Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, another day, another 323 pages of Home Office legislation. I realise that for the noble and learned Lord, who has had to immerse himself in it, this must be a bit like having his client settling at the door of the court, as he will not be able to continue with it. We have a Long Title which is long enough for the antennae of many noble Lords to twitch with the prospect of introducing their specialist subject—the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, demonstrated that amply.

As it always does, the House has demonstrated much expertise in, and practical experience of, aspects of policing. This is called the Policing and Crime Bill but, from the preponderance of briefings that I have received—other noble Lords will, no doubt, have as well—I wonder whether a significant part of it should have been led by the Department of Health. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, made a similar point, though perhaps coming from a different perspective. There are four clauses, out of more than 150, on powers under the Mental Health Act. While the organisations from which I received briefings gave some welcome to these, the concern to do more and better comes through loud and clear. As Mind pointed out—and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, reminded us—the Mental Health Act 1983,

“allows people to be deprived of their liberty when they haven’t committed, or are not suspected of having committed, a crime”.

Concerns about the places of safety provisions have been expressed in the Chamber and from outside including, most recently, from Black Mental Health, some of which came through on my iPad after we had started the debate.

Inevitably, there has been a focus on resources. I hope we might hear something positive from the Government—a Government who acknowledge that mental health services are a Cinderella. My right honourable friend Norman Lamb had seven amendments in the Commons. Reference has been made to some of his concerns, but not to disallowing the use of tasers by police officers on psychiatric wards. They have no place in mental health care—I stress care—nor, really, do the police. We will pursue his concerns and, I suspect, more, as we have more scope in this House.

According to the Long Title, the Bill will,

“make provision to combat the sexual exploitation of children and to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm”,

but not as extensively as the children’s organisations which work so effectively together point out. We have heard concerns about extending child abduction warning notices, online offences, disrupting grooming and therapeutic support for victims of abuse, which is something I feel strongly about.

As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, did too—the Bill was introduced as “finishing” the job of police reform. Will it ever be finished? Some 42 police forces provided information to a Liberal Democrat FOI request about 101 calls. This is nothing to do with Nineteen Eighty-four—I have not got my Bills mixed up. From 2012 to date, 3.5 million calls were unanswered. These 101 calls may not be about emergencies, but that does not mean they are not about serious matters. To the citizen, any call to the police which is unanswered is serious.

I share doubts about whether the administrative arrangements will lead to increased confidence. Much has been said this afternoon about local collaboration between the blue-light services. Along with my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I feel that local authorities should have a leading position in decisions around this. Allowing police and crime commissioners voting rights at local authority meetings is, at the least, questionable. My noble friend referred to the term “good will”, which is an immensely important point, and I remember the chambers of commerce report to which she referred.

I turn to governance issues. Maybe the summer holidays will re-energise us all and enable us to come up with an enormous raft of amendments to debate the points to which our attention was drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his compelling speech. We are told all this is based on efficiency and effectiveness, but whether that is fulfilled rather depends on the criteria you set.

On the subject of confidence, I take the point made by the IPCC—as it still is—that a change of name to Office for Police Conduct is likely to be read by the public as meaning a police body, not an independent one, as my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond said. There is far more to be addressed on conduct and complaint matters, but I will indulge myself by saying that “super-complaint” seems to me to be a very unfortunate term.

There is also appropriate concern about what has been called the constitutional novelty of directly elected politicians taking on a quasi-judicial function.

How the police use civilian staff seems to have swung to and fro over quite a short period. When I was first concerned with the Metropolitan Police’s budget, through my membership of the London Assembly, we often questioned what seemed to be a widespread view that you could not, for instance, handle human resources if you did not wear a uniform. The pendulum has swung a lot. Whether expanding the role of civilian staff and volunteers—no doubt driven by cost-cutting—jeopardises the service, is something which we must discuss. I recognise a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was talking about. I do not know whether I should be concerned, but I am, about the impact of all this on neighbourhood policing. Its status, and the investment in it, seems to have been reduced—I might even say downgraded—over not a very long period.

The provisions about the detention of 17-year olds show the value of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have a 35-page human rights memorandum and there are, of course, enhancements of human rights in the Bill. Like others, I suspect this is because of the scrutiny role of this House. I do tend to go straight for the problem areas and forget to acknowledge the good bits. There is also an 85-page delegated powers memorandum, so that might turn out to be material for scrutiny.

The requirement to confirm nationality will take us to human rights issues and, for the second time in a matter of months, to the confusion of the roles of police and immigration officers. This was raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am now a member. In a letter to the then Home Secretary, the chair of the committee wrote:

“Although the Government has accepted that Article 14 of the Convention may be engaged in respect of foreign nationals, the ECHR memorandum does not consider any potentially differential impact on BAME UK citizens”.

She referred to the,

“discretion to the individual officer as to whether or not to ask the arrested person to state their nationality. This raises the prospect of UK nationals who are members of ethnic minorities being more likely to be asked to state and then prove their nationality than other UK nationals”,

with a risk of discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. On behalf of the committee, she asked the Government to,

“address this issue of possible differential impact and explain how this differential impact can be avoided or justified”.

The answer was that:

“it is considered that such interference”—

requesting proof of nationality—

“is proportionate and justified to the pursuit of a legitimate aim—namely being able to properly exercise an effective immigration control”.

There is either a circularity or an assumption about what the problem is there. It does not answer the question but answers another point entirely. The Minister replying pointed out that,

“both immigration officers and the police must comply with public law principles”,

including,

“the requirement to act reasonably in all circumstances”,

and that their actions or decisions,

“may be challenged in the courts by means of judicial review”.

I have to say that I do not find that convincing.

Maritime enforcement also raises human rights issues and issues around the refugee convention. We do not seem to have a Minister with particular responsibility for refugees now, which is a pity because their plight must not go out of the headlines and I know that this House will not relegate the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Condon, referred to a long list of problems that will have to be addressed because of our exit from the EU. Would that we could sort them out in the Bill.

I have said enough for today except for my last note, which says, “Whinge about the timing of Committee”. I am not sure whether this Policing and Crime Bill will be light relief from the Investigatory Powers Bill, as jam in the sandwich during our two weeks in December—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

It is in September.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I meant September; that was wishful thinking. I do not suppose that that sandwich arrangement would be particularly welcome to Ministers either, but it will not deter us from raising issues on either Bill which we feel must be raised. On the same basis as it takes longer to write a piece for the Sun than for the Guardian, there may be rather a lot of amendments.

Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Friday 8th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I wondered whether to congratulate the noble Baroness on her place in the ballot but I do not think it is a matter for congratulation. It is not an achievement; it is luck, says she who came 49th. Introducing a worthwhile Bill, however, is a matter for congratulation and I congratulate her warmly on that. Like her, I acknowledge the work done in the private and professional sectors on this issue.

The Modern Slavery Act was indeed an important landmark, and Section 54 was very welcome for starting us on the road we have been discussing. The recent paper, Good Business: Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which is as recent as last May, said:

“Companies understand the business case for respecting human rights and the benefits this brings. They understand that positive action, supported by due diligence, transparency and reporting”—

all three relevant terms today—

“can … help to protect and enhance a company’s reputation and brand value ... safeguard and expand their customer base … help them attract and retain good staff”.

I could continue with its list of nine points, which ends with a reference to supporting company ethics and values. I will come back to companies.

The moral issues—the last of those points—which underlie Section 54 extend beyond companies to the public sector. I recall many noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Baroness, commenting on that when we debated Section 54. In any event, the line between the public and private sectors is increasingly blurred, but this is nothing new as a general concept for public authorities. We have equality duties, environmental considerations and more. I was a councillor when it first became common to include an environmental assessment of a proposition. There was concern then that this would become just a tick-box exercise, and maybe sometimes it has. Maybe it is because transparency in supply chains, TISC, is not a tick-box exercise for which you need only a statement—there is no statement—that the Government are rather cautious about this.

There are at least two sides to the moral aspect. “Do as I say, not as I do”, is not a very attractive way of going about things, and public bodies should have the highest standards. Earlier this week, I raised with the noble Baroness that local authorities were likely to have concerns about resources. This is not a new point to her, but I ask her today to give the House an assurance that, as the Bill goes forward—as I hope it will—she will consult local authorities, and specifically the Local Government Association. When the Minister responds, I hope he will confirm that the health sector, or certain parts of it—I am quite confused about this—would be covered by the clauses in the Bill.

