I think that we have to examine this issue fairly and squarely and try to sustain our coal industry. However, it will be sustained only if it can operate on an economic basis. I think that that has to be the first consideration.Badgers
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they will take to deter and prosecute those responsible for digging and baiting badgers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are committed to cracking down on wildlife crime, including badger crime, and provide strategic support for the network of police wildlife liaison officers through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that badger digging and baiting continue in contempt of the law and with delight in the most cruel practices? Would it not be appropriate for the courts to provide a deterring sanction that can and should include the confiscation of that which is used in committing the offence, particularly the terriers and the motor vehicles without which these crimes could not proceed?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the penalties available to magistrates in the courts include a maximum penalty of a fine of £5,000 and/or six months' imprisonment. Where a dog has been used in the commission of an offence, the court may make an order for the destruction or disposal of the dog and disqualify the offender from keeping a dog. The magistrates can also consider carefully whether a vehicle was used as a tool in the commission of the crime.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the actual level of fines that are levied for this crime?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am not able to give that detailed information to the noble Lord but I shall, of course, write to him. I do not know how long it will take to collate the information as I do not know whether it is collated nationally.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that much cruelty is caused to various wild species through non-management of those species? I refer, for example, to foxes with mange which stray through cities. On the "Today" programme this morning there was mention of the Scottish proposal to kill 5,000 hedgehogs when English gardeners are crying out for hedgehogs to
predate on slugs which are an enormous problem in a wet summer such as we are having. Does not the Minister think that the Government should do more in terms of having a pro-active species management plan?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as regards hedgehogs, the report on the radio this morning was not accurate as it has not yet been decided what action should be taken. Press reports which state that there will be a cull are misleading. Hedgehogs are not native to the Scottish islands. Six years of research has demonstrated that they are a threat to dunlin, redshank, snipe and lapwing. That is a matter for the devolved administration in Scotland to consider. I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will consider any proposal that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, may wish to put forward with regard to the humane expatriation of hedgehogs to those gardens whose gardeners wish to have them. The treatment of foxes with mange in cities constitutes a more complex task. The management of wildlife in cities is difficult. I was not aware that foxes in cities contracted mange. I see foxes most frequently in Leicestershire. They certainly do not look mangy.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who owns a couple of badger setts, albeit in Scotland. I refer to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the fact that the curtailment of hunting with dogs would almost certainly cause a reduction in the number of privately funded individuals managing the welfare of wildlife. The Minister mentioned strategic support for wildlife officers, but have the Government quantified the number of new rangers, or the extra funding, that may be required to have in place people with powers to act against those who infringe the law we are discussing?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Duke has wide knowledge of this field but he asks a question that is impossible to answer simply because, as he is aware, at the moment there are detailed discussions within the European Union on the future of the CAP. Were the changes for which many noble Lords have pressed to be secured by the Government, there could be—I stress the words "could be"—a switch of funds from production to environmental protection. Therefore, it is impossible to measure against a moving target, even if it were possible to quantify the impact on the environment of the banning of fox hunting.
Lord Carter: My Lords, what is the latest situation regarding the badger culling trials? They were understandably delayed last year as resources were diverted to control the foot and mouth outbreak. Does my noble friend agree that it is important that the trials are brought to a speedy conclusion to enable us to know once and for all whether there is a link between bovine TB and badgers?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to say that diverting
resources to the foot and mouth outbreak had a temporary impact on the trials. My noble friend will be pleased to learn that we expect the trials to finish only a few months later than they would otherwise have done. As my noble friend said, this is an extremely important matter. There is a strongly held rural belief that there is a link between badgers and the spread of bovine TB. However, we need clear evidence one way or the other.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend re-emphasise the final point in her initial Answer; namely, that the courts are entitled to order the confiscation of the motor car which is used to commit the offence?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I make clear that it is for the courts to reach their own judgment on cases; it is not for the Government to interfere in that. Having said that, the courts may take such matters into account in some cases. However, I stress that ultimately this must remain a matter for the courts. They must consider whether it would be appropriate in a particular instance to take such matters into account.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Sandler review of retail savings.
