12 Nov 2009 : Column 893
House of Lords
Thursday, 12 November 2009.
11 am
Prayers-read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
Immigration: Yarl's Wood
Question
11.06 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many children and young persons are currently detained under immigration powers at Yarl's Wood.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): My Lords, national statistics on persons, including children, held in detention are published quarterly. The latest published information can be found on the Home Office website. At 31 October 2009, 27 persons under 18 years of age were detained at Yarl's Wood. This information is taken from data used for management information only. It is provisional and not subject to the detailed checks that apply for national statistics publications.
Lord Dubs: Does my noble friend agree-I know that he is a very caring person-that it is surely wrong in principle that children should be detained in prison-like conditions? Does he further agree that this practice has been condemned by a range of charities, the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Children's Commissioner and is a breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? I ask my noble friend in all sincerity to have his department look again at the pilot project that was tried out in Kent a couple of years ago, which his department says failed, but which was never given a chance to succeed, whereby children and families were given accommodation but were not detained.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I quite understand where my noble friend's Question is coming from, and it reflects the feeling of the House. No one wants to detain children. We do this only if their families have refused to leave the UK voluntarily, despite lots of financial and other support being offered them, and we have to enforce that removal. It is absolutely right that we should protect our borders from false asylum claimants. We detain children with their families because we think it would be worse if we split them from their families. That is why they are kept together. We do this sensitively, our staff are trained and we have to identify children's needs. We want every child to be as safe and secure as possible. The Kent establishment did not really work. We have now opened a pilot in Glasgow. That is going extremely well but we shall have to see how it settles down. It began in June this year and will run for three years. It is a long-term project, in which 17 families are involved so far. I hope that it is a success, because clearly we would much rather do that than have them in a detention centre.
12 Nov 2009 : Column 894
Baroness Neville-Jones: My Lords, I am sure many Members of the House agree with the sentiments that lie behind the noble Lord's Question. However, for as long as children are detained in places such as Yarl's Wood, how will the new duty that has been laid on the Minister to take special care over the conditions of children be discharged, since clearly the conditions which prevail which led to these reports are very unsatisfactory indeed? How will conditions change?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, we say conditions are very poor but a number of inspections have been carried out at Yarl's Wood and we have had some very good reports fairly recently. In giving evidence, Sir Al Aynsley-Green said that he had to give credit to that establishment for the improvements that have occurred over four years since the first time he went there. He said that the staff were trying to do well, and he celebrated that, but thought that there might still be some way to go. The IMB report acknowledges the dedication, kindness and patience of the staff involved. We have subjected ourselves to all the guidance about looking after and taking care of children. We are in contact and debating with the Department for Children, Schools and Families. We have debates with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Children, Young People and Families. The statutory guidance is supported by a programme of reform, so we are very much taking these things seriously and it is being implemented in conjunction with all the various people involved with children's welfare.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Government and the Conservatives talk of just changing the conditions in which children are kept. Is it not a question of working out a way in which children are not detained at all? Can the Minister confirm that out of those children who are let out of detention with their families, less than half have been removed anyway, and they should not have been detained in the first place?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the children are normally taken into Yarl's Wood when their family is coming towards the end of the period before they leave the country, because they are false asylum claimants. We have an absolute obligation to this country to maintain a safe and secure border. What happens then is that things are delayed. Why are they delayed? Obviously, for each individual this is a personal tragedy. They want to be in this country; of course they do. I like being in this country. I would rather be here than anywhere else in the world. Lots of people around the world would rather be here, but that does not mean that they all have a right to be here. What they do is obfuscate, make it very difficult to pin down exactly where they have come from and they spin it out. That is why it goes on. I cannot blame them for trying to do that, but we have to bowl it out and take action. This is what happens if we wish to keep the family together, children and adults. I am afraid that that is why we have arrived where we are. We take huge care in trying to look after them.
Lord Hylton: Has the Minister studied the recent report from the Zimbabwe Association which highlights the bad effects of detention on adults? Surely, if that is
12 Nov 2009 : Column 895
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I have not read the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refers. I know that he has a particular interest in this area, and we had an interesting debate earlier this week. I will certainly look at that report, but I cannot make any promises in that area. I go back to the fact that if these people took the voluntary opportunity we give them, with financial support and other things, the problem would solve itself, in a sense.
Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, given the fact that the children did not choose to be here and there is almost no risk of them absconding, why can they not be educated within the confines and provisions of the local education authorities?
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, I do not have the exact answer to that at my fingertips. Perhaps I may look at it and get back to the noble Lord in writing. I cannot see why that would not be possible while the children are staying with their parents. However, we want to keep them with their parents-not have them living separately and going to school while their parents are in detention.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister not entirely right to imply that these people are not detained against their will? They are perfectly free to leave Yarl's Wood at any time with their children, but they are not allowed to enter this country. Detention is not the right word. They are voluntarily there and they have an alternative.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. If they accepted the opportunity for voluntary return, they would not be there. Clearly they are trying to break the rules, they are desperate to stay, and that is why we have to hold onto them so that they do not abscond and they are not a problem.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My Lords, we have used our time on the first Question-seven and a half minutes.
Prisoners: Voting
Question
11.14 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they will announce the results of the second consultation on prisoners' voting rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, the second consultation on the voting rights of convicted prisoners closed on
12 Nov 2009 : Column 896
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that non-answer. When the first consultation was announced in 2006, we were told that it would be completed and that legislation would be published early in 2008. In fact, it was not until April 2009, almost two and a quarter years later-at the end of the first consultation-that the second consultation was announced, with no legislation. The consultation took six months as opposed to three, which is normal. Will the Government explain these inordinate delays in responding to a ruling of the European Court?
Lord Bach: My Lords, our record on responding to the European Court is good, as has been acknowledged generally. This is a particularly difficult and complex issue, involving both what we should do and how we would do it when we allow some prisoners to vote. We have completed a second consultation on the enfranchisement of prisoners. It set out a range of options for prisoner enfranchisement based on sentence length, as well as a number of questions on the practical aspects of implementation, which is not easy. We are studying carefully the responses to the second stage and, as I have told the noble Lord on many occasions, we will consider the next step in due course.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm-I think that he will-that following the judgment there is no obligation on this country to give the vote to all prisoners? We can limit it to some prisoners and that "some" can be very limited.
Lord Bach: I can confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has put to me-he is absolutely right. The European Court of Human Rights did not say which prisoners should be given the vote. The court held that the blanket ban was unlawful-of course we accept that-but expressly recognised that each member state has some discretion as to who should be given the vote. It is on that basis that the second consultation has been held.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the court judgment was in March 2004 and that it has been an inordinately long six years while the Government have been deliberating on this? Will he explain to the House what purpose is served by punishing all prisoners, irrespective of the gravity of their crime, in this manner?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it has been a substantial time, although the date that the noble Baroness should go back to is October 2005, when the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights upheld the court's initial ruling. It is a substantial time but, as I have said, these are complex and difficult issues, about which the public also have views. It remains our view that the right to vote goes to the essence of an offender's relationship with a democratic society and that the removal of the right to vote from some convicted prisoners can be a proportionate and proper response following conviction and imprisonment.
12 Nov 2009 : Column 897
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Does the Minister not agree that, with so many years having elapsed since a clear and unambiguous judgment was given by the European Court, however sincere the Government may be in their desire to obtain a perfect solution to the situation, inevitably the impression will be given to other countries that they would not be heartbroken if the matter sailed on for all eternity like some legislative "Flying Dutchman", never finding port or harbour?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are looking not for a perfect solution but for a workable one-one that will work in practice. Of course we accept that we have to implement the judgment.
Lord Christopher: I will draw, if I may, on my previous experience, which I had better declare: I was chairman for many years of Nacro. For a number of years I lectured in Pentonville, particularly to prisoners on release. One should think about this in terms not simply of whether they should get a vote, but of whether we can give them the vote and use that constructively. That could be done on the basis that they get the vote but we so contrive an educational system-I use those words, but they are not exactly what I mean-whereby they are introduced to general issues of concern to us all. In my experience, once you have dealt with the one rogue element in a group, you can get them interested, working and thinking for themselves.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there is a lot in what my noble friend says. The educational part of the work that goes on in prisons these days is much improved from what it was in the past. There is absolutely no reason why we should not do as he says.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, from the Minister's Answer I was not clear whether there will be a chance for the changes to take place before the next election. If they are to take place before the election, are the Government undertaking any polling on which way prisoners will vote?
Lord Bach: On the second part of the noble Lord's question, we have undertaken no polling of that kind, but I should be interested to hear his views on that. As to the first part, I can only repeat that the Government are carefully studying the responses to the second stage consultation and will consider the next steps in due course.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, on the right to vote, should prisoners be confined to voting on European referenda?
Lord Bach: That sounds rather like the "Flying Dutchman" example referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan.
Quangos
Question
11.21 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many quangos exist; what is their total staff; and at what annual administrative cost.
12 Nov 2009 : Column 898
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of two non-departmental public bodies. The Cabinet Office publishes an annual report on NDPBs. The latest report shows that, at 31 March 2008, there were 790 NDPBs employing around 92,500 staff. This is a fall in the total number of NDPBs of around 8 per cent since 1997. Total expenditure by NDPBs in 2007-08 was just around £43 billion, of which around £34.5 billion was funded directly by government.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, first of all, I had better declare an interest as a former member of two quangos-the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission-and five years as chairman of the CPRE, a pressure group. And I thank the Minister for those interesting figures. Does she agree that the value of quangos will be judged by the objectivity of their advice and the proportionality of their actions, and that this means that they must not transform themselves into pressure groups? Is she aware that Natural England, a quango, recently required the Highways Agency, another quango, to spend £300,000 of taxpayers' money constructing two bridges for bats to commute over the Dobwalls bypass in Cornwall and that a survey of the value of this expenditure showed that 20 bats a day fly over the new road?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in all my time at the Dispatch Box I never thought I would have a flag saying, "Bats, if pressed". I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, for his courtesy in sharing his thinking on quangos with me this week. Although I am aware of his concerns and agree with his points on proportionality-especially the example he gave the House this morning-he will know of our real responsibility to bats and their habitats from our obligations under EU law.
Baroness Crawley: That will open a debate, my Lords. However, I think that all sides of the House would agree that the model for non-departmental public bodies, generally speaking, works for the health of our democratic society and for the taxpayer.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former and current chair of several NDPBs. It is very easy to knock them, as we know, but does my noble friend agree that a great deal of progress has been made in the composition of the boards of NDPBs by involving lay people, such as patients and families, who bring their particular voice to policy development?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, absolutely. I agree with my noble friend, and I thank her for all the work that she does in the public interest. Over the past 10 or 15 years-and this is not a party political point-there has been a great deal more scrutiny of the whole appointments process and trying to open it up to as many people as possible.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I declare an interest, having been a member of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. Does the Minister recall the Cabinet Office's published guidance for departments on public bodies? It states that,
- "to provide independent advice and expertise on technical, scientific or other complex issues and take this outside the party political arena, for example on ethical issues, or funding decisions",
12 Nov 2009 : Column 899
government bodies should operate "at arm's length" from Ministers? In the light of the sacking of Professor Nutt, chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, are we to conclude that the Government have torn up their own rule book? If so, what do they propose to put in its place?
Baroness Crawley: This is a matter for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who has already given a full Statement to the House of Commons.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, in this day and age, is it not ludicrous that most people running these quangos earn more than the Prime Minister?
Baroness Crawley: I think I know the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is referring. However, in the generality of things, chairs and members of such public boards have reasonable remuneration, and many of them serve the public for no remuneration at all.
Lord Dubs: I suppose that everyone in this House has been a member of a quango-
Lord Dubs: Let me at least declare that I was chair of a quango, and I was first appointed under a Conservative Government. Does my noble friend agree that while some quangos have served out their useful life, others, if abolished, would simply transfer their functions to the Civil Service, which would hardly be an advantage?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his service in public life. That shows that we are not talking about political cronies; as he said, he was appointed under the Opposition, and I am sure that that happens all the time. He talked about old and new departmental public bodies. As quangos-for shorthand-become historical and their functions are no longer necessary, they are merged, reformed or abolished. That has happened over several Governments. We have many new non-departmental public bodies, but we have also abolished many.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, when might the Government answer the 21 Questions that I put to them regarding which Members of the House of Lords serve on which quangos or non-departmental government bodies and what their remuneration is?
Baroness Crawley: I will certainly take that up and see what we can do for the noble Lord.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, why did the Government stop publishing a few years ago the full figures in the Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies? It had clearly and concisely all the answers to my noble friend Lord Marlesford's Question.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |