Child Refugees

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, apologies for confusing the procedure on Statements with Urgent Questions. I will deal with points in the reverse order to which they were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, the criteria for family reunion are set out in the Dublin regulations. They are currently under a period of review, but we will certainly honour the family reunion commitments under the existing Dublin arrangements. Regarding trafficking and the dangers, we are absolutely confident, in terms of the current Dublin regime, that all children—all adults, for that matter—arriving into the European Union should be identified with biometric passes at that point and recorded as such with as much data as are available. Once the data are there, at least that person is correctly identified. We have been providing support through the European Asylum Support Office in those regions to ensure that that recording of children and adults is going ahead.

I should say that the figure of 26,000 is an estimate of the number actually coming in to the European Union; the numbers are not held in one place. The Prime Minister is deeply concerned about that. This time last year, we had a couple of hundred coming in under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme. The Prime Minister announced that that was to increase to 20,000, and we brought in 1,000 before Christmas, 50% of whom were children. So we are not unmoved by that plea, but UNICEF and the UNHCR have seriously warned about the interests of the child being best served when they remain with wider family networks in the region, as that offers the best prospect for their safety and well-being once, as we hope, the conflict there is resolved.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, like others, I suspect, I would have welcomed a rather wider and more positive announcement about immediate steps to be taken for children not just from Syria but from Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea. When, as I hope we will, we get a positive announcement about the Government’s plans, will it include detailed proposals for everything that needs to be done to support the children whom we wish to welcome: funding and wider support for local authorities, training and support for social workers and, in particular, a focus on the availability of foster placements and support for foster parents, who will be dealing with very delicate situations?

[Lord Bates]

That is certainly the arrangement that we have under the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme: they get that assistance, which comes out of the overseas development assistance budget in the first instance. We have a real problem with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are in the UK already, a high proportion of whom are in Kent. Funding is available to the authorities, and we will make sure that they have the resources necessary to provide the level of care that we expect under our international obligations, and our national obligations under the Children Act.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

148: Clause 13, page 8, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) In section 33(1)(a), for “race” substitute “a protected characteristic as defined in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments takes us to the provisions in the Bill on the right to rent. The debate and many briefings around the evaluation of the restrictions applied in the West Midlands under the scheme instigated by the 2014 Act, particularly references to discrimination, prompted me to look at that Act. Section 33 requires a code of practice from the Secretary of State specifying what a landlord or agent should do to avoid,

“contravening … the Equality Act 2010, so far as relating to race”.

I confess that I cannot remember why only race is mentioned in that section, not the other so-called protected characteristics, which include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, religion and belief, and sex and sexual orientation. I accept that some of these may be unlikely to influence a landlord’s or agent’s attitude, but it can be difficult for some people to distinguish discrimination on the basis of race and religion in practice. So my question to the Minister is: why did we confine this to race? I am implicated in this, after all, as I took part in debating that Bill. In any event, is the matter not due for review?

The other amendments in this group are on the evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme. My Amendment 159 was tabled to come before Clause 13, but it does not matter. I have added my name to Amendment 151, which is about applying criminal sanctions to the provisions in the 2014 Act, making non-compliance into a criminal offence. That obviously requires an evaluation of how the 2014 provisions are going. Amendment 159 would provide that there would be no rollout of those provisions from the West Midlands until the evaluation to which I referred in the amendment. Since then, the Government have laid a statutory instrument to roll out those provisions. I have also tabled a Motion to annul that—quite separately, of course, from today. For a number of reasons, I was very sorry that that was laid, obviously because of the substance of the matter but also because I was really rather proud of this amendment, which, somewhat to my surprise, did not get altered in its passage from my head on to the Marshalled List. The evaluation which Amendment 159 would require would be an independent one by a representative sample of landlords, agents and tenants, looking at the impact both on the lettings market and on the wider local community, as well as on whether the aims of the legislation were achieved. I would give until the West Midlands scheme was in effect for long enough to undertake a good evaluation. I have said five years, but I appreciate that that may be contentious—and I apologise to the West Midlands for continuing to inflict this there. These are all issues that have been identified by those who work in the sector, both the landlords and agents and the various groups which have concerns for immigrants.

The Home Office evaluation of the West Midlands scheme acknowledges that the sample sizes were small—I would say they were very small—and that the findings are indicative rather than definitive. The sample does not claim to be representative. My comments are not intended to be any criticism of those who were tasked with the evaluation. The majority of the tenants surveyed were students, who are clearly not representative of families, older people and people who are in work. It is particularly easy to check on a student’s right to rent, so in that way they are less representative as well. I understand that they were specifically targeted by an information campaign in the area. The majority of tenants did not move property, so there is no experience there. The pointers to discrimination in the period that the scheme was running may have been few, but they are significant in the context. You certainly cannot say that the evaluation shows that discrimination was not an issue. In fact, the evidence showed discrimination.

The aims of the right-to-rent scheme are to reduce the availability of accommodation for people who are illegally in the UK, to discourage those who stay illegally—in other words, to encourage them to leave—by making it more difficult to establish a settled life here and to reinforce action against rogue landlords. I do not believe that the report demonstrates that those aims were met.

I congratulate the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants on the work it did. I shall not quote a great deal from its report as I hope that I have made the points fairly succinctly, but it points out from an independent evaluation it commissioned that 42% of landlords said that the right-to-rent requirements have made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport and more than one-quarter said that they would no longer engage with those with foreign accents or names; at Second Reading, I said that I thought that with my slightly odd name I might find it hard to find rented accommodation. The council also said that 50% of respondents who had been refused a tenancy felt that discrimination was a factor in the landlord’s decision and—I am so naive that I found this shocking—landlords and agents have charged fees in order to undertake the right-to-rent checks. In addition, unscrupulous landlords have passed the potential cost of a fine on to the tenant in the form of increased rent or deposits.

I have also heard from Crisis, as other noble Lords will have done, which comments on the problems arising from the scheme for homeless people, whose documents often get lost or stolen. It says that replacing missing documents is expensive, probably prohibitively expensive, and when the lettings market is very high pressured and fast moving, as we know it is, landlords are not prepared to wait for tenants to produce documents. They will rent to somebody who can provide the evidence immediately and thus provide them with rent immediately.

Crisis also comments on the right-to-rent scheme applying to live-in landlords who take in lodgers and is concerned that it will act as a disincentive to people letting out rooms in their homes given the housing pressures we are experiencing.

I end by quoting from a letter that I received yesterday from the Residential Landlords Association, which says:

“Given that the little data available is at best contradictory and at worst shows that the Right to Rent scheme is … not achieving what the Government wants; and … is leading to discrimination against those unable to clearly unable to identify their nationality, we believe it premature to roll out the scheme across the country … To proceed at this stage runs the very real risk of causing considerable harm to the relationships between landlords and tenants which are so crucial to the smooth operation of the private rented sector”.

I thought it important to include that because it comes from the perspective of landlords, not that of many others from whom we have received briefings.

My name is on the third amendment in this group, but I beg to move Amendment 148.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

In that respect I might suggest that the partial solution which we came across for our last debate, which was on overseas domestic workers, was to look at organising a meeting in between Committee and Report. However, it would probably be more useful for the House to have the noble Lord, Lord Best, at such a meeting if he were willing to meet with colleagues on that basis. We would certainly be happy to facilitate one to explain more about the process, but we have tried to be as transparent as possible about this. It has been a long trial and there has been a thorough evaluation. It will also continue to be under review because this is not the completion of the process; we are simply talking about moving to the next stage of rollout, which is to England. There will be further opportunities for evaluation thereafter. I hope that, with those suggestions, I might have prevailed upon the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will want to go back and read what the Minister had to say about protected characteristics, so I will not spend time on that. I am not surprised that he does not agree with my Amendment 159—that is self-evident.

I would not for a moment accuse the Government of not being transparent on this. It is no secret at all that his party, in the last Government, did not want to have a pilot but to roll the scheme out right across the country immediately. We have information which has been the basis of the argument against rolling it out further. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, are unanswerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Cathcart]

No, I am not aware of that.

I understand that previously the Government have said that they want common sense to prevail. However, landlords, fearful of the potential consequences of getting something wrong, need further assurances. A simple amendment to the Bill can rectify this and make it clear that landlords will not commit a criminal offence where they have done everything possible to verify the status of the tenant and are in the process of evicting a tenant whom they have been notified does not have the right to rent within the 28-day window that the Bill permits.

It is important to note that while a prosecution might not be taken out against a landlord seeking to evict a tenant without the right to rent, simply deeming him to have committed a criminal offence can cause extensive difficulties, especially with mortgage lenders and insurers. The fact that no prosecution has been taken does not mean that the landlord has not committed an offence. Most contracts relating to property contain a prohibition on using the property unlawfully.

While an amendment would be the clearest way of addressing this issue, in addition, clear guidance should be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions outlining: first, that prosecutions will not take place where a landlord who has been informed that their tenant does not have the right to rent has done everything possible to check the status of that tenant and is within the 28-day eviction period; secondly, that landlords will not be prosecuted where they have fallen victim to forged documents from a prospective tenant that they could not reasonably have been expected to recognise as false; thirdly, that landlords will not be prosecuted where they were unable to receive a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them that the tenant did not have a right to rent due to hospitalisation or other reasonable measure that might prevent them reading and acting on a notice; and fourthly, how he intends to proceed with the Government’s commitment that landlords will not be prosecuted for a first offence.

This amendment is supported by the Residential Landlords Association, which looks after the interests of more than 40,000 landlords, and by the Association of Residential Letting Agents. Its managing director, David Cox, commented:

“It would be unjust and inequitable for a landlord to be in breach of the law through no fault of their own, irrespective of whether the Government has outlined it will not prosecute in such circumstances. Being in breach of legislation will cause landlords great concern, and therefore, we request these technical amendments be incorporated into the Bill to ensure the spirit of the legislation is reflected in the wording of the Bill”.

I could not have put it better myself.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am conscious of the time, but we need to spend just a few more minutes on this. I shall not take too long. Noble Lords who have spoken have identified very serious drawbacks in the legislation, even if one ignores the thrust of these provisions, as I do not wish to do. If they are to be implemented in the way in which the Government wish, the points that have been made are very well made, and I am sorry that we kept the two noble Lords so late in order for them to be able to make them.

I have my name to a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is about to speak to them.

On Amendment 152, I want to make a point that once again has come from Crisis, which says that there are a number of situations where a claim for asylum fails but the person is unable to return to his country because there is no stable state to return to, or it is unclear where they should return to—we are familiar with these problems, of course. It says that at the very least the Home Office should clarify these people’s status with regard to the new eviction process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments contains some very sensible protections for landlords, who could find themselves in difficulties and at risk of prosecution and a fine, imprisonment or both, although they have taken all reasonable precautions and have no intention of breaking the law. Landlords, as has been said before, are not immigration officers. One of the concerns about this section of the Bill is that people will take reasonable precautions but will still find themselves in difficulties and possibly at risk of prosecution.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is both simple and effective, and he has made a compelling case here today: the landlord would not commit an offence if they had taken reasonable steps and there was no reasonable cause not to believe that other persons who met the first and second conditions were residing at the property.

Amendment 149 seeks to afford landlords protection when they are prohibited from evicting a tenant under new Section 33D(4), and Amendment 150, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would protect landlords who were acting diligently to evict people who were disqualified as a result of their immigration status. Again, the noble Earl has made a compelling case as to why the amendment should be supported.

I have no issue with Amendment 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. The remaining amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lord Prosser, myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These important amendments would ensure that individuals and families could be evicted only following due legal process, by removing from the Bill the provisions to grant new and extensive powers to landlords outside the oversight of the courts. I say to the Minister that the Government really are creating a very difficult situation here. This whole part of the Bill puts significant pressure on landlords, with tough penalties and little protection, along with extensive new powers with no oversight by the courts.

There is a real risk here, as has been said by other noble Lords, that landlords will just not rent the property to anyone who looks as though they might be more of a risk, and great injustices could take place. To make it worse, the courts are to be excluded from the process of evicting people if they are resident in a property. This is not right, and the Government are going to have to make some movement on these matters again. I hope the Minister will agree to meet Peers who are interested in these matters and campaigners before we come back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

158: Clause 16, page 17, line 7, leave out paragraph (b)

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I will move Amendment 158 very briefly. This amendment came about as a result of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not explain the detail of the clause because I am aware that the Minister intends to make a full response to the DPRR report—as I understand it, before Report. I am moving this amendment in order to ask that we get that response in reasonable time just in case we do not agree with what the Government have to say. If that is the case, we may want to use Report stage as the last opportunity to put down an amendment similar to this one. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, Clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to make such regulations as are appropriate to extend the residential tenancies provisions, as set out in the Immigration Act 2014, to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is entirely right that there is provision to make such an extension throughout the United Kingdom as the residential tenancy provisions in this Bill are for the purposes of immigration control, which is a matter reserved to the UK Government.

Amendment 158 seeks to remove the provision for regulations under Clause 16 to confer functions on any person. In order to make appropriate provision that applies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it may be necessary to confer functions on a person—for example, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or an immigration officer—under those regulations. The provision in the Bill is helpful as it makes it clear what can be done under these regulations. Removing the provision would serve no useful purpose and would lead to an unhelpful lack of clarity.

I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 17th report of Session 2015-16 has drawn attention to some aspects of the Bill but not to this specific provision. As the noble Baroness has asked us to do, we will certainly provide a full response to the committee’s report and also, of course, make sure that Members of your Lordships’ House have a copy of the response before Report. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment but to note the further consideration being given by the Government to the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

78: Schedule 1, page 55, leave out lines 4 to 28

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have Amendments 78 to 91 in this group, in which there are also two government amendments. I am sorry that they are not the sort of all-singing, all-dancing amendments with which one might like to start the day’s proceedings, but they are important.

Schedule 1 provides for changes to licensing related to illegal working and covers licensed premises and personal licences. The Licensing Act 2003 sets out licensing objectives. They are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It seems to us that they cover the ground pretty well and they have been found to do so, particularly when taken with the local administration of licensing which sets it in the local context. I dare say that the Minister will say that illegal working—the subject of the schedule—is a crime, but we have already explained our view that the schedule is futile at best, dangerous at worst and has unlooked-for consequences. I will not repeat those arguments now. If a crime is committed, then whether that specific crime needs a schedule is one of the overarching questions.

Amendments 78 and 79 would retain the Secretary of State’s right to be notified of an application for a licence and to object to that application along with the occupants of 25 Acacia Avenue, those next door to the Bull public house and so on, but it would delete the immigration officer’s right to enter to see—those are the words of the Bill—whether an immigration offence is being committed. In our view, the licensing objective should be about particular individuals and premises and whether they are appropriate for a licence to be granted. Apart from the substantive objections, this schedule produces a lot of bureaucracy. Is it not enough that the Secretary of State has a right to object to the grant of the licence? If the licensee has been employing one or two people without the right to work, it is possible that there may have been confusion, difficulties of checking and so on, so there is a great possibility for mistakes. That is very different from an operation being dependent on an almost entirely unentitled or illegal workforce.

I have mentioned public houses, but I know that there is also concern in, for instance, the curry house trade that these provisions will cause considerable disruption to their operation. What consultation has there been with various relevant organisations, including within the licensed trade? A lot of small businesses stand to be affected by this. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has analysed Home Office lists of penalties imposed for illegal working and says that many of them relate to small businesses. It asks a pertinent question about whether that is because they employ illegal workers more often or because they are targeted more often. Also, for immigration officers to be able to enter premises on something of a fishing expedition without the need for suspicion is a wide power.

Amendments 80 and 83 may look as if I am seeking to extend the powers of the Secretary of State; I am not. This is to probe how the powers will operate and, again, to ask what consultation there has been. The police can already object to the transfer of a licence because it would undermine the crime prevention objective in the exceptional circumstances of a case, so presumably the Home Office has experience of this and should be able to help me with that question. I also ask whether this right for the police is not enough in itself without extending a similar right to the Secretary of State.

Amendments 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88 and 90 would change “appropriate” to “necessary”, which is the term used in the 2003 Act. For instance, it would be “necessary” to reject an application under that Act for the crime prevention objective. To change that term to being “appropriate” to reject it for these objectives seems to give a discretion to the Secretary of State that is wider than we are accustomed to in current licensing law, and which I am unconvinced about.

Amendments 86 and 89 are also about the scope for the Secretary of State’s discretion. They mean that the Secretary of State must be satisfied—I will give that much on the basis of reasonableness—that refusing a licence or the continuation of one is necessary to prevent illegal working, not just that the grant of a licence would prejudice the prevention of illegal working, as the schedule says.

Lastly, and rather differently, there is Amendment 91. The schedule provides that on appeal the magistrates cannot consider whether, after the original decision that is the subject of the appeal, an individual has actually been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. Why is this necessary? What happens if the individual is granted leave to enter or leave to remain but his initial application for a licence has been turned down? Does he in those circumstances have to make a fresh application for a licence, which will carry with it costs as well as difficulties in running a business, and indeed for employees of that applicant? I will hear what the Minister has to say about his amendments, but I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support what might be seen as the rather technical points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am looking particularly at Amendments 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90. Where it is the practice in earlier legislation to use the word “necessary”, it seems inappropriate to use the word “appropriate”. One should keep to similar phraseology in legislation unless there is some very strong view to change it. “Appropriate”, as the noble Baroness says, gives a very wide degree of discretion—far greater than necessary—and I cannot at the moment see why it is necessary to have it wider than that. The other points—refusing continuation of a licence and so on—are similar. They are perhaps technical but, when they are worked on the ground, they have considerable force, and I am rather concerned to be broadening out what it does not seem necessary so to broaden.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to her amendments. Before coming to the questions that have been asked, I will briefly speak to Amendments 92 and 93 in my name. Schedule 1 to the Bill concerns the powers to prevent illegal working in premises licensed to sell alcohol or provide late-night refreshment in England and Wales. These are two technical amendments to Schedule 1 which aim to ensure that those who have applied for a premises licence or a personal licence for the sale of alcohol or the provision of late-night refreshment, and who have not had a decision on that licence application before these provisions have commenced, will have their application determined on the basis of the licensing law in force at the time they made their licensing application.

Amendments 78 to 91 are proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Schedule 1 integrates protection against illegal working into the existing licensing regime, including by adding the Home Secretary to the list of responsible authorities for the purpose of the Licensing Act, by making the prevention of illegal working an objective of the licensing regime and by requiring licence applicants to have the requisite right to work. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would adjust the threshold at which the Secretary of State may object to a licensing application. They would permit a court to consider whether the appellant has been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK after the date of the decision being appealed against, in effect duplicating the proper role of the tribunal—the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The amendments would also make changes to the proposed “entitlement to work” definition from the Licensing Act 2003 to prevent immigration status and, in particular, the lack of it being relevant to alcohol or late-night refreshment licensing decisions.

We do not believe that these amendments would achieve the objective of preventing illegal working in this high-risk sector. They would not provide the necessary clarity for licensing authorities or the Home Office in respect of the proposed power to withhold personal and premises licences based on the absence of the applicant’s right to work in this sector or concerns about the risk of illegal working in the premises concerned. They would also result in inconsistency with the standards employed in the wider licensing framework. Changes made by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 have given licensing authorities greater power to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, and it is appropriate that the same level of evidence and discretion is also afforded in respect of the prevention of illegal working.

The Home Office decision to object to the issue of a premises licence to prevent illegal working will not be taken lightly. Schedule 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may object only where she is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that issuing a licence would be prejudicial to preventing illegal working. Schedule 1 also provides the necessary clarity on the circumstances in which a person’s immigration status should render them ineligible to hold a licence to sell alcohol. The proposed amendments would permit an individual to apply for a licence even though they are not permitted to work in the UK, or where their immigration status prevents their doing work related to licensable activity. This cannot be right. An applicant who has been refused a licence but is subsequently granted leave would simply need to make a fresh application and include the required information that provides evidence of immigration status.

Let me turn to some of the particular points that were made. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what evidence exists that this is a particular problem. Of the civil penalties served for illegal working in the year to June 2015, 82% were served on the retail industry or hotel, restaurant and leisure industry sectors. A large proportion of these sectors hold premises or personal alcohol licences. Enforcement activity is decided as a consequence of intelligence and does not affect only companies that employ a small number of employees.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what consultation had taken place. The changes proposed to the Licensing Act in the Bill have been subject to consultation with interested partners, including licensing authorities, the police, and representatives of the licensed trade. The consultation was undertaken last summer via a number of workshops, which were attended by the Local Government Association, the Institute of Licensing, licensing officers from seven licensing authorities, representatives of the national policing lead on alcohol, and the police and crime commissioner lead on alcohol. The second workshop included industry partners such as the British Beer & Pub Association, the Association of Convenience Stores, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. These partners provided a significant contribution to shaping our proposals.

Let me turn to perhaps the most interesting point, raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which is the subject of most of the amendments in this group: the use of the term “appropriate”. This was introduced across the licensing regime in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We want the test in standards to be consistent across the two pieces of legislation. If we ended up with a differently worded test in the Bill before us, that might require consequential changes to the 2011 Act to bring them into line. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am very happy to look at this issue ahead of Report to see whether any change is needed. However, that is the rationale for the choice of language.

With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments, and in doing so I commend my amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments. I have to say that my trigger finger on my iPad is not fast enough to have got into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. The Minister will understand that I will want to check whether it is on all fours in this regard. If it absolutely is, I might have to say, “You have got me there”.

The amendments have been described as technical. I do not think that they are; they are about people’s livelihoods, and that is why I am quite persistent with them. That was an impressive list of consultees who, we are told, helped to shape the proposal. I could not deduct whether they were shaping a proposal that they did not like and just making it a little better or whether they were going along with the proposal as it was put to them.

I will finish by saying that what I really do not want to see is a confusing of licensing and immigration—a point that crops up at a number of points in the Bill. They are separate issues and that is why I was so concerned. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to indulge myself with this tranche of amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 78.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group; most of them are amendments to the government amendments and most of them come in pairs.

Amendment 99A is the first amendment of these pairs and deals with the licensing authority having to set an expiry date for a licence for someone who has been granted limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. The Government are proposing that the licence period,

“must end at or before the end of the leave period”,

which could mean a significantly shorter time before the end of the leave period. My amendments would mean that the licence would end at the end of the leave period. It would be fairly obvious that I would want to ask why the Government think it necessary to make provision for it to end some time before the end of the leave period. Presumably, the licensing authority can grant a licence for a shorter period in any event. I can see the need that it should not go on beyond the end of the leave period, but why does it have to be less?

Amendment 99B is the first of the other pairs of amendments. If leave is extended, the licensing authority can set the duration of the licence, which must not be more than six months. Again, I would ask why. I am proposing that the licence should coincide with the leave period. I make the point that I made in the previous group of amendments that we are dealing with people’s livelihoods.

Amendment 117 is pretty much the same as the amendment in the previous group about whether an appeal, having been successful, can be entertained when a licence has been refused and is appealed on. I lost a grip of what the Minister said on that and will have to read Hansard, but he will probably have the same answer.

On Amendments 120 to 124, Schedule 2 provides for guidance from the Secretary of State to the licensing authorities in determining whether an applicant for a licence is disqualified because of his immigration status. My amendments amount to a requirement to consult with representatives of the licensing authorities, including Transport for London.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group comprises a large group of government amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and a number of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is clear that the government amendments are included to make matters clear and consistent across all relevant lines of legislation. That in itself is a good thing. But for me that further illustrates the point that this legislation has been rushed and ill thought out and these revisions should have been in the Bill from the start.

Also, the Secretary of State is given powers in these government amendments to amend fine amounts by secondary legislation. That may be perfectly acceptable in this case. But the Government like their secondary legislation, hiding behind the limited ability of Parliament to hold them to account in such circumstances, but that I think is a wider issue for the House.

I have looked at the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and with respect to Amendment 117, they have a good point to make. It is not unreasonable for the courts to take into account that, after the date of a decision being appealed against, the person has been granted leave to remain in or enter the UK.

I take it that the other amendments are probing in nature in order to assist the Committee in further understanding the intention of the Government and satisfying noble Lords that what is being proposed is achievable, and of course they can be retabled later in the course of the Bill if we think it necessary. I very much accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that these are important issues that concern people’s livelihoods.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

99A: Schedule 2, line 119, leave out “or before”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, with the leave of House, perhaps I may respond to some points made by the Minister on these amendments. I will be very quick. As to the requirement as regards private hire licensing and alcohol licensing for an applicant who did not have leave at the point when the initial decision was made but gets leave in the interim period before an appeal, it is very hard on that applicant that the licensing of the appeal court—although “appeal” may not be quite the right term for what I am trying to say—cannot entertain the consideration of that situation. The applicant will incur costs and a delay. Businesses will be affected and third parties—employees—may be affected. Of everything I have heard, that concerns me particularly. I may be misunderstanding some of the procedures but, if I am misunderstanding them and the language is not completely clear, that could cause a problem for those who will have to operate them. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

To clarify for the noble Baroness, I understand her point. My understanding is that what we are saying is that the applicant should not be making an application for a licence that extends beyond the period in which they have leave to remain in the country. Therefore, the point we are seeking to hold is that they should have the licence for the period which relates to the legal position that they have been given to be in the UK. We are trying to tie up those two points.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I think I follow that—but what if the application for leave has initially been turned down on the basis of a mistake? That would leave the applicant for a licence in a difficult position. I do not think that it will benefit us to take this discussion further now, but I have no doubt that the Minister, in his usual very helpful way, will be able to undertake discussions between Committee and Report. I will certainly look at it again and perhaps we could pursue it.

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to give that undertaking to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 99A (to Amendment 99) withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I do not wish to see Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. We have other amendments in the group, and we intend to oppose the question that Schedule 3 be the third schedule to the Bill. I have some amendments to Schedule 3 as I am not entirely confident that the Minister will instantly accede to our amendments to and arguments on the schedule.

These provisions are about closing premises if it is thought that illegal working is taking place, followed by the possibility of compliance orders. It seems to us that these are something of a sledgehammer set of provisions. If anyone should be allowed to wield a sledgehammer, it should be the courts, not the Executive. A lot of this Bill—as we have said before and, I dare say, will say again—is about sending messages, which we do not think is the purpose of legislation.

The Bill would give immigration officers powers to close an employer’s premises for up to 48 hours when they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the employer is employing an illegal worker. He might, of course, not necessarily actually be an illegal worker, but someone that the immigration officer has reasonable cause to believe is not entitled to work. I accept the phrase “reasonable cause” but, by definition, “reasonable cause” is not fact. A closure notice can lead on a pretty fast track to a compliance order being imposed for up to two years, which is a matter for the court. It seems to me that any closure, including the initial closure, should be a matter for the court. What happens when there are mistakes, poor decisions or bad judgment on the part of an immigration officer? The consequences for an employer can be considerable to both his reputation and financially, as they can be for the employees legally working for a business and, indeed, for other separate businesses operating from the same premises. Why is this measure required, given the criminal sanctions proposed for illegally employing someone? What safeguards are provided to ensure that this power is not used oppressively? What records will be made of the decision-making process and will they be disclosed to the owner of the premises?

As I said, I have tabled specific amendments to Schedule 3. Paragraph 1(12) requires an immigration officer to consult anyone he thinks is appropriate before issuing a closure notice. Amendment 135 would require consultation—which, of course, in this context would mean discussion before issuing the notice—with, as a minimum, the employer, people who live on the premises and anyone who has an interest in the premises.

Amendment 146 was tabled following debate in the Commons on paragraph 15(3)(d) of Schedule 3, which is about the possibility of compensation for loss being ordered by the court if, having regard to all the circumstances, the court is satisfied that it is appropriate. The discussion was around whether other criteria must also be satisfied. The Government consider that the word “and” should be included at the end of the relevant provision, not “or”. This is clearly an important point. The ability to order compensation for an employer is restricted, as are the circumstances in which compensation can be paid to third parties—the sort of third parties I have mentioned—who would be adversely affected. Therefore, I am not happy with the Government’s amendment, but at least it will bring clarity.

If the Secretary of State has presented inaccurate information to the court which has led the court to make an order which it would not otherwise have made, or the Secretary of State has acted in an oppressive manner or otherwise wrongfully, will the court have the power to order the payment of compensation or damages without having to start separate proceedings? And if not, why not? The government amendments remove all possibility of compensation for losses incurred as a result of an illegal working closure notice if that notice has been cancelled. It seems likely that where a notice has been issued wrongly, the Home Office should move to cancel it. I ask these questions to seek clarification on these provisions.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, it might be helpful for noble Lords if I speak now to the government amendments to explain them and come to the noble Baroness’s amendments and the stand part debate at the end.

Government Amendments 136 to 145 and 147 have been tabled in respect of illegal working closure notices and compliance orders. They are technical matters, although they also clarify the circumstances in which a person may apply to the courts for compensation where they allege they have suffered financial loss as a consequence of an illegal working closure notice.

Amendment 136 clarifies that an immigration officer may cancel a closure notice only if either the employer operating at the premises is not employing any illegal workers, or the employer does not have an unspent conviction for the offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker, or has not received a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker which is less than three years old or which remains unpaid. This is because these are the circumstances in which a closure notice may be served, according to Schedule 3, paragraph 1(3) and (6).

Amendment 137 corrects an incorrect cross-reference. Amendment 139 excludes compensation from being available where a notice has been cancelled due to the employer being able to evidence compliance with right-to-work checks only after the notice has been issued. This is to ensure that any deliberate delay by the employer is not incentivised in the knowledge that they could still claim compensation. Amendments 140, 141 and 142 simply delete unnecessary references.

Amendments 143 and 144 make it clear that a compensation order may be made only when there has been a mistake of fact as to the conditions in paragraph 1(3) or 1(6) being satisfied. Employers will be given an opportunity to demonstrate that they have conducted right-to-work checks in relation to any illegal workers found before there is any decision to serve a closure notice. The court has discretion to award compensation where these specified conditions have not been satisfied and the claimant has suffered financial loss in consequence of a closure notice.

Following debate in the other place, Amendment 145 simply confirms that the relevant paragraph has a conjunctive construction. In case some noble Lords do not understand that, it means that we add an “and” to the penultimate sub-paragraph, which means that all the conditions must be satisfied

Amendments 138 and 147 omit paragraph 15(4) as it was felt this contributed to the ambiguity raised in debate in the other place. By preventing compensation for financial loss in relation to a person’s work, it could have been read to prevent all compensation for financial loss in relation to a closure notice, such as the earnings of illegal and legal workers. I can assure the Committee that that is not the Government’s intention. Therefore, the government amendments clarify that the compensation mechanism will apply in cases of mistake on specified grounds. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, we are talking about illegal working by illegal immigrants. It is just a question of what you define as serious. In our view, with employers who have previously been convicted of illegal working offences and who are suspected of employing illegal workers, we regard that as serious. I think it is a question of definition whether you have to have had one, two or three convictions before it applies. At the moment that is where we consider it should be and we consider that serious.

With regard to my noble friend’s earlier point, sub-paragraph (11) says that there is a duty to inform,

“people who live on the premises”—

not necessarily the employer—but we think it is reasonable that people who live on a premises should be informed that a premises might be closed.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, that is exactly the point about the written words matching the oral words which has been concerning me about paragraph 1(6). I do not know whether the Minister can answer this question now. If there has been a conviction, leaving aside for the moment how many offences there have been, and it is a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, it does not apply. But if there has been at any time a requirement to pay a penalty following an illegal working closure notice, and failure to pay that penalty, does that fall within the reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? I suspect it does not. In other words, although there might be a spent conviction, the non-payment of a penalty notice could blight your business for ever. I am not suggesting that penalty notices should not be paid.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think that the noble Baroness has made my point for me. If there is a civil penalty and businesses do not pay it, they are not the sort of business which we would necessarily feel that this clause should not apply to. On the concern that the printed words do not match the oral words, I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that what I said is correct—and we are of course happy to discuss this at any time afterwards. But in the mean time, I would be grateful if she would withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am not suggesting that the Minister is misrepresenting the Government’s intention. I want to see the intention reproduced on paper. A civil penalty should, at the very least for this purpose, be on all fours with a conviction. After all, it is lighter than a conviction. For it to bite for ever and ever, and come up to bite you in 15 years’ time or whatever, seems inappropriate.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Is the noble Baroness saying that if you do not pay a civil penalty for 15 years, you should get away with it?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, if you can—in the Minister’s words—get away with a conviction because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which is well-respected legislation, then you should be able to get away with not paying a penalty in the terms in which we are discussing them. I am not advocating law-breaking or the non-payment of penalties; I am sure that the Minister really understands that.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do understand, and it might be appropriate to continue this discussion between ourselves later, outside the Chamber.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not wish to continue that bit of the discussion, but perhaps I might put into a future discussion a question on payment of compensation. The Minister referred to the court being able to pay compensation. Under paragraph 9, it can make any order it regards as appropriate—but a separate paragraph 15, on compensation, requires an application to be made. I think he said that guidance would be given under paragraph 9(5) but I am not sure how paragraphs 9 and 15 work together. I do not expect an answer now; that would not be fair. But I would be grateful if I could have some clarity—others may understand it perfectly—as to how those two paragraphs work together.

I will not test the patience of the Committee by responding to other points. No doubt the Question on Clause 12 is about to be put. We will not at this moment object to it.

Clause 12 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 133, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Hylton’s Amendment 134B. In March last year, at the last gasp of the then Modern Slavery Bill, your Lordships voted down the amendment that my noble friend has referred to, which would of course have provided greater protection for domestic migrant labour in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, described. My noble friend Lord Hylton has of course persistently championed this cause, and this new legislation gives us an opportunity to rectify what is a long-standing injustice.

In March, those of us who divided the House pressed for the most basic of protections: first, the right to change employer but remain restricted to domestic work in one household; secondly, if in full-time work as a migrant domestic worker in a private household, the option to apply to renew the visa; and thirdly, in instances of slavery, a three-month visa to allow the workers to look for decent work. We argued that without these sorts of provisions, we would leave in place a system found repeatedly over the previous three years to facilitate exploitation, including trafficking of migrant domestic workers.

One of the foremost charities working with these groups, Kalayaan, described how such workers have literally sacrificed themselves to the well-being of their wider families. They do not self-protect in the way that someone with more choices would expect. Many explain that they are prepared to put up with any amount of mistreatment if they can provide for their children and ensure that the same will not happen to them. Kalayaan reports that 65% of the 120 domestic workers on the new visa who they saw between 6 April 2012 and 6 April 2014 did not even have their own rooms but shared children’s rooms or slept on the floor of communal areas, while 53% worked more than 16 hours a day and 60% were paid less than £50 a week.

In 2009, the Home Affairs Select Committee, quoting Kalayaan, said in its inquiry into trafficking that the visa issue was,

“‘the single most important issue’ in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers”.

I recognise that the wholly unacceptable exploitation of domestic workers will not be entirely abolished by the acceptance of these amendments, but it would certainly be an improvement on the current situation.

In reply to the debate last March, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates—urged Members of your Lordships’ House to resist our amendment and to await the outcome of the review of James Ewins, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has mentioned. The Minister said:

“Most crucially, the amendment is defective because a serious and considered piece of work is currently going through its process under the widely respected James Ewins. Our argument is that that should be allowed to take its course”.—[Official Report, 25/3/15; col. 1448.]

In the review, which followed the debate, Mr Ewins takes as his fundamental question,

“whether the current arrangements for the overseas domestic workers visa are sufficient to protect overseas domestic workers from abuse of their fundamental rights while they are working in the UK, which includes protecting them from abuse that amounts to modern slavery and human trafficking”.

We now have the result of that review, and Mr Ewins has recommended removing the visa tie:

“On the balance of the evidence currently available, this review finds that the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.

He goes on to say:

“The review recommends that all overseas domestic workers be granted the right to change employer … and apply for annual extensions, provided they are in work as domestic workers in a private home”.

Who are the kind of people we are talking about? The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit provides a number of examples, of which I will give only one, relating to the plight of an African national caught up in the cat’s-cradle of domestic labour exploitation. She entered the UK as a domestic worker under the rules in place before April 2012. Her visa has been extended a number of times and she has continued domestic work. She worked for an employer for over three years and was mistreated: she was paid less than promised, shouted at and rarely allowed to leave the house, and her passport was taken by her employers on arrival—the key point. She of course felt very scared. She managed to gain their agreement to a short holiday after the three years, and when she got her passport back, she changed employers. She was advised about the protection available under the national referral mechanism but has been reluctant to pursue this as she fears she will be sent home to her country of origin by the Home Office. The study shows that a common form of control is retention of documents, psychological abuse and restriction of movement.

However, domestic workers who are allowed to change employer can solve problems that arise with one employer by changing employment and moving away from the problem. The case also shows that the NRM will not be the right fit for everyone, even with advice. Individuals can be frightened of being perceived to cause trouble for others and of repercussions from that.

Although Amendment 133 has provided this welcome opportunity to debate what provision should be made for overseas domestic workers, this can all be achieved simply by amendments to the Immigration Rules, so the full range of options is open to the Government. Either way, Mr Ewins’s recommendations, which he identifies as the minimum necessary to protect overseas workers, should be implemented without delay as an essential first step towards comprehensive protection.

As my noble friend Lord Hylton said, he would go slightly further in Amendment 134B. Maybe these two ideas, which are not in conflict, could be taken together before Report. What is abundantly clear is that the Government must get on with resolving this issue and providing reasonable and basic protection to those caught up in a tangle of exploitation and coercion.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have my name to the first of this pair of amendments, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on picking up some specifics from the report and spelling them out in his Amendment 134B. We must all thank James Ewins, who was promoted in my speech at Second Reading, according to the Official Report, to coming from the UN rather than Ewins—not an inappropriate promotion. We must also thank the organisations which gave evidence, which have worked so hard for so long and provided so much support to this group of workers.

I was not entirely clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether he and his party are behind the Ewins recommendations. His tone was certainly warm and supportive, but it may be that when I read his speech I will detect whether they would like them implemented in whole or in part. The Liberal Democrats regard the report and its recommendations as clear, considered, compassionate and to be implemented.

I will not repeat the arguments that have been made, with which I agree very much, but it is telling that Mr Ewins says that,

“this review has not taken such previous proposals as a starting point”,

but,

“has deliberately gone back to first principles and applied those principles to the evidence currently available. The fact that the conclusions accord to a considerable extent”—

not completely—

“with previous recommendations adds further weight to the argument in favour of the changes proposed”.

I, too, look forward to hearing how the changes he proposes are to be implemented.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I share the condemnation of domestic slavery, which I am sure is shared by all Members of this House, and I strongly support those organisations that seek to help such workers. In doing so, I speak with some experience on the ground. I was the consul in Abu Dhabi and the consul-general in Saudi Arabia, which is where 50% of these applications come from.

Let me start, then, by welcoming the Modern Slavery Act, which seeks to tackle the worst cases of abuse, providing advice and support for those who seek to escape. However, what is now proposed goes well beyond that. The independent reviewer seems to be suggesting that any domestic servant who is not satisfied with his or her conditions will be able to change employer and then remain in the UK working legally for, I think he says, two years—others say without time limit. At the end of that period, he supposes, I think, that they would simply pack up and go home to their impoverished home country. That seems a very unlikely outcome. It is far more likely that they will continue to work here—illegally, if necessary—so that they can continue to send money home. In many respects, that is understandable, but we must recognise that if that situation were to develop, word would spread very quickly among domestic workers in a number of source countries and it would not be very long before we had a significant loophole in the immigration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

I do not think that I understand the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I think that my question to the noble Lord may be the same as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Lord said that he knows that currently employers bring in domestic servants but lose them because they go on to other employment. If they come in on a tied visa, how can that be?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Well, they come in on a tied visa and then they do a runner and go and work for somebody else. The employer then goes back to his home country and puts in a visa next year for a new servant; he will claim, no doubt, that the servant has been working for a year, because that is one of the requirements, and come with his next servant. So the numbers will certainly increase. If you produce a loophole in these matters, they will increase very fast.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 134 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would allow those asylum applicants who have been waiting for longer than six months for a decision on their asylum application to be allowed to work. The latest immigration statistics show that about 3,600 applicants have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. The only exception that they are presently allowed is that after 12 months an asylum seeker can apply for permission to work, but only in national shortage occupations.

When this is compared to other countries in the EU, we are certainly not generous. All EU member states, with the exception of the UK and Ireland, permit applicants to work after nine months, and some have gone further: Belgium and Denmark permit work after six months, and in Germany it is after three months. For many asylum seekers, not being allowed to work means that they are unable to develop and maintain skills, and for professional people this can have a very difficult effect on their future employment prospects in this country, if in due course they are granted asylum status and allowed to work, or return to their country of origin or move elsewhere. Allowing asylum seekers to work after six months would also cut the cost to the taxpayer, as those who found work would no longer need to be supported by the taxpayer.

Amendment 134A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would make a small but important change, allowing asylum seekers to work after 12 months as a matter of right without having to apply for permission. I support the aims of that amendment as well. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, my name is to this amendment. I am particularly delighted that it has been moved from the Labour Front Bench since this was not something on which they felt able to support us during the last Parliament. This is something that we sought to achieve then even though we were part of the coalition Government. We have tabled this amendment to the Bill in these terms in the Commons. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will have a good deal to say on it, as he has had a Private Member’s Bill on the subject and argued for this proposition many times.

I will not take long, but I do not apologise for the fact that the arguments are not novel. According to the latest immigration statistics, I am told by the Refugee Council, over 3,600 applications for asylum have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. As the Refugee Council comments, when you take into account their dependants, that is nearly 5,000 people living on little over £5 a day in asylum support who are unable to work. It seems to us that applications should not drag on and, as the noble Lord said, six months, which is the Home Office target, is not overly ambitious. In any event, what is to be gained by a restriction that continues up to the 12-month point?

It seems that a lot is to be lost: contribution to the economy through work and taxation; savings for the state on asylum support; and, as for the individuals, the impact on their self-esteem, mental health, possible—probably likely—loss of skills, and the ability to find employment when the period comes to an end. It also seems that this restriction reinforces exclusion. For those who stay, their community integration is important and we should not delay it, because more than half of the asylum seekers who come here stay.

This is a very topical point, as a colleague, Suzanne Fletcher, who was a councillor in the north-east and who is still a very active Liberal Democrat, has been all over the media today on the issue of the red doors, on which the Times has reported—doors that were painted red so that the occupants could easily be identified as immigrants. Of course the Minister, James Brokenshire, immediately criticised that, and I believe that the Government are taking steps there. However, from the emails I have seen on this subject today, it has taken years of campaigning to bring this to attention. That shows what power the media have, because Suzanne had taken that matter to the National Audit Office and to one of the Select Committees in the other place.

Would relaxing the current restrictions be a pull factor? Is there evidence of that? I suspect not. If your reasons for coming here are economic rather than to seek asylum, I would have thought that six months would be quite a deterrent in itself.

Our Amendment 134A deals, as the noble Lord has said, with the 12-month period. Currently, if you are here for more than 12 months, although you may be able to work, your work is confined to the “shortage occupations” as designated by the Home Office—for the same reasons, of course, that could be applied to the six months. In addition, however, the list of shortage occupations, which I had a look at over the weekend, seems to be made up almost entirely of technical or professional occupations and often requires references from previous employers, which I suspect are by definition unavailable, or requires UK qualifications. Therefore, asylum seekers would not be likely to get such jobs, because the period of their stay is uncertain, even if they were qualified to do them. They are more likely to get low-skilled jobs that British citizens, frankly, are often unwilling to undertake.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may I first put in a request to the Minister, almost in parenthesis, for when he comes to reply? This relates to an issue that was raised on day one, which is the role of people who are involved in voluntary work and what the legal position is, because contradictory positions were expressed on day one. I was looking at some of the briefing material for today’s debate, particularly about a project called the Brushstrokes Community project in Smethwick in Birmingham, which has been providing services for refugees and asylum seekers for over 15 years. Brushstrokes described one asylum seeker who volunteered with the project for over a year before she received refugee status, and who continues to volunteer to this day. Last year she won an award as volunteer of the year in Sandwell. Another woman volunteered as a teaching assistant for around six months while awaiting the outcome of her application. She has now been granted refugee status and is on the path to fulfilling her aspiration of becoming a teacher in the United Kingdom. What is the legal situation of people who work in a voluntary capacity?

There are five substantial reasons why the arguments expressed so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, should commend themselves to your Lordships’ House. First, these amendments would provide asylum seekers with a route out of poverty. More than 3,600 asylum seekers have currently been waiting more than six months for an initial decision on their case, surviving on just £5 a day.

Secondly, it reduces the burden on the taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are able to work will not need to be supported for extended periods and will instead be able to contribute to the economy through increased tax revenues and consumer spending. It also safeguards their health and prevents them having to resort to irregular work in what some describe as the black economy.

Thirdly, it avoids the negative consequences of prolonged economic exclusion and forced inactivity. During my 18 years as a Member of another place representing an inner-city neighbourhood in Liverpool I often saw that kind of grinding poverty first hand: the detrimental impact on mental health and self-esteem, the break-up of marriages and families—many Members of your Lordships’ House are very familiar with these kinds of arguments. The dignity that work gives should never be underestimated.

Fourthly, what is the experience elsewhere in other European Union countries? With the exception of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland, other European countries allow asylum seekers to work after nine months and 11 of them grant permission to work after six months or less if a decision has not been made on their asylum application. That has not been a bad experience—it works very well and has not been a pull factor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right to remind us.

Fifthly, for those asylum seekers who are eventually given permission to stay, avoiding an extended period outside the labour market is key to ensuring their long-term integration into UK society and encouraging them to be self-sufficient. Therefore, alleviating destitution amongst asylum seekers is a prerequisite if we believe in the upholding of a person’s human dignity. The right to work is fundamental to this and it also relieves the state of having to provide financial support.

In 2014, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, set out the defence of the Government’s policy when he said that asylum seekers are,

“provided with support and accommodation while we determine whether they need our protection and until they have exhausted the right of appeal”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 30.]

However, the reality is that £5 a day to meet their essential living needs of food, clothing, toiletries and transport and to pursue their asylum application—housing and utility bills are paid for separately for those who need it—is wholly inadequate. Which of us could survive on that kind of paltry sum? Therefore the asylum seeker loses, but so does the state. We must give asylum seekers a route out of poverty and help them not to become part of a dependency culture.

At the end of June 2015, more than 3,500 asylum seekers had been waiting more than six months for an initial decision. The Minister arranged an all-Peers meeting, which I was able to attend, and Mr James Brokenshire, the Minister, was also there. He of course said that the Government’s aim is to ensure that there are no people waiting for longer than six months. Can the Minister tell us just how many people are waiting for longer than six months and how long it will be before that objective is met?

I am told that an asylum seeker spends an average of around 18 months on Section 95 support. Asylum seekers who have to survive solely on this level of support for extended periods of time will suffer a negative impact on their mental and physical health.

While a Member of the Commons, Sarah Teather chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people. In January 2013 it found that,

“asylum seeking parents are prevented from working, leaving families dependent on state support. This means that parents are left powerless and lose their skills”—

a point to which the noble Baroness alluded—

“while children are left without positive role models. The government’s own research has highlighted that this can lead to high levels of unemployment and underemployment once a family gains refugee status”.

That inquiry took evidence from over 200 individuals and organisations, including local authorities and safeguarding boards, and specifically recommended that asylum seeking parents and young adults should be given permission to work if their claim for asylum had not been concluded in six months—the point of these amendments.

Let us be clear: by keeping them out of work, many experienced and professional asylum seekers are deskilled, and the time spent not working hinders the opportunity to develop a career. It prejudices the chance to get references for future employment, and it denies people the chance to gain experience. Mr Brokenshire said that this provision would,

“blur the distinction between economic migration and asylum”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 10/11/15; col. 461.]

But this amendment addresses that concern, because permission to work would apply only when the delay was not due to action taken by the applicant. I therefore hope that this amendment commends itself to the House.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, these government amendments introduce new clauses to create a new regime of labour market enforcement—LME—undertakings and orders, backed up with a criminal offence for non-compliance. As such, they are an important part of the Government’s response to the consultation Tackling Exploitation in the Labour Market, where respondents agreed that there was a need to tackle exploitation falling between routine breaches of labour market legislation and very serious offences, which are dealt with by the police or the National Crime Agency. This means that, for the first time, individuals within rogue businesses face the possibility of imprisonment for repeated or serious breaches of labour market legislation, many of which are currently punishable only by a fine. However, as I am about to describe, a business will have several opportunities to put matters right before facing prosecution.

Taking national minimum wage offences as an example, an initial offence would be dealt with using the existing civil penalty regime. Money owed to the worker would also be recovered and the new regime will not affect this. However, if a business decided to take the hit and continue underpaying its workers then a labour market enforcement undertaking could be sought, requiring the business to take reasonable steps to ensure compliance in future. This could be an update to its software, for example, a measure which a law-abiding business would have implemented on its own initiative. If the business refused to give or failed to comply with an undertaking, the enforcer could apply to the court for a labour market enforcement order. This would contain similar corrective measures, as ordered by the court. A court could also make such an order when sentencing for a labour market offence. Only where the business failed to comply with the order would prosecution be a consequence.

The new clause inserted by Amendment 43 allows one of the enforcement bodies to request that a subject enters into an LME undertaking where it believes that a trigger offence has been or is being committed. “Trigger offence” is defined as meaning,

“an offence under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 other than one under section 9(4)(b) of that Act … an offence under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998”,

or,

“an offence under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004”,

including secondary and related offences.

The new clauses inserted by Amendments 44 and 45 set out what measures may be included in an LME undertaking and their duration. These must secure compliance with labour market legislation, publicise the undertaking and subsequent remedial action or be a measure of a kind prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State. We envisage this power being used to prescribe measures to protect workers such as taking steps to inform them of their rights or preventing the unlawful retention of documents. All the measures must be just and reasonable, and at least one measure must be necessary to prevent or reduce further offending. The undertaking must make clear how any such measures will secure compliance. An undertaking takes effect when accepted by the enforcing authority unless alternative arrangements are made within it, and can last for a maximum of two years. The enforcing authority may release the subject from an undertaking, and must do so if none of the measures within it is necessary to reduce or prevent further offending. The new clause inserted by Amendment 46 governs the service of a notice to request an undertaking, including where the suspected offender is a body corporate or a partnership.

The new clauses inserted by Amendments 47, 48 and 50 set out the arrangements by which the enforcing authority can apply to the court for an LME order and the measures it may contain. An application may be made where the proposed respondent has refused or failed to enter into an undertaking within a negotiation period of 14 days, or longer by agreement. An application may also be made where the proposed respondent has failed to comply with the undertaking. The court must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the trigger offence has been or is being committed. The court must also be satisfied that the order is just and reasonable. The measures that the order can contain are the same as the undertaking. The appropriate court is the magistrates’ court, sheriff court or court of summary jurisdiction, according to where the conduct constituting the offence took place.

The new clause inserted by Amendment 49 makes provision for a sentencing court to make an LME order following conviction for a trigger offence. The new clause inserted by Amendment 51 states that an order may not be made in respect of a child and that its maximum duration is two years. When making an order, the court may release the respondent from any previous order or from any undertaking made in respect of the same trigger offence. The new clauses inserted by Amendments 52 and 53 make provision for orders to be varied, discharged and appealed.

The new clause inserted by Amendment 54 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on the exercise of the new enforcement regime. This will make it clear to enforcing authorities how the regime should be applied alongside their existing sanctions. The code of practice will be laid before Parliament and published, and the enforcing authorities must have regard to the current version.

The new clause inserted by Amendment 55 provides that the powers conferred on officers to investigate trigger offences may also be used when investigating breaches of an LME order. In the case of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, these powers will be extended by Amendments 17 and 40, and it will therefore have the powers to investigate trigger offences under employment agency and national minimum wage legislation.

The new clauses inserted by Amendments 56 to 59 create a criminal offence where a respondent fails to comply with an LME order. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment and/or a fine on conviction on indictment, or 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine on summary conviction. Where the offence is committed by bodies corporate, unincorporated associations or partnerships, an offence is also committed by the officers of the company, the members of the unincorporated association or partners respectively, where it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of, or attributable to the negligence of, that individual. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have some amendments in this group. The first is an amendment to government Amendment 47, on the power to make an LME order. Under subsection (1) of the new clause, the court must be,

“satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has committed, or is committing, a trigger offence”.

My amendment would change the balance of probabilities to “beyond reasonable doubt”. A trigger offence relates to offences under other legislation as well as being an offence in itself so I do not understand why the civil standard of proof is thought to be appropriate. If the answer to this is that it is in effect covered by the new clause in Amendment 49, which is different, then is there not a problem in having differing standards of proof? I would be grateful for an explanation here.

Amendment 50A is an amendment to government Amendment 50. It would leave out the provision that one of the purposes of a measure—a “prohibition, restriction or requirement”—included in an LME order is bringing it,

“to the attention of persons likely to be interested in the matter”,

and other points. If this is about communication across the actors in labour market enforcement, should it not be for the director to make sure this happens? Why is it a measure in a court order? It does not seem a matter for the courts. I can see that it may be necessary, for instance, to inform employees about an order but it seems very cumbersome and not appropriate in this context.

My final amendment in the group is an amendment to government Amendment 57, which, dealing with “Offences by bodies corporate”, defines an officer of a body corporate as including a “manager”. My amendment would take that out. I am used to seeing directors, secretaries and so on as officers of a company but a manager—though I admit I will be very out of date on company law provisions—to me means something quite different and not with the same responsibilities as a director of a company.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, here again we have a series of government amendments in varying degrees of complexity. I want further information on some of these amendments in relation to other requirements and punishments relating to people who commit the offence under various Acts as listed in government Amendment 43 and other amendments in the group. Is the noble Lord saying that in all cases of alleged offences, first they will be dealt with under the Acts he referred to in his contribution and only later on will an LME be sought? Will he clarify that when he responds and also how it is all going to work?

A trigger offence is committed and action is taken, as the noble Lord outlined in his amendments. Then requirements are sought from individuals and that can be a prohibition, a restriction or a requirement for further action that will reduce the risk of the person not complying up to a maximum duration of two years. He said that this could be reduced on application by the enforcing authority. My concern is that the Government do not always have a particularly good record in ensuring that all these present requirements are enforced to the full extent. If you look at the enforcement activity for breaches of the national minimum wage, I would suggest it was not a record to be particularly proud of. Will these additional burdens make enforcement easier and more effective or not? It would be useful if the noble Lord could respond to that point as well.

My noble friend Lord Rosser made reference in a previous debate to the question of how, with increased work and cuts in resources, we can ensure that these increased powers will be properly resourced. The worry is that there will be so much stuff here that we will actually end up with poor enforcement, not better enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am very happy to report the noble Lord’s comments to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I would not necessarily call that a contradiction but I will certainly bring his remarks to her attention.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will go back and look at the standard of proof that is required. My concern was that an LME order is a step along the way—a part of a process that seems to require, as an appropriate standard of proof, to be beyond reasonable doubt.

With regard to “an officer” including a manager, my concern is whether the term “manager” is understood in the same way by everyone. We know what a director is—it is defined in legislation, you sign up to it and so on—but there could be doubt as to whether an individual was actually a manager or not, and that is where my anxiety lies. I appreciate that the Minister is not in a position to make any further comment today but perhaps it is something that we can look at. This is not intended as an opposition political point; it is a real concern about how the legislation will work.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am happy to say that my noble friend is prepared to talk to the noble Baroness about that before the end of Committee—or before Report, anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will indicate that the Government will think again on the introduction of this new offence for employees, which is more likely to reduce the extent to which those being exploited or abused in the labour market will come forward and whistleblow on their abusers than to reduce the incidence of illegal working. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friends and I have very considerable objections to Clause 8 which, while I was going to say will achieve nothing, will possibly achieve too much. It is not a positive and helpful development in any way and will cause very considerable difficulties and negative consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has covered the ground very thoroughly, but I do not think I can stress our objections too heavily.

I add to some of the things that he has said by a reference to what happened in Italy. The email from which I quote comes from the executive secretary of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. I met her and some of her colleagues a few months ago when she mentioned what had happened in Italy. She followed this up by explaining that in 2009 Italy criminalised irregular entry and stay, a situation equivalent to ours. She said that it was,

“criticised for creating an overly-bureaucratic system … which push migrants into illegality … the introduction of the offence of illegal entry and stay has created additional difficulties in securing convictions as witness statements given by irregular migrants are not considered as trustworthy and they are afraid to report cases of exploitation … for fear of being detained and expelled. The UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, has stressed in her recent report the negative consequences of the criminalisation of irregular migration for victims of trafficking”.

The outcome of the problems was that, in January 2014, Italy’s Senate overwhelmingly approved the Italian Government’s decriminalisation of illegal immigration. There we have a real-life example.

Of course this is not entirely new. Criminal offences were created for Romanian, Bulgarian and Croatian workers working without authorisation. I know that the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has asked the Home Office for statistics on the numbers of prosecutions for those offences, and also whether the employers were prosecuted or made subject to a civil penalty when the employee was prosecuted. The ILPA has not received that information. It would help us all if we could see figures to understand whether offences resulted in a displacement of enforcement activity away from employers to the workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

This is an Immigration Bill. I take the point that of course we need to continue to look at all these points. I am simply saying that it has somehow been portrayed that we are being inconsistent in singling out people who have fallen on hard times and are having a tough time in life, and mercilessly pursuing them. In fact, all we are doing is ensuring equality of treatment. Moreover, and more seriously, if we were introducing this measure in 2014, I would feel a lot more uneasy about it. Since the Immigration Bill 2014—taken through by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach—we have introduced the Modern Slavery Act, Section 45 of which is a statutory defence for people who are the victims of crime. This is widely welcomed and appreciated. That defence was not there in the Immigration Bill 2014 but is there now, and we are plugging a gap.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked why there are different sentences across the UK. The maximum prison sentence for a Clause 8 offence is the same across the UK. This will remain the case until Section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is commenced. This reflects devolution and is set out at subsection (3) of the new offence. If that does not make it crystal clear to the noble Lord, I can assure him that he is not alone. If, when we read that in the Official Report, further explanation is needed, I will be happy to provide it. The gist is that the sentence is consistent across the United Kingdom.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, both asked how many prosecutions had taken place of Bulgarian, Romanian and Croatian nationals. Parliamentary Questions 12752 and 12753 on this were answered in 2015. Between 2007 and 2013 there were three prosecutions where this was the principal offence—that is, the offence where the heaviest penalty may be imposed. During the financial years 2006-07 to 2013-14, a total of 491 penalty notices were issued. This offence, and penalty, only related to those migrants who were subject to accession regulations, while the new offence will relate to all migrants who work illegally in the UK.

It is not the case that an employer of an asylum seeker with permission to work has no protection unless the asylum seeker has leave to be in the UK. Section 24 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 ensures that those on temporary admission, including asylum seekers, are deemed to have leave for the purposes of the Section 21 offence. Therefore, if, as an exception, they have permission to work, they will not be committing an offence simply because they do not have leave.

A number of noble Lords asked about voluntary work. For work to fall within the ambit of the offence it must be under or for the purposes of a contract. Genuine voluntary work should not be subject to a contract. Volunteering must not be used as a pretence for paid work. A question was asked about whether visitors can undertake activities on a voluntary basis. The answer is yes, they may volunteer, providing this is incidental to the purpose of their visit to the UK, is unpaid and for a period of less than 30 days. I was also asked about an illegal migrant who starts as an illegal worker but whose working conditions deteriorate to the point where they may become a victim of modern slavery. For illegal workers to benefit from the statutory defence, their illegal working must be as a direct consequence of their slavery or human trafficking. They will therefore not have the defence for any illegal working committed prior to the deterioration of their working conditions to the extent that they became a victim of modern slavery. However, their subsequent slavery or human trafficking will be relevant factors for the Crown Prosecution Service to take into account when considering whether a prosecution is in the public interest. For absolute clarity, only the wages earned before the statutory defence applies to them would be recoverable under the proceeds of crime legislation.

I think I have covered most of the points raised. If there are any that I have missed, I will be happy to deal with them. I covered the point about reasonable excuse and reasonable cause in my main contribution. It remains our view that what is unfair is firms undercutting their competitors through exploitative use of illegal labour, so distorting competition, and those illegal workers taking jobs that should be available to all workers who are legally here and legally part of the labour market. I therefore commend the amendment standing in my name in this group, and ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I have two points, if I may. The Minister might have realised that referring to voluntary work and volunteering provoked quite a lot of chuntering around me, and on the Cross Benches. Listening to him, it seemed that the concepts of volunteering and voluntary work were being confused. When I looked at this a little while ago, I understood that they are different. I was confused at the beginning of the Minister’s speech when he talked about voluntary work not involving a contract. I am not sure whether that is always the case. I do not think we will be able to debate this now, but it would be very helpful if we could understand it a little more clearly—I think I speak for at least four of your Lordships, and possibly those behind me as well.

The other point is quite different. I would not necessarily agree with them but I followed the Minister’s comments about recklessness. He said that if the words “reasonable excuse” were included in the new illegal working provision in Clause 8, it would mean fewer successful prosecutions. That is indeed self-evident but it does not answer the point about whether it should be a defence, or whether the offence should be one where there is no reasonable excuse. Earlier in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the possible situation of someone being confused by what permission he had, or by the documents and so on. I would like, at any rate, to understand better what I heard from the Minister on that point.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments before us, it may be helpful to explain what the changes the Government are proposing will do to the Bill print. We have brought forward a number of amendments to Part 1. To avoid this becoming unwieldy, on reprint this will be split into two chapters. Chapter 1 will be entitled “Labour Market Enforcement” and will cover that topic, meaning what is currently Clauses 1 to 7 and the material in government amendments numbered between 9 and 77. Chapter 2 will start at what is now Clause 8 and will cover illegal working.

I have taken on board and listened to what was said in Committee on the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and his role and resources, and the general points that have been made about these government amendments. In the light of what has been said, it now falls to me, in bringing these amendments forward, to explain the nature of the amendments which bring into being some of the issues we have talked about.

I will begin with those amendments that collectively better define the “labour market enforcement functions”,

“non-compliance in the labour market”,

and “labour market offence” that are within the scope of the labour market enforcement strategy that the director is required to create every year. Some of these are substantive, others are technical in nature, but they all go to the core of the purpose of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and what should be covered by the annual labour market enforcement strategy.

Amendments 9 and 19 to 23 ensure that all the enforcement bodies’ functions contained in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 are brought within the oversight of the director. Amendment 23 has two key purposes. First, it adds new functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority under Part 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to the list. As I hope noble Lords will know from our response to the consultation on Tackling Exploitation in the Labour Market, published on 12 January, and as we will cover when we reach later amendments, the Government wish the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to evolve into an authority that is able to tackle serious labour market exploitation across the economy. As part of this, we intend that the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will be able to enforce certain parts of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Secondly, Amendment 23 includes the investigation of breaches of the new labour market enforcement orders. As I hope noble Lords will be aware, we are bringing forward amendments to enable a new regime of labour market enforcement undertakings and orders. These will be used to tackle the most unscrupulous employers. I look forward to dealing with this in detail later today but, if it is the will of this House that these undertakings and orders should be added to the Bill, the Government want this regime to be firmly in the scope of the labour market enforcement strategy.

I turn to the abuses in the labour market that we want the director to help us tackle. It is the Government’s intention that the labour market enforcement strategy covers all types of non-compliance by business with the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, whether they are criminal offences or not. Amendments 16, 17 and 24 seek to better define in legislation the non-compliance that is not an offence but should be included. This is: non-payment of the national minimum wage where it does not meet the wilful criminal intention; failure to pay a notice of underpayment of national minimum wage; and breaching a Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority licence condition that results in withdrawal of a licence rather than a criminal prosecution.

The next set of amendments deals with the offences that will be included in the labour market enforcement strategy. The Bill already includes offences under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004—the three core pieces of legislation enforced by the three enforcement bodies—and offences in Part 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Amendment 26 excludes an offence from this core legislation that applies to enforcement officers rather than employers—the offence of improper disclosure of information collected by the enforcer. We think this is not best dealt with through the Director of Labour Market Enforcement but is covered by other mechanisms. Amendments 27 and 30 add to the scope of the labour market enforcement strategy the offence of breaching a slavery and trafficking prevention order where the action against the perpetrator was taken by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Amendment 27 also adds to the scope breaches of the new LME orders that the Government are proposing to create. Amendment 29 adds related offences, such as aiding and abetting, to the list.

The Government believe that this is a sensible remit for the Director of Labour Market Enforcement at this time. However, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the powers currently in the Bill which provide that the Government can add further labour market enforcement functions and labour market offences to the scope of the labour market enforcement strategy. Amendment 17 includes the ability for the Secretary of State to also add further non-compliance in the labour market by regulations. The Government believe it is appropriate for such extensions to be made by secondary legislation to enable us to act quickly if it becomes apparent that changes are required urgently. We believe that making these regulations subject to the negative procedure is the appropriate degree of parliamentary oversight. The power would allow the Government only to add labour market enforcement functions, non-compliance or offences already set out in legislation to the scope of the labour market enforcement strategy, not to create new categories of non-compliance or offences.

I turn to the more technical amendments. Amendment 15 removes the definition of “financial year” from Clause 2, which is now contained, along with other relevant definitions, in a new clause proposed in Amendment 62. Amendments 31, 61, 243 and 244 deal with the regulation-making powers under this Part. As I have said, we want the Secretary of State to have the ability to widen the remit of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s annual labour market enforcement strategy, should the nature of exploitation change in the future. This will make sure that the role stays relevant to prevent abuses in the labour market. Secondly, we want the Secretary of State to have the ability to confer extra functions on the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority by regulations for the same reason: if there are new abuses in the labour market that we need the authority to be able to crack down on. The Government believe that the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for these regulations is the negative procedure. This is because Parliament has approved the regimes and the Government are keeping them up to date. However, were any primary legislation to be amended as a consequence, we believe it is appropriate for the affirmative procedure to apply, as that merits a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny. Thirdly, the ability to add to the list of trigger offences would enable enforcement bodies to request an LME undertaking. Again, this will mean that our labour market enforcement can be flexible to changing non-compliance and criminality in the labour market. Lastly, the list of measures that can be included in an LME undertaking and an LME order are added to.

For these three regulation-making powers, we are proposing that the affirmative procedure should apply. This is because a breach of an LME order is a criminal offence, and we want that to be subject to appropriate scrutiny here and in the other place. In relation to the territorial extent of the regulations, Amendment 61 makes clear that the regulation-making powers can contain only devolved matters with the consent of the Ministers in the relevant devolved Administrations. Finally, Amendment 246 changes the Long Title of the Bill to better reflect the functions which have been added since introduction. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend and I have one amendment in this group. It is an amendment to the Government’s Amendment 17, which allows other requirements to be added to the list of roles already set out, and other enactments to be added. The noble Lord said that this does not mean the creation of new offences: I accept and understand that. He also said that it will extend to “non-compliance in the labour market”. That is exactly what I am seeking—

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I am sorry to interrupt. Could the noble Baroness tell me which amendment she is speaking to?

[Baroness Hamwee]

It is Amendment 18, which is an amendment to government Amendment 17. From the way in which the Minister introduced Amendment 17, I think that he was anticipating Amendment 18. He seemed to glance in my direction at the time as well.

The Minister said that the fourth paragraph of Amendment 17, regarding,

“failure to comply with any other requirement imposed by or under any enactment and which is prescribed by regulations”,

was to deal with other enactments which related to non-compliance in the labour market. My amendment seeks an assurance to exactly that effect: that the Secretary of State could not roam far and wide over the statute book by adding whatever enactment took his or her fancy under that paragraph. I realise, looking at Amendment 18 now, that my drafting is not completely correct—in other words, it is wrong. I have taken out too many words, but I am sure that the Minister and his officials will have understood what I was driving at.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

12: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) Nothing in this section shall permit the alteration of a strategy of a person entitled to prepare a strategy under any labour market legislation (as defined in section 3).”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendment 12, together with Amendments 14 and 38, is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. The first of these amendments again goes to the relationship between the new director and the other bodies which the Bill concerns, in particular the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The Bill provides for a strategy to be prepared by the director. Amendment 12 is probing in the sense that I am not sure whether the language is quite right, but the point is clear enough. It would provide that anyone else who is entitled to prepare a labour market legislation strategy under that legislation gets to keep it, so that their strategy cannot just be altered by some diktat from the director. Of course, in real life, one hopes there would be consultation and discussion.

As we have heard from several noble Lords this afternoon, most recently the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the GLA is a successful body. It has a board and it publishes a strategy. Which strategy takes precedence? In particular, what is the function of the GLA board under the new regime if a strategy is to be handed down by the director? It is important to know how the Government envisage that this will work. We start at the top of the tree with two Secretaries of State, who will have to sort out what was described earlier as “an envelope”. Then there is some sort of trickle-down arrangement. The Government must have thought about how the relative powers and the working arrangements would operate. It is not going to be that easy.

My other amendments are rather to the same point. Amendment 14 is about whether or not the other bodies should be bound by what the director provides. These amendments came before the Government’s mega-tranche of amendments last week. Again, I want to probe the relationship between the various strategies and whether Clause 2(6) affects the GLA board. It refers to:

“Any person by whom labour market enforcement functions are exercisable”.

Is the GLA a “person” for this purpose? Clause 2(6) refers to Labour market enforcement functions being carried out by enforcement officers, not by the employing authority

The last amendment in the group, Amendment 38, is on Clause 6, which provides that the director must set up what is referred to as an “information hub”. The GLA has an information hub. Is that to be superseded? Again, it raises the question of resources. Something like a hub does not just come naturally by shoving some pieces of paper into a file. One thing that will have to be addressed is the funding of the IT infrastructure. Who is to manage the hub? As I said, the Government’s new proposals were published after these amendments were tabled, so they have been rather overtaken—or possibly had their significance magnified—by the new proposals.

This morning on the “Today” programme, the Prime Minister talked, I think in the context of the police, about a country whose Government rely on independent institutions. He said something like, “Independent institutions should be able to exercise independent judgments”. That rather neatly encapsulates the quandary that I find myself in when trying to understand who will be able to be independent within this new regime. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to Amendment 12. As I said on the earlier amendments, and as agreed by everyone in the House, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has gained a great deal of expertise and is working extremely efficiently. The concern that I share and would like to ask the Minister about is whether the director is going to give the Gangmasters Licensing Authority a free rein to continue the good work it is doing. Is there not a danger it may be controlled by strategies set out by someone who does not have the same expertise as Paul Broadbent and his team? I would be very worried about putting the director over the Gangmasters Licensing Authority without clear instructions that his strategy must be very broad and that he should let the authority get on with the work it has done so well. It would not do it so well if it was confined by any sort of strategy that posed unnecessary restrictions on the work of Paul Broadbent and his team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I will try to be a bit more helpful if I can. I totally share the view of the noble and learned Baroness that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is doing an outstanding job in its present field. That is one reason why we are increasing its powers. It is a recognition that it is an effective organisation and we want to make it even more effective. It is unthinkable that someone could come into this role—co-ordinating and sharpening the overall strategy of labour enforcement—who would not embrace the strategy already in place of such an effective organisation as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.

Clause 7 prevents the director exercising functions or making recommendations in relation to individual cases. Decisions about sanctions to be taken against businesses are a matter for the enforcement bodies, which will remain operationally independent. However, the director may consider individual cases when examining the general issue during the exercise of his or her functions. I know that that relates to a previous comment, not to the comment just made. None the less, I hope that those additional reassurances—that the labour market enforcement director is building on strategies, ensuring that they are coherent and joined-up, and in doing so is absorbing best practice from a wider range of organisations involved in enforcement—will be welcomed. If so, the noble Baroness might feel these amendments are not necessary at this stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble and learned Baroness expresses my view precisely. I am not particularly concerned with the specific amendments; they were probing amendments. I might enlist her help in drafting something for the next stage. I am not sure—I may have missed it, in which case apologies—whether my question about whether the GLA board was a person for the purposes of Clause 2(6) was addressed, but perhaps that can come later. The board will exercise functions—essentially functions to the director’s priorities. In other words, the GLA board’s role is going to be changed. That is a serious issue for the individuals who will have taken one set of skills to the board and will not be expecting to get involved in something which is essentially more operational.

We are all struggling a bit to articulate the arrangements that we are concerned about and what we think should be in place. That is perhaps because it is quite easy to draw some sort of diagram—an organigram—on a page showing the relationships, but that is not necessarily what real life is like. I am afraid that the intelligence hub does not reassure me at all, because it sounds like two lots of overlapping expenditure, if not complete duplication. That may be something that I return to. The nub of all this is the relationship. I hope that I can find a more felicitous way of addressing this at the next stage, but it has to remain on the agenda. For now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree with what my noble friend Lord Rosser has said. Can the Minister assure us that the real labour relations issues will not be neglected here and that the good work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority will not be dissipated in any way? We should remember that this is not just an immigration issue; it concerns vulnerable workers of all kinds.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the very fact that the noble Baroness raises this issue coming—and I do not say this at all disparagingly—rather fresher to this Bill than some of us underlines the need to get the answers to questions raised around the Committee on to the record and in such as a place as they can easily be found. It should not just be in a letter in the Library but in the Bill. That becomes all the more obvious. I am glad that the noble Baroness reinforced that. Other references have been made to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to flexible licensing, so I will not take the time of the Committee now.

I have a number of amendments in this group. This may be the point at which I emulate the Government Front Bench as I am in danger of losing my place—I hope they will forgive me if I do. My Amendment 40A refers to the importance of resources by providing that the new functions conferred by regulation on the GLAA should be ones for which resources have been made available.

My amendments to Amendment 41 raise some similar points which I will refer to later, so I will deal with them in a rather more general fashion. The first is a probing amendment. Amendment 41 proposes new Section 114B for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and says that,

“regulations may apply provisions of this Act with any modifications”.

Does that refer to modifications that are necessary simply in order to tweak references to legislation; for instance, so that the legislation being modified applies quite clearly directly or is it something wider? As it is written at the moment I fear it might be wider, which is why I have raised the issue.

I also suggest that regulations should,

“provide for labour abuse prevention officers to undertake specified training and achieve specified qualifications”.

The noble and learned Baroness referred earlier to the extension of PACE powers. One should not extend those significant powers to people who do not know how to use them. Training is needed and possibly qualifications for them to be able to use those powers. I picked that up at a number of points. I also suggest with my amendments that a statutory instrument amending or repealing a provision of the Act is significant.

In new Section 22A of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, a relevant person for the purposes of requests for assistance going either way includes immigration officers. That again conflates immigration control and labour market regulation. I am aware that the GLA has experienced some frustrations when it might undertake what you might call hot pursuit when it has discovered a likely offence but does not have the power to deal with it. I have heard Paul Broadbent say that it is very frustrating when you have to wait for the police to arrive to deal with something and you cannot stop evidence being removed. I am not sure whether I am making that point at quite the right point in the Bill but I think it comes generally within this area.

My next group of amendments deals very much with training, qualifications and resources again so I will not repeat the arguments, but I think it was again the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who referred to the relationship between the strategies. Under Amendment 77 the GLAA will have to carry out functions “in accordance with” the labour market enforcement strategy. Everybody else involved is left with the lighter obligation of having regard to it, so why the difference? That is my Amendment 77A.

Amendments 77B and 77C are about the relationship with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State’s powers. At the moment, to take one instance, the GLA sets fees after consultation with the Secretary of State. What will the position be in the future? My Amendment 72 would enable the GLA to require information from supply chain. It would give it powers relating to an organisation that takes supplies of goods and services. That seems to have been a lacuna that could do with filling or closing. I am not sure what one does with a lacuna, but it is rather a different amendment from the others we have been debating. Again, it is something we could very usefully address during the course of this Bill.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for making what I suspect will be regarded as a somewhat pedantic point but I should like to raise some specific questions about Amendment 41. At this point, I am referring to the amendments to the PACE powers.

First, as regards new subsection (1), I notice that the power is permissive and not mandatory. Perhaps the Minister would be so good as to explain why it is not a mandatory power but only a permissive one. Secondly and related to that, I am sure that your Lordships would like to know whether it is the Government’s intention to exercise this power. If so, when and to what extent?

My next point is also brief. In new subsection (7)(b) I find that the regulations may apply to “particular purposes”. I think that your Lordships will be reassured to know that this power is not going to be imposed with regard to particular investigations; rather, that it is more general in character.

My last point relates to new subsection (1)(8), which concerns a very wide power. It is contemplated giving the Secretary of State a power to amend substantive legislation. I have personally always been very cautious about using statutory instruments for such a purpose. Incidentally, I am very glad to see that the affirmative procedure is being used here for that very purpose, but, as I say, I am very cautious about using statutory instruments in this way. I suspect that the Committee would like to know the extent to which the Government are minded to use this power and, if so, for what purpose and when.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Touché. I get that point. The point I am trying to make is a very serious one: that the Government will of course listen to and pay very careful regard to the recommendations of a committee of your Lordships’ House. I will have more to say on that by the time we get to the relevant section on Report.

Will our reforms make it easier for rogue gangmasters to operate without fear of detection? Absolutely not. Our reforms will ensure that the GLAA has tough new enforcement powers to tackle criminals in any labour sector, not just those that are licensed. Importantly, the number of licences granted for 2014-15 was 82, with 27 refusals and 23 revocations, out of a total of 954 licences in existence. That shows that it is something more than a box-ticking exercise: that genuine work is being done by the GLA in assessing the quality of those licences, and we want that to continue.

I have touched on reviews—perhaps not to the entire satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—but I will come back to that issue and set out the position in a letter. The licensing rules contain detailed provisions on a variety of matters, such as what information should be provided by a licence holder to a worker before they start—for example, shellfish-gathering rules on tide, accommodation, record keeping and sector- specific provisions. This follows a model set out in Section 7 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 which allows the Security Industry Authority to set its licensing criteria by publishing a document without any parliamentary procedure but with the approval of the Secretary of State.

I come to the point made on PACE powers—that there is no mention of the new labour market enforcement order offence in the proposed new Section 114B of PACE. Amendment 55, which introduces the new clause “Investigative functions”, provides that the enforcing authorities can use the investigative powers they already have for the relevant trigger offence to be investigated in any breaches in LME orders. This means that where the GLAA has PACE powers for the trigger offence, it can use those powers to investigate a breach. I am immediately conscious, as I read that out, that that does not answer the particular point. Staff designated to exercise police-style powers will be subject to the relevant PACE codes and to Independent Police Complaints Commission supervision. As I say, I am conscious that that does not answer the specific question my noble friend asked, and I will undertake to write to him and to other noble Lords whom I have not had the opportunity to respond to in the time available. I hope, with those reassurances, that noble Lords and Baronesses will feel able to withdraw their amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

One of the amendments to which I spoke, which was quite unrelated to any others, addressed the supply chain point for the GLAA. I wonder whether the Minister has an answer to that. If not, could that not get lost in the rather more philosophical issues we have been debating?

[Lord Bates]

It is one that we listed in the supply chain regulations which recently came before your Lordships’ House. A number of undertakings were given at that time to examine options for a central database and how that will be done. It should also be said that there was general agreement that we had set the threshold for the reporting of those standards at the lower end of the expected threshold, so that more companies would have to comply. That has a concomitant effect upon the size of the database which would need to be maintained in order to carry those statements of transparency in supply chains by the companies affected. I am very happy to undertake to update noble Lords on progress with that in the course of my responses.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after “State” insert “for the Home Department”

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I also have Amendments 2, 3, 6 and 13 in this group. My noble friend Lord Greaves commented the other day that it has become something of a custom—not as much as a convention—for the early speeches on amendments in Committee to turn into something like Second Reading speeches. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech, and the comments with which I shall preface my remarks on Amendment 1 could not have been made at Second Reading.

I do not suppose that having to deal with 112 amendments at such a late stage was easy for the Minister or for officials. Indeed, I suspect that the officials who have had to deal in very short order with what is in effect a new Bill as regards the provisions for labour market enforcement have had a particularly difficult time, so I am sympathetic to all of them. However, others of us who have been involved in the Bill have not found it easy and, in particular, those outside this House who are involved in the sector and whose comments are always so valuable to us have had a really hard time. Frankly, this is no way to legislate.

A member of the Public Bill Committee in the Commons commented on how good the process had been, although he did say, “Pity about the content of the Bill”. The Minister has also commented on the evidence sessions in the Commons, saying that more detailed scrutiny was undertaken than is often the case. However, these new clauses dealing with the role and remit of the GLA affect the structural arrangements and the relationships of actors in the sector. They also introduce new measures and more, and I cannot see that anyone could describe this as best practice.

I apologise to the Committee for the late tabling of amendments to the government amendments—I tabled a number on Friday—but I wanted to look at them, with my own responses to them, at this stage rather than repeat the process on Report, as might have happened had I left it until then. As I said, how can the NGOs and others respond, presented with amendments in effect less than a week ago? It is not just their problem; it is ours as well, because we cannot do our job well if we are in a vacuum. I am sure the Minister will say that the consultation on the labour market sector, which closed in December, trailed the proposals, but it did not; not in the way in which we now see them. We are making law and therefore we have got to make it right, not just have a general narrative discourse on the arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I begin, as I have been invited to, by apologising to the Committee for the late tabling of these amendments, but let me try to explain that a little further. We were faced with a particular challenge. Noble Lords will recall that we had the Second Reading on 22 December, and one issue raised at that point was that the scheduled date for the first day in Committee was 13 January. In the light of the likely publication of our response to the consultation, we agreed to see whether the start date could be put back—which it was until today, 18 January.

We were then faced with a challenge regarding the publication of the report, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in response to the consultation document on tackling exploitation in the labour market. We said that we would have a period of consultation, which ran from September through to December, and that we would legislate on the back of that consultation, which seems to me to be general good practice. The question was then: at what stage should the amendments be introduced? There was a little debate—I am looking at the Box, but it is probably best that I do not—as to whether they should be introduced on Report, or in Committee. My noble friends Lord Ashton, Lord Keen and I took the view that if they were introduced for the Committee stage, at least they could receive a thorough airing, which could be reflected on before Report.

There is a large number of amendments. We had a meeting with all interested Peers and again, we tried to listen carefully to the points that were being raised. One was that because the amendments were tabled, it was not easy for an opposition spokesman or any Member of the House, let alone the Minister responding, immediately to correlate the amendment to the specific recommendation. A suggestion was made that we should produce a schedule, which was done within 24 hours of that meeting. That then went out to noble Lords who had attended the meeting, through the usual channels to the official party groupings and to Cross-Benchers, of course.