Business of the House: Standing Order 42
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 42 (Postponement and advancement of business) be dispensed with to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Baroness Amos on 16th July to be advanced to 10th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business of the House: Finance Bill
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Friday 12th July.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Establishment of centres]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 97:
- Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will be aware, although there has been support in principle for the idea of accommodation centres expressed by all three main parties both here and in another place, concerns have been expressed about whether in practice they would fulfil the potential that those on all sides of the Chamber would wish. Concerns have centred around the issue of whether in practice increased speed in dealing fully and fairly with applicants for asylum would be achieved through the use of accommodation centres.
The specific challenge that was raised in another place concerned whether a paperchase would continue without having case workers and adjudicators on site to consider appeals in accommodation centres and that the sort of delays that have unfortunately been experienced when backlogs of asylum claims have built up might continue.
This group of amendments relate to the issue of undertaking appeal hearings and casework on site at accommodation centres in order to create a "one-stop shop". The Home Secretary said that he was sympathetic to an amendment tabled in the other place by the right honourable Member for West Dorset, Oliver Letwin. He accepted that there should be a presumption that adjudicators should be on site in the trial accommodation centres, and that he would talk to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor about the best way to organise it with a view to bringing forward a government amendment to make clear our intentions on the face of the Bill.
We have now discussed matters with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and concluded that it would be appropriate to amend Clause 14. Clause 14 provides that the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of premises (to be called
It is for the Lord Chancellor to determine where immigration adjudicators sit to hear appeals. It would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary, as the Secretary of State with responsibility for determining asylum claims, to direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres. The amendment therefore does not seek to do that. The Lord Chancellor, by virtue of Schedule 4, already has the power to direct adjudicators to sit at times and places that are determined by him. Thus, if Members of the Committee agree to the amendment, the Lord Chancellor may direct adjudicators to sit at accommodation centres in hearing facilities that will be provided by the Home Secretary as part of the wider accommodation centre complex.
1 say "wider accommodation centre complex" because it is important that we preserve and are seen to be preserving the independence of the judiciary. It is not just a matter of providing a couple of rooms for adjudicators within the accommodation centre and asking them to get on with it. Hearing rooms need to be separate from the accommodation centre, with a separate identity. So the adjudicator needs to be next door—on hand rather than on site. The amendment deals with that by referring to hearing facilities "at or near" an accommodation centre.
The opposition amendments, which have not yet been moved, seek to require us to take decisions, hear appeals and serve decisions on site at accommodation centres. We cannot agree to that requirement but I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that in spirit and in practical application we are not so far apart.
We agree that it is desirable that as many facilities as possible should be available to asylum seekers on site at accommodation centres. We are trialling accommodation centres to see if they work and, as part of that trial, we want to test the hypothesis that co-location of the casework and appeals functions will help to minimise delay.
However, we need to bear two things in mind. First, accommodation centres are a trial and therefore we need flexibility to try out approaches. Secondly, we need to have regard for taxpayers' money.
In respect of hearing facilities, evidence from the Immigration Appellate Authority already suggests that smaller hearing centres are less efficient and therefore more expensive overall than larger ones. I have already explained that hearing facilities cannot just be a couple of hearing rooms. In addition to
The Immigration Appellate Authority is currently expanding to meet its commitment to take on 6,000 appeals per month from November this year. It is opening up new hearing facilities around the country. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that it would not be good value for money if, for example, facilities were readily accessible from an accommodation centre but we were expressly obliged by statute to build a brand new hearing centre next door to the accommodation centre. That is what Amendment No. 109 would require.
I have discussed appeals. The noble Baroness's amendment also seeks to require us to take asylum decisions on site. Again, we cannot support the literal interpretation of that because we believe that it would unnecessarily straitjacket our ability to deal with cases as efficiently as possible. Nevertheless, there is some support for her objective.
