Asylum: Processing of Applications

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hamwee]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the amount of training required by employees on temporary contracts who process asylum applications, including gap-year students.

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

My Lords, all members of staff who make decisions in asylum cases, whether on temporary contracts or otherwise, receive the same level of training. This includes a dedicated five-week foundation training programme that includes training on international and domestic law and safeguarding issues.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the decisions that people dealing with asylum applications have to take are very sensitive and complex. Would the Minister agree that they require skills such as critical analysis, sensitivity and maturity? Is it appropriate for young people—by definition students, as referred to in the Observer article—to be taking such decisions? Is there likely to be an extra cost to the Government from incorrect decisions being taken by people who do not have those attributes?

[Lord Bates]

I can understand the concern, because these are very sensitive issues that people are being asked to deal with. But I can reassure the noble Baroness that out of the 290 decision-makers currently looking at cases, two are undergraduates in law. Under this scheme we have often looked in particular at people who have an interest in law—perhaps with the possibility of their coming in to become decision-makers in future—who might get some experience doing that. They have their induction course with all of that but, crucially, they also have mentoring. An experienced person must sign off on all decisions taken by that individual. That is a very important safeguard which I hope will reassure noble Lords.

Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016, laid before the House on 11 January, be annulled (SI 2016/11).

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, when the requirements to check immigration status were introduced into what became the last Immigration Act, they were known as the tenant’s right to rent. Initially our concerns were about issues such as the potential for racial discrimination and a dislike of using legislation to send a message. However, tonight I will talk also about the landlord’s right to rent in the sense of hurdles to letting, which we see in these regulations and in the Act with provisions that require landlords to be part of our border enforcement.

It is no secret that the requirements were included in the 2014 Act. Following negotiations between the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats agreed to their inclusion in that legislation on the basis that there would be a pilot—

“a carefully phased approach to implementation”—[Official Report, 3/4/14; col. 1089.],

to quote the then Minister. He said that the rollout would allow proper evaluation to ensure that the scheme delivered its objectives without unintended consequences. I am sure that it was not intended to have such an impact on legal immigrants and British citizens. Whether one calls it a pilot, phasing, a rollout or a pathfinder, it is common sense to evaluate and assess experience and, where necessary, to adjust provisions.

However, the Prime Minister announced a nationwide rollout from the West Midlands pilot immediately on winning the 2015 election while the pilot was still in progress. Indeed, the Home Office’s evaluation was published only on the same day as the Pubic Bill Committee in the Commons took evidence on the current Immigration Bill, which extends the provisions from civil sanctions to criminal penalties. So, noble Lords may understand why we regard this as about using legislation to send a message.

My Motion would stop the rollout. Labour has a Motion to Regret calling for more consultation. I do not believe that it is more consultation that is needed—it is more evidence and more experience of a limited scheme. I cannot hide my disappointment that the Labour Front Bench will apparently not support us in our Motion, particularly given that the Labour Front Bench in the Commons was keen to support Tim Farron’s equivalent Motion to Annul. One aspect of scrutiny—this House’s job—is to consider the workability of the Government’s policies. To quote again from the Minister’s assurances in 2014: “Checks”—that is checks on prospective tenants—

“should be light touch in nature and workable, without creating additional burdens and costs”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1651].

He also said that the scheme need not “introduce excessive bureaucracy”. I do not think that that would resonate with the letting agent whom I heard interviewed on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” programme. What he said was: “I have become an immigration officer”. Indeed, he has become an immigration officer who is liable to civil penalties and who, under the current Bill, will face criminal sanctions.

Landlords have to make reasonable inquiries as to the immigration status of all the occupants before letting a property. Well, it is not actually that easy. I have been through the material on the Home Office website. The user guide is 39 pages long and there are 12 hyperlinks—there may be more; I may have miscounted —plus a code of practice plus a short guide. There are 25 types of document which may show immigration status, more if there has been a name change. These have to be examined and copied. And not all of them are invalid if the expiry date has lapsed.

A checking agent on the same programme said that there are 400 documents in the EU that would support the right to rent. Leaving aside unfamiliar documents, how easy is it to spot fakes? Last week, the court to which Ryanair successfully appealed against a fine for not spotting forged Greek passports—neither had the Spanish border force, as it happens—said that the way that regime was operated by the Home Office,

“offends fairly basic concepts of justice and indeed the rule of law”.