In the commercial sector, we have said all along that it is crucial readily to identify the companies subject to the Section 54 duty because at present they are, in effect, anonymous. It is understandable that compliant companies feel they are not on the level playing field that has been referred to, and I know the Government consider it up to consumers to find out and to NGOs to do a good deal of leg-work. Frankly, both are unrealistic, and one has to acknowledge that consumers—I put myself in this bracket—often need spoon-feeding.

There is another aspect to this. Section 54 provides that the duties imposed on commercial organisations are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings. The Secretary of State needs the information to be able to enforce the section in the statute. It is counterintuitive for the Government not to be working to find a way to give the infrastructure to the Secretary of State to enforce her own provision.

If the Bill is not the way to achieve transparency, including identification, I hope the Government can help us find the way that is. It is better not to be prescriptive about it, whether it is the annual report, annual accounts or whatever. It is about the transparency—about making the company’s position clear and accessible without insisting on it being a particular mechanism.

To come back to procurement, the sheer muscle, because of their size, that public bodies can exert is notable. We have the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which I believe will bring the authorities that we are concerned about within their remit, through tracking Regulation 57(8)(a) back to Regulation 56. But what struck me in my failure to track that properly was that there is a heading to all this that says “Discretionary exclusions”. Regulation 57(8) states:

“Contracting authorities may exclude from participation in a procurement procedure any economic operator in any of the following situations”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

When we debated the Modern Slavery Act, there was much reference to consumer power and making your spending count. That applies, perhaps in spades, to public authorities. I very much dislike the much-used phrase in politics, “Isn’t it time that …” but the time came long ago to get this right. We cannot rewrite the past, but we can write the future, and I wish the Bill a very fair wind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to my noble friend. I have already met the noble Baroness, and I am obliged to her for making time for that meeting. I am perfectly prepared to meet again to discuss how we can address some of the issues raised by the Bill because the Government’s position is that, while we welcome some of the proposals, we do not consider that primary legislation is required to achieve these ends. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss those points further in due course.

I turn to the observations by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. She asked a number of questions about the burden of regulation and whether it was any longer an issue because, as she put it, in the consultation process the biggest companies said it was not a problem. We are not concerned with just the biggest companies, though; we acknowledge their role in this and the peer pressure that they can bring to bear, but this concerns every company with a turnover of £36 million or more and we have to take account of the burden upon all those companies, not just the biggest of them.

On the point about government procurement, I hope I have addressed that by pointing out that in a sense a parallel scheme is in place regarding procurement. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the regulations do not carry an absolute. There are reasons for that. The code of practice will complement how and why those regulations should be taken into account.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Is the Minister aware, and he may not be, whether the Government have any plans to report publicly on the compliance with—“compliance” may be the wrong term for something that is discretionary, so perhaps I should say “observance” of—those regulations? In other words, will they report on how successful those regulations are? That is a matter of public concern, obviously.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I can understand the observation but, as the regulations are to be complemented by a code of practice that I believe is going to be brought into force in October this year, I do not think I am able to anticipate how compliance may occur. I will address in writing to the noble Baroness the question of whether there will be some form of requirement for compliance auditing in respect of that matter.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby raised the question of central repositories, and mentioned an instance of an organisation in Bristol. I am not in a position to go into individual cases at this time. As noble Lords are well aware, the Government have not launched an online repository, although we are aware of a number of proposals from third parties who suggest that they could develop a website to host these statements and to help people to search for them. I would like to complete a quotation that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made regarding an answer I gave in April this year when I said:

“There never was an intention to establish any central monitoring system with respect to these provisions”.

That was in the context that there was never any government intention, which was perfectly clear. I went on to say:

“The Government have always been clear that it is for others to establish such a mechanism. We are aware of a number of organisations that propose to set up a central repository”.—[Official Report, 13/4/16; cols. 256-58.]

The right reverend Prelate went into some detail regarding a particular development in this regard, and I undertake to write to him on that matter because he raised a point that I am not in a position to address this stage.

The noble Baroness made the point, which was also made by other noble Lords, that these are early days. I remind your Lordships that this legislation came into force in October 2015, requiring companies to respond and to obtemper their Section 54 statement in their financial year from March 2016 onwards. We are at the very beginnings of this process.

That brings me on to a point made by my noble friend Lord Smith, who asked me a number of questions about the number of companies that have complied and the number that have relied upon Section 54(4)(b) of the Act and said they could not make a statement. It is simply too early to say what the position is regarding those matters. Those figures have not been collated and cannot be, because it is only from March this year that companies have had to address the question of compliance. I regret that I cannot provide figures at this stage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, raised the issue of local authorities and government departments. I hope that to some extent I have addressed the point that she was making by seeking to explain that the original legislation was designed particularly for the private sector, and that there are parallel provisions. They may not be regarded as quite as absolute as those that apply to the private sector, but there are parallel provisions that we have under the procurement regulations and which are being developed by reference to the code of practice.

I turn to the observations from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Again, he referred to early indications of how the Act is being complied with. I underline that point: these are only early indications. We have to look further and consider how the Act is going to bed in. In my submission, it is too early to suggest that we should be tinkering with the legislation before we know how it is actually going to work in practice. He also alluded to the alleged lack of any monetary penalty for those who simply ignore the provisions of the Act. I remind noble Lords that the provisions are civil. The Secretary of State has the right to bring injunctive proceedings against a company that persistently fails to obtemper its Section 54 obligations, and if it still fails thereafter to obtemper those obligations it will be in contempt of court and liable to an unlimited fine.

Immigration Officers

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am not going to speculate on what will happen over the next five years. The important thing to remember, when it comes to immigration and applications for leave to remain, is that we look at the best interests of our country, but also at the best interests in regard to what we are on the global stage. We are a welcoming nation to people from all around the globe, and long may that remain so, to ensure that Britain continues to prosper and grow on the global stage.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, while I would like to encourage the noble Lord to change immigration policy from the Dispatch Box, I will restrain myself. With regard to the officials who are the subject of this Question, I understand that there is a difficulty with retention. Is that correct, and if it is, are the Government aware why there is a problem with retaining the officers?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We currently have 1,280 full-time equivalent staff who are undertaking this casework. The noble Baroness talks about retention; there is normal turnover of staff. We are also enhancing some of the requirements, particularly on English language, for such staff, which will come into play in this area, and across the public sector, from October 2016. It is important in any role undertaken within government and the public sector that career paths are pointed out to people—the mentoring scheme we deploy for such staff is a valuable asset in this regard.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick remarked to me the other day that investigatory powers should be intelligible to a 70 year-old computer-illiterate grandmother. I did wonder whether he was talking about me—although I have to say none of those characteristics applies—and was also quite concerned that he thought 70 was old, but I realised that his comment was very apt. Transparency does not mean being able to see through something but means that you should be able to see the thing itself, and know it and understand it in the context we are discussing. Every Bill throws up its own lexicon: transparency is one item in it for this Bill, as is balance, which has been mentioned several times tonight.

I am not sure we should be in the business of “balancing” privacy and security. The term “binary” has become quite common, but for these Benches, privacy and security are not binary or mutually exclusive—a point I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made right at the beginning of the debate—and our aim must be to achieve both. However, we are bound to discuss privacy more than security, not least because of the old dilemma, which my noble friend Lord Oates referred to, of what an Opposition, the public and perhaps also Ministers can say in response to, “If you knew what we know”. My noble friend Lord Strasburger made a very big ask of Ministers about unacknowledged knowns and indeed unknowns. I do not want to avoid acknowledging the crucial importance of security, so will say that we are part of what RUSI called the,

“near-consensus in public opinion that there are circumstances in which law-enforcement agencies … and security and intelligence agencies require sensitive capabilities to obtain communications in order to safeguard national security, investigate crimes and protect the public”.

But that is the beginning of the story—my words, not RUSI’s—not the end.

Ministers must be in an unenviable position. It must be hard to have the agencies saying, “Yes, please”, to more and more information—of course they will say that. But does quantity affect quality and workability? I confess I have long had a mental block about these issues. I am not computer-illiterate, but neither am I very computer-literate. My lightbulb moment—or one of them, the other coming when I read the Library Note, which, I should like to put on record, was admirably clear—was when I realised that it was not entirely my fault that the technical language was blocking my thinking about the underlying issues. Language should clarify, not impede, debate and scrutiny. That is not a criticism of the drafting of the Bill, but more of the commentary around it.

There is a consumer rights issue in this as well. It is very odd and disconcerting that after you casually look something up online, you are prompted to pursue it by advertising of the product or service. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that I am not exalted. I appreciate the commercial realities of this, but how many people realise that in the small print, which they did not read, they have consented to information being passed on to third parties? What do you do if you read it and do not like it? Do you cut yourself off from an essential modern tool? Public services, which we are talking about—not commercial services—must be better than that.

It is particularly important to me that the citizen, who is more than a consumer, is made aware of having been subjected to the use of powers. You may be part of a large group targeted—I use the term technically—although not suspected. I say that because the corollary of the right to know is the right to challenge. Those who are entrusted with oversight need the structure and criteria that enable them to make a proper assessment.

I still have a problem with the judicial review principles, and indeed I wonder whether the filter provided by the Bill is just another mechanism to collect information, but we will come back to all that.

In the Commons, the Government made a number of commitments to consider further amendments, including commitments made to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the noble Earl referred to several amendments that we may expect. It is important—I hope we can hear this tonight—that the House knows from the Government when they will publish their amendments or, conversely, that they inform us that they will not propose amendments on the issues they have raised and on which they have given assurances that they will consider various matters.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights—like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I am a member—has also reported. As the noble Lord said, “due course” will bring more comments on that. The committee acknowledged that the Bill represents a significant step forwards in human rights terms, but many human rights are engaged—privacy, freedom of expression, the protection of personal data, and freedom of association, assembly, religion and movement—and any interference must of course be in accordance with the law, not only with a clear legal basis but sufficiently specific to guarantee against arbitrariness. It must also be necessary in the pursuit of a legitimate aim, as well as being proportionate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, that this is not a constant: life changes. That leads me to the adequacy of the safeguards, especially as the regime has not been given the cleanest bill of health by a clutch of UN special rapporteurs or the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.

However, it is not only the legislation but how the powers are used that is critical. For me, the codes of practice are less important to this debate because, as has been said, they are not amendable by Parliament, and indeed Parliament is dependent on others to check compliance with them. There is a limit to the Executive’s accountability. Accounting for one’s actions is empty if the actions themselves are not explained. As I understand the Bill, the Executive’s own proposals gag the Secretary of State with regard to that accountability.

The safeguard of and public interest in, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford put it, legal professional privilege is something that I feel particularly strongly about as a lawyer, although I have never had to get my feet wet in the cause of it. As we are all potential clients, it was predictable that it would receive a lot of attention today, and it will receive a lot in the following stages of the Bill. By some distance, we have not yet dealt with the issues of what my noble friend Lord Lester called the potentially chilling effect.

Similarly, as a politician and a citizen, I am concerned about safeguards for journalists and journalistic material. That may be the definition to pursue, but I acknowledge that there are difficulties around definitions. Journalists’ work may not all be in the public interest but much of it is, and there is a clear public interest in protecting journalistic sources. There will be a number of issues to cover, particularly internet connection records, from the point of view of service providers as well as the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, referred to the intelligent and constructive engagement of the providers, and they still have significant concerns. I was interested in the points they made in briefings about extraterritoriality and the international regime, or lack of it.

And we will have the review of bulk powers, which, as the Minister says, will become more important than ever. The terms of reference for the review make it a matter for the Prime Minister as to whether the review is published. I think it would go against the spirit of the review if it were not. Tributes have been made, and rightly so, to David Anderson. I wonder, who would be David Anderson? What a responsibility we place on his shoulders. It is not for us to comment on Commons procedures, but Members of the House of Commons will not have a chance to propose amendments to the Bill in response to the review of bulk powers unless we amend it and give them that chance.

When the draft Bill was published, I worried that I was not sufficiently worried. Over the years, talking on the phone to a friend whose work has been closer to the security world than mine has ever been, we have joked about some odd interruptions and noises and said things like, “I hope whoever’s listening finds this interesting”. However, when I realised that the regime extends from what I do to who I am—my legal secrets, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald put it—my concerns fell into place. My noble friend Lord Carlile’s phrase “the legitimacy of use” is very helpful here. As I say, we will focus on internet connection records.

I said that our task is about achieving privacy and security. The next few months will be turbulent politically. Where we will end up, who knows? This certainly suggests to me that perhaps we should not wait five years for a review of the Act that this will become. Whatever the turbulence—or “disarray”, which was the rather more polite term used by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill—we must not be diverted from the task in “the age of anxiety”, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and, in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in the “civilised digital world”. It is an important task.

Drugs Policy

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this concern. Issues of stop and search have been prioritised; I recall that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has specifically focused on this area. I believe that, although in 2009-10 stop and search was about seven times as likely for someone of black ethnicity, that has fallen to four times more likely—but that is still four times more likely than anyone else.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that it is significant and a very progressive step that possession of a new psychoactive substance under the Psychoactive Substances Act is not a criminal offence? Does he not think that that is something that we should extend and build on with regard to other drugs?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I know that the noble Baroness was a very active participant during the passage of the Bill, and she is quite right to say that this is about not penalising possession but tackling the people who provide and supply such drugs. That is where the clamping down has occurred, and it is proving effective. On the other question, we continue to review and see the evidence, and we will be led by the evidence.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)]

The original Question was that Motion A be agreed to, since when Amendment A1 has been moved to,

“leave out from ‘House’ to end and insert …‘do insist on its Amendment 84’”.

The Question, therefore, is that Amendment A1 be agreed to. I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment A2 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, many of your Lordships will have negotiated a variety of agreements and arrangements, been involved in the toing and froing of proposals and counterproposals, and experienced the feeling of, “Okay, enough, let us move on”.

I do not equate that with this issue. I am realistic enough to understand where the Government have got to, but it is not far enough. From my privileged, comfortable position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject of these amendments, I cannot leave it there. I do not feel, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, that I have done my job and done more.

I want to make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. To deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one of this Bill, the Government introduced their amendment for automatic judicial oversight. We heard then references to detainees still being able to apply for bail and to access legal advice at any time, and so on. That painted a picture which, though technically correct, did not accord with the realities described to me over the years.

The noble and learned Lord introduced the automatic hearing after six months as a “proportionate response”, and said that earlier referral might result in work for both the tribunal and the Home Office at a time when an individual’s removal from the country was planned and imminent. So I was pleased last night that the Minister in the Commons, “after careful consideration”, moved a reduction from six months to four months to reflect the fact that the vast majority are detained for fewer than four months.

At the end of last December, on the latest figures that we have, 2,607 people were detained. Of these, 530—roughly 20% of the detainee population—had been detained for less than four months but longer than two months. Those are the numbers that my amendment is about, although they are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers.

The impact of immigration detention, which is not a sanction—it is not punishment for wrongdoing—is considerable and reference has rightly been made to the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen Shaw’s further work and hope that it will ameliorate conditions, but there must always be a significant impact. I do not know, though I can speculate on, the Government’s reason for moving from the proportionate six months to four months, but if they can move, I suggest they can move further. In the mix of assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That is why I propose two months.

I take this opportunity to say, too, that in all this I do not want to lose sight of the objective of improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention with case managers who are not decision-makers would be more humane, less costly and more efficient. There is plenty of experience of that in other countries. An improved returns system would reduce the burden on tribunals and the Home Office. It may be trite but it is true that efficiency is much of the answer. I hope noble Lords will be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce it still more, and take us further on the journey that the Government have led us on with regard to the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each individual’s position.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In the Commons last night, the government Minister confirmed that the Government accepted that there should be judicial oversight of administrative immigration detention, and that was why they had previously tabled a Motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began, or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.

That amendment was not accepted in this House, which again carried a Motion providing for a 28-day period of administrative immigration detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend detention in exceptional circumstances. The Commons has again rejected the amendment from this House and has instead passed a government amendment reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months, since, apparently, the vast majority of persons are detained for less than four months. Will the Government confirm that that bail hearing after four months of detention will be automatic and will not depend on the individual in detention having to initiate the application?

This is an issue which this House has already sent back to the Commons twice. Consideration obviously has to be given to the role of this unelected House in the legislative process as a revising Chamber, inviting the Commons to think again in a situation where the elected Commons and the Government have made some movement—albeit not enough to meet the views of this House—on the length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, although I would say to her that there are rules about transporting animals.

In the Commons, as the noble Baroness said, the Minister referred to—and indeed relied on—the guidance providing for “very exceptional circumstances” to meet expectations. However, guidance can of course be changed much more easily than primary legislation, and it is easier not to follow. I share the concern of the noble Baroness that the legislation must not weaken the process.

I was also puzzled to read in the government amendment that the person who authorises the detention —I shall come back to that—must have regard to the woman’s welfare, not, as the Minister said last night at column 486 of Hansard, “due regard”. As we have heard, the current equivalent guidance is not effective enough and I do not see that there will be any impact from putting pregnant women into a separate category within the guidance. I agree with the point made by David Burrowes and the noble Baroness about Amendments (a) and (b), rather than (a) or (b). I, too, had two points of concern about interpretation. The noble Baroness has referred to the phrase “apart from this section”. I read this as applying to the person with the power to authorise, but I do not know what,

“a person who, apart from this section”,

means. I hope the Minister can help me.

The other question concerns the term “shortly” in paragraph (a) of Amendment 85E. The Secretary of State needs to be satisfied that,

“the woman will shortly be removed from the United Kingdom”.

In this House we are accustomed to the term “shortly”. It is something of an Alice in Wonderland term: it means what it is meant to mean on the occasion when it is mentioned. Will the Minister help us by providing greater precision?

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall detail the House only briefly. I am most concerned about this issue. I fear that the Government have completely overlooked a very important point. You are not just detaining a pregnant woman, you are detaining the foetus inside that pregnant woman. The effect on that foetus is something about which science is increasingly concerned. The recent science of epigenetics tells us clearly that the foetus at certain stages during pregnancy is extremely vulnerable to the environment of the mother. Indeed, I have been involved in this area of research at Imperial College, and I shall refer briefly to research going on not only at Imperial but at the University of Singapore, which I shall visit later this week, and McGill University in Canada, among other places.

It turns out that at a certain stage in pregnancy, if a woman’s stress hormones, particularly cortisol, are raised, the effect on the foetus may be profound. Working after the ice storm in Ontario some years ago, Michael Meaney undertook cognitive tests on infants aged five, who had effectively been interned within their own houses because of the darkness and lack of electricity over a period of time. He found significant cognitive impairment. There is also some evidence that after massive stress to the mother, some children may behave aberrantly when they grow up —particularly, for example, being more aggressive.

Unfortunately, at this stage the science is not absolutely clear but there is a massive amount of evidence from work on rodents and some other animals. The evidence from human work is increasingly that certain stages of pregnancy—for example, once the foetus is identifiable in the uterus, usually at around 22 to 26 weeks—are a particularly vulnerable time. That is when stressing a woman may have a severely adverse effect.

For that reason, the Government need to recognise that they may be responsible for a heritable effect on that child and possibly even on the grandchildren of the mother. Until that is firmly worked out, I beg the Government to consider that internment, if it must be done at all, must be done only under the most serious circumstances. We cannot go back for women who have previously been detained in prison and other places, but in future we must make sure that we make law which is humane and amendable, so that we cause the minimum amount of damage to future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect, the noble Lord makes my point for me. It is questionable whether there is any distinction to be drawn between exceptional, properly understood, and very exceptional or most exceptional. That is what lies behind the manner in which this provision has been drafted. Nevertheless, to dispel doubt in the minds of others, it has been said in the guidance that, as a matter of policy, the term “very exceptional” may be applied when approaching the application of this provision to the detention of pregnant women.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to pursue this issue. There must be a difference, otherwise it would not be necessary to use the word or the distinct phrases. Are the Government not in danger of falling foul of their own legislation by applying guidance that is different from the legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I had rather summed up, but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that of course there are elements in the journey of such a person that will cause stress. Detention may be a factor in that but, in the round, we have to come to a reasoned conclusion as to how we deal with unlawful entry into the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Can I make the Minister an offer? He is obviously as uncomfortable as I am with the drafting of this clause. Can we find a way in which to get it to mean what—whether we like it or not—he is telling us that we ought to understand it to mean early in the next Session? Let us tack it on to something that will come to us fairly shortly.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Baroness, “It means what I say—it does not say what I mean” may be her line, but that is one that we shall take into consideration.

Refugees: Unaccompanied Children

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I can give no such assurance. The position of these children when they reach the age of 18 will be assessed and their right to remain will be determined by reference to the country from which they arrived and also by reference to whether it is fair, reasonable and safe for them to return.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Are the Government in communication with the Government of Canada, who are working with civil society? For instance, Canada has a private sponsorship of refugees programme, whereby sponsors can provide financial and emotional support for a period—usually a year—and the joint assistance programme, partnering with organisations to resettle refugees with special needs.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 122A, since my name is associated with it. Some 2,000 refugees are currently arriving in Greece on barely seaworthy boats every day. According to the UNHCR, the majority are now women and children, fleeing the fighting in Syria and around the Iraqi border. Some 4.8 million Syrians have been displaced since the war began.

The existing rules on family reunion simply were not designed to cope with such a mass and, at times, chaotic exodus of people, which tears families apart and potentially leaves individuals in pretty desperate circumstances. Under the Immigration Rules, people granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK can apply to be joined by family members still living in other countries. However, there are a number of restrictions about which family members qualify for family reunion. For adult refugees in the UK, only partners and dependent children under the age of 18 will usually come under the definition of “family”. As a result, families can be left with the invidious choice of whether to leave some members behind.

Amendment 122A seeks to provide an immediate route to reunite, in a managed and controlled way, those families caught up in the crisis. The Secretary of State would specify the numbers to be resettled through the scheme after full consultation with key stakeholders. The amendment would provide for that in a managed way on the basis of current resettlement programmes. It allows British citizens, as well as recognised refugees in the UK, to be reunited with family members through the programme, but, crucially, any number specified would be in addition to the Government’s existing commitments on resettlement.

The amendment does not distinguish between refugee family members who have made it to Europe and those stuck in the region—people do not cease to be part of a family based on where they are in the world. It would help to prioritise those cases of family members who fall outside the existing rules and find themselves in desperate situations. We believe that Britain can do, and should be doing, more in this unprecedented crisis, which the amendment would enable the Government to do through the Secretary of State. Four thousand Syrian refugees resettled a year—none from within Europe—is certainly a start and I do not wish to stand here and suggest that it is not a real contribution, but one is entitled to ask whether it is enough when that number arrives in Greece over the course of just two days.

We support the amendment and we will vote for it if the mover, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my name is to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I prefer it to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but either is considerably better than the current situation. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to divide the House, we on these Benches will be with him. It seems to me that the Section 59 referred to in his amendment is designed for exactly this sort of situation, had anyone been able to envisage it. Children without their parents who have got to the UK alone are refugees, so by definition cannot return to their country of origin, but their being unable to be with their parents is a situation that I am sure no noble Lord would want to envisage.

When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister gave a number of defences to the current position, including:

“Our policy is more generous than our international obligations require”.

The vote on the previous amendment—a comparison was made in the debate on that between our generosity and that of others—answers that point. The Minister also said:

“Allowing children to sponsor their parents would play right into the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs and go against our safeguarding responsibilities”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1881.]

The issue of safeguarding can be argued either way; there are problems of safeguarding whether you do or whether you do not in this situation. I prefer the right reverend Prelate’s logic.

On family sponsorship, where the more distant family of a refugee is here, it seems illogical in many ways not to allow aunts, uncles and so on to sponsor people to come here because it must lead to much faster integration, address the numbers to an extent—given the numbers, we should use what opportunities there are—and be obviously the right thing to do. There would be fewer safeguarding issues in that, although I would not claim that there are none.

Finally, I should not ask a question at this stage unless I know the answer, but I understand that family reunion is a matter of international law—despite my pile of papers I do not have all the detail with me. If the Minister can assist the House on that I would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I may have missed it, but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked the Minister whether he had an update on the figures for grants outside the rules on the basis of exceptional, compelling, compassionate circumstances. The year before last it was 12. Can the Minister tell us the updated figure?

[Lord Bates]

I do not have those updated numbers, but I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness. I mentioned a figure of 21,000, but that referred to the whole group of family reunion cases that came to the UK between 2011 and 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, whether this amendment is carried or not, it must be clear to a Government who refer so often to our Judeo-Christian heritage that they cannot simply stay where they are thereafter. There must be an acknowledgement of what is going on. The truth must be recognised and must be brought to the attention of the world by this country and the many others that are already committed to it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have a couple of sentences on behalf of these Benches. This may be the first time that my thought processes have followed exactly those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but I had concerns about the format, if you like, of this amendment. I would much prefer to be addressing the matter on an international basis through the UN, but then I, too, found Article 8 of the convention, which provides for contracting parties to call on the UN to take action. In the light of the growing call around the world for the recognition of what is going on as genocide, it seems to me that it is absolutely right that we should take this opportunity, whatever the technicalities of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 122 is concerned with individuals who helped the British Army and general British interests either in Iraq or Afghanistan, and who are now refugees or, as it were, want to be categorised as refugees. I am indebted to a small NGO called Help Refugees for the advice and information it has given me.

The amendment refers to individuals who are now in refugee camps—they may be as far away as the Middle East or they may be in Calais, where some have been identified. These are persons who worked with Her Majesty’s Government in Iraq and Afghanistan. They may have worked on the Kandahar air base, as translators and interpreters, or as radio operators. These are people who have sufficient evidence to indicate that they worked in that capacity, helping the British Army and other British interests.

These individuals have now suffered from quite serious threats, and I have got some information from a couple of them. One individual who acted as a logistics officer and was involved in liaison contact between British forces and local interests, and who helped train the Afghan military and other companies, said: “I had phone calls saying that I had to stop working with them and, ‘If you don’t stop working with them, you will be killed’”. Another individual, working at the Kandahar base in Afghanistan, said, “As you know, the situation is very bad for those who have worked with the foreign forces—the Americans, the British—and those who are interpreters or translators. Their life is in danger in Afghanistan. Everywhere the Taliban are present in each province, so if they know that you have worked with them they will elect to kill you. Everybody knows this. This is the truth. Nobody can ignore it”. “Have you personally had any threats?”, he was asked. “Yes, when I was there, I was getting calls saying, ‘Leave this job or I will kill your family. I will kill you if I find you’. It was very hard for me”. “Were you getting many of these phone calls in a week?” “Two or three times, yes”. These are individuals who worked with us and to whom we surely have some responsibility. My argument is that we should give effect to that responsibility through this amendment.

There is a difficulty in that two different schemes are in existence which do not quite fit the bill: there is an Iraq policy and an Afghan policy. It is clear that the Iraq policy is a better one and the Afghan policy has helped only one particular individual. What I am suggesting in this amendment is that we should have a more far-reaching policy which helps all the individuals who I have described. The idea is that if they can be identified—and this is a departure from the present policy—as coming under the various categories as set out in proposed subsection (1) they would be entitled to come to Britain and then claim refugee status here. So we meet some of the difficulties that the Minister referred to in responding to the previous amendment.

This is a modest amendment which would meet a certain obligation that we have. If the Government feel that they cannot accept the amendment, there are things they can do to meet the need. I would like an assurance from the Government either that they will accept the amendment or that they are prepared to say that they will do what they can, and describe it, to help the individuals concerned and make accommodation for them outside the statute. I would be happy about that, but we have to do something for these people. Some of them are in the camps in Calais. They have been neglected and forgotten by the world, and they worked for us. They helped us at a critical time in Afghanistan and Iraq. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment. The whole of this Bill raises moral issues, and it was the simple rightness of this proposition that led me to sign the amendment.

The Daily Mail has been campaigning on this issue and recently highlighted the case of one interpreter who was injured by a bomb and accused by the Taliban of being a spy. He was at that time waiting for the UK Government’s support unit to consider his application to be relocated to the UK. He said, “They told me that after five days they would interview me but after five days I was still waiting and they said the programme has not started yet. Then they said maybe 2014, maybe 2015, but I could not wait that long, it was my life at risk”. We know that hard cases make bad law, but do they invariably make bad law? Do they not sometimes point us to what should be good with the law? The dangers to these staff and their families at home are now obvious, as they were obvious when they provided assistance.

The Minister for the Armed Forces in a Statement last August spoke of the UK team,

“which investigates thoroughly all claims of intimidation. When necessary we will put in place appropriate measures to mitigate any risks. These range from providing specific security advice, assistance to relocate the staff member and their family to a safe place in Afghanistan, or, in the most extreme cases, relocation to the UK”.

There are others in the Chamber who can speak with much more authority than I can about whether giving advice and relocation elsewhere within the country is realistic or effective.

I will finish by saying simply that it took a long campaign to recognise the contribution of the Gurkhas to this country, which was supported by David Cameron before he was Prime Minister. I think that we should put right the position for the individuals who are the subject of this amendment now.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, the hour is late and no doubt the House does not want to sit for too long. This is an issue on which I have campaigned for the best part of 18 months. My instinct is to speak at some length to outline the individual problems that affect Afghan interpreters, but I do not think that this is the moment to do so. I shall try to be fairly brief in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his amendment.

The amendment cannot be seen except in the context of the United Kingdom’s policy towards Afghan interpreters. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, a significantly more disadvantageous set of regulations applies to Afghan interpreters than existed in relation to Iraqi interpreters after the Iraq war. That is an injustice by itself, but let us leave it to one side. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, this is an issue on which the Daily Mail has campaigned—no weeping liberals they, as we know. The newspaper has described the Government’s policies in respect of those to whom we owe a duty of recognition and honour as dishonourable and shameful. I do not often agree with the Daily Mail, but I certainly agree to the use of those adjectives.

I suspect that I am probably the only person in Parliament who not only has been an interpreter—not, I hasten to say, in operational conditions—but has used interpreters, in that case in operational conditions and sometimes moderately dangerous ones. Many of those who served with the front-line units were the bravest of the brave. If there is a front line, they are on it because they have to be; British soldiers cannot do their job unless they are. If there is action, they had to be there too, otherwise we could not do the task that Her Majesty sent us to Afghanistan to fulfil. When the patrol returns the soldiers go into a protected base, but not the Afghan interpreters. They have to spend the night with their families in their communities. Their families are not 10,000 miles away in safety. They too live in the community and are subject to the threat of the Taliban. They came almost by the month for every one of those 13 years and now they come virtually by the day to individual Afghan interpreters, who are beaten up and their families threatened. I have heard so many stories of this that I can barely remember the individual details.

The Afghan interpreters who served day in and day out in active service in the most hostile and dangerous positions, sometimes even with the Special Forces, do not go back after six months. They have stayed in the country for every single one of the 13 years of the Afghan conflict. Now—I have to say it bluntly—we have abandoned them. I do not think that there is a single squaddie or serviceman who served in Afghanistan alongside these interpreters who did not love them, who did not admire them, and who did not think that every single one of them on front-line duties bore a burden of risk greater even than many of our own soldiers because they had borne it for longer. And yet we have abandoned them. It is a shameful policy that shames the Government and, in my view, the nation as well.

The Government’s refuge in this, and we may well hear it from the Minister, is that they have set up their package. There are obligations of duty, honour and service here. Our soldiers could not have operated without the service of these men. They simply would have been useless. The next time our servicemen are asked to go into battle on behalf of our nation and we seek a local interpreter, given the way that we have abandoned them and in the light of the way we have treated them, what kind of response do noble Lords imagine they will get?

The Government believe that all their obligations to these brave men can be fulfilled by the Afghan intimidation scheme. When I understood that the scheme would be put into operation in the next Government, I expressed my opposition to it. I thought that it was the wrong scheme. But if it had been applied with good will, so that the burden of presumption was that the Afghan interpreter would, in the face of intimidation and threat, be allowed to return to Britain, maybe this would have been a reasonable policy—inadequate, flawed, but maybe just about acceptable. But it is not. Almost none of those who have suffered from mortal intimidation from the Taliban have been housed and not a single one has been allowed to return to Britain in the years since this Government have been in power. This policy is already flawed. It is very difficult to understand why it has been enacted with such little generosity and duty of honour, except that those interpreters, along with the honour of our country, have been sacrificed in this Government’s obsession to do not what is right but what is necessary to outflank the revolting prejudices of the right wing of the Conservative Party and UKIP.

This is a shameful policy, the price of which will be paid in the standing not only of our nation but of our own troops, when they seek to draw in the services of interpreters in the future. If we vote for the amendment we can at least make amends in this Bill for three or four years of complete failure to live up to the role that these men have played on behalf of Her Majesty and of our nation in a conflict of our choosing, and who have placed their lives at risk in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, the situation of most young adults in this country reveals why this group of amendments is needed. I am glad to add my name to it and pay tribute to the noble Earl for his introduction. In 2015, half of all young people aged 21 in this country and 40% of all 24 year-olds were still living with their parents. As many Members of your Lordships’ House will know from personal experience, even adult children who have left home often return when need arises. Indeed, my own personal experience of adult children is that territorial control of bedrooms continues even when they have got married or have their flats elsewhere—I am thinking of introducing a bedroom tax in Bishop’s House in Norwich.

Children in care are not somehow exempt from the societal pressures of this age. In this regard, the Government recently changed legislation so that all care leavers can stay put in foster placements until they are 21, which is a recognition of a massive shift in our society and is good for their welfare. The current system of leaving care is designed to keep contact with young people, wherever they end up.

Care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and find themselves alone in this country face the same difficulties as other children leaving care but additional ones as well: isolation, loneliness and fear are common. They have often suffered abuse, violence and trauma earlier in their lives. Migrant care leavers need help from their corporate parents to gain access to legal advice and representation in relation to their immigration status.

Research for the Children’s Commissioner, published 18 months ago, included interviews with care leavers who had become appeal rights exhausted. They had a pervasive sense of fear, anxiety and depression. Some said that they contemplated suicide. The experience of friends hardened their resolution to remain in the UK. One young person said of this friends that,

“one of them is currently in a detention centre, one was sent back years ago, and one was sent recently, sent back to Afghanistan … but he is in a big trouble. His father is telling him to join the Taliban”.

This amendment is necessary because such young people undoubtedly continue to need support, whether it is to make sure that returning them to their country of origin is truly safe or to work with them in preparing them to return with assistance and proper support, without the need for enforcement. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments and I was planning to say nothing more than that I agree with everything the three previous speakers have said. However, the point made by the noble Baroness on definition seems to need clarifying. When the Minister has considered that, if there seems to be any doubt that has to be resolved in correspondence, it should be resolved in the Bill at Third Reading. If there is a problem, that is where the resolution needs to be.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for moving the amendment. He is one of the Members of this House whom we all greatly admire. He focuses on a particular area that he cares passionately about—namely children, particularly children in care, and seeks to introduce their voice into all pieces of legislation that go through your Lordships’ House. That is to his credit and we appreciate him in that spirit. My officials and I were grateful for the opportunity to meet with the noble Earl about his amendment, and I know that James Brokenshire, the Immigration Minister, was grateful to have the meeting with the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers on 8 March.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, invited me to write another of my famous letters. I was particularly proud of the one that we wrote on 11 March following the meetings and the consultation. Not only did we listen to the concerns that were raised, but on page 4 we went into some detail about how we would respond to those concerns. We said that we would look at how provision should be geared to what the local authority is satisfied is needed to support a person through their assisted voluntary return or forced departure. Let us just be clear for those who may not have followed all the aspects of this issue. We are talking about people in local authority care who, after various appeals for leave to remain, are deemed to have no legal right to be here, and furthermore—this is very important from the perspective of the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate—there is no barrier preventing their return. These are important provisions to bear in mind in relation to the group that we are talking about.

I emphasise that the great majority of care leavers are not affected by the changes in Schedule 11, including those with refugee status, leave to remain or an outstanding asylum claim or appeal. They will all remain subject to the Children Act framework. Under new paragraph 7B of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, this also includes those who have been refused asylum but have lodged further submissions on protection grounds that remain outstanding, or who have been granted permission to apply for a judicial review in relation to their asylum claim.

Under new paragraph 2A of Schedule 3, the Children Act framework will also continue to cover those awaiting the outcome of their first application or appeal to regularise their immigration status where, for example, they are a victim of trafficking. This means that the young adults affected by the changes in Schedule 11 will be those who have applied for leave to remain here on asylum or other grounds but have been refused, and who the courts have agreed do not need our protection, have no lawful basis to be here and should now leave the UK.

I shall now deal with the points referred to by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. It is possible for individual cases supported by local authorities under the new 2002 Act framework to continue in a foster placement or to be supported by a personal adviser where the local authority considers this to be appropriate. That is an important safeguard.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, asked about the meaning of “unaccompanied” in Clause 64(10), concerning the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We understand the concern to ensure that all relevant cases are properly safeguarded, including victims of trafficking. We will set out in writing how we intend “unaccompanied” to be defined and how it will operate. My notes do not say when that will be, but it will be done by Third Reading. That is an important point and I am grateful that it has been raised.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about care leavers being dispersed across the country. These cases will qualify for Home Office support under new Section 95A only where they are failed asylum seekers facing a genuine obstacle to departure from the UK. It will be possible in these cases for the person to remain in local authority accommodation funded by the Home Office—for example, while they await a travel document from their embassy. We will develop appropriate guidance with the Department for Education on those cases. I am sure that the views of the organisations that the noble Baroness referred to will be valuable in formulating that guidance, and would be appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I shall not keep the House for a great deal of time. This is an issue which I believe to be fundamental, which is why I have brought it back on Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for having simplified it down to its basic elements so that we get to the crux of the matter.

When we talked earlier this evening about bringing together families who were asylum seekers, it was interesting how the Minister agreed, as he obviously would do, that it is much better that asylum families are able to live together. I think that what is not recognised or realised by the vast majority of the population is that we do not in many circumstances allow British citizens to live together with their spouse or civil partner. There are many instances where British citizens who have married are not able to bring their spouse or civil partner to this country to live with them, or if they are abroad and wish to do that, they are effectively exiled. If they have children, who are then usually entitled to British citizenship, those younger citizens are also effectively exiled from their country of citizenship.

The reason for that is the requirement of a certain income per annum for the British citizen over a period of time to enable them to live with their chosen civil partner or spouse. It seems fundamentally wrong that we as British citizens are constrained about who we are able to marry or enter a civil partnership with and are unable to live in our home state. Not only is that fundamentally wrong; it is discriminatory in terms of income levels, with those in certain professions or work or those in certain regions less likely to be able to live with their spouse or civil partner in the United Kingdom, with their family, than are those in other trades and professions and other regions.

For a party and a Government who believe that family is of fundamental importance and for a party with many libertarians among it who believe in the freedom to marry and live with who you wish as long as it is not a sham marriage—clearly those exist, and the amendment takes that into account—I have brought this amendment forward again. I believe that there is a fundamental discrimination and a fundamental injustice in terms of what British citizenship should mean and the liberties that this country should offer to its citizens. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, at the previous stage my noble friend and I tabled an amendment that sought to change the financial thresholds that currently apply to spousal visas. The Minister gave as one argument for the threshold the need to protect families, saying that the Government want to see family migrants thriving here, not struggling to get by. But separation does not help people to thrive. The Minister thanked my noble friend for raising our sights at that point by talking about love. So instead of another amendment on financial thresholds, my noble friend and I have decided to say what we mean, which is this: do not set a financial threshold on love.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the amendment simply deletes a key requirement in a spousal visa. Noble Lords will remember that the Migration Advisory Committee was invited to make recommendations on what should be a threshold. I take the point that the noble Baroness would not like a threshold at all, but the recommendation was £18,600 as the level at which no income-based benefits were paid. The level at which the overall costs to the Exchequer would be zero was £40,000. That gives an indication of the cost to the taxpayer of abolishing this income requirement. It is surely not right that the taxpayer should be obliged to subsidise at such a considerable level the arrangements of other people. This amendment would drive a coach and horses through that requirement, and I hope that it will be opposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to require the Home Secretary to make exemptions from the immigration skills charge for certain cases. I declare an interest as a member of the councils of UCL and of Nottingham Trent University.

The problem which the Government claim the charge is intended to fix is the underinvestment in the skills of our young people, particularly by employers. I do not think many in this Chamber would disagree with that. Action is certainly necessary on this; employers should be incentivised to invest in skills. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I wonder how this charge will interact with the apprenticeship levy, and whether it might be more sensible to proceed with that vehicle as the primary means of increasing investment in apprenticeships and perhaps other forms of education and training. It would be useful if the Minister would comment on that.

The Government have suggested that the charge seeks to disincentive employers who perhaps too readily recruit from overseas in preference to training the domestic workforce. However, the Government have, on many occasions in debates in this House, commented on the impact of immigration on our higher education and research communities and made clear that they do not oppose the UK attracting the brightest and best from around the world to study, teach and research, and to help us to develop an innovative and growing economy. It is difficult to square this commitment with a charge that punishes employers for doing precisely that, particularly if this were applied in blanket fashion without appropriate exemptions.

The amendment also seeks to exempt the appointment of health professionals from the scope of the charge. It is worth pointing out that in many cases in the health sector the supply of suitably qualified candidates in the domestic workforce is at least in part dictated by government policy. To levy a charge on NHS trusts recruiting from overseas, when the number of qualified doctors, for instance, is entirely determined by government quotas, does not seem a sensible approach. It seems particularly perverse that these two sectors will surely be among the most heavily hit by the proposed charge if no exemptions are allowed for.

I accept that the Government have not yet set out their precise plans on this matter, and I understand that they will shortly set out their response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s report on tier 2 migration. I urge the Minister to give some reassurance to the House—and to the health, education and research sectors—about what provision will be made for these sectors.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend filleted his remarks rather skilfully. I have been trying to do the same, but I think they are going to come out a little disjointed. I am sure we will be told that we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals when regulations are laid. However, I think we know that we can debate but not scrutinise effectively when we have unamendable regulations.

In the public sector generally, particularly the health and education sectors that are publicly funded, I wonder whether there is a risk that the charge will in effect be recycled back into the sector—less all the administrative costs that are lost along the way—if the sector can actually train via apprenticeships. That is not, of course, the case for doctors and many other front-line healthcare professionals. Yesterday, when I was preparing a very much longer speech than this, I wondered about the logic of a charge whose effect may well be to reduce the contribution of skilled workers because employers will simply not be able to afford them. We may be left in a worse position than we are in now. Undoubtedly, we should have enough information to be able to debate these very significant proposals, at the stage of primary legislation, in an effective, possibly even constructive, fashion. It is very disappointing that we are left without that possibility.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I very much agree with the thrust of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I think he was absolutely right.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. The first is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who talked about anyone over the age of 12 not being vulnerable. I find that a quite incredible thing to say, not just in the sense that 13, 14 and 15 year-olds are vulnerable, but because when we talked about votes for 16 and 17 year-olds in your Lordships’ House, people on those Benches were saying that 16 and 17 year-olds were not mature. So there is a form of hypocrisy here in terms of the age of those who are seen as vulnerable.

My second point is that it is a complete nonsense to suggest that this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would act as a pull factor. It suggests that parents and children are sitting in a war-torn part of the world and suddenly say that because 3,000 children have been accepted into the United Kingdom they are going to send their children here. People are fleeing because they fear for their children’s lives and their own lives, not because of some rational thought about what is being said in the sanitised, oak-panelled walls of this Chamber.

I end by saying this. I was brought up to do the right thing, not necessarily the easy thing or the technical thing about the territorial boundaries of where a child in need is. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It sends a message about the morals of this country: that we open our hearts and our arms to those in greatest need. We do not turn our backs on vulnerable children.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, including my noble friends who have managed to restrain themselves from speaking—that is probably all of them—I want to say that the word “vulnerable” is overworked but entirely apt; this is not just about the youngest children. I have heard it said that a 14 or 16 year-old who has made his way from Afghanistan or Eritrea all the way across Europe is not a child. Well, he will certainly have had a lot of life experiences. Children come in a lot of shapes, sizes and ages, and a 14 year-old who is caring for his eight year-old brother still has the needs of a 14 year-old. The number of children who have disappeared must give us more than a hint of the abuse, exploitation and trafficking to which children can so easily fall prey. Even those who have not disappeared are unlikely to have avoided abuse and criminality entirely.

The Government have also claimed, although I do not think it has been referred to today, that accepting unaccompanied children risks separating them from their families. But the proposal, as I understand it, would apply to children who have been registered by the UNHCR as having no identifiable family in Europe or in their country of origin.

I turn to the pull factor. I will simply put it this way: there are so many push factors that we do not need to think about the pull factor. Something that has shocked volunteers working in northern Europe is the number of children involved, including some very tiny ones—their ages vary somewhat between the camps. This is not to deny the importance of assisting those who are in the camps in the Middle East, but to accept this amendment would be to acknowledge the huge public concern. When the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the contribution of refugees welcomed almost 80 years ago, I could see the nods of agreement right round the Chamber.

As to the mandatory nature of the amendment, I agree that it is not desirable to use legislation for a purpose for which it is not needed, but it would not have taken the form of an amendment if the Government had shown more movement towards the objective. Although the children in question may have rights in another European country, the situation surely is such that the UK should take the lead towards some sort of resolution.

I mentioned abuse, exploitation and trafficking. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, did not mention the Modern Slavery Act, but I suspect that it was in her mind. The Government are proud of that legislation, which addresses exploitation, abuse and trafficking. Let us join up the dots.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

59: Clause 37, page 23, line 14, leave out “and second” and insert “, second and third”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have a number of amendments in this group. Underlying all of them is a concern about all the so-called right-to-rent provisions—and indeed those provisions in the 2014 Act—and our view that there should be much longer experience of the current regime before criminalising non-compliance with it. My Amendment 67, which is more specific than Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and more robust, in particular deals with this. Noble Lords will be familiar with the short piloting of the requirements in the 2014 Act, the announcement of their rollout beyond the West Midlands pilot area before the six-month pilot came to an end and the publication of the evaluation of the pilot merely hours before these clauses were debated in Committee in the Commons.

My Amendment 67 picks up on concerns and criticisms of the scheme from the evaluation by the Home Office and on work done in particular by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. The proposed new Section 33C(8) lists issues which were highlighted and which would be impacted. The amendment would require an independent assessment,

“based on information from a representative sample”.

The 2014-15 pilot was much criticised on this score, as it comprised substantially students, with few people who actually moved during the period, so they had not experienced the new rules.

My amendment would also require an assessment over an adequate period, with publication not before five years from the start of the pilot. Noble Lords will also be aware of the panel co-chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which continues to oversee the scheme and which has instigated changes. I do not for a moment doubt what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has told us of the workings of the committee, but since the minutes of its meetings are not published, we are not able to look at them in the way that we would want to. The evaluation should of course be based on rigorous data collection.

The regime affects tenants and would-be tenants, landlords and landlords’ agents, and when it was rolled out some months ago there were very many negative comments. It was interesting that when we had a debate a couple of weeks ago in this Chamber, it was apparent that some Members of your Lordships’ House who were landlords did not know of the requirements. So it seems to us that the scheme should be as dependable and defensible as possible before a landlord becomes liable to be criminalised, and this amendment allows for that. Criminalisation is very significant: a fine is qualitatively different from a civil penalty of the same amount.

Our Amendments 59, 60 and 61 would protect landlords. New Section 33A, which we are presented with in the Bill, sets out two conditions or matters which would give rise to an offence. My amendment would add a third—that previously the landlord should have been required to pay a penalty, so that a landlord is not liable to be criminalised on the first occasion he infringes. I am aware of course that there would be an assessment by the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether it is in the public interest to prosecute and so on, but I simply do not think that an individual in that situation should be subject to criminalisation. The Minister may respond by saying, “What about the flagrantly bad landlords—those who overcrowd, force people into substandard conditions and so on?”. But we have other housing legislation and we should not be using immigration legislation to deal with this abuse.

The second condition deals with premises being—including becoming—occupied by an adult who is not qualified to have the right to rent and the landlord’s knowledge. I hope that the Minister can explain whether there is a distinction between the obligations of a landlord and of a landlord’s agent, because the equivalent provision in the 2014 Act, at Section 22(6), requires reasonable inquiries to be made. I find it difficult to see how this fits with new Section 33A.

The Minister’s Amendment 62 does not deal with the positive action of authorising occupation. If we are not to have that, I support Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising. The defence of having taken reasonable steps to terminate the tenancy within a reasonable period is an improvement, as far as it goes, but that is not nearly far enough. What is reasonable is to be determined by the court, which is fine, but having regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, which, to me at any rate, is not fine. My Amendment 63 would remove new subsections (5B) and (5C). What is reasonable should speak for itself, and the courts are not short of experience in assessing what is reasonable. But if something is reasonable only subject to certain matters, they should be set out in legislation, not unamendable guidance—or at any rate guidance that will be amendable by the Government and will not be certain.

Amendments 67A to 71 deal with evictions. The new section in Clause 38 is headed, “Termination of agreement where all occupiers disqualified”. In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the Minister said that Home Office notices would be issued only when it is clear that all the occupiers are illegal migrants. I do not doubt that that is the intention, but I am concerned that new Section 33D(2)(b)—I apologise to noble Lords for all the cross-references—might be read as referring to particular occupiers, as long as they were the subject of notices, especially as in the preceding paragraph, paragraph (a), there is a reference to “all”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

It is absolutely right for the noble Earl to draw attention to that. I certainly give him that undertaking. We will bear in mind those particular points precisely when we construct the guidance which will be laid before Parliament.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who piled in on this. Again, there is an awful lot that we are not going to agree on—but I will not repeat all the arguments I made in moving my amendment. However, I should make it clear that I was asking not about publication of the Home Office’s evaluation but about the work of the panel of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. I think that that is a separate issue.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness raised that point in Committee. I went back to James Brokenshire and asked him whether the minutes could be published. That issue will be raised at the next meeting of the consultative panel. Because other private sector groups are involved there is, of course, a need to get their permission before any action of that kind could be taken. But that issue will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the consultative panel.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am glad to hear that because it means that the last hour may not have been in vain. I still have concerns about mandatory conviction, discrimination—whether because or in spite of my intermittent Mancunian accent, I am not sure—and criminalisation. My amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cover very much the same ground and we have discussed this. He asked for sympathy from the Minister. He always gets sympathy from this Minister. Therefore, I assume that he will not lead the troops to support the continuing pilot, if you like, which is the subject of both our amendments. Therefore, very sadly, as I do not want to take up the time of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will confine myself to one question and to thanking the noble and learned Lord for that remarkably succinct explanation of several pages of amendments. I am sure it will bear reading and rereading. I think that he has answered my question, but I just want to be sure. What happens if electronic monitoring cannot be imposed, for instance because of mental health concerns or some other human rights issue? I think that he said that bail could—or indeed would—still be granted. That is the central question.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness. The answer is that, in those circumstances, bail could still be granted. It will be dependent on the individual conditions that arise in a particular case. But I make it absolutely clear that it would still be possible for bail to be granted in such circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, having spoken on this subject at Second Reading, and having visited two removal or detention centres more than once, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, was saying about the categories of people who should never be detained. I draw particular attention to those with serious mental health issues or post-traumatic stress. Surely, if they are at risk of injuring either themselves or other people, they should not be in these detention centres. They should be in secure psychiatric wards. So I hope that the Government will take very seriously what the noble Baroness was saying.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment. I made a lot of notes as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, was speaking, but I do not think that, having been given his conclusion, I need to deal with all of them. I am well aware that there is opposition to the clause from a number of organisations which do not want to see any exceptions at all. That seems to me to have been the burden of their concerns.

The short point is that the system is not working. We do not live in a perfect world. If we were to create other rules that one might say would support the system as we now have it, I do not believe that they could be made to work. The then Chief Inspector of Prisons commented on how many of the detainees were released back into the community, which poses the question: if they are suitable to be released back into the community, why do they need to be detained in the first place?

The Government’s position is a presumption that an “adult at risk” will not be detained. Our presumption is against detention for more than 28 days, so we start at the other end. It is unambitious to say—as the Government do—that they expect to see a reduction in the number of those who are at risk in detention and that they will be there for reduced periods. The Written Ministerial Statement which the Government published in January categorises the issues in a way which worries me, separating risk and vulnerability from healthcare. Care and assessment are very closely allied, and I suggest, for instance, that a victim of sexual violence may not be able to explain to a healthcare worker that this is her experience until after quite a long period of treatment. Therefore, looking at the Government’s approach to this, I am concerned.

We already have Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules, whose purpose is,

“to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention”.

It is not working. We have that now and there is a great range of problems—in view of the time I will not go through them but I hope that noble Lords will understand that the all-party group, of which I was a member, heard a good deal of evidence from medical professionals about the problems with Rule 35. Therefore, if that rule does not achieve what is needed, will guidance—the Government’s Amendment 86—achieve it? I fear that it will not.

Amendment 85 aims to flush out the Government’s view of the conditions of vulnerability listed by Stephen Shaw in his report. It says that a vulnerable person should not be detained unless there are exceptional circumstances, as determined by the tribunal. The Government’s answer will, no doubt, be in Amendment 86, which talks about particular vulnerability—someone being particularly vulnerable to harm if they are detained. We start from the premise that vulnerability is vulnerability, full stop.

There is so much more one could say; I wish I could but I will not. I support the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a powerful case in support of Amendment 84, to which my name is also attached, and I do not intend to repeat all the points. The amendment is intended to provide for judicial oversight if a person is to be detained for a period longer than 28 days. If the noble Lord, having heard the Government’s response to Amendment 84, decides to test the opinion of the House, we will vote in support.

Immigration detention is a matter of concern. For the person detained it is detention for an indefinite period, since they are not given a date when it will end. Their life is in limbo. A recent all-party group inquiry into immigration detention heard evidence that detention was in some ways worse than being in prison, since at least people in prison know when they will get out. There is medical evidence that it causes anxiety and distress, not least among the more vulnerable groups. The all-party inquiry to which I have referred heard from medical people with knowledge in this field that the sense of being in limbo and the hopelessness and despair it generates lead to deteriorating mental health. One such witness said that those who are detained for more than 30 days have significantly greater mental health problems.

For his report for the Home Office into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, Stephen Shaw commissioned a review by Professor Mary Bosworth of the evidence linking detention with adverse mental health outcomes. Mr Shaw said that he regarded her view as a study of the greatest significance. Two of Professor Bosworth’s key findings were: first, that there is a consistent finding from all the studies carried out across the globe, which were from different academic viewpoints, that immigration detention has a negative impact upon detainees’ mental health; and, secondly, that the impact on mental health increases the longer detention continues.

In his conclusions, Mr Shaw stated:

“Most of those who have looked dispassionately at immigration detention have come to similar conclusions: there is too much detention; detention is not a particularly effective means of ensuring that those with no right to remain do in fact leave the UK; and many practices and processes associated with detention are in urgent need of reform”.

He ended by saying:

“Immigration detention has increased, is increasing, and—whether by better screening, more effective reviews, or formal time limit—it ought to be reduced”.

In the first three quarters of 2014, 37% of those detained were detained for longer than 28 days. Home Office guidelines are that detention should be for the shortest possible time and should be used only as a genuine last resort to effect removal. Yet despite centres being called “immigration removal centres”, most people who leave detention do so for other reasons than being removed from the United Kingdom. According to government statistics, more than half the detainees are released back into this country.

There could surely be some scope for a wider range of community-based alternatives to detention, enabling more people to remain in their communities while their cases are being resolved or when making arrangements for them to leave the country. The family returns process, which is designed to reduce the number of children detained, has resulted, according to the Home Office’s own evaluation, in most families being compliant with the process and no increase in absconding.

I note the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and his reason for not supporting but also, as I understand it, for not opposing this amendment if it is put to a vote. If Amendment 84 is passed by this House, the Government also have the option, if they choose to take it up, of putting an amended proposition as the Bill goes through its remaining parliamentary stages.

Amendment 84 does not of course put a time limit on immigration detention but it would ensure that a decision to continue to detain after 28 days was a judicial decision dependent on the Secretary of State having to make the argument that the circumstances of the case concerned required extended detention. The amendment does not preclude or prevent detention going beyond 28 days but it means, in a country where we uphold justice and the right to liberty, that at least after a period of time the decision to continue to detain has to be a judicial one, not an administrative one. Surely this House can support that.