Port Examination Codes of Practice and National Security Determinations Guidance Regulations 2020
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, as is the case with most statutory instruments, we had a substantive and, in this case, substantial debate on the primary legislation, which is not up for discussion. However, as the SI brings into force codes of practice lower in the hierarchy, it is worth reminding ourselves of their status.
The fact that they are codes, are written down and are subject to consultation is very significant, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said. They are also subject to parliamentary approval, but they do not have the scrutiny which can lead to amendment. They are the practical application of the powers of the state. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said during the passage of the Bill,
“the Bill will confer a bristling armoury of powers on ports police”.—[Official Report, 17/12/18; col. 1762.]
The current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation raised points on the draft codes about reflecting the language of the law, points which the Government rightly took, because the rule of law requires law.
I will use this opportunity—I have not managed to find another—to mention the recent report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons on short-term holding facilities at the border. I have to say that “facilities” is something of a euphemism. There were some shocking findings, including that
“a pregnant woman was detained for over 27 hours; the detention log evidenced little meaningful engagement with her”
and:
“Detainees’ … ability to make telephone calls was at best restricted, and at worst prohibited.”
Border Force staff said that they felt “forgotten”, and that there was no guidance or sharing of best practice. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government are responding to the finding of inadequate leadership?
Actions at the border must not raise any concerns about any sort of discrimination, a point to which a number of noble Lords have referred. I raised this recently when the EU Security and Justice Sub-Committee, of which I am a member, questioned the Security Minister, James Brokenshire, about access to data—a very important tool of border security—post Brexit. A number of noble Lords including the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to this. I asked him about stopping a disproportionate number of individuals whose ethnicity and dress were, to put it bluntly, not those of a white person who is not Muslim. He said “Ah—you’ve not seen the new code”. Now that I have, can the Minister point me to the answer? Is it through training, which must be kept under constant review, and accreditation? Will training, for instance, cover unconscious bias as well as, I assume, keeping and analysing data? This is a current issue but has always been a current issue, as my noble friend Lord German indicated.
During the passage of the Bill, we received a lot of briefing on the detail of the procedures: the length of time that someone could be detained, access to a named lawyer and so on. The Government’s response to the consultation on the codes on this point refers to the examining officer’s discretion and says that the detainee is told of this discretion. However, it is the criteria for the exercise of the discretion which are important and should be transparent.
As noble Lords have also mentioned, we have received a lot of briefing discussing journalism and journalistic sources—a contentious and difficult area. We are told that the Government are now considering whether to amend the definition of “confidential material” to make it clear that it includes material identifying a source of journalistic information. Can the Minister tell the House when we can expect to see this? Perhaps it will be in the current counterterrorism and sentencing Bill.
We scrutinise legislation; I am glad that we also have systems to scrutinise how things work in practice. However, applying the findings from those is essential because, as I know all noble Lords agree, trust in the means used by the state to keep us safe, but which reflect our values, is essential.
Surrender of Offensive Weapons (Compensation) Regulations 2020
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not need to take up the House’s time in reiterating concerns about knife crime and the use of weapons; nor am I going to reopen the discussion about merits. However, since the Home Office’s own press notice regarding these regulations refers to the recruitment of 20,000 new police officers, I think I can ask: how is that going?
I do not recall spending much time on the compensation provisions regarding knives during the passage of the Bill—except for antique knives, as two of today’s speakers have referred to—but we spent quite a lot of time on the justification for the Bill covering certain firearms. I am certainly not opposing the regulations, although of course I have questions about them.
The first is, as my noble friend Lord German asked: why has it taken a while for not just the regulations but the underlying provisions of the Act to be commenced? The press notice gave no clues about that. I assume that the Government were waiting for the scheme but perhaps the Minister can flesh that out. It is a pity, given the seriousness of the issue, that there has not been more urgency. As far as I can see, the provisions on knife crime prevention orders have not been commenced either, which I have to say causes me less grief because we had a lot of concerns about those, but the Minister might quite properly say that I am straying beyond the instrument in referring to those.
When will the compensation scheme launch? Can the Minister give the House a bit more information about the consultation that has taken place on the standard levels of compensation and other aspects of the scheme? She has talked about stakeholders. Who are they? What publicity and information will there be to prompt the owners of the knives to come forward? I imagine that the identity of the owners of the firearms can be established without them responding to adverts.
My second set of questions is about the expected outcome of the scheme. Is there an estimate of the number of weapons likely to be surrendered in what is really rather a short period? I am struck by the question that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about the value of some of the weapons, given that the impact assessment of the cost of the amnesty is £200,000 to £300,000. Who is bearing that cost? Will it be the Home Office or individual police forces?
I do not know the price of the weapons that are subject to the regulations—I too had never heard of any of these weapons until we started work on the Bill—but I know that a lot of damage can be done by knives worth less than £30. Can the threshold be explained? The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had a very proper and important point about this.
The rationale for the order is the deprivation of ownership. I agree with what has been implied by other speakers: the point should be wider and the rationale really should be the prevention of crime.
A big question in my mind is whether someone who has bought one of these ferocious weapons is likely to surrender it. I assume that we are talking just about surrender, not the amnesty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, or about immunity. Certainly, there will be no immunity for others such as, for instance, gang members. In my mind, it could be that the very act of surrender would put an individual in a dangerous position. Will the police refer individuals for support on gang exit in appropriate cases? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox—indeed, no doubt like all noble Lords—I am all for early intervention.
Will the purchasers of knives—I think it may be different for firearms—have bank accounts and be willing to disclose details of them and their own details to police? In other words, how realistic is this? I hope I am not being too pessimistic because I too wish this scheme success.
Covid-19: Support and Accommodation for Asylum Seekers
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to all the emergency services and in sending our best wishes to those injured, including PC David Whyte, for a swift recovery.
The noble Lord is right: people get an initial assessment. Regarding further vulnerabilities, 24-hour healthcare is available to anyone who may need it who is in this or any other type of asylum accommodation. On the lack of cash for those in hotel accommodation, it is important to point out that anyone in hotel accommodation gets all essential living needs and costs met in terms of food, toiletries, hygiene products and healthcare, so there are no additional costs that they might need to meet. People can apply for additional assistance, should they need it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, 5% of very little is almost nothing. I refer of course to the recent increase of 26p per day in the allowance for necessities for asylum seekers who are not in hotel accommodation. Even if the Government will not increase the allowance, why can it not be paid fortnightly or, even better, monthly? That would allow for more efficient shopping, would cost no more and perhaps would save on administration and even allow a smidgen more dignity to asylum seekers.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government are looking into the frequency with which the allowance is paid. The increase is quite a bit above inflation, even though it may not seem like much. The assessment of the amount of money needed to purchase sufficient food is based on data from the ONS, looking specifically at expenditure on essential living items by people in the lower 10% of income groups, and is supplemented by market research.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The Windrush scandal is a national cause of shame, and the Wendy Williams review exposed the callousness and incompetence that caused such deep injustice. The Windrush generation and their families have made an enormous contribution to every aspect of our national life since the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” 72 years ago. However, many faced appalling racism, extending beyond abuse to a lack of fair access to the basic necessities of life, including housing and jobs. The Williams review has brought home the extent to which these issues, and the associated deep injustice, remain; injustices that have been highlighted by Black Lives Matter.
The Home Secretary has said that the Government are accepting all 30 recommendations in the Williams review, but we will have to wait until nearer the Summer Recess to find out how, and over what timescale, the Government intend to implement them. At the moment we are still at the stage of words, not actions, from the Government, which still have other reports, including the David Lammy review, on which they have so far failed to act. This Government are quick to set up reviews and working groups, but slow to act on findings and slow to right the wrongs identified.
In her Statement, the Home Secretary informs us that she has established another cross-government working group to address the challenges faced by the Windrush generation and their descendants. How does this further working group relate to the
“expanded cross-government Windrush working group, which will take a strategic view of a range of issues relating to Windrush and wider race inequalities”—[Official Report, 6/5/20; col. 551.]
announced by the Home Secretary on 19 March this year, to which the Minister made reference during our debate on the Windrush compensation scheme on 6 May?
On 6 May, the Minister, on behalf of the Government, said that the Home Office estimate was that the Windrush compensation scheme would cost between £90 million and £250 million, based on 11,500 eligible claims. At £250 million, that works out at just below £22,000 per head, and at £90 million, it works at below £8,000 per head. Is that still the Government’s estimate of the number of eligible claims, and is that still the Government’s estimate of the cost of the scheme? If it is, do the Government believe that an average compensation settlement, on the Government’s figures, of somewhere between less than £8,000 and just below £22,000 represents a fair figure in the light of Wendy Williams’s words that:
“The many stories of injustice and hardship are heartbreaking, with jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to so many individuals and families … They had no reason to doubt their status, or that they belonged in the UK”?
The impact assessment for the Windrush compensation scheme says:
“The Government will also mitigate the risk of litigation and associated legal costs, which is likely to be more expensive than compensation through the scheme.”
In other words, the Government also regard the Windrush compensation scheme as likely to save them money. Could the Minister clarify whether accepting an offer of compensation under the scheme also means that the claimant can no longer take legal proceedings against the Government on this issue?
There is provision for an independent review by an HMRC adjudicator where a claimant is not satisfied with the outcome of their claim. Can the Minister confirm what appears to be the case—namely, that the Home Office can choose to reject the recommendation of an independent review?
The Government also said in the debate on the Windrush compensation scheme last month that
“the award levels take into account existing precedents and ombudsman-recommended payments.”—[Official Report, 6/5/20; col. 548.]
What are the existing precedents, bearing in mind the way the Windrush generation were treated over so many years and the damning findings and words of Wendy Williams? Also, which ombudsman’s recommended payments were being referred to?
The progress in dealing with claims to date has been painfully slow. Apparently just 60 people were granted compensation in the first year of the scheme’s operation. The Home Secretary declines to apologise for the delay, but rather accepts it and simply implies that the pace is now increasing. Can the Minister say how many staff are involved in processing claims, expressed in full-time equivalents, and whether any of this work has been outsourced? The number of those who have received payment is small compared with the Government’s estimate of eligible claims. Does the Minister think that the number of claims to date reflects a lack of confidence in a Home Office that Wendy Williams said showed “a lack of empathy”?
Can the Minister say what the average compensation payment to date has been? How many claimants have referred their claim to an independent reviewer? In how many cases has as an independent reviewer recommended a change to the original decision? Have such recommendations all been accepted in full by the Home Office?
The Home Secretary has said that she will come back to Parliament before the Summer Recess to provide an update on how the Government will implement all the Williams review’s recommendations. That will be an opportunity for the Government to show that they recognise that the time for action is now. Not to do that would be to fail the Windrush generation yet again. I accept that I have asked a number of specific questions in response to the Statement. I would appreciate being given the information I seek and will be happy to accept a written response to the specific questions that cannot be responded to today.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, one of the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ review is that the Home Office
“devise, implement and review a comprehensive learning and development programme which makes sure all its existing and new staff learn about the history of the UK and its relationship with the rest of the world, including Britain’s colonial history, the history of inward and outward migration and the history of black Britons.”
I was struck by that when I read the review and three months on it has even greater resonance. I readily acknowledge that I am someone with gaping holes in her education that need to be filled. I, for one, need to learn what I need to learn, in the widest sense. It is not only Home Office staff who need that learning.
We all know the importance of leadership. The Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary are reviewing Home Office leadership and culture. Can the Minister tell the House whether this has external facilitation? Does it cover the whole of the Home Office?
The Home Secretary says in her Statement:
“I have apologised for the appalling treatment suffered”.
A sincere apology is not something made and then done with; it must be constant and its sincerity demonstrated by action. The Statement later refers to the challenges faced by the Windrush generation and their descendants. It is wider than that. As Wendy Williams wrote in her first recommendation:
“The sincerity of this apology will be determined by how far the Home Office demonstrates a commitment to learn from its mistakes by making fundamental changes to its culture and way of working, that are both systemic and sustainable.”
Her seventh recommendation, which follows seamlessly, is for
“a full review … of the hostile/compliant environment policy and measures—individually and cumulatively.”
It should be scrupulous,
“designed in partnership with external experts and published in a timely way.”
That policy, whatever it is called—the hostile or compliant environment policy—is far-reaching and callous. It is racist.
The National Audit Office, in December 2018, commented on the department still showing a lack of curiosity about individuals who may have been affected and who are not of Caribbean heritage, on the basis that this would be a “disproportionate effort”. “In the circumstances”, the NAO reported, “we find this surprising”.
We all need to exercise our imagination and put ourselves in other people’s shoes when we consider what actions we may take, so I am pleased to hear that the Home Secretary will be accepting Wendy Williams’ 30 recommendations in full. I do not know whether there is any significance in the future tense “will be accepting”. We look forward to their implementation and to tangible outcomes.
When we first debated the report, I acknowledged that not all the implementation could be immediate. I also acknowledge that claims made to the compensation scheme must be considered and assessed. After all, some claimants may be claiming too little. But that does not mean that every “i” must be dotted and every “t” crossed before any payment is made.
The Statement refers to the urgent and exceptional payments scheme. I will resist going down the road of exploring whether the whole situation, and the claims, are exceptional, and whether they are urgent, given the age and current situation of many if not most of the claimants, brought about by their experiences, but I will ask the Minister whether the 35 payments totalling over £46,000 made to the end of March are the same as the
“many interim and exceptional payments”
that
“have been made to make sure that people have access … to the funds they need now”.
The figures seem woefully small. Does the Minister have more up-to-date figures? We are used to reporting by government on a three-monthly basis and reasonably so, but I would have thought in this case that Ministers would have wanted to see how payments are going month by month, in respect of every category of payment.
I will also ask the Minister about further offers. I cannot make the amounts mentioned add up to anywhere near “over £1 million”. Can she break that figure down? Can she explain “offered”? That suggests conditionality. Are claimants expected to agree that an offer is accepted in full and final settlement? If so, what advice can they access before doing so, and is this in the spirit of the apology?
The Home Secretary said she
“simply will not call for targets.”
I agree that these are “personal” and “individual” cases, as she said—or, indeed personal and individual people—to be treated with care and respect. However, I have asked in a Question for Written Answer—it was only last week, so I am not accusing the Minister of being slow in responding—what the Government’s targets are for the number of claims settled in full and the number of interim awards made within different periods after the commencement of the scheme. Sometimes there is a place for targets, and stretch targets at that. To aim high in paying what must for many must be much-needed cash is, in my view, one of those targets.
Finally, the Home Secretary is committed to ensuring that the Home Office delivers
“for each part of the community it serves”.
That is all of us, not only those with whom it has direct contact, but those on whose behalf it acts. We would all like to feel it acted in our name.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for those points. I join the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in paying tribute to the Windrush generation, two days on from the anniversary of the arrival of the “Empire Windrush” at Tilbury docks. He referenced the Williams review, an excellent document that is moving in so many ways and which, most importantly, tells the stories of people.
The noble Lord asked about the timescale, the Government having accepted the recommendations. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made clear yesterday that she will come to Parliament before the Summer Recess to set out in more detail the terms of the implementation of the recommendations. It is good news that she has accepted every single recommendation.
He also asked what the differences were between the various groups—the cross-government working group, the stakeholder advisory group and the Prime Minister’s group. They complement each other. First and foremost, as he articulated, we need action. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be co-chairing a cross-government working group, with Bishop Webley as co-chair, and other community leaders who are equally driven to bring about the difference that we want. This is not a single-department issue; it goes right across government. The group will support us in delivering some of the practical solutions on issues spanning education, work and health, in providing that advice on our response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, and in upholding our commitment to the Windrush generation.
Noble Lords probably know that the Windrush stakeholder advisory group has always been central to how we have shaped our response in supporting the Windrush generation. Community leaders and groups from across the country have provided invaluable contributions and insights as part of the Windrush stakeholder advisory group, which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary launched last September. They will all complement each other in different ways.
The noble Lord asked about the lower and upper estimate, and whether it was still the same. As far as I know, it is still the same. Obviously there will be a wide range of awards within that, and in terms of whether we are mitigating the risk of litigation, the Home Secretary and I are thinking about it in a totally different way—not of mitigating litigation but of assisting people in getting the awards that they deserve and making the process easy for them. Yesterday, my right honourable friend talked a lot about how some of the cases are quite complex, because they go back many years, across different areas of government and different types of need. It is not about avoiding litigation; it is about making things as easy as possible for people.
The noble Lord also talked about HMRC being an independent arbiter. He is right that the arbiter of this is independent. Regarding work being outsourced, I do not think that it is, but I shall not give a definitive answer now. I will get back to him. He asked how many cases were referred to an independent reviewer. We are encouraging people to have their cases reviewed. Because of the breadth of this compensation scheme, it is not always appreciated how many different areas people can claim in. I cannot give a figure for the average compensation claim; if it is available, I will try to get it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether we can learn about Britain’s colonial history in schools. She was talking about her own history education being confined to a very small area. Mine was confined to the unification of Italy, so I welcome any broadening of children’s history. Schools are autonomous in their ability to expand their curriculum. So much of our history is not only interesting but also frightening in some ways and great in others. As an adult, I regret not having learned more history as a child.
She asked whether this learning process is a “whole of Home Office” process. It is not just whole of Home Office; there is a lesson to be learned across government in weeding out prejudice and bias and ensuring that all people in this country can make the best of their talents and abilities. The Home Office is leading on this, but it is an endeavour for the whole of the Government. I would go further and say that it is a societal endeavour, given what we saw recently with Black Lives Matter.
The noble Baroness also asked about a review of the hostile environment. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it very clear yesterday that she accepts that what we have in the immigration landscape is complex. She wants to see a firm but fair immigration system in the future.
The noble Baroness also talked about stretch targets. I see her point, but the Home Secretary does not want to set any targets on where the cap is on money for the scheme. If she was asked for a target, it would be to ensure that every member of the Windrush generation who applied for their compensation gets the full amount that they are entitled to, but otherwise she is not setting targets.
The noble Baroness rightly asked for up-to-date figures on awards made. There are up-to-date figures, which must be quality-assured; they are released every quarter and will be in due course. Those figures will be higher than those I gave today and the Home Secretary gave yesterday. The noble Baroness also asked whether the offers are full and final. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, people are being encouraged to ensure that they get the full amount. In many cases, when the offers have been reviewed, the individual has been awarded a higher offer than they originally sought.
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
Baroness Hamwee ExcerptsMonday 15th June 2020
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 View all Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 106-TR-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF) - (10 Jun 2020)
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for pursuing this issue. We raised it at the early stages of the Bill, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ludford for continuing the argument on Report. I should also acknowledge today the critique of the Bill at Second Reading by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Clark of Calton—I know that she discussed it subsequently with the Minister. She said then:
“There is nothing provisional about the consequences of being arrested.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1743.]
Her remarks prompted me to think about the provisions of new Section 74A, taking account of weekends, bank holidays and so on. It was that—the extension from 24 hours to over a weekend or, in the case of Easter, even four days —which caused me to pursue the matter in Committee. That Committee marked the first outing of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; I hope he feels some sense of achievement for his part in this. He explained that it was the Government’s intention to replicate the existing provisions of the Extradition Act. That, of course, drove me to the Act and to this amendment; the Minister, as she said, agreed to bring the matter forward at this stage.
I note that, in the papers for today’s proceedings, the Minister’s explanatory statement refers to the 24-hour period, which, if it had stood alone without the possibility of extension, could have been acceptable, but I agree with her that it is right to have consistency throughout the Act. I confess to a bit of continuing anxiety, and not just about consistency within the Act. I have to say I was fairly confused when I came to look at the Act; it is a mighty beast. The Minister explained on Report, and I mention it today, that the original drafting was to achieve a balance between getting the arrested individual before a judge as quickly as possible and allowing the police sufficient time to gather supporting information. It is the latter that concerns me. The police must have the information to make the arrest, so what more is needed? Can the Minister expand on that when she winds up?
I am also slightly anxious because, inevitably, a fixed time period is clearer—it is much more easily enforceable; but that is a concern about the 2003 Act more broadly. I was reassured at earlier stages by the two very eminent noble and learned Lords, with their experience as two of the most senior members of the judiciary, who spoke about the 24/7 availability of judges. What is practicable now—as the Minister has explained in talking about geography and so on—is much more than a few years ago. I am very happy from our Benches and virtual Benches to support the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining the purpose of the amendments in this group, all of which are in her name. I am content with the explanation she has given, which is clear; the intent is sensible, practical, proportionate and, as noble Lords have heard, consistent with wording used in similar relevant legislation. On that basis, I am happy to support the amendments today.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Kennedy’s amendment as it would add to the system of fairness and justice, since a further check and balance would be written into the Bill. It ensures that the territory in question would not abuse the Interpol red notices system. As noble Lords will know, a red notice is a request by Interpol on behalf of one member state to all other member states to locate a suspect or convicted person, and take steps to facilitate their surrender to the requesting state. Extradition proceedings then follow.
However, not every country treats red notices as a valid warrant and the legal effect therefore currently differs between states. In February 2019, the European Parliament published a study that examined abuse by some states of Interpol’s notice system to persecute national human rights defenders, civil society activists and critical journalists in violation of international standards of human rights. The study, entitled Misuse of Interpol’s Red Notices and Impact on Human Rights—Recent Developments was commissioned by the European Parliament’s sub-committee on human rights. The study acknowledged that the reforms implemented in 2015 have improved the situation. However, abuses of the Interpol system against individuals, including refugees, continue.
There is still a lack of established rules and procedures to govern the vetting process and adherence to Interpol’s constitution. It is therefore of utmost importance that we in this House have the opportunity to finesse and refine the statute so that weaknesses in established systems are not exacerbated by any vague legislation coming from this House. I therefore support my noble friend Lord Kennedy’s amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, in this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has successfully combined a number of issues raised during the passage of the Bill. As noble Lords know, it is very difficult to resist even an affirmative instrument. That is the reality of the system, so it is particularly important that the Government are transparent and inclusive.
I went back to look at the Delegated Powers memorandum and realised—I had not noticed this before—that we are told as part of the justification for taking the power that a
“response to changing circumstances”—
which I will come to—
“provides certainty and clarity as to the appropriate manner of request from amended or newly specified territories. For example, if the UK were not to have access to the European Arrest Warrant or a similar tool, with the effect that EU Member States become re-designated as category 2 territories, it is likely to be appropriate to specify some or all of them for the purposes of this legislation.”
We had quite a bit of debate at the beginning as to whether the Bill is really preparing for us not being part of the EAW system, so there will be some interesting debates to come as territories are added.
As a member of the EU Select Committee, I have had the opportunity of hearing the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mention this on a number of occasions. He said that what is important is to preserve our sovereignty, matters of proportionality and the state’s readiness for trial. As I say, there will be quite a bit to discuss as we add other countries.
The delegated powers memorandum also says:
“in the unlikely event of a deterioration in the standards of the criminal justice system of a specified category 2 territory, it is likely to be appropriate to remove”
it; well, the United States has been mentioned already by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. I suppose the answer to that is in the question of deterioration, because there are plenty of concerns about its processes now.
The House will be aware of our enthusiasm for consultation. I know that they do not claim this, but the Government do not have the monopoly of wisdom. Like other noble Lords, I am often very impressed by the knowledge that NGOs have. My noble friend Lord Paddick raised this point. I hope the Minister can confirm that, in legislation-speak, the Secretary of State’s opinion must always be a reasonable opinion and can be challenged on the basis that it is not reasonable.
I tabled an amendment in Committee to the effect that the designated authority—in our case, the NCA—must be satisfied that the request is not politically motivated. The Minister responded carefully and in detail, and I was grateful for that. The Committee was then reminded that the Extradition Act has safeguards in respect of requests motivated by a person’s political views. I want to make a distinction between that amendment and the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which is about the abuse of the red notice system. I think that is different; it is to do with the requesting territory’s approach on a wider basis. I hope that the House will accept that the narrower amendment has been disposed of, as it does not deal with the wider point. From our Benches, we support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. Amendment 2 deals with the proposed statutory requirements for a consultation, the laying of statements before Parliament setting out the risks of any amendment to add, vary or remove a territory to the Bill and, in the case of additions, confirming that a territory does not abuse the Interpol red notice system prior to laying any regulations which seek to amend the territories subject to the Bill.
The Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the ability to question and decide on whether any new territories should come within scope. Therefore, it is mandated in the Bill that any Government wishing to add a new territory should do so through the affirmative resolution procedure. Any statutory instrument laid before Parliament will, of course, be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum that will set out the legislative context and the policy reason for the instrument. This procedure will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise proposals and allow the House to reject any proposals to add, remove or vary any territory to, from or in the Bill. The reasoning put forward will need to satisfy Parliament that the territory in scope does not abuse Interpol red notices or create unacceptable risks.
While extradition is a reserved matter, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations about how it should operate in practice. They would of course engage with them as a matter of good practice were any secondary legislation to be introduced in relation to it. Similarly, several relevant NGOs and expert legal practitioners have been consulted by officials in the normal way; this answers the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. All external stakeholders are able to make direct contact with parliamentarians so that their views are included in all debates connected with secondary legislation associated with the Bill, as they have done during its current passage by contacting several noble Lords in this House.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, talked about the abuse of Interpol channels. I will expand on that a bit. In arguing that maybe a power should not be enacted, given previous abuse of Interpol channels by some hostile states, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, cited the case of Bill Browder. International organisations like Interpol are critical to international law enforcement co-operation and are aligned with our vision of a global Britain. Interpol provides a secure channel through which we exchange information on a police-to-police basis for action. The UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol, which I was delighted about. It is the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK government lawyer has also been seconded to the Interpol notices and diffusion task force, to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states.
In terms of the specification of non-trusted countries, the power will be available only in relation to requests from the countries specified in the Bill—countries in whose criminal justice systems we have a high level of confidence, and that do not abuse Interpol systems. The Government will not specify any country that is not suitable. The addition of any country must be approved by both Houses, and I trust that neither House will be content to approve the addition of a country about which we have concern.
I will try to make it easy for the House, because we will now have our first ever virtual vote in the House of Lords. I understand that noble Lords would like to divide on this, and I hope that they will join me in resisting the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (7)(a) shall designate no more than one territory.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require regulations which add, vary or remove a reference to a territory under Schedule A1 to contain no more than one territory. This will allow Parliament to reject a particular territory.
Baroness Hamwee [V]
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has added his name to Amendment 3, as the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Anderson, did to a similar amendment at an earlier stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ludford, who dealt with the matter on our behalf on Report, when, with the leave of the Minister, it was agreed that it be taken at Third Reading.
We often hear from the mover of an amendment: “This is a simple amendment.” Often, it is not quite that simple, but I believe this one is straightforward. When the Secretary of State lays regulations under new Section 74B(7)
“to add, vary or remove a reference to a territory”—
it is the addition that is the issue here—those regulations should apply only to a single territory. What I hope makes this simple to noble Lords is that there is nothing to prevent several instruments, each relating to one territory, being laid at the same time so that several territories can be specified within a matter of minutes of each other. But the crux is that Parliament should be able to reject one territory while happily accepting others.
In Committee, I used the examples of the Netherlands, a country which we respect, and Turkey, whose human rights record has regressed. I will use another pair today. I couple them only to distinguish between them: Sweden is a country we admire; Venezuela is one we do not, in this regard. If Parliament is presented with the choice of rejecting Sweden from the system because it wants to reject Venezuela, or accepting Venezuela because it wants to accept Sweden, how can Parliament possibly do the job we are all here to do when faced with an SI which is not amendable? The Minister has said previously that she would not present an SI that includes a country whose extradition requests we could not have confidence in due to their human rights record and would risk Parliament refusing extradition arrangements with a country that respects the rule of law. What the noble Baroness as an individual Minister might do is not the issue. I do not for a moment challenge her as an individual. This is a matter of system and procedure, not for an individual.
The previous amendment, which has just been agreed, referred to political motivation, and we must all be aware of the different criteria that different countries apply to the decisions they take as a state. Given the issues around relationships with countries regarding arms sales, for instance, is it any wonder that noble Lords are concerned about extradition to a country whose values, including valuing human life, are not our values?
The shortcomings and difficulties in procedures for dealing with secondary legislation are not a new point, but the fact that no amendments are possible is the most relevant one today. But, for once, we have a solution, which is to deal with these proposals one country at a time. I cannot understand an objection which seems to amount to no more than “It wasn’t invented here” or “not common practice”, to use the phrase used in Committee.
I need say no more, as I know that other noble Lords will contribute to the debate. Unless the Minister concedes, which I do not expect, I will test the opinion of the House, but for the moment I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford [V]
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has covered the strong case for this amendment and, to be quite frank, I cannot see on what grounds the Government can resist it. There is no good argument on administrative, parliamentary or human rights grounds not to have one territory per SI, so that Parliament can carefully discriminate between those territories where we are happy to have a law enforcement relationship and those that are, quite honestly, unreliable.
The way that the Government have resisted this improvement throughout the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House raises some concerns. Those are not linked, as my noble friend said, to the person of the Minister, but to any and every Government. We know that there will be pressures on this country, which has chosen—wrongly, in my opinion—to exit from the EU and make itself vulnerable to pressures in the context of seeking trade agreements. Those pressures are being discussed in a lively way, as they were last Wednesday in our Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill, when we discussed chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and so on, and one can foresee similar kinds of pressures when countries seek favours from the United Kingdom in order to give us a trade concession. It would be all too tempting for a current or future Government to throw in a favour in a completely different area, such as law enforcement co-operation, in order to win a point for one economic sector or another in a trade deal.
In order to stop any such development in its tracks, it is completely reasonable to ask the Government simply to let Parliament decide on a country-by-country basis whether we want to add them to this system of provisional arrest. The onus is really on the Government to convince this House why it is reasonable to lump them together and not allow us to decide territory by territory, which is the obvious way to proceed.
Baroness Hamwee [V]
I will test the opinion of the House, but I will first respond a little to what has been said. I thank all noble Lords who have supported this amendment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we need a sensible extradition regime and I do not seek to subvert that. This is also not about mutual arrangements. I am flattered that the noble and learned Lord attributes to me an awareness of and sensitivity to the constitution and common sense. I hope this amendment achieves both. He gave examples of situations where the Government might be tempted down a route which was not perhaps the best because of other matters in play politically. It occurs to me that the topical discussion might be, “Do you want our vaccine? Do you want our PPE?” This amendment would let the Government, in advance, off the hook that they might create for themselves, giving them a way out of facing that unpleasant discussion.
We are proud of our values; this is a way of applying them. The Minister says that we might win the argument and vote down regulations because they included an “undesirable” country—I use the term as shorthand. However, in this example, that would not reflect the views of Parliament because it would not be able at that point to accept the desirable country.
We have had to adapt our procedures over the last few weeks. Great and very successful attempts have been made to ensure that procedure reflects good governance. We should extend that today. This is a proportionate response to the issue. The Minister says that the Government want to press on with the Bill; I have no doubt that they do. It will have to go to the Commons, and we know that it already contains a provision which the Government will not be very happy with. As I say, this amendment is proportionate, sensible and one that the House should accept. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark [V]
My Lords, I echo the noble Baroness’s comments. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I enjoyed working with everybody concerned. I think that we have made the Bill better. As always, the noble Baroness has been courteous and kind and always prepared to engage with me constructively. I also thank all her officials from the Home Office for the way they have worked with me during the Bill’s passage.
Baroness Hamwee [V]
My Lords, I too thank everyone who has been involved with the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, it is not an easy subject, although some of the amendments that we have had to consider have in fact been relatively straightforward. I suspect we will discuss extradition quite a lot over the next few months and years, so we will all get to know the subject even better. I congratulate her on seeing this through. I really appreciate the help of officials and staff. Who thought, when we started on the passage of the Bill, that we would have had such an extraordinary experience?
Quarantine: Scientific Advice
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, I think that Parliament has been given a lot of detail on this. On spot checks, PHE will do dip sampling of 20% of arriving passengers. If information on where to contact people is not forthcoming at the border, a fine can be issued.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, these regulations have been received with concern, incredulity and, I am afraid, contempt. Does the Minister accept that it is essential that the public have confidence in these measures, because the absence of confidence threatens the public’s adherence to all the Government’s measures?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, I took the opportunity to speak to Border Force yesterday about how things were going at the border. It had no problems yesterday. Looking at the general public’s compliance with the regulations thus far, there has been a high degree of not only compliance but support.
Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by expressing our thanks to our Border Force staff for their tremendous work, which is sometimes overlooked, in keeping our country safe. Regulations were laid yesterday to bring in the measures announced in the Home Secretary’s Statement in respect of the 14-day self-isolation period for people coming into this country, as from next Monday. There is no impact assessment with the regulations, which is due, we are told, to the rush with which they are being introduced. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister gave notice of these quarantine measures nearly four weeks ago in his televised address to the nation. Surely the Government are not bringing in such a significant measure without providing some meaningful information on both the expected and presumably favourable impact they will have on the number of new Covid-19 cases coming into this country and their expected economic impact on the airline, travel, tourism and hospitality sectors, including on jobs. Can the Government now provide the meaningful information they have on these two aspects that led them to the conclusion that introducing these particular measures was imperative?
In the Statement, the Home Secretary said:
“Some have suggested that public health measures at the border should have been introduced when the virus was at its peak. However, at that time, the scientific advice was clear that such measures would have made little difference when domestic transmission was widespread.”
Actually, people like myself were not suggesting that sensible screening measures at the borders should have been introduced when the virus was at its peak, as the Home Secretary claimed and when no doubt the scientific advice was that that was a bit late. What was being called for was for such measures to be taken before the virus had really taken hold and the figures were low, yet when we were well aware of the extent of the problems already building up elsewhere in other countries, including in Europe. We did a limited amount of quarantining at first, but then it stopped. Now we are told that it is necessary. Given that, why was it stopped when large numbers of people continued to enter this country, certainly prior to our lockdown? Why is it necessary now, when other countries are beginning to ease their restrictions, if it was not necessary much earlier?
There was always one significant way that the virus was going to get into our country, and that was from people, or goods, arriving from or who had been to destinations that already had it. There must be a strong suspicion that, as with PPE and with testing and tracing, the measures were not in place when they should have been because the Government were caught unprepared and were too slow. As a result, the capacity to introduce and apply appropriate measures was just not there when it was really needed.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary was asked by the shadow Home Secretary to make available the scientific evidence on which the measures announced in the Statement was based. I am now asking the Minister to give that commitment on behalf of the Government when she responds. It is not enough to say that scientific advice will be published in due course. Information and evidence must be available already, otherwise how could the Government’s decision to introduce the self-isolation measures from next Monday have been based on scientific advice? I assume that these measures now have the wholehearted approval of SAGE, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.
The regulations have a sunset provision after 12 months and will be reviewed by the Secretary of State at least once every 21 days, with the first review on 29 June. Can the Minister, on behalf of the Government, give a commitment that they will now come back to Parliament before the end of that initial three-week window on 29 June to outline the Government’s proposed exit strategy from these measures and provide a comprehensive plan of support for all the jobs that are now even more at risk? Will she also give a commitment, on behalf of the Government, that there will be an Oral Statement to Parliament on each review date of the requirements in the regulations, so that the Government can advise Parliament of the outcome of the Secretary of State’s reviews and Parliament can question the reasons for any decisions made or not made?
Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum that relates to the SI affecting passengers arriving in England, paragraph 6.12 states:
“People who temporarily cross over the border from Wales or Scotland into England for a reason falling within these exceptions do not have to self-isolate … This is not applicable in relation to Northern Ireland which does not share a land border with England.”
Will the Minister spell out in a bit more detail precisely what this means in practice for Northern Ireland compared with Wales or Scotland? Why, if it is the case that Northern Ireland is being treated differently under these regulations from Wales or Scotland, is this necessary and unavoidable?
Finally, where does responsibility for the implementation of these regulations lie? I ask because the Home Secretary made the Statement in the Commons yesterday and our Home Office Minister in the Lords is responding today. However, the regulations implementing these measures are in the name of the Health Secretary. I know the Government are very keen to tell us that everything is dealt with on a cross-government basis, but where does responsibility lie for the implementation and operation of these measures? Is it with the Home Secretary, the Health Secretary, another Cabinet Minister—perhaps the Transport Secretary—or the Prime Minister? If things go right with these measures, and it is in the interests of the country that they do, we do not want to watch everyone in government trying to claim credit. If things go wrong, we do not want to witness an unseemly exercise in buck-passing.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I would prefer to look forward, but I cannot avoid putting this measure into the context of current public attitudes. This is not just about quarantine; it is about how much confidence the public have in what the Government say and in what they tell us to do. There is a widespread view that these quarantine measures are unenforceable, and an even wider view that the Government have lost touch with reality. Today, the Prime Minister, in the vaccine summit, is urging the world to act collaboratively. Has it not occurred to the Government that, given our high rates of infection compared with many—probably most —of the countries to which people from the UK wish to travel, and to which they will therefore return, the risks to those countries are greater than to the UK? Last Friday, the UK had more deaths than the whole of the EU and EEA in total. Sir Patrick Vallance yesterday summed up what the public are thinking.
We have had monitoring and triaging at the border. Will that apply to those exempt from quarantine? I am interested to know from the Minister when the Government will publish in full the advice they have received, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just referred, and the extent of consultation with stakeholders, including those who can reliably advise on the availability of tracking, tracing and testing.
Regarding enforcement, what discretion will there be on the level of fine and how will it be enforced when the recipient has returned abroad? We have just heard the Statement on the aviation industry, so I am not glossing over the issues with that by making just two points. Is progress being made in thinking about moves towards reducing damage to the environment by frequent flying? And, more immediately, how will the—presumably socially distanced—queues at the border be handled? We have seen images of Tuesday’s queues of MPs unencumbered by luggage, although possibly encumbered by baggage. Can the Government tell noble Lords the level of holiday bookings in place through to September? They must have talked to the industry.
It is not open to many people to take a holiday and then a period of isolation, so people must be cancelling. Many will have travel insurance. What do the insurers have to say about meeting claims on that basis? I hope that the Minister will not say that this depends on the detail of each policy. It is a wider point. I say that because I know that, in a different sector, there has been resistance to paying out when the insured thought that they had all the right cover.
I particularly want to ask about business travel. I had seen no comment on this until Mrs May’s observation yesterday that
“international air travel is necessary for trade; without it, there is no global Britain.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/20; col. 850.]
There must be many people who, as part of their work, come and go between the UK, France, Belgium and further afield on a frequent basis. Of course, there is also travel for family reasons. There are people who work in the UK in large or small microbusinesses but whose home is in France, and vice versa, or who work in both countries but not on a regular basis of at least once a week, as the statutory instrument envisages. Why not have an exemption for people who travel irregularly and less frequently? Would that not actually give more of a chance for an infection to show itself? We heard in the previous Statement that there is no minimum period for a stay abroad, even if it is a couple of hours.
Is there any exemption for people who need to travel for international humanitarian purposes? I do not mean health workers coming to the UK. I did find it ironic to read that services to ensure the continued operation of the aviation industry are exempt. What estimate is there—I particularly want the Minister to share this with noble Lords—of the numbers of people exempted through the 12 pages of categories scheduled to the SI? What guidance will be published on matters such as travel to and from airports, or, given the restrictions on the hospitality industry, finding a hotel in which to self-isolate? The Home Secretary said yesterday that this would be in advance of 8 June; well, it would have to be. What assessment has been made of the likely transmission from those who are exempt, as compared with the extent of transmission if there were no restriction?
People need to plan ahead as far as they can in uncertain times. The quarantine measures are to be reviewed in three weeks. I end specifically by urging the Government to reconsider that period and to apply a serious—not tick-box—weekly review, and, generally, by urging clarity and coherence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their questions. The science advice has been consistent. It has been clear that
“as the number of cases in the UK decreases, the potential proportion of imported cases may increase”.
So, as noble Lords have said, we need to manage the risk of infections being introduced from elsewhere. When the virus was at its peak, these measures would have been ineffective.
SAGE minutes of 23 March stated that
“numbers of cases arriving from other countries are estimated to be insignificant compared with domestic cases, comprising approximately 0.5%”.
It is for SAGE to determine when to publish its advice. Of course, the minutes have been published and are on the GOV.UK website. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what SAGE thinks of certain government decisions; it is for SAGE to advise the Government rather than approve government decisions. He asked about the next review date and whether there would be an Oral Statement on each review date. I am not sure about that, but I am happy to commit to doing one—and if I do not, I am sure that noble Lords will ensure that I do.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about the tourism industry. I recognise that the measures will have an impact on tourism and the aviation industry, which are significant contributors to the UK economy. The Government continue to support businesses in the tourism sector through one of the most generous economic packages provided anywhere in the world. We have always recognised that the measures we have taken to limit the spread of Covid-19 will have a substantial impact on our economy, including on sectors such as tourism, but that was essential to protect the NHS and save lives. The Government will continue to work with the travel industry and other countries through forums such as the OECD and the G20 to co-ordinate an international response. We want to ensure that the UK remains an internationally competitive destination for business and leisure and that, when it is safe to do so, UK residents can resume travel and support the UK’s outbound tourism sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about people travelling from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. Those arriving in England on a journey from another part of the CTA—Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands—will be required to provide locator details and self-isolate only if they have entered the CTA within the last 14 days. For example, if they travel to England through another part of the CTA but their journey started from a destination outside the CTA within the last 14 days, they will have to self-isolate only until they have spent a total of 14 days in the CTA. Those who have been in the CTA for longer than 14 days will not have to provide locator details or self-isolate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the penalty for breach. Given the high levels of compliance we have seen to our measures to date, we expect that the majority of people will do the right thing and abide by these measures. The police will continue to use their powers proportionately and will engage, explain, encourage, and only as a last resort enforce. That is how they have acted all through this, but they will take enforcement action against the minority of people who endanger the safety of others. That is the right thing to do.
British nationals and foreign citizens who fail to comply with the mandatory conditions could face enforcement action. A breach of self-isolation would be punishable with a £1,000 fixed-penalty notice in England or potential prosecution and unlimited fine. The level of fine will be kept under review and immigration action will be considered as a last resort for foreign nationals. The legislation is created under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.
In terms of the proportion of arrivals who will be exempt, we think that it will capture an estimated 11% of arrivals. The noble Baroness also asked about travel to and from the airport. It is being advised that you do not use public transport to travel to and from an airport but take the car of the person you are staying with.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
This has been a heartfelt debate, and I am only sorry that the system has not shown every speaker on the screen, although we have heard from them all other than my noble friend Lord Dholakia. As I have been able to see what my noble friend was going to say before the debate started, I hope he will have another opportunity to make what I know would have been a very clear and tough speech.
