My Lords, asylum seekers sometimes wait years for a decision and delays are increasing. As we have heard, that leaves genuine refugees in limbo and makes it harder to send failed cases home. We currently have a shambolic situation whereby 300,000 people are trapped in the immigration asylum backlog, with 90,000 cases being written off so far or given effective amnesty because papers have been lost in some cases. I know the Minister will tell us that the Government are making organisational changes, but can he say something about the specific practical actions that are being taken to deal with the problem? Does he recognise that the dramatic cut in the number of staff at UK Border Agency has contributed to this backlog?

Earl Attlee (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

My Lords, I do not recognise some of the figures the noble Baroness has quoted. My information is that the expenditure on asylum support has gone down, as I said, from £1.2 billion in 2003 to below £300 million now. I accept that there is a problem in dealing with the legacy backlog, but the Question is about asylum seekers’ ability to work. The more we can reduce unfounded asylum claims, the better we can properly determine the genuine applicants and look after them properly.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of crime detection rates.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

My Lords, this Government do not assess the performance of police forces through centrally mandated targets. However, we are ensuring that the public and PCCs have access to consistent and comprehensive information on all crime outcomes. This supports police accountability, as the public can now hold the police to account for how they respond to crime in their area.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

My Lords, I am not sure that that really answers my Question. Perhaps I can be clearer. Government cuts mean that 15,000 fewer police officers will be in place by the time of the next election. It is not therefore rocket science to understand that last year 30,000 fewer crimes were solved.

The Minister will be aware that forensic evidence is a key part of bringing criminals to justice. Can I direct him to yesterday’s evidence from Michael Turner QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, to the Science and Technology Committee of the other place? He said that following the Government’s abolition of the highly regarded Forensic Science Service, the quality of expert witnesses being used by the crown was now, in his words, “variable”.

Is the Minister aware of the frustration of so many investigating police officers who are experiencing serious delays in getting the forensic evidence reports they have taken at the scene of crime? They are not getting them in time. Given the questions on the quality and delays in the system in getting a forensic evidence service, does the Minister think that scrapping the Forensic Science Service was a good idea?

Baroness Smith said: “My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. He will understand that it is of enormous concern that Ibrahim Magag, who is subject to a TPIM-a terrorism prevention and investigation measure-has been able to abscond, particularly when the judge who reviewed his previous control order said that, “it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London, even for a short period”.

The Minister referred to how many people had absconded under previous control orders, but the key issue was relocating those subject to an order. My understanding was that none absconded after they had been relocated. However, the Government took the decision to remove the power to relocate suspects when introducing TPIMs. Given that they allowed him to move back to London from the West Country, to where he had been relocated by the previous Government’s control order, can the Minister confirm whether that made it easier for him to abscond? Was he subject to any surveillance at the time?

Finally, is it true that he absconded by hailing a black cab?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

“I can confirm the latter point. The last time he was seen, he was reported as getting into a taxi.

“The noble Baroness misconstrues the nature of the TPIM system, which succeeds the control order system but is designed to provide proportionate supervision for people where evidence does not exist to secure a conviction. The only true way of dealing with terrorists is to find the evidence to convict them and to put them into prison; that is the only secure place that we can put them. That is a process of law for which we require evidence. TPIM is a mechanism whereby we can at least prevent the movement and control the location of individuals in the way that we have done.”

Baroness Smith said: “My Lords, I am none the wiser after that Answer than I was before I asked the Question. There was a serious reason for asking, because it is clear that there are serious problems in the UK Border Agency.

“Even the recent fall in net migration is due to British citizens leaving the country and the fall in student numbers. Time and again, the chief inspector has found problems but, despite commitments to his recommendations to make the system more efficient and fairer, it just does not happen.

“We now even have the Mayor of London accusing the Government of turning a blind eye to long-term illegal immigrants.

“Is part of the problem cuts that have led to 5,000 fewer UK Border Agency staff? Can the Minister give a commitment to your Lordships’ House today that the Government will act, not just promise to act, on the chief inspector’s reports?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

“The chief inspector has published two reports recently, and I thank John Vine, the chief inspector, for them. He will be appearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee tomorrow. I totally accept the view that the UK Border Agency has not performed as strongly as this House would expect, but it is improving, and that is the right direction of travel. The question we have to ask ourselves is: for how long does this go back? I fear that it goes back to 2006, when there was a huge backlog of cases, and that has taken an awful lot of clearing up. The current situation is greatly improved.

Lord Naseby (Conservative)

“Does not the number of bogus students mentioned in one of the reports indicate how right it was that Her Majesty’s Government, first, allowed the London Metropolitan University students who were bogus to be dealt with; and, secondly, decided to keep student numbers quite separate from other immigration statistics? Can my noble friend assure us that a firm notice has gone out to all the many agencies scattered around the world looking to bring students to the UK, and through our embassies and consulates, that good, genuine students will always be welcome in United Kingdom but that bogus ones will be sent home?