I am trying to explain some of the thought process. It was not intended to be discourteous to your Lordships’ House but sought to be helpful. The other point is on the nature of these amendments. I think that 59 relate to the consultation document. There is also a vast swathe—I did not manage to calculate the number—linked to the licensing of private hire taxi companies. We shall be coming to that issue in later groups. I did not realise that it seems as if every locality in the entire country has its own regulation for private hire taxi companies, so one amendment cannot apply across the entire country but needs to amend legislation pertaining to a particular area. That deals with the large tranche of the amendments.

I add to the previous debate on the minimum wage regulations my appreciation and that of the whole House to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its incredibly speedy work, even if it did introduce a bit of a riposte by stating that,

“the Government tabled a substantial number of amendments—54 pages’ worth!”.

I think that is the first time I have seen an exclamation mark in one of its reports. The point was made eloquently by symbol on the committee’s feelings on that. I offer my apologies, and hope that this is by some way of explanation. I also express our appreciation to the Select Committee on the Constitution for its very helpful report, which I know we will be coming to in later stages.

With that attempt at setting out the position, which I know is not ideal, I now turn to the amendments before us. The noble Baroness has rightly noted that the Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s remit covers the work of enforcement bodies that sit under two departments: the Gangmasters Licensing Authority reports to the Home Secretary while the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is responsible for the work of the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the HMRC’s national minimum wage team.

The Government have been clear in the consultation that we published and our response to it, as well as in assurances made by my right honourable friend James Brokenshire in Committee in another place, that the director will be a joint appointment by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. They will jointly appoint the director and receive the strategy. The noble Baroness may have concerns about how the two Secretaries of State will reach agreement, but I reassure her that preventing abuse of labour market laws is a priority for both departments. Subject to parliamentary approval of the role, they will both be looking to appoint a director with the necessary skills and experience to make a difference.

The requirement to consult Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers in Amendment 3 brings me to the territorial extent of this role. Employment law is broadly reserved as the UK operating as a single labour market brings great benefits to workers and employers. Therefore, the director’s remit will be UK-wide. However, there are parts of the remit where the policy is not reserved. To deal with this, we are legislating to ensure that the director can set the strategy to enforce labour market legislation only to the extent that it already applies and is reserved. That is: the whole of the UK in respect of the national minimum wage; Great Britain for the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004; and England and Wales in respect of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Therefore, there will be no need for Ministers formally to consult Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

However, to allow the strategy to be successful, the legislation requires it to be evidence-based and include the director’s assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance in the labour market. To do this, the director will draw on the widest possible range of sources. This will include the intelligence hub provided for in Clause 6, but will inevitably include engaging non-governmental organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, requested, bodies representing employers, bodies representing workers and other organisations to develop the fullest possible picture. These will include charities, the enforcement bodies themselves, and other organisations such as the police.

Amendments 6 and 13 would require the Director of Labour Market Enforcement to engage certain people in the development of the labour market enforcement strategy, while Amendment 11 would require the Director of Labour Market Enforcement to engage with civil society and voluntary organisations in the development of the labour market enforcement strategy. It is not yet clear how the director would be able to discharge the legal requirement to,

“engage with civil society and voluntary organisations”,

which is not defined. I fear that putting this duty on the director would be unhelpful as it does not specify the full range of organisations that the Government expect would need to be consulted as part of that provision. These include non-governmental organisations, bodies representing employers, bodies representing workers and other organisations not specified in the amendment. Therefore, my opposition to it rests on it being unnecessary, while risking unhelpfully to narrow the director’s focus.

Amendments 12 and 14 appear to limit the director’s proposed role by not permitting his strategy to alter the strategies set out by any of the other enforcement bodies, or binding the enforcement bodies to delivering the director’s strategy. The director’s strategy is not intended to undermine the strategies of the enforcement bodies, or to take precedence. Rather, we expect those strategies to be informed by the director’s strategy as they deliver their contribution to tackling labour market exploitation.

On the GLA, the GLA board will continue to be responsible for the delivery of the GLA’s functions. What will change is that the delivery of those functions will sit within a wider vision of tackling labour market exploitation. While I will address this in due course, the Government’s amendments will add the functions of the GLA board to the list of labour market enforcement functions as specified. Furthermore, the GLA board will have a duty to exercise its functions in accordance with the director’s strategy. We believe that this will ensure that the enforcement bodies and the director work together more effectively.

The final amendment in this group, Amendment 38, brings me to the intelligence hub. Clause 6 as drafted gives the new director the duty to lead an intelligence hub that forms a coherent view of the nature and extent of exploitation and non-compliance in the labour market.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I think the Minister may have turned over two pages and gone on to the next group.

[Lord Bates]

Well, I have to say in that respect, I have not turned over two pages, but I may well be on to the next group. If so, and with that helpful prompt from the ever-helpful Baroness, I give way.

[Lord Bates]

I can certainly say that. That is a very helpful intervention on a number of levels. I know that officials found our meetings last week and before Christmas very helpful. I think that that will continue to strengthen the work of the Committee. With that, I will pause my remarks and hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I certainly will. It would not be profitable to continue the discussion now about the tabling of these quite considerable changes. I. too, am grateful to the officials who have been very helpful in the most difficult circumstances.

It is extraordinary to me how many people outside this House read the report of our proceedings in very considerable detail, particularly those who have an interest in the subject matter. For them, I will say that I checked with the Public Bill Office this morning and it was confirmed to me that, provided we do not divide but merely agree the government amendments, there are no bars to our tabling amendments to what will then be part of the Bill on Report. I apologise to the Minister and officials if that prompts a flood of further amendments—but so be it.

My only other point, with regard to the Minister’s remarks on taxis, is to offer him a piece of advice. He should never tell a taxi driver that he is a Minister in the Government—or indeed a Member of this House—because he will not get out of the taxi without a most difficult conversation.

On Amendment 11, I understand the technical points that the Minister makes, but the third sector is hugely important. As has been said, it is the linchpin of the way in which our immigration service—if that is the right word—deals with asylum seekers and some other immigrants. It is absolutely central. It should not need saying that there will be the contact with the voluntary sector and other organisations that has been spelled out. I think that it says a lot that it was felt necessary to put that down.

With regard to my amendments and which departments do what and how they work together, we are told that the legislation is a priority for both departments, but I would say that each department has its own distinctive and different priorities. That is where I see problems, perhaps, coming. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It would be helpful if the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, could interpret the seemingly contradictory and complex comments by the Minister in the other place by spelling out what protections, if any, are provided under the Bill to workers irrespective of immigration status, and what role the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will play in respect of labour exploitation and abuse in the workplace of those who do not have the required immigration status to be in this country. I beg to move Amendment 4.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have Amendments 5, 8, 10, 25, 28, 32 to 34 and 37 in this group. Our names are also put to Amendments 7 and 36, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, like whom I think it is important that the legislation is clear as to the director’s purpose. In other words, what is the point of the director? The director’s strategy is, in my eyes, a mechanism for implementing his purpose, and unless we spell out the purpose in a succinct fashion then we go straight to the strategy and that does not seem to be logical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I may take some of those comments but in something of a reverse order. On the question of resources, the Minister referred to Clause 1(4), but that relates to provision for the director. Of course, we are concerned not just about the director but about the organisations—if that is the right term for the various entities—which will be implementing the strategy. Whoever’s strategy it turns out to be is the subject of another debate. So, although I accept the point that the Minister has made, I do not think that it goes all the way, as some of us were seeking.

[Lord Bates]

If it would be helpful to noble Lords, I should be happy to set this out in writing. However, I can tell them that the 2015-16 budget for the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is £0.5 million and it has 8.6 full-time-equivalent staff. For the same period, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority has funding of £4.268 million, including £100,000 for Northern Ireland enforcement, and it has 66 full-time-equivalent staff. The budget for the national minimum wage enforcement team was increased by £4 million to the current figure of £13.2 million, and it has 230 full-time-equivalent staff. We are saying that the helpful part of the role of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement will be to look at those three groups and the current basket of resource, which has been increased substantially over the past year, and to see how it can be most effectively deployed to tackle the types of wrongs that we are seeing.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the figures are interesting. Nobody is ever content and no one will say, “That’s enough”, but my impression—I say this as somebody who hears those figures, although they do not really mean anything to me; I am not an expert in any of those fields—is that there are organisations struggling to do the job that they have and which in some cases they do absolutely extraordinarily. Just hearing figures expressed in millions does not advance the argument in the way that I know the noble Lord and I are concerned with.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Before the noble Baroness leaves the point about resources, she may recall that during the proceedings on the modern slavery and human trafficking legislation we were told that between 2011 and 2014 the Gangmasters Licensing Authority saw a reduction of 17% in its budget—a figure that I think we can all comprehend very easily. I wonder—this is directed at the Minister partly through the noble Baroness—whether the figures that he has just given represent a real increase on those reductions and whether we are seeing a reinstatement of the moneys that were cut.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am looking to the Minister, but he has not received inspiration on that yet.

[Lord Bates]

I have not received inspiration, but I do not doubt for one minute what the noble Lord rightly observes. He refers to a time when we were having to tackle some pretty sizable problems in the public finances, and that continues to be a pressure. That is one reason why, I think, we are bringing these resources together. It would be helpful—and I will certainly undertake to do this—to set out in one letter to Members of the Committee in your Lordships’ House the situation on resources, perhaps in a way that is easier to assess. However, the point is that when you have different pots in different areas with different groups of people, it makes it all the more important that they are joined up, that there is co-ordination and that we get the maximum effect for every taxpayer pound that is spent. That is, of course, what the remit of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is envisaged to be.

[Baroness Hamwee]

But within the budgets set by the two departments, as we have just heard. I do not think that anyone is arguing against efficiency, but those budgets are being spent, I assume, to their maximum now. So it is a discussion that will go on.

With regard to the point about the regulations and the possibility of extending the scope of the director’s work, the Minister mentioned parliamentary oversight. Of course, that is a very current issue, because oversight only goes so far. Indeed, one might say that it is “sight” but not “change”, because we cannot do anything about secondary legislation.

I want to comment on the points that have been made about trends and the work, other than that to which the noble Lord and I have pointed, on the protection of workers. I realise that the way in which I have worded my amendment was perhaps not the most felicitous. I did in my speech mention things such as monitoring and trends, and I meant that in a very wide sense. I understand, for instance, that the GLA—this is a very important part of its work—has been extremely successful in its relationship with employers and runs a liaison group with employers and agents in the sectors in which it currently works. One might take any survey with a pinch of salt, but a 93% approval rating—I think I have got that right—from employers in their view of their own regulator strikes me as being pretty high, and I for one certainly do not dismiss the points that have been made by the two noble Lords on the other side.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief in responding, with just one or two points to make. I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said in response but, frankly, I think that we are making a meal out of not being willing, as far as the Government are concerned, to put the primary purpose of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in the Bill. I certainly do not accept any argument that it would somehow restrict the functions of that particular post.

I appreciate what the Minister has had to say about his willingness to send a letter relating to resources, and I am sure that that will be extremely helpful. It is certainly my intention to come back to the issue of resources in a later group of amendments.

On the issue of the involvement or otherwise of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in the immigration system, the Minister repeated the part of his letter that I also referred to: that the new director’s role did not cover immigration control and that nowhere in this Bill is the director given the purpose or power to do that, and if he or she did they would be acting outside their statutory powers. This is a genuine question and not a challenge, but if the Minister is going to send a letter on resources, will he consider adding to it an indication of which clauses of the Bill would preclude the director from being involved in any aspect of immigration enforcement and control? I ask that partly in the context of Clause 2, which states that

“A labour market enforcement strategy … is a document which … deals with such other matters as the Director considers appropriate”.

What happens if the director considers that a strategy relating in part to some involvement in the immigration process is appropriate? Is he entitled under that particular subsection to get so involved? It would be extremely helpful if in his letter the Minister would address that point. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Refugees: Eritrea

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

When we hear about this situation, as when the Prime Minister heard about it, the immediate instinct is to think that there are, somewhere, 3,000 unaccompanied children waiting to find placement. Of course, 3,000 is an estimate of the total number, and where they are in the system is clearly a matter to be defined. We think that the way to do that is through the Dublin regulations and by making sure that they are properly recorded when they arrive in the UK. It is worth noting that the conclusion to that report said:

“We strongly commend DFID for setting an exemplary standard in its commitment to funding humanitarian assistance to address the Syrian crisis”.

That is part of the solution, but there is more to be done, and the Prime Minister will make an announcement on his review when he has examined all the facts.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise that some of the factors identified in the special rapporteur’s report—fear of forced conscription; fear of facing the same ordeal as their parents, including imprisonment on the basis of religious affiliation; hopelessness, and so on—are push factors, which are different from the pull factors that are often talked about by the Home Secretary? Will he accept that if the Government recognised some of the push factors at play, tragedies might be avoided, such as that which happened a few days ago, when a young boy died trying to cross the channel to join his sister in the UK, even though I am advised that he would have been entitled to have his case considered here under Dublin III?

[Lord Bates]

It is right to point to that. We have seen an increase from 2012, when 80 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Eritrea came to the UK, to last year, when 460 came. The noble Baroness rightly identifies that the point behind that is the arbitrary nature of national service. The Government have given a commitment that that will now be limited to 18 months. The second factor which we weighed in their favour was the fact that they required an exit visa that required them to have completed national service before they could leave the country. That is why we continue to take very seriously applications for asylum from that country, particularly from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, the order came into force on 27 November, two days after it was laid before Parliament.

I put on record our thanks to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has informed the order we are considering today. Its numerous risk assessments over the last six years or so on a range of new psychoactive substances, so misleadingly referred to as “legal highs”, has been the cornerstone of our work to date to ban 500 of the most harmful of these substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Subject to Parliament’s will, the Psychoactive Substances Bill will be enacted in the new year. As I informed the House when we debated the Bill before the Summer Recess, the Misuse of Drugs Act will continue to sit at the apex of the UK’s drug legislation, ensuring we have the most robust controls in place for the most harmful drugs, whether or not they are categorised as new psychoactive substances.

The order relates to methiopropamine, commonly known as MPA—I shall refer to it as MPA for the remainder of this address—as well as its simple derivatives. The effect of the order is to make these drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, thereby making it an offence to produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply these drugs. As with all previous TCDOs, personal possession will not be criminalised. The controls will last up to 12 months while the ACMD considers whether these drugs should be made subject to a permanent ban. The order is already having the desired effect. We are aware that since it came into force, websites marketing MPA have withdrawn it from sale.

It may assist if I now set out the evidence put forward by the ACMD surrounding MPA. The council reports that MPA has recently emerged as a replacement drug for the methylphenidate-based compounds also currently subject to temporary control. While MPA has been monitored by the ACMD, hard evidence of it being injected has only recently surfaced.

MPA is a stimulant psychoactive substance which is similar in structure to other drugs in that class and has effects such as stimulation, alertness and an increase of energy and focus. Side effects reported include abnormally fast heart rates, anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing and vomiting. As with all injecting drugs, there is also a potential high risk of bacterial infection and local tissue damage.

The National Programme on Substance Abuse Deaths reported 30 cases where MPA was found in post-mortem toxicology between 2012 and 2015. In 22 of these, MPA was implicated in the cause of death. As such, on 18 November the ACMD recommended that urgent action should be taken due to the proliferation in use and an increasing number of associated deaths and harms related to MPA.

For all these reasons, my honourable friend the Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice and Victims Minister accepted the advisory council’s advice that MPA and its simple derivatives should be subject to the order that has been in force across the UK since 27 November. It enables UK law enforcement to take action against traffickers and suppliers of the new temporary class drugs. The order has given enforcement agencies the requisite powers to disrupt the sale of MPA both online and in local head shops. The order has also sent out a clear message to the public, especially to young people, that these drugs and the brand names associated with them carry serious health risks.

We know that the law change cannot on its own deter all those inclined to use or experiment with these drugs. However, we expect the order to continue to have a notable impact on their availability and, in turn, on demand for these drugs, as we saw with other banned substances.

Parliament’s approval of the order will ensure that it remains in force to reduce the threat to the public posed by these temporary class drugs, for up to 12 months. Together with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, we will consider the case for placing MPA under permanent control under the 1971 Act. I commend the order to the House and beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for managing, just about, to get through that presentation. I have one question and one request for him. My question is about the progress of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. He mentioned that it would be enacted in the new year but it seems to have become a bit stranded in the House of Commons, and I wonder whether he has any more detail than that.

My request relates to a completely different matter. It comes from a conversation with colleagues just outside the Chamber during the previous debate. Next time the Minister does one of his amazing walks for charity, can he tell us, as we would like to support him? I do not know whether he is going to the North Pole or the South Pole over Christmas. I prefer to think of him sitting by a fire with a big box of chocolates but I do not think that is quite his style. However, we are so impressed by what he does during recesses, when most of us slob about, that we would at least like to support him in that way.

[Lord Colwyn (Con)]

My Lords, my remarks will be brief. I ask my noble friend, who has responsibility for steering the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015 through your Lordships’ House, whether the Government have kept to their undertaking to ensure that the Psychoactive Substances Bill does not infringe the rights of UK herbal practitioners to supply unlicensed herbal medicines, as permitted under paragraphs (2), (6) and (9) of Regulation 3 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, No. 1916, dated 14 August 2012.

In an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in July this year, my noble friend wrote:

“The Bill team is working with the … (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency) to make sure that the Bill does not criminalise activities in relation to medicinal products which are currently lawful under medicines legislation. This includes the activity that Michael McIntyre refers to—namely herbal medicines that do not hold a … (Traditional Herbal Registration) but are prescribed by herbal practitioners on a named patient basis”.

I ask my noble friend whether the current draft of the Bill ensures the continued rights of UK herbalists to supply unlicensed herbal medicines on a named-patient basis, as he promised. If the legal highs Bill were enacted without making provision for herbal practitioners, it would mean that their work was criminalised, which of course would be an unmitigated disaster.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we find little that is positive in the Bill. We fear that it will increase discrimination, exploitation, destitution and homelessness. It will risk children’s welfare, turn citizens into enforcers through outsourcing and reduce the UK’s reputation in employment and other sectors—all of this, and more, without making any progress on a time limit for immigration detention, on family reunion, on integration and on community cohesion. This is the Bill we would have had in the last Parliament had it not been for the moderating effect of coalition government.

I thank the Minister for the pack from the Home Office that deals with some of these anxieties with what it calls “myth-busters”. I am afraid that the perspective of these Benches is different and I pray in aid two policy areas. The first is family reunion. When the Government are asked about relaxing the very restrictive rules, we are reminded that family visas can be issued outside the Immigration Rules on the basis of exceptional, compelling and compassionate circumstances—which is good to know, but how many have been issued? In 2011, the total was 77. In 2012, it was down to 30. In 2013, it was down again to 18, and in 2014 the total was just 12. My first thought was how counterintuitive this was, given what is going on in the world. My second thought was: in view of the experiences of people caught up in, or driven out of, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan and other countries, the situation is not exceptional.

My second example is the UN’s review of overseas domestic workers and their visas. The aims of the review included bringing their lives out of the relative shadows into an open and legal framework where they can receive the proper protection of the law. The review supports points made forcefully by a number of noble Lords during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill. These were resisted by—or perhaps did not find traction with—the Government at that point until the very last knockings of the Bill, when its very passage was threatened. The Minister will understand that this will encourage us to stick to our guns when we are convinced that this Bill should be amended. He will also be aware that, given the current debate on how secondary legislation is dealt with, we will want at least very clear assurances about the detail of the regulations provided for in the Bill.

I hope that the Minister can tell us today—not just this House but those outside it—whether the Government plan to implement Mr Ewins’s recommendations. If they do not plan to implement all of them, which of them do they plan to implement, and when?

Second Reading is a time when one can attempt to give only a flavour of one’s approach. So to the organisations and individuals who have sent so much thoughtful and powerful material—I measured it this morning; it was almost 5 centimetres deep—I say, “Thank you, and if you are not mentioned directly, none of it will be wasted”.

I will start with some of what is not in the Bill: family union and reunion. Last week I asked whether the Government would allow people of Iraqi or Syrian origin, for instance, who are settled here to sponsor family members. The rules are very restrictive and the processes complex. They do not even allow for a child asylum seeker who has arrived here alone to bring over his closest family. If I had a 19 year-old daughter who had to be left behind in a camp in the Middle East, that would be exceptionally tough. If I had a 24 year-old son married to a Costa Rican, starting his career and not earning much, I would be very confused why his own country would not welcome his wife. As for myself, with neither of those children, I want my country to work on safe routes for refugees. The Bill’s maritime enforcement powers beg the question of what is to be done to help the passengers—or victims—once a ship without nationality is stopped.

I was a member of the all-party group inquiry into immigration and detention, as were a number of other speakers today. I was struck then by the paradox at the heart of unlimited detention: the lack, one might even say deprivation, of hope—might detention last for ever?—coupled with uncertainty that tomorrow one might, without warning, be deported. We will certainly look at the time limit. Sweden is one country where returns of unsuccessful asylum seekers is achieved more humanely and with a higher rate of voluntary returns. The returns process will be another point of focus.

I appreciate that the Bill deals with immigration bail. Seeking asylum is not equivalent to the commission of an offence with a trial pending, as the term “bail” suggests. Though we have tried before, we will try again on the right for asylum seekers to work within a reasonable period of their arrival and in occupations not regarded by the Government as in shortage. For us, it is a matter of integration and not badging asylum seekers as “other”.

Many who have the right to work and come from other parts of the EU do not understand that they have rights and are vulnerable to exploitation. This is the experience of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the future of which seems unclear in the light of this Bill and the recent consultation. Another question to the Government is what their plans are with regard to amendments in this area, what those amendments are and when they will be made.

I am not entirely comfortable with Part 1 of the Bill. Inevitably, there will be tensions because there are different priorities between the departments involved. At the moment, we have three entities funded separately: HMRC, enforcing—though some say it does not—the national minimum wage; the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, a group of civil servants within BIS; and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, a non-departmental public body with a board. What is that board for if not to create a strategy, a function which is to go to the new director of labour market enforcement? Even before that question is answered, there is the one of who—the Home Office or BIS—will appoint the director and to whom the strategy is submitted. There is a great deal to explore around governance powers, the sectors, resources, avoiding confusion between inspection and enforcement, and, in the case of the new director, his or her very purpose. There is even the name of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority: the consultation refers to a possible change of name but does not pursue that. That is not a frivolous point as the GLA is a very strong brand.

I had thought that we might have a year without a criminal justice Bill, but of course we have the immigration-related offences. Those may be what the Government call a logical extension to the preceding legislation but I would be happier to see an end to that legislation instead. It is objectionable that employers and landlords are enlisted in the cause of enforcement and subject to difficult requirements with a criminal sanction. Landlords may not set out to discriminate—most will not—but I would not fancy your chances of easily finding accommodation if your name is “Afshar”, “Ahmed”, “Janke” or “Hamwee”. It is not as if everyone can produce a single, easily understood document to prove status. Some 17.5% of the UK population do not have a passport, and I suggest that there is likely to be a higher proportion of such people among those who are seeking rented accommodation. The homelessness that may ensue is so often a trigger for exploitation. Also, eviction on the say-so of the Home Office without court involvement goes against all our instincts. In the employment context, the new illegal working offence is something else that we believe will add to the vulnerability to exploitation. Elsewhere in the employment forest, will the skills charge add to the UK’s reputation internationally?

I am sure that the House will live up to its reputation for scrutiny of the enforcement powers of the state and rights of appeal. Immigration officers already have considerable powers, which will now relate to crimes as well as to civil penalties and removal from the country. Those powers will be extended from immigration officers trained as criminal investigators to all—but with what recourse? In the case of the police, as a comparison, there is the IPCC.

One of the “myths busted” in the Government’s information pack is that asylum support appeals are to be scrapped though 60% are currently allowed. Leaving aside for now challenging that assertion, I would not say that the figure given in the pack of 37% of appeals being dismissed is anything to boast about, nor is extending the cohort of migrants who must appeal from overseas. Where is the equality of arms so fundamental to our justice system—that is, where there is any right of appeal at all?

The Government’s human rights memorandum acknowledges that Article 6, the right to a fair trial, is engaged regarding the refusal of new Section 95A support, but says that this is, again,

“susceptible to judicial review and emergency injunctive challenge where appropriate”.

How realistic is this, even if there were no residence test? In assessing the Bill’s compatibility with various convention rights, I am sure that proportionality will be to the fore. New Section 95A says that support for asylum seekers whose application has failed can be by way of vouchers. What a pity not to have got rid of this bureaucratic and inflexible arrangement. That might be a minor point, though, compared with other aspects of this section. We are told that the regulations will provide “very narrowly drawn” criteria for facing,

“a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK”,

and that the grace period will be short. We will not be able to amend the regulations, so it is inevitable that we will seek to challenge the Government’s plans through primary legislation.

If we do not spend time today on the horrors and risks of destitution, that is not because we ignore them. We are aware of the government amendments to plug gaps in the provision, but the Minister will be aware of views that there is a real risk that destitute families will fall through the gaps. It is not only those who fail in their application who find themselves in such difficulty. The Red Cross reports on what is called the “move-on” following the grant of refugee status, and makes practical recommendations to avoid breaks in support, which I hope we can use the Bill to look at.

The House has a veritable army prepared to fight for children’s well-being. Children’s best interests, whether among their family or if they are unaccompanied, should run through the Bill. I do not dismiss the pressures on local authorities; I have been there. As the LGA says, no council should be made to choose between supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and providing vital services for their local community. The Minister dealt with the position of local authorities, but I noticed that he did not answer his own question about the transfer of burden to the third sector. There are still resource issues to be sorted out, together with the Home Office—should it not be the DCLG, if anyone?—exercising powers of direction on local authorities.

Issues of support are the subject of most of the representations which I and, no doubt, others have received from individual members of the public, although I do not think any of them have described as disingenuous applying the Home Office term “simplify” to the basis of assessment and support of people with immigration status who are destitute.

What should our immigration policy say about our Government? Should it say they are responsible and humane, show leadership and are closer to Trudeau than Trump? Will pulling up the drawbridge make us a better nation? The movements of people that we are seeing now will be as nothing if, or when, climate change drives even bigger movements. What will we do then?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

It may be helpful if I note that there are 31 speakers for today’s Second Reading debate and that if Back-Bench contributions are kept to around eight minutes, the House should be able to rise by 5.30 pm.

Syrian Refugees

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

We have looked at that programme, which is impressive but unlike ours is not focused on those in greatest need. We are having discussions at present: the Home Secretary is meeting with NGOs and we are talking to them and to church groups and faith groups about setting up a similar community sponsorship scheme, but perhaps not for people in urgent need of attention. That might not be appropriate, as it could not give the care they need. However, going forward, as the scheme expands, we would want to follow that up.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The Minister will be aware that there are many people in this country of Syrian and Iraqi origin, who are settled and pay tax here, who are desperate—I do not think that is putting it too highly—to bring in their own family members from the affected countries and care for them. Are the Government considering relaxing the restrictive rules on family visas to allow these people to play their part in helping their own families and the whole situation?

[Lord Bates]

We are not looking at that particular point—we are quite strict on that. Visas are restricted to spouses and dependent children under the age of 18; we will look sympathetically at exceptional cases involving dependent relatives. One of the reasons why the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme is so appropriate is that the UNHCR looks at trying to bring the whole family group to the UK, rather than just one member of it. Therefore, the chances of the situation mentioned by the noble Baroness arising will hopefully be less in the future.