Landlords are not trained to spot forgeries. Indeed, the Residential Landlords Association found that more than 90% of landlords who were surveyed had not received information from the Government about rent checks, and 72% did not understand their obligations. All this from a Government who are keen on deregulation.

Yes, a Home Office inquiry line is available during office hours. But no messages can be left out of hours —I know because I phoned it out of hours. Most tenanted property is let by landlords with only one or a very few properties, and I dare say that many viewings are outside office hours in what is a very fast-moving market.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken in this debate. I begin by putting on record that my wife is a small-scale private sector landlord; I want to draw that to the attention of the House.

In considering these matters, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that we had a substantial debate on this issue on 20 January on Amendment 148 to Clause 13, which was from, as I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That went on for some time and raised many of the issues that have been raised today. If, because of the hour, I touch on a number of the issues lightly as we go through, I think it will be helpful for those who have genuine concerns about this to look again at the Official Report for the second day of Committee, and I am sure we will have the opportunity to revisit this on day one of Report on 9 March. For those reasons, I trust that the House will bear with me if I try to deal with some of the headline issues that perhaps have not been raised before.

First, I shall deal with the context of this measure. The context to legislation is very important. This is a commencement order, Commencement Order No. 6, for a piece of legislation that was passed by the coalition Government. The changes about which many concerns have been raised relate to the Immigration Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House but this relates firmly to the Act that was passed by the coalition Government.

It has to be said that the notion that landlords should have a duty to check that those to whom they rent properties are legally entitled to be here was first introduced by the then Labour Government in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which introduced a duty on social landlords to undertake checks to ensure that they were letting properties only to people who had a legal right to be here. This measure simply extends that further across.

We are of course talking here about human beings and I think that we all recognise the humanity of this, but we are also talking about real problems that are faced in this country. We talk constantly about pressures in the housing market, and it could be that part of that pressure is because a number of properties in the private rented sector are currently rented out to people who have no legal right to be here, which means that they are here illegally and therefore breaking our laws. The question is: should we as a Government, and indeed as a Parliament, be endorsing and basically offering protection to people with no legal right to be here, who are breaking our laws and abusing our hospitality and should leave, to the potential disadvantage of people who are legally here and entitled to rent a property? That is the first point.

The second point, to which a number of issues relate, is on the timing, and I recognise that that is a key point. The original announcement about the pilot exercise was in September 2014—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Best—and the original pilot or phased introduction was undertaken some time ago. I readily accept that it was undertaken as a concession to arguments made, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Best, at various stages during the passage of the Immigration Bill through your Lordships’ House. The pilot was set up in the West Midlands, which is the second largest conurbation in the UK and quite an ethnically diverse area. It was therefore deemed to be an appropriate setting in which to test out how this would work. On top of that, an independent panel was set up, which of course the noble Lord, Lord Best, co-chairs. The panel includes representatives from the British Property Federation, the Residential Landlords Association, which has been referred to, the National Approved Letting Scheme, the UK Association of Letting Agents, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Housing Federation. It also includes Shelter, Crisis, Universities UK and, crucially, on the element of discrimination, the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Why, then, was the decision taken to do this—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly sought clarification on? The answer is that it was in the Conservative Party manifesto. We stood at the election and our manifesto said that we would clamp down on people who are here illegally to stop them being able to work, rent properties, open bank accounts and obtain driving licences. We said that we would do all those things. Therefore, when we were elected by the people to do that, we announced that we would get on and do it. This is not happening across the country, to take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We introduced it in the West Midlands and that pilot has now been running for over a year, during which we have been gathering the evidence of how it has been operating and evaluating it. This order will enable it to be rolled out to the rest of England but of course further orders will be required for it to be rolled out into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

On the timing, I took on board the points that were made by my noble friends Lady Gardiner, Lord Hailsham and Lord Cathcart, among others, who were concerned about the time it takes to get documents. That is why a lot of this information can be checked online: there is an online checking service, which is not a premium service, as we said the previous time we discussed this, but a local-rate number that people can ring up. At the moment, that government service delivers 100% as regards its target time, turning work around in 48 hours. When people obtain references at present when a landlord lets out a property, surely they want to establish whom they are letting out the property to. They require some identification and may require proof of employment, with a reference from the employer or from previous landlords. All of that takes time. This part simply checks that the person who is there is legally entitled to be in the UK, and I would have thought that that would be a standard part of due diligence that should be happening in most cases. Therefore that element is there.