“My Lords, I shall speak to our amendments on this clause, Amendments 69, 70, 71, 72 and 76. I do not wish to detain the House and I shall not press our amendments to a vote at this late stage, but there are some important issues of principle that I want to put on the record and to which I seek a response from the Minister. I hope that he can take some of the points away and consider the issues.

“The purpose behind the amendments is to suggest an alternative definition for the “sensitive information” ouster of the court’s jurisdiction. The reality is that less information is being shared with the UK as a result of fears that the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction might mean that the UK Government were forced to disclose intelligence shared with us, thereby breaching the control principle. We have heard that from the reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, to whom the Minister referred, as well as from members of the ISC and the Government. I know that we have assurances from the US that we will never be denied life-saving intelligence, but I refer the House to the comments made on this issue in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who said that that was no consolation to her, given the position that she has held. She went on:

“The nature of intelligence work is putting together information from perhaps five or six different countries and 20 different organisations-little bits and pieces of a jigsaw that, together, might save lives”

The question of whether a UK court would ever in practice authorise the disclosure of such information has been widely debated. I do not intend to go into that tonight, because I do not believe that that is the question now facing this House.

Rightly or wrongly, the flow of intelligence to the UK has been restricted-we understand and accept that. The two questions for the House are: should the UK respond in order to deal with the concerns of our intelligence partners and, if so, what is a proportionate response? The Opposition’s response to the first question is emphatically yes; it is on the second question that I think we would have a difference with the Government; namely, whether it is a proportionate response. We take the view that any restriction of intelligence to the UK is a serious problem and we would agree with David Anderson QC who said of Clause 13 that there was “an element of overkill”. The ouster proposed by the Government reaches far wider than simply the control principle. While we recognise-there is no question about this at all-that there is a need to ensure the absolute protection of information related to our national security, this clause goes wider.

We therefore propose to restrict the definition of “sensitive information” to cover material whose publication would represent a clear breach of the control principle. We would amend Clause 13(3)(b) and (c) to refer only to “foreign” intelligence and to where that intelligence is such that it would jeopardise our national security or strategic national interests.

When we proposed similar amendments in Committee, the Minister described the practicalities, as he did just a moment ago, as being “challenging” and referred to the difficulties of being able to define and separate the two. We took note of what the Minister had to say and, as a consequence, the limitations that we propose in these amendments would retain the ouster for all the examples to which he referred.

Correspondence commenting on control principle material would presumably be covered by amended paragraph (c), which would remain an ouster for information derived in whole or in part from information obtained from or held on behalf of foreign intelligence services. That would allow for either the part of the correspondence that referred to foreign intelligence to be prevented from disclosure, or the entire correspondence, if it solely referred to that intelligence and would represent a disclosure of that information. As I understand it, that is much the same way as the original PII for certain redacted paragraphs in the court’s judgment on the Mohamed case argued.

I have read widely on this, but as far as I can see, the Government have not put forward any specific justification for an example where paragraph (d), which states,

“relating to an intelligence service”,

would be specifically required to protect the control principle information. That is a very wide definition. I suggest to the Minister that there is a clear difference between descriptive information about foreign intelligence services and the intelligence supplied by them. It is the second, not the first, that the control principle relates to and which our foreign partners are concerned could be disclosed.

We recognise that there is a need to ensure the protection of information related to our national security or strategic national interest. We would therefore retain the certification procedure by the Secretary of State where information does not qualify under paragraphs (a) to (c). In addition, we believe that there should be an absolute exemption where certification does not provide for information related to our national security or strategic national interest that is held by our intelligence service, regardless of whether it is derived from foreign or domestic sources. Our amendments therefore retain amended paragraph (a), which states that information held by a security service will not be disclosed if it is national security-sensitive in nature.

However, we propose to delete the reason for certification on the basis of subsection (5)(b), for the,

“interests of the international relations of the United Kingdom”.

We do not think that including such broad criteria can be justified on the basis of the control principle. We believe that the proposed alternative definition of sensitive information is a more proportionate response to the dilemma that the Government face. It acknowledges the clear need for cast-iron assurance to our foreign partners that the intelligence that they share with us will not be publicly disclosed and that, similarly, there should be no risk that information could be published that could in any way damage or harm our national security or strategic or national interests. It would also tighten the ouster provided in the Bill, which is drawn far wider than justifiably necessary.