A blanket requirement for all decisions to be made on site would remove the flexibility to respond to surges in intake and staff fluctuations (for example, through illness) by reducing our ability to use the main Croydon and Liverpool caseworking groups as back-up, as well as sources of expertise for difficult cases. Members of the Committee may think that I am being unduly negative. I am not seeking to be; I merely want to make it clear that a blanket requirement is not the way in which to achieve efficiency, although I do not necessarily believe that that is what lies behind the amendment.
It may help if I explain what we actually intend to do. Our general presumption is that both caseworking and appeal hearings should take place on site at accommodation centres unless there are sound pragmatic reasons for not doing so. To that extent we have been persuaded by the Opposition's arguments, which were advanced in another place and in this place at Second Reading. We intend to co-locate hearing facilities with the trial accommodation centres in all circumstances where it makes sense to do so. As I have mentioned, exceptions might be if there were existing hearing facilities within striking distance, which it would not be sensible to replace.
By caseworking on site, again based on pragmatism, what we intend is that the initial interview should take place on site, any further representations should be received on site and all decisions, including appeal determinations, should be served on site. The full case-file would remain on site while the applicant is resident
With those undertakings, I hope that both Opposition Benches recognise that we have moved a considerable way towards meeting the arguments that were made in another place. I also hope that they will accept that the amendment is reasonable and that the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 109 and 136, which are in my name. They are grouped with government Amendment No. 97, which the Minister has just moved. They were tabled before the government amendment, which is extremely welcome. My questions will simply seek elucidation of the Minister's remarks. I welcome the amount of information that he has given and his undertakings with regard to proceedings on site. He has successfully managed to head off a number of questions with those undertakings.
As the Minister said, there is support in principle for the building of accommodation centres as a way in which to process asylum claims faster, more effectively and in a manner that is fairer to those in the centres and to those who are considering coming to this country. We support the principles that were enunciated by the Minister. He rightly referred to the concerns expressed in another place and to the fact that when my right honourable friend Mr Letwin sought to introduce a new clause on Report on 11th June to ensure that the adjudicators would make their decisions on site, the Home Secretary offered to speak to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way forward. I welcome the progress that has been made since then; it resulted in the amendment.
As the Minister said, the government amendment is different from my amendments in one clear respect. The government amendment states that adjudicators will not necessarily be on site but that they will be "near an accommodation centre". He sought to argue that the Opposition cannot have it both ways with regard to changes to the way in which accommodation centres are built and run. He suggested that if we want smaller centres that may be sited near urban areas, there has to be some flexibility with regard to the services that are provided. He also said that the Lord Chancellor already has the power to determine where adjudicators may sit and that it is up to the Lord Chancellor to determine where they should sit. I certainly accept that that is the case.
I welcome the information that was given by the Minister about the facilities that would be required properly to provide services for adjudication. He talked about the importance of the judiciary being seen to be independent as well as being independent.
I accept much of the Minister's argument that perhaps adjudicators should not always be directed to be present on site. I still have some concerns about the fact that, under the noble Lord's amendment, asylum seekers may well have to travel some distance from one accommodation centre to another in order to seek advice. Of course, if the Government persist in their current intention to build accommodation centres at rather remote places, it is possible that the level of rural bus services will simply not be sufficient to provide easy access for people to adjudication services. I think in particular of families with children and the elderly and infirm.
Therefore, although I welcome the commitment shown by the Government today, I shall have to reserve my position over the summer in order to take advice on these matters from the Immigration Advisory Service and ILPA. I want to know what implications they see for applicants as a result of the commitments which the Minister has made today and of which we did not have prior knowledge.
"( ) The Secretary of State may arrange for—
(a) the provision of facilities at or near an accommodation centre for sittings of adjudicators appointed for the purpose of Part 5 in accordance with a determination of the Lord Chancellor under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4;
(b) the provision of facilities at an accommodation centre for the taking of steps in connection with the determination of claims for asylum (within the meaning of section 16(3))."
3.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page