I recognise that we all have a deep concern about discrimination in the housing market. That was one of the reasons why the mystery shopping exercise happened there. That sounds like a trivial thing, but it is an established procedure used by all retailers around the country. We used an external firm to undertake the exercise and half the visits were undertaken by BME couples, who were seeking accommodation. What they identified was, sadly, that there is still discrimination— that we know—but that the discrimination levels experienced in the West Midlands control area or pilot area were similar to those in the other areas being used as a comparator. We have to make sure that landlords are more aware of the duties that they already have under the Equalities Act 2010 and the racial discrimination Act of 1965 to ensure that there is no discrimination.

The discrimination point is a key area. We are determined to go much further on this and I know that the independent panel is keen to do that as well. We are updating the code of practice to ensure that landlords know their duties and obligations to ensure that properties are fairly let to people, irrespective of their background. We have done that with great assistance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which of course is part of that panel.

A number of noble Lords referred to asylum seekers and refugees. The legislation exempts refuges, hostels and student accommodation, and, where there are vulnerable people who may have lost documents and what have you, there are special procedures to ensure that they are protected.

The target of this legislation is two groups of people. The first group is those who have no right to be here and should leave, and therefore should not be occupying premises that should be made available to people who have a legal right to be here. The second group, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, was right to point out, are the unscrupulous landlords who charge extortionate rents for appalling accommodation—I have seen reports on that type of accommodation that people are actually living in. These are the people we have in our sights. All a landlord needs to do is undertake a basic check of the documents and keep a copy of them. They then have a statutory defence that they have complied with the law.

A number of very specific points were raised. Perhaps, if the House will allow me, I can undertake to cover those in communications. We are having ongoing conversations about this: we have had several meetings at the Home Office and other meetings. We are going to come back to this. There are some areas where I think we can get some movement to make sure that there is greater reassurance. However, this particular element relates to legislation from 2014 for which there has been a pilot and a phased introduction. We are confident that the safeguards are in place, but it will continue to be kept under review. Therefore, I commend the commencement order to the House and urge the noble Baroness to reconsider pressing her fatal Motion.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am conscious of time. I hope that in my opening speech I managed to anticipate many of the points that have been made in the debate, and I shall not seek to repeat them. What I had not anticipated was hearing the real-life experiences of three landlords on the Benches opposite. I thought it was very telling when they shared with the House that they became aware of the requirements through their membership of the House. Their talk of real experiences reminded us of the concern of landlords about voids and losing rents, and the inevitable and unintended discrimination that may occur because of the situation.

It is right that I respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Best. No one could doubt the work that he has put in to this or that the panel that he co-chairs takes the issue very seriously. However, the Home Office evaluation, which took place some time ago, demonstrated many of the problems. The panel continues to work but we do not know publicly what its conclusions are and what its continuing work is. Perhaps I may summarise the noble Lord’s view as being that the burden on landlords was exaggerated. The Residential Landlords Association has made its views quite clear and it supports the Motion.

The pilot was introduced as a result of negotiations between the partners in the coalition Government in 2014. That negotiation was the basis of the inclusion of the provisions in the Bill at that time. Several noble Lords have quoted the assurances that were given about the evaluation. We were told that there would be a proper one based on a big enough trial. The then Minister said:

“Any decisions on a wider rollout will be taken in the light of the evaluation after the general election during the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, 3/4/14; col. 1090.]

However, the decision was taken immediately after the election before the pilot had even been completed.

I agree that immigration legislation should not be used to crack down on bad landlords. We should use other means for that. Nor do I think that we should lay problems in the housing market at the door of illegal immigrants. Hardly a cigarette paper can be put between the points that I made and those made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who I think used even stronger language than I did, but I think that his argument is, “We shouldn’t behave badly. We should accept that this is policy but ask the Government to think about it all again”. However, if we cannot ask the Government to think about it on the basis of a pilot on which there has been a report, and if we cannot amend the order, how do we do our job? I think that our job is to show our view of the position so far, which is, as I said, that the requirements should not have been rolled out beyond an inadequate pilot. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Grand Committee

Given my experience as a former director of Oxfam, I could speak at some considerable length about situations of this kind, but my concluding point is that what we have to get straight in our politics is that we will be judged as a generation of politicians—Governments and Oppositions will be judged—by the priority we give to recognising that we are a totally interdependent global community. What is relevant and important is to be seen in the strength of our commitment and drive in the contribution we make to the whole cause of effective international governance and action. I am afraid that, in too many spheres, our record has been one of dragging our feet, being at the end of the queue and always talking about the problems. Of course there are problems, and practical problems at that, not least pressure on the domestic community. But, for goodness’ sake, the message should be: in the name of humanity, of all the values we proclaim and of Christian civilisation, which we talk about a lot, we have to do something. Yes, we will have to face the problems, but the message should be: what are we doing and how much can we do? How much, by our own example, can we generate a greater response on behalf of humanity as a whole? It will be by our example of positive attitudes and a determination to do most, not just what is possible to manage, that we will have influence on policy across the world.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, much has been said about the part played by modern communications in the current conflict. Part of that is that we cannot claim ignorance of what is happening. The media, NGOs, colleagues and friends—I, too, have friends who have undertaken voluntary work in northern France—make so abundantly clear what is happening that we cannot escape that information.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that are used as arguments in this debate. One is the idea that children should be kept in their own region and culture, among people from similar backgrounds. Leave aside the variety of people who are volunteering to help children, is it better for children to stay in the region or to be alive, with shelter, not being abused or trafficked, and with access to food, education, health services and so on? Do we keep children in the region so they can be reunited with their families?

I am not persuaded that the administration and the records that will be available if they stay in the region will be better than they would be if the children were brought to this country through a government scheme. I am sure the records will be kept very carefully. I have seen somewhere that the UNHCR regards the chances of relocation if children are brought to this country as still being high. On the question of family reunion—children who are refugees in their own right have rights—it is said that this is, in fact, an underhand way of getting the rest of the family into the UK by sending the children on ahead. I simply do not believe that that is likely except, perhaps, in a very small handful of cases. In any event, the children have rights.

In previous debates I have acknowledged the difficulties in finding foster parents. I know what is said about all the volunteers: there is a general shortage of foster parents for British children. Maybe this will break some sort of logjam. I acknowledge the support that will be needed for foster parents and for local authorities. It is very important to recognise all that because people who are dealing with these children will be dealing with very sensitive, difficult, delicate situations and children who, almost inevitably, will have been damaged. We hope that this is an exercise in not damaging them further.

Like other noble Lords, I have been fascinated by the extracts from Hansard from 1938 and 1939. Not only are the arguments those that are being used today but the ancestors of a number of current Members appear in them. The then Earl of Listowel pointed to a precedent on which Her Majesty’s Government had acted before: the work of the International Red Cross in the south of France. Our shared heroine, Eleanor Rathbone, said:

“We are apparently willing to abandon them”—

the refugees—

“to the danger of being handed over to their deadly enemies rather than risk a few thousand pounds in bringing them over. I know that the Under-Secretary has sympathy in this matter, and I appeal to him to do something to speed up the mechanism and to relax these regulations … Cannot we risk a few thousand pounds rather than abandon these people to the terrible fate that may possibly await them? I feel that in this small matter we may appeal with some hope of success for the Government to adopt a more farsighted and generous policy than heretofore”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/1939; col. 151.]

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, has been very clear about our party’s stance on this and has been a part of the call for the Government to enable this number of children to be brought here. He has done so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, it is right. However, this is not a party-political issue. What is most important is that this has caught the public mood of the moment and we should go with it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend. The Government are to be applauded for the aid they are giving directly to the region and their recent statement regarding resettling some unaccompanied children, mainly from the region. However, as Heidi Allen MP said on the “Week in Westminster” on Sunday, no amount of such aid can help those in Europe now. In a recent Commons debate on child refugees in Europe, Sir Eric Pickles—not someone I normally quote in support of an argument—said that while the Government are quite right to keep children in the region,

“we are where we are. There are children at risk, and I urge the Government to look carefully at that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/16; col. 41.]

Perhaps, more accurately, we should say these children are where they are. Refusing to help them is not going to result in them returning to their homelands. Instead, they are stuck in appalling conditions. The International Development Committee took up Save the Children’s recommendation that we should take 3,000 unaccompanied children. It made a very strong recommendation in support of that and called for urgent action from the Government on it. The committee warned that children are prey to exploitation by people traffickers—the very thing that the Government say they want to avoid by supposedly not encouraging children to make the perilous journey to Europe.

Ministers rightly say that any action to assist unaccompanied minors must be in the best interests of the children and that this is their primary concern. But how can it be in the best interests of unaccompanied children to be left to fend for themselves in the camps of Calais and Dunkirk without hope and, as we have already heard, at the mercy of hunger, cold, exploitation and people traffickers? Like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I am not totally clear what the Statement of 28 January promised. In particular, can the Minister confirm that, as Save the Children says, it is intended to try to reunite lone child refugees who are already in Europe with families in the UK? If so, that is welcome, but can he say exactly what is intended and how many children he expects will be helped in this way?

Finally, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister about a report in the Independent on Sunday that the Council of the EU is discussing measures that could have the effect of criminalising individuals and charities that help Syrian refugees, including children, when they arrive on the European mainland—in particular, on Greek islands. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about what we owe those people, who are doing amazing humanitarian work. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Home Secretary will oppose any such measures? The very suggestion that such humanitarian action could be equated with people smuggling is, frankly, quite abhorrent. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the report is unfounded—I do not necessarily believe everything that I read in the newspapers but this is an opportunity to check it out—and, if it is not unfounded, that the Home Secretary will vigorously oppose any such move.

In the mean time, I hope that the Minister—I agree with what has been said; I know that he is a Minister who listens and cares—will be able to give hope to children who need it. I hope, too, that, even if it is not a final response to my noble friend, he will be able to give a response that at least leaves the door ajar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to inject a note of caution into the debate, which has been a little one-sided. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is right in suggesting that there is widespread support for refugees, and especially children. Nobody is more qualified to say that than he is. The question is how to do it, and that needs a little bit of thought. The proposal is to relocate 3,000 unaccompanied children from Europe, and that is entirely understandable. It is entirely right to offer refuge where that is in the best interests of the children. However, I think I have a slight difficulty over the suggestion that these children should be selected from those already in Europe. The reason for that is this: there is some risk that it would encourage families to send their children in advance in the hope that that would later open the door, as it were, for the rest of the family to claim asylum.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did not seem to think that there was very much in that, but there is some evidence from Sweden that that has been the case, and we have had some experience with Albania, when a very large number of families got the idea that, if the children went first, they could follow. We need to be careful of that, and conscious that this could become a selling point for people smugglers in the camps around Syria itself.

Let us take orphan children, by all means, but I rather think it might be better to take them from the camps around Syria and to do so on UNHCR advice. We are doing that already with families, and I do not see why we should not extend that—indeed, I believe we should extend it—to orphan children in those camps. The UNHCR could provide an objective account of those children’s circumstances and take a view as to whether there was perhaps a better solution involving the child’s extended family. Remember, extended families in Syria are very close, very strong and very important. I suggest that we would do better to reinforce our work with the UNHCR. By all means increase the numbers, but let us be quite sure that we do it in a way that does not have a downside attached to it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, am I to understand from what the noble Lord said that his concern is about where the children may be coming from rather than the numbers? It would be encouraging to hear him say that he thinks that 3,000 is not wrong.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My concern is that, if we are not careful about this, we might encourage families to send children on ahead. We need to look at that very carefully because those children would be at exactly the same risk as those already in Europe now. It is a very difficult and sensitive area. There are almost instant communications between child refugees and the adults in their families. If you open a door and give the impression that, “Get your kids as far as Rome and the Brits will have them”, then the risk is that we will make a bad situation worse, if that were possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the situation within Syria and potential relocation within Syria. Is he able to say a word about what seems to be quite a fast-changing situation, where the places to which the Syrian population might go are being bombed, starved or both almost out of existence? The situation changes fast. It would be useful to have on record whether the Government’s thinking is moving equally fast.

[Lord Bates]

It is a fast-changing situation and needs to be balanced with what we are talking about, which is wanting to ensure that we do the greatest good for the greatest number of people in need. We should also bear in mind when we talk about 3,000 children that there are currently 2.1 million children who are refugees from Syria, so 3,000 in addition is a relatively small number. You can help more in the region. I do not want to sound heartless: we talk about 3,000 people in this amendment, but our aid is providing 15 million food rations already, supporting 600,000 families, educating or supporting in education 227,000 children and providing 2 million medical interventions. I am not expecting people to say, “That’s fine, then”. The pressure needs to be maintained. It is a great humanitarian crisis and this place should be putting pressure on the Executive to take further action. I hope from what I have set out that I can go as far as to say that the Government are taking this seriously. We are not unmoved by it and Britain is doing a substantial amount of which we can be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment. It is an extremely important issue because the assumption is that the code of practice and the public sector equality duty will be sufficient in this case. Clause 47(8), which I have reread a number of times, makes it very clear that somebody in a customer-facing role should speak fluent English. The Department for Work and Pensions has accepted British Sign Language as a language since 2003. We do not want to permit any confusion to arise, and the way to solve this is simply for the Government to accept the amendment because it makes it absolutely clear that British Sign Language is an acceptable language and that it is not just a question of an employee having spoken English.

I hope that the Minister will understand that there are some 70,000 people in this country for whom British Sign Language is their first language. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made clear, this is not just about those employed in a customer-facing role; it is about how you respond to customers who want to speak to somebody who can communicate through British Sign Language. I hope that the Minister will not see this as some kind of bureaucratic minor matter, as it is very important in terms of the public sector equality duty. It cannot simply be left to a code of practice when it should be written clearly in the Bill so that there is no doubt about how public sector bodies should respond.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J. Before I come to them, I shall say that I support the amendment on British Sign Language. My noble friend Lady Humphreys is in her place. She heard the confirmation about the Welsh language and welcomes it. I say that in the context of wishing this clause were not here at all. I appreciate that there was a line in the Conservative Party’s manifesto for the previous election and that is why I have not sought to take these clauses out altogether.

The impact assessment on these clauses confirmed my anxiety about their potential for encouraging discrimination and harassment. It says:

“The policy objective is to ensure a sufficient standard of fluent English is maintained and can be enforced … This is intended to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of public service provision and support taxpayers confidence they are receiving value for money”.

So far, so good.

“This proposal is expected to support current priorities for the management of immigration into the UK”.

I have littered questions marks, the word “prejudice”, an exclamation mark and the word “tangentially” around that statement.

We would prefer to take these clauses out altogether, but the first of our amendments looks at the provision for expanding the requirements into the private sector. It is a probing amendment, and I hope that the Minister is aware of the questions that I intend to ask. If this is of such concern, why, in a service context where so many public services are provided on behalf of the Government by the private sector, does the Bill not immediately extend to services which are contracted out? Will there be changes to the requirements as they affect contractors? Has consultation taken place with the private sector? Will there be a single code of practice? Since so much is outsourced, it seems odd if work which is outsourced is not covered, but I wonder whether the private sector will be happy with this as a requirement. I am interested in the consultation.

Amendment 242G is on the code of practice, which under Clause 50 may make different provision for different purposes. I have suggested,

“and for different roles or descriptions of roles”.

It may well be that the Minister will confirm that that is within Clause 50(6) because there are clearly different things that people in the public sector do in different roles or may need to do. The impact assessment states that the code,

“will be flexible enough to account for the differing requirements and existing arrangements of different public sector bodies”,

but it would be good to have confirmation that the legislation allows for that.

Amendment 242J would require a review within five years. I ask the Committee to understand this amendment in the context of my initial remarks. Noble Lords will understand from the points that I have listed in the amendment the matters with which I am concerned:

“the extent and types of authority subject to the requirement; … the standard required; … procedures for complaints”—

it has been pointed out to me that it is sad that requirements are being put in place and that it is felt necessary to have a complaints procedure designed from the beginning—

“direct and indirect discrimination which has or may have arisen; and … the resources required to meet this requirement”.

The Race Equality Foundation says,

“the draft code is poorly drafted, poorly structured and … there is nothing to prevent users of public services making complaints on the basis of accent and appearance. These provisions may encourage, and semi-legitimise, racially-motivated harassment under the guise of challenging someone’s ability to speak ‘fluent’ English. There is already evidence on the greater likelihood for black and minority ethnic people to be subject to the disciplinary process in public services”.

It is obviously concerned about these requirements expanding that likelihood.

The Institute of Equality and Diversity Professionals was very moderate in its language:

“No amount of guidance in the draft Code of Practice can save what is an irredeemably unworkable scheme”.

It talks about:

“The opportunities for directly and indirectly discriminatory, and harassment, claims”,

and reminds us that harassment is a form of discrimination under EU equality law. It asks about the constitutional basis. I think I would ask about the evidence base.

The institute also points out that:

“The use of the terms ‘high standard of English’ … and ‘fluency’ indicate a ‘mother tongue’ proficiency, which is not permissible in EU law”.

Another of its comments says,

“these measures will leave public bodies open to extensive litigation, primarily on grounds of race and ethnic origins, but also on grounds of disability, in relation to … discrimination and harassment claims”.

I said—I think at Second Reading—that I regard the ability to communicate as important, indeed essential, in the public sector, as in all other parts of life, but I cannot be the only person in this Committee who has encountered someone whose English is perfect but who cannot make themselves understood.

[Lord Rosser]

I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. As far as I understand it, the Government will accept British Sign Language—or at least they are saying it is provided for in the code—but they do not wish to put that in the Bill. I will wait with interest to see why that is unnecessary or undesirable since I am not quite sure at the moment what the answer is.

I also want to pursue the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am sure the Minister will put me right if I have misread this, but the language requirements refer to public sector workers. I take it that means that any private sector organisation with customer-facing roles will not be covered by the Bill. I ask the same question as the noble Baroness. Why is this being geared to the public sector alone? I do not know that I have particular enthusiasm for seeing it apply across the private sector since I have some of the reservations, subject to what the Minister may say, about the extent to which this could lead to some discrimination. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will explain how it is going to work. As I understand it, the definition of speaking fluent English is laid out in the Bill:

“For the purposes of this Part a person speaks fluent English if the person has a command of spoken English which is sufficient to enable the effective performance of the person’s role”.

Who will judge that and decide whether their English is sufficient? Is it open to somebody to complain that that criterion has not been met? If so, what then happens?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It appears that, although we each purport to be speaking fluent English, we may not be communicating with each other as clearly as might be the case. In circumstances where a person employs British Sign Language and there is a customer-facing individual available to communicate with them in British Sign Language, the person communicating in British Sign Language will either have with them a British Sign Language interpreter or will be able to communicate in British Sign Language and speak fluent English.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I think there are two different debates going on. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the explanation given by the Minister about how this would work is, to me, intelligible, but it does not reflect the words in the Bill because it suggests that the person who is working in a customer-facing role is the interpreter, not the person who is doing the substantive job. If the Government’s concern is that the drafting is not invented here, I hope that they can find a way of explaining that there are two roles in the situation which the noble Baroness set out.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I wonder whether I may respond briefly to that and then make a further observation. In circumstances where somebody is in a customer-facing role and uses only British Sign Language, they will, as a matter of practice and pursuant to the Equality Act 2010, have available to them a British Sign Language interpreter. So they will be communicating in a customer-facing role, together with a British Sign Language interpreter.

I do not accept the interpretation of the clause that has been advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, having regard to the considerations of time, if nothing else, I will take this matter away and reflect upon the observations that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. He will appreciate that I, too, am concerned about whether it is necessary for such a provision to appear in the Bill. Our view is that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is an important one but that it is already accommodated by the terms of the Bill. However, as I said, I will reflect on that.

I turn to the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in addressing Amendments 242C, 242G and 242J regarding the implementation of the various duties, as well as the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the question of public sector workers.

Beginning with Amendment 242C and the question of public and private sector workers, I shall seek to allay the concerns of the noble Baroness but will resist the amendment. We have no desire at this time to lay regulations before further consultation. At present, the Government are committed to carrying out an open consultation before calling on the reserve powers to expand the scope of the duty to the private and third sectors. That is why the provision is expressed in its present form.

The government response to the open consultation, which is scheduled to be made available to noble Lords for our Report stage discussion, will provide preliminary views on this matter. At present, the responses are quite balanced. Many welcome the expansion specifically for the safety and comfort of patients in the social care sector, for example. Others are understandably concerned in case any costs of enhanced recruitment practices have to be passed on to public authorities which are contracting. We do not accept that such costs will increase. Public authorities can simply make job descriptions more specific; there is no need to increase costs. So we do not consider it necessary at this stage to contemplate the proposal in Amendment 242C.

Regarding the noble Baroness’s second amendment, Amendment 242G, I seek to provide reassurance that the principal focus of the code of practice underpinning this duty will be to assist public authorities in setting language expectations for different job roles. I hope, therefore, that she will agree that there is no need to provide for this in the Bill, as it will be an element of the code of practice.

I am conscious of the variations that may occur so far as fluency in language is concerned. Indeed, as a Scot, it is a matter of particular concern to me as well. Clearly fluency will be determined by the employer—and, in this context, by the employer alone.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, to be absolutely precise about this, I hear what is intended regarding the code of practice but can the Minister confirm that,

“different provision for different purposes”,

encompasses my point about different roles? That is the wording in the Bill.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I can indeed confirm that. That is the purpose of the provisions in the code of practice.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am grateful.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I quite understand the spirit of the noble Baroness’s third amendment, Amendment 242J. The Government intend to review the implementation of this policy. We will commit to doing so in the government response to the recent consultation on the draft code of practice.

On further inspection, the details of the report described in the amendment appear to impose a significant reporting burden on public authorities. The Government’s review will certainly look to cover the principles of the recommendation, such as setting proportionate standards for job roles and avoiding cases of discrimination, because these were the main areas of concern voiced by respondents to the recent open consultation. So these points will most certainly be addressed in that context. Regarding the position of Network Rail, if there are public sector workers there, they will be covered by the initial provisions. As they move into the private sector, they will be covered by the further provisions that will be brought forward following consultation. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I do not understand that there are any provisions regarding the National Health Service in the Bill. In these circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, Clause 55 provides a power to raise the charge, but details about the rate and scope of the immigration skills charge will be set out in regulations to be laid before the introduction of the charge. At that point there will be an opportunity for an informed debate on the details within the regulations. There are likely to be legal implications of introducing exemptions which will require careful consideration.

The Migration Advisory Committee published its review of tier 2 migration on 19 January, and the Government need time fully to consider the evidence about the likely impact of different rates on different types of organisation. As well as the Migration Advisory Committee’s findings and recommendations, we wish to consider other evidence from stakeholders and any legal implications before recommending the rate at which the immigration skills charge could be set and whether any exemptions should be applied.

The Government believe in consulting those affected by the proposed changes. The independent Migration Advisory Committee carried out detailed stakeholder consultation as part of its review of tier 2 migration. In addition, this Government have welcomed discussions with, and received evidence from, a large number of businesses and representative organisations. The process will continue and will, of course, take into account the representations that have been made today by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and those received from academic institutions both by me directly and by other colleagues.

As for consulting on the changes, since the announcement in May, we have been consulting employers and business leaders across the private and public sectors to get their views on the immigration skills charge. This will continue. In addition, the Migration Advisory Committee conducted a review of tier 2 with the remit to advise government on restricting tier 2 to genuine skills shortages and highly specialised experts. As part of this review, the MAC considered evidence from employers on the immigration skills charge.

As to the impact on healthcare, which the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Wallace, asked about, no decision has yet been made. The details of the charge will be set out in regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, there will be an opportunity for a full debate at that point.

The Government have not said that the immigration skills charge will fund the 3 million apprenticeships; rather, they have said that the immigration skills charge will contribute towards skills funding. The level of the charge has not yet been set. The Government are also proposing an apprenticeship levy, not linked to migration, which will go towards apprenticeship funding. The Migration Advisory Committee recommended a figure of £1,000 per year, which is large enough to raise a reasonable amount of revenue and have an impact on employer behaviour.

That is at the core of what this is about. As the Prime Minister said at the outset, it has been far too easy for some businesses to bring in workers from overseas rather than take the long-term decision to train the resident workforce in the UK. We need to do more to change that, and that is the rationale that is driving this. We are proposing that a charge be enabled through this legislation, and we are continuing to consult because we are not unmoved by the noble Lord’s argument that the level at which this is set and those to whom it is applied will have significant implications. Therefore, we need to get that right.

The noble Lord slightly chastised us by saying that we used to have a policy of attracting the brightest and the best. Of course, there is only one thing better than that, and that is to actually grow the brightest and the best here. That is what this policy is designed to do. More details will follow and the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those when they are presented.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, before my noble friend responds on our amendments, I wonder whether the Minister can advise the Committee how noble Lords should deal with this when further government thinking becomes clear. As he well knows, we can scrutinise to our heart’s content but we cannot actually do anything about what is in regulations.

I thought that the Minister said at the beginning of his response that there had not been a decision and that this was permissive of regulations, but at the end he confirmed that this is what is in the Government’s mind, which is obviously common sense. However, by bringing forward such a significant new policy proposal as this, having given the Commons five minutes to debate it, as my noble friend said, I do not know how we can really deal with this just through regulations.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That is precisely what I was about to say. At present, the House is extremely nervous about allowing the Government to legislate by regulation for very obvious reasons based on what has recently happened. Having listened to the Minister, the words “pig” and “poke” come very much to mind. We are being asked to accept something on which the Government have not quite made up their mind about how it will work. They have not yet managed to consult, but if we pass this they will produce some regulations when they work out what they want to do. If we are no clearer than that when we get to Report, it will be very difficult to persuade any of the major groups in the House, apart from the Conservatives, to accept something so unclear.

The noble Lord, Lord Green, and I agree strongly on one thing in the migration debate—that better training and education in Britain are absolutely part of what we need to have—but that should not replace the circulation of highly skilled and intelligent people which is a vital part of our research network in medicine, STEM subjects and elsewhere. If we are