I end on what I hope is a relatively humorous but serious note that David Anderson put in his evidence to the JCHR. I think that the Minister already recognises the quote that I am going to use. He said that,

“it applies to all information within the possession of the intelligence agencies. Presumably that includes the bill from Tesco for their sandwiches, to which no security importance whatever attaches”.

It is very difficult to see how that could be proportionate. As I said, we do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister can take away some of those points for further consideration and come back with a response.

Baroness asked: “To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likely turnout in the elections for police and crime commissioners.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

My Lords, the election of police and crime commissioners will be one of the most significant democratic reforms of policing in our lifetime. We want and encourage everyone to have their say and we are confident that come 15 November the public will not only be aware of the elections but will have the information that they need to make their choices.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to his new role at the Dispatch Box and look forward to many long and interesting discussions with him. However, I found his Answer somewhat disappointing.

The Electoral Commission fears an 18.5% turnout for these elections. That is not surprising, given that the elections will be held in November when it is cold, wet and dark, and that the candidate information has been made available online instead of in the normal leaflets for every household, as in similar elections. May I press the noble Lord on this point and ask him what level of turnout he would accept as evidence that the Government have respect for the police and the candidates and that this is a serious policy and not something dreamt up on the back of an envelope?

Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

The noble Baroness is very kind in her welcome, and I am grateful for that. The whole point of the information campaign is to make sure that the public are in a position to make a proper choice. For this election, the Home Office is setting up a website on which all candidates will be able to post an election address-and, if they wish, there is a call-line as well. All this information and the contacts will be on the poll card. They will in a position to get a hard copy, should they wish to do so.

I am not going to answer the question about turnout. No one would do that. The success of this campaign will be in the effectiveness of the policy, which is to bring democratic accountability to the police force in a way that has not been the case up to now. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports that.

“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the budget that will be required for the additional responsibilities to be taken on by the National Crime Agency; what assessment they have made as to whether there will be any additional costs arising from the new responsibilities; and whether any such costs can be met from existing budgets.”

Lord Henley (Conservative)

“The Government have committed to deliver the National Crime Agency (NCA) from within the combined budgets of its precursor organisations. For the first full financial year of operations, the NCA budget is estimated to be approximately £400 million.

“The NCA will use its enhanced intelligence capability and tasking and co-ordination arrangements to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to serious and organised crime so that resources are focused where they can have the greatest impact and duplication is eliminated. Budget considerations are included in the ongoing work on the design and operating model for the NCA.”

Two women every week are killed at the hands of their abuser in England and
Wales and two recent murders in Harlow have been linked to domestic
violence. Yet domestic violence is a still a largely hidden crime, which
isn’t give the priority it needs to keep people safe.

Labour have today (Wednesday) launched a new Policy Review document “From Detection to
prevention: Preventative policing to close the domestic violence
intervention gap.” Forming part of the Labour Party Policy Review, it will
look at ways to build on the work Labour did in government to make tackling
violence against women and girls a top priority in policing and crime
plans.

The new campaign – being rolled out across Essex and the East of England-
aims to create a step change in tackling the devastating problem of
domestic abuse. Labour’s police and crime commissioner candidates have
today committed to an 5 Point Action Plan to tackle domestic violence- and
will engaging in a consultation exercise with groups that work with victims
of Domestic Violence, on Women’s Safety and others in the wider community.

They will explore ways for the police and other bodies to become more
pro-active in preventing domestic violence offending and in supporting
survivors.

Val Morris-Cook, Labour’s Essex Police and Crime Commissioner candidate,
said:

“As the tragic murders in Harlow remind us, Domestic Violence a is major
problem. Two women every week are killed at the hands of their abuser in
England and Wales and the rate of domestic violence was twice as high as
the burglary rate last year. Yet tackling Domestic Violence is not being
given the priority it needs.

“Though many groups across Essex and the East of England are working hard
to prevent and tackle domestic abuse, it remains a hidden crime that cannot
be tolerated. As Labour’s Police and Crime Commissioner candidate for Essex
I have today signed Labour’s 5 key priorities on women’s safety.

“I want tackling Violence Against Women and Girls to be a priority in
policing and crime plans, including training for Police Officers,
specialist units, partnerships with councils, housing organisations,
schools and support groups to protect victims and prevent abuse.

“Domestic violence doesn’t just hurt the abused women, but also their
families – and has long term and far reaching consequence if action isn’t
taken. Too often Domestic Violence stays behind closed doors but with so
many women crying out for urgent help it must not be ignored.”

Baroness Angela Smith, Labour’s Shadow Home Officer Minister in the Lords,
said:

“Domestic Violence is a hidden emergency for over a million women in
Britain every year who call out for urgent help but are not properly heard.
In over 90% of incidents of Domestic Violence little or no further action
is taken against the perpetrator, to prevent repeat violence or to keep
victims safe.

“For the Labour Government tackling violence against women and girls was a
serious priority. We introduced specialist domestic violence courts
with police units and prosecutors, working in partnership with councils and
housing groups to help reduce incidents of domestic violence – but a
lot of that work is now under threat, and the truth is we also need
much stronger action to keep people safe.

“That’s why Val and Labour’s other Police and Crime Commissioner candidates
have today made clear that tackling Domestic Violence is a key
priority for them- and why Labour are committed to a wide consultation on
the best way forward on tackling violence against women and girls.

“It’s in their homes and communities that women should feel the most safe
and women should never be trapped in a violent relationship or in a
cycle of abuse because of a lack of support; nor should they be worried
about walking home.

“With so many victims in need of support it is vital that we build on the
work Labour did in government to make sure that women are safe and
action is taken against perpetrators of domestic abuse.”

“My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and I will make sure that I do not get his name wrong or mix him up with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.

“This has been a really interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He has done the House a service by his contribution and by bringing this issue before it. Particularly given recent constitutional debates in the other place, and in the political media-although not, I suspect, in the pubs, the clubs and the school gates around the country-the Government’s legislation on constituency borders and electoral registration leads us into a wider debate about what we mean by democracy and political representation. What are the implications of those changes that have been, and are being, legislated for? There seems to be a lack of clarity about whether we will see all those changes, but it is right that we look fully at the implications.

It has been quite clear in the first debates in your Lordships’ House and the other place, that whatever the textbook definition of democracy, there are many different interpretations. I do not think we can see democracy as something we can pick and choose, or pick and mix, which was the phrase the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, used. We cannot choose the parts we like best. There are certain core elements that we have to sign up to. The first and most basic is accountability. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others pointed out that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 was unprecedented legislation with regard to the changes of MPs and boundaries, which may or may not take place. At its core was the Government’s promise to reduce the size and cost of Parliament, and allow for a referendum on the voting system, to get rid of our current first past the post system and replace it with a system which would count the proportion of votes for each party. To the horror and surprise of some, and the delight of others, the public rejected the change in the voting system. I am sure that the reasons why could fill a debate in your Lordships’ House on their own, but I offer one thought: most significant constitutional change comes from the grass roots up. If we think of women’s suffrage and universal suffrage, we think of the campaigns that took place, the marches, and the demonstrations. Politicians of those times wrote and spoke about the lobbying that took place on those issues.

In knocking on doors during my 21 years as an elected representative-13 in Westminster and eight on a county council-I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times the issue of PR or an alternative voting system was mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, hit the nail on the head as to why that is. The first past the post system is understood, it is straightforward, and it clearly gives a relationship of accountability between the elected representative and the elector. That can also apply to another debate that is taking place at the moment.

There is a real danger that the electorate feel enormous frustration and disengagement at the drive for such constitutional change coming from above, from the Westminster elite, rather than by public demand. Part of accountability is understanding and knowing those issues and the concerns that most affect our constituencies. I do not want to imply that there was some kind of golden age, when boundary changes were always easy, when no one was ever upset by them, and there were never any difficulties caused, because we know that that is not the case. However, the Government’s legislation creates a very different situation, and very substantial changes of a kind we have not seen before.

The most substantive point about the Bill and accountability is that for the first time ever Parliament decided how many constituencies there should be, what the approximate size should be, and imposed on the Boundary Commission-again, for the very first time-strict rules on the variation in size of seat: just 5%. All the other factors that were taken into account before-geography, history, natural boundaries and communities, and that sense of place that we have heard so much about today, of local wards and parishes-came second to playing the numbers game.

My noble friend Lord Wills spoke of the high constitutional principle that was at stake, as mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the necessity of boundary changes. However, we now know that those boundary changes are subject, not to high constitutional principle, but whether the Liberal Democrats get their Bill through to change or abolish the House of Lords and create a new body.

I recall the debate during the Second Reading and passage of the Bill. I am not wedded to a particular number or size of constituency. However, we have to have a justification for change. I recall asking the Minister, as did other noble Lords, what their reason was for the choice of 600 constituencies. What was the significance of the number? I was told, as were other noble Lords, that it was a nice round figure. That is not good enough for such a significant constitutional change.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, quoted the Chartists and the size of constituencies being similar. In the same way that he spoke about pick and mix earlier, perhaps we should not pick and mix when we talk about the Chartists. I notice that although the proposals for the elected House of Lords were for 15-year terms, and fixed terms of five years for the House of Commons, the Chartists argued for annual elections. There is greater credibility for annual elections than 15-year elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was the first today to talk about the relationship between MPs and constituencies. That is well rehearsed, and it is genuine, as my noble friend Lady Corston says. I represented a seat from 1997-2010; Members of Parliament identify very strongly with their constituencies and feel a great affinity with them.

We have also heard a considerable amount about the impact these changes have on the work of a Member of Parliament, and how towns feel about changes. I would like to say something about the impact on voters and constituents when constituencies change. My home town in Basildon is known as Pitsea. I represented Pitsea on the county council, although in 1997 when I was elected to Parliament it was taken out of the constituency of Basildon which I represented, and into another constituency, Billericay.

Until 1997 Pitsea was in Basildon. It was in the Basildon council area, the main shopping area was there, and Basildon was the focus for services. There was a distinct community of which it felt part, and it knew who its MP was. From 1997-2010 it went into Billericay. It did not feel as if there was much of a common link with Billericay, and there were difficulties, but it was part of the district of Basildon, and there was some logic to it. However, Basildon took in the East Thurrock area. The constituency name remained Basildon, which was totally unfair on the people of East Thurrock, who had no named identity and no connection for their constituency.

In 2010, Pitsea was back in Basildon. In 2015, Pitsea, under the proposed boundary changes, will go to Rayleigh. It has no common links with Rayleigh, no shared services, and no common councils, and it is really hard to understand what links these areas, other than the numbers game. In 2020 who knows what will happen, because under the new legislation the boundaries will be reviewed for every general election? This means that every time there has been or will be a boundary change, the voters of Pitsea have had, and will have, no opportunity to hold their Member of Parliament to account, because they are at the margins of the constituency and are the ones most likely to be moved for every single election. They did not have the opportunity in 2010 to hold their MP to account, and they will not have it in 2011.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark, made a comment about disengaging people. I have already spoken to a number of people in that area who tell me, “Why should we bother to vote? We don’t know anything about Rayleigh. We are not connected with Rayleigh”. Instead of engaging people in the political system, we are disengaging them from the political process completely. The Government say that the changes are at the margins, but it is those margins that move from constituency to constituency each time. Rather than being more democratic, it reduces the accountability of MPs to their constituents.

I have great admiration for most MPs, and I believe that the majority of MPs will faithfully represent all of their constituents whenever there is an opportunity to do so. However, for some MPs, such as the lazy and the overworked-and they will be overworked because of the larger area they will represent-or those in the most marginal of seats, there will be an opportunity to prioritise the areas they know will be in their constituency at the next election, and whose votes they will need.

Accountability is also about the individuals’ and communities’ abilities to participate in the political process. I want to say something about wider participation, but part of that participation means being able to vote. We all know-politicians have been saying it for many years-that turnouts at both general and local elections are too low. Governments constantly say that they want to increase turnout, but I fail to understand how the accelerated process for individual voter registration does that.

We support individual electoral registration. We argued for it and legislated for it in 2009. However, I can do no better than refer the noble Lord to the speech of my noble friend Lord Wills, who spoke of the very different approach now being taken by the Government compared with the approach that we took when we were in government. It was a measured and cross-party approach and it allowed time for the changes to come in properly to ensure accuracy and fairness. I urge the Government to take note of the comments that have been made today. If they fail to act properly in this regard, not only will they deny thousands of their right to vote but they will be accused of blatant political manipulation, because there is no good reason for the process to be speeded up in this way.

I also want to say something about access to elected representatives. A mistake that politicians sometimes make is to believe that everybody is interested in politics and that they know who their MP is. I can tell the Minister that people in my area would regularly go to the local council or the local library saying that they lived in Basildon, and they were told that I was their MP, regardless of where they lived, because that was the sense of place that they had and understood.

I take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who said that it would be easier for MPs if constituencies were of the same size. I say to her that it would not be easier for MPs in the slightest. Better representation, both for the elected and the elector, comes from people knowing who their MP is, being able to contact them easily and sharing a sense of place and community. That is what makes the difference.

Baroness O’Cathain (Conservative)

Can the noble Baroness tell me that it is easier for somebody to have a constituency of 80,000 or 90,000 compared with having a constituency of 55,000?

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

In my case, it would have been much easier. If I had had the whole of Basildon as my constituency, rather than part of Basildon and part of Thurrock, the constituency would have been bigger but I would have dealt with two local authorities and one police force. It is dealing with different agencies that complicates matters. I was very lucky in that I enjoyed both parts of my constituency, but to say that it was easier because it was smaller in terms of numbers would be completely incorrect, and I would be doing a disservice to my former constituents if I did not confess that it was harder dealing with two sets of agencies.

I think that I have a couple of seconds of injury time in which to finish. A democracy is more than just a cross in a box or a type of voting system, and it is more than ensuring that constituencies are the same size. Democracy has to be about political engagement, representation and accountability. That is how we get to the sense of place that we have heard about today. Unfortunately, the Government have ignored the latter-the political engagement, representation and accountability-in favour of the former.

“My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation and the information that she has given to the House on the two sexual offences orders. I shall take them in reverse order. On the notification requirements order, we are broadly supportive but I have a couple of questions, and I was able to have a brief discussion with the Minister earlier to give some indication of what I wanted to ask. My understanding is that the order applies to England and Wales, because policies relating to sex offenders in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved to those Administrations. I would have thought, though, that it was important to have some consistency between England and Wales legislation and that in the devolved Administrations. Are there any differences across the UK and, if there are, what are they and how are they being addressed?

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that Northern Ireland currently retains its three-day loophole, as it has become known, whereby an individual does not have to notify the police of foreign travel of less than three days. Have the Government had any discussions with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament on this issue? What discussions have there been with other European countries? Do they have similar reporting and notification requirements? What co-operation is there between the UK and other European national police forces? That seems to be an area where greater co-operation between us and EU police forces would make great sense.

I was able to talk briefly earlier to the Minister about notification requirements for online identities. I am not clear how these are covered or whether they are covered effectively. I am aware that online social networks are increasingly used to contact and groom young people for sex offences. There are some quite horrific and frightening examples. Jenny Chapman, MP for Darlington, has taken this issue up very robustly. In her constituency a young woman called Ashleigh Hall, who was 17 years old, was tricked into meeting a 33 year-old convicted sex offender, who posed on the internet as a 19 year-old man, and she lost her life as a result of meeting up with him.

It is clear that convicted sex offenders register different identities online. Given that registered sex offenders have to notify the police of any identity documents that they have-passports, for example-I am not clear how online identities fit into the proposed and current notification requirements. We are all aware that there are sex offenders who are frighteningly clever and devious in stalking and grooming their prey and that it is perfectly possible to set up different, multiple online identities. I am not so naive as to think that telling a registered convicted sex offender that he will have to tell the police about each and every online identity would work on its own, but clearly this is a problem area. Given the information in the impact assessment on the second order about sex offenders’ propensity to reoffend, this area must be monitored, and I am interested in how the Government plan to do so. Maybe that is in other legislation that I am not aware of, but I thought that it might have been in here as we are talking about notification requirements.

If this is helpful, Surrey Police has pioneered-it has been honoured for the work that it has done in this area-innovative software that monitors online sex offenders. I understand that it has successfully trialled this and now uses it to monitor 25 different criminals. This software installs onto their computer software which monitors use and sends alerts if any risky behaviour is detected. It is looking to use that across the country. So there are ways of starting to deal with this. However, I would be interested to know what the current position is, just in case I have missed something and there is something in this order or other legislation that covers the creation of online identities by those who seek to groom young people for sexual abuse, an activity which led, in that case, to murder. Have the Government sought the views and advice of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre? The noble Baroness mentioned that they have its support, but just in the implementation-it is not mentioned in the consultation documents as a consultee. I am sure that the Government will have had some contact and I that think their input would have been helpful.

On the second order, the remedial order about reviews, I am far less comfortable that the Government are taking the right position. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who knows my concerns, for taking time to explain the Government’s views. I have also read the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is helpful in explaining why the Government are bringing this order forward, following the case of F and Thompson v Secretary of State for the Home Department in which the Supreme Court declared that the indefinite notification requirements in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were incompatible with Article 8. That happened because, if I understand it correctly, there was not the opportunity for the individual to be treated as an individual and to apply to come off the register.

I am concerned about the Government’s inconsistency on legal judgments. Clearly the Government have been keen to accept the judgment of the Supreme Court on this issue and in legislative terms. Many noble Lords who have been in this House longer than I have will recognise that this legislation has been brought forward quite quickly. However, the Government do not always take this view. In fact, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the right of prisoners to vote, the Prime Minister-although he may have been in opposition at the time-said that it made him physically sick. I do not go that far, although I think that one of the consequences of losing one’s liberty through crime is a loss of the vote for the period of incarceration. However, I cannot understand why he does not feel equally strongly about this issue, which has a far greater emotional impact for me.

I also see the order in the context of other changes that the Government are making to legislation involving the registration of those convicted of sexual offences. We have seen in the Protection of Freedoms Act how the definition of a regulated activity-when someone is on the sexual offences register, they cannot work in a regulated activity-is now far narrower than it was. Also, whereas previously someone automatically went on to a register, there is now a gap of around eight weeks and someone can apply to come off the register before they go on it. Whereas before they could apply to come off the register, now they might never go on it, depending on the outcome of the initial review.

At the moment there are around 53,000 convicted sex offenders on the register. More than 29,000 of those are on it indefinitely and, in effect, they are the subject of the order. I have tried to understand the Government’s rationale beyond the Supreme Court decision. I looked at the impact assessment and wondered what other avenues the Government considered. The Government looked at options from doing nothing to a full court-administered review system and plumped for the option before us today, option 4. There are three things to look at-the costs, the benefit and the risk. Page 16 of the impact assessment shows the costs. I understand that if there is going to be a review process it has to be robust and effective. The assessment states:

“The costs associated with this option would be absorbed by the agencies to which they fall and would represent opportunity rather than financial costs”.

Those agencies are the police, currently facing 20% cuts in their budget; social services, also facing cuts in their budgets and struggling; and the probation service, which is also facing cuts in its budget. Yet they are being asked to take on additional responsibilities and the Government are not able to identify what those costs are, other than that they are opportunity costs.

We then come to the transitional costs. The Government say that there will be some costs in the first year for guidance and training, up to an estimated £50,000. However, the impact assessment says that there will be transitional costs for the other agencies, which I assume means the police, social services and the probation service. Regarding those costs the assessment says that it,

“has not been possible to quantify this”.

Under “Cost of a review”, the assessment says that the process,

“would take up approximately 9 hours of police time, including 3 hours of superintendent time as well as 6 hours of involvement from other agencies… estimated at £630″.

That is a fairly conservative estimate. I worry because although the Government have set up this process, I wonder how the agencies that are required to conduct the review will find the resources to do it as effectively as they need to.

Page 17 of the impact assessment discusses the “Continuation/Discontinuation of notification requirements”. As so often on this subject, the assessment says that things cannot be quantified. For example, it says that,

“it has not been possible to quantify the cost of those applying for subsequent reviews”,

in terms of the time involved. The Government do not seem to know what the costs will be. However, they do know that they will not have to pay those costs and that somebody else will. That is a concern.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)

“So that I can follow the noble Baroness’s argument, is it the position of Her Majesty’s Opposition that there is some alternative to the view taken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these are sensible and proportionate ways of complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment and the relevant law? If she is suggesting that, it would be helpful to know what the alternative would be.

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)

No, at this point I am not suggesting an alternative. I would like the Government to go away and think about the alternatives. I will come on to this later, but if the Government are going to set up a review system, they will need to have more information about the system they are setting up-about the costs, benefits and risks.

I have looked at the costs. The Government say on page 19 of the impact assessment that the benefits will be similar to those listed in part 3 of the impact assessment, which are relatively minor. The assessment says that,

“it has not been possible to quantify these”-

other than to say that if people come off the list then there will be savings in police time. So the Government are not able to tell us the costs or the benefits.

As for the risks, there are a number of unknowns:

“There are the following unknowns in relation to this policy:

The actual volumes of applications for review;The impact of the review mechanism … The volumes of offenders whose indefinite notification requirements will be discontinued as a result of the review process;The potential impact of ending notification requirements on re-offending rates and detection rates.The actual costs and savings that will result”.

Is it wise not to quantify the costs, benefits or risks while taking a course of action? If the Government think that this is the right course of action then they should line these things up first.

One risk, of course, is reoffending. The Government’s impact assessment states:

“A number of studies have been considered in the development of this policy which analyse reconviction rates of convicted sex offenders over a follow-up period of 20-25 years. There is no evidence that a point can be reached at which a sex offender presents no risk of re-offending. Approximately a quarter of the previously convicted offenders were reconvicted for a sexual offence within this time period”.

So, within 20 to 25 years, a quarter of those who had been convicted were reconvicted. However, the assessment does tell us:

“We do not anticipate any greenhouse gas impacts as a result of these proposals”.

I thought that that was rather bizarre.

I hope that the Minister can address some of the concerns that I have raised because they worry me enormously. However, there are some specific points about the order on which I am clear. The regulations refer to the “determining officer”, who I take to be the police officer who will make the judgment on the review. Are the Government clear about what rank, experience, training and guidance that officer should have? The order says that any review would have to be signed off by a superintendent. With the increase in workload given the 20% cuts, I am worried that that will make it more difficult for the superintendent. The review by the superintendent is unlikely to be a rigorous process. The rigour has to come from the determining officer who undertakes the review. Clearly the review itself will have to be a vigorous and detailed process, and I doubt that the Government intend that it should be otherwise. However, unless the Government can be assured that those in the review process have the experience, access to information and the relevant good training, any good intentions for rigorous process will not be realised.

What evidence does the Minister envisage will be required to enable someone to come off the register when they apply? Will it be sufficient for them not to have breached their notification requirements? Is the onus on the police to prove that they still pose a risk, or will the convicted person on the register have to prove that they no longer pose a risk? The Government have estimated the number of people who might be eligible for review. Has any risk assessment been undertaken to develop guidance on how many of those who are on the register are still deemed to pose a risk and should therefore stay on it?

I also refer the Minister back to my comments about the very high levels of reoffending. What would happen if an offender were taken off the sex offender register and then convicted of a further offence? Would committing any sexual offence ensure that they would be put back on the register, or just those offences that would have qualified the offender to have been put on the register originally? Would somebody who had been on the register and then come off it only to go back on it-if they are able to go back on it-have the right of appeal in the future; or, as a result of the second instance, would they have to remain on indefinitely? Would there be a chance for them to appeal at a later date?

There are also many cases where sexual assault cases do not get to court because the victims or witnesses do not want to give evidence or are perhaps unable to. For example, I have personal knowledge of a case where a rape victim was advised by the CPS to pursue an action for GBH rather than rape because it would be easier to get a conviction. I am sure that I am not the only person to have been given that information. Are there circumstances in which somebody who has been charged with an offence, or even cautioned during their time on the register, still be allowed to come off the register?

It seems that there are some grey areas that the regulations do not cater for. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is able to address these points. I have grave reservations about the proposals both in principle and in practice. I understand the comments that the Minister made at the beginning about trying to achieve a balance-she described it as a balance between individual rights and public safety. However, the principle here is that risk is increased, as even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts. The risk is that a convicted serious sex offender could be removed from the register and then reoffend, which is a serious risk. I am sure that the Minister will understand exactly why this needs to be managed. In practice, however, it is an issue of resources to ensure that a review process is set up. For that process to be effective, efficient and risk-free it has to be properly funded-and yet the Government have taken this step at a time when they admit that it cannot be risk free, at a time of massive cuts in the police. I am not convinced that the review process can be as robust as the Government want it to be. I have to say to the Minister that would have given me sleepless nights when I was a Minister. We cannot accept that this is the right way to proceed. I understand that the Government are intent on doing this, but they will have to do it without our support.

With over 800 jobs going as the refinery turns into a terminal, Baroness Smith of Basildon (the Opposition spokesperson for the Home Office) has questioned why the Government didn’t step in to save it.

Writing on Politics Home, the former MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock said: “Why is it that in a similar position the French Government invested to protect its national refining capacity and jobs, yet this Government refused to help citing European State Aids laws and adequate capacity in Europe?”

She warned: “Once the refining capacity is gone and the site is converted to a depot to receive imports of refined fuel we’ll never be able to get it back.”

Energy Minister Charles Hendry has defended the governments role citing overcapacity in the refining industry and declining demand for petrol.

The Baroness has also pointed to the deep hole and consequences that will be felt in the Thurrock economy.
with hundreds of job losses and an estimated £50 million to £1 billion black hole in the local economy.

Baroness Smith said: “My Lords, does the noble Lord find it humiliating that the queues at Heathrow are the butt of Twitter messages and jokes around the world?

“Does he accept the strong criticism from the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration that the problems at Heathrow are caused by massive cuts of 15% of the staff, at the same time as massive organisational changes and a massive lack of good management; or, does he agree with the Immigration Minister in the other place, Damian Green, who says that since May 2010 there has been the wrong kind of wind?

Lord Henley (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Conservative)

“My Lords, the noble Baroness is very selective in what she says about my honourable friend’s evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee yesterday. That is not surprising. I say yet again that all we get from the Opposition is that this is due to a reduction in numbers of staff. It is nothing to do with reductions in numbers of staff.

Baroness Smith said:

“My Lords, some of the people who I most worry will not be able to afford the heating they need are those on pre-payment meters. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, told me in a Written Answer on 19 February that pre-payment meter customers now pay on average £20 less than standard credit customers for gas and electricity.

“However, Charles Hendry, the Minister in the other place, told MPs that in 2011 pre-payment meter customers would pay on average £90 more than direct debit customers and a maximum of £170 more.

Therefore, pre-payment meter customers pay more. Will the Minister explain why pre-payment meter customers pay less for their energy but so much more for their bills, and what can be done to ensure that those who have the least are not paying the most?

Baroness asked: “To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the healthier lives Green Paper and the Vision for Social Care, what assessment they have made of the progress made in providing preventative services that overcome social isolation amongst older people.

Earl Howe (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Quality), Health; Conservative)

“The department is seeking to collect data around social participation through the 2011-12 Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework indicator, which focuses on enhancing the quality of life for people with care and support needs.

“On 16 November 2010, the Government published A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens, which sets the context for the future direction of adult social care in England. One of the principles of the vision is preventive strategies, which set out to reduce dependency by promoting stronger and more active communities that enable people to be less isolated and vulnerable.

“In addition, the department’s national evaluation of Partnerships for Older People Projects informed councils of the benefits of some services including befriending, which demonstrated health-related quality of life gains for older people.”