Let us contrast the photographs of the bright, eager faces of people arriving here in the 1940s and 1950s, looking forward to a new life and contributing to the UK, with those who later found out that not only were they not wanted, they were not recognised. The terms for what many of them did are topical: key workers, essential workers. Wendy Williams as well as parliamentary committees have used case studies that include current photographs. The experiences of individuals illuminate the whole. The media have used case studies too, and I pay tribute, as others have done, to the investigative journalists who have shone a light on the scandal. Amelia Gentleman’s book is analytical, distressing and shaming. The compensation scheme, in the words of the recent Bill, applies to
“certain categories of persons in recognition of difficulties arising out of an inability to demonstrate lawful immigration status.”
Those are weasel words. The recognition is that the Home Office was unable to recognise the law or rights. They are rights, not something that some people deserve, which is the language used too often by some Ministers, although not, I think, by the noble Baroness. It is as if they have to be earned and can be forfeited.
Victim blaming is never attractive. We are told that people should have contacted the Home Office, but it is a bit rich to have expected the Windrush generation to understand what the Home Office did not. Could any of us list all the provisions of our complex immigration legislation, any more than we could provide evidence for every year of our residence? I threw away my school reports when I cleared my mother’s house. The Home Office threw away records when it cleared an office, despite junior officials protesting about how often they referred to them.
I want to ask just a few questions beyond those asked by other noble Lords about the scheme and about the people who have been affected by what happened. What have the Government learned about outsourcing public sector work to the private sector? Have they logged the losses of jobs, of homes, of medical treatment and benefits denied? How many people were detained? I cannot let this moment go by without mentioning the detention, neither necessary nor proportionate when there is no risk of absconding, of people who were not criminals. In 2020, in the midst of a pandemic, we are putting at risk, by continuing their detention, people who are not criminals or who have served their sentence.
Why do some components of the claim to the scheme have to meet the criminal standard of proof, or its equivalent? This reflects the original problem that the Home Office required standards of proof that were difficult if not impossible to meet; to quote the review,
“an environment for staff to reject rather than be proportionate or objective in each case.”
Why is there not a longer cut-off date for claims? After all, the Government, in the shape of HMRC questioning taxpayers, can go back six years. How many people are now thought to have a claim and how many died before they even received an apology?
The Minister will resist any suggestion of a read-across to the EU settled status scheme, although I will make one, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I accept that some experience has been applied, but although the Windrush scandal may have been unforeseen, it was both foreseeable and avoidable. I would like to think that, in applying the settled status scheme, the culture of disbelief and of carelessness and ignorance has been ditched in favour of the recognition of a duty of care to applicants. The NAO referred to this too. The large proportion of grants of pre-settled, not settled, status that have been made surely raises a warning flag of problems down the line when applicants discover that what they have been granted is not what they had understood it to be.
It is right that the department should reflect on the review, but not all the recommendations require a pause. The hostile environment was designed to be read as hostile and intolerable to immigrants, and it was racist. Merely rebranding it takes political loyalties too far. Wendy Williams is measured but clear, recommending
“a full review and evaluation of the … policy and measures—individually and cumulatively … whether they are effective and proportionate in meeting their stated aim, given the risks inherent in the policy … and its impact on British citizens and migrants with status, with reference to equality law and particularly the public sector equality duty.”
Legislatively that environment can be dismantled now.
When the previous Home Secretary responded to a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the detention of members of the Windrush generation, he referred to establishing a casework profession with a culture that puts the customer—perhaps not the term I would have chosen—at the heart of decision-making, and ensuring better use of face-to-face engagement. I think the Minister will acknowledge that there was scarcely any such engagement.
I do not know whether the Minister has up-to-date news on work on cultural change. She has referred to some of the processes now being undertaken. These may have been the subject of her letter of 30 April, which I do not seem to have received, so I apologise if I have raised points which are covered in that letter. Ms Williams’ review was of course not of the whole of the Home Office; nevertheless, it is surely widely applicable. She is clear about the importance of diversity in the Home Office, not just at junior levels, and about engagement with citizens, applicants and staff.
Ms Williams is clear too that some of her recommendations, if implemented, will have tangible outcomes: the level of successful appeals, the quality of casework, and better informed and better evaluated policy. Other outcomes are intangible but essential: the look and feel of the department, with a values-led culture and a mission bought into by all levels of staff.
The Government as a whole should reflect on the review, because there are lessons for the whole of government. I look forward to hearing in a few months’ time what lessons have been learned, and how they are being applied, so that all that is done is, to use Ms Williams’ phrase, “rooted in humanity.”
Domestic Abuse
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It was at the forefront of our minds that, as we entered lockdown, some people would be affected not necessarily by Covid-19 but by violence within the home. It is very gratifying to hear that noble Lords are so concerned about it. One of the first things I did was to get in touch with the domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs; everything that she requested from the sector has now been put in place, including the #YouAreNotAlone campaign and other funding packages. There is also IT support, which is incredibly important; if you cannot get out of the house, you need to get that support somehow.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The current pressure-cooker situation does not have a retirement age—quite the opposite. Older people can be particularly vulnerable, not just to alcohol-fuelled abuse but particularly to financial abuse. The specialist charity which supports older people is also taking referrals from large organisations, carers and care homes. Will the Government ensure that both awareness and financial support extend to what is a less well-known problem?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government, particularly the Home Office, are getting more and more evidence of financial abuse, particularly among older people. Economic abuse is now seen as a form of domestic abuse, so the noble Baroness is absolutely right. There is not only economic abuse of the elderly; as was raised with me in a Question last week, older people are more subject to scams.
Child Refugees: Turkey and Greece
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand what the noble Lord is saying, in the sense that those children are now in a European country as opposed to coming from whatever region in the world they come from. We will absolutely stand by our commitment to helping children from around the world who need our help. We are in dialogue with Greece and we will work closely with UNHCR, which both identifies and refers children who may need our resettlement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is likely that some of the children in this situation have relatives in the UK and therefore have a right to be reunited with their family in this country. What proactive—I stress that word—steps are the Government taking to help them exercise their right? Secondly, when do the Government expect to publish the Statement on family reunification, as required by legislation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In terms of proactivity, clearly, we engage with our European counterparts. We are still engaged in the Dublin process, which goes both ways; in fact, we take more children than we transfer back. On the Statement, we will lay an Act Paper by 22 March on our policy regarding future arrangements between the UK and the EU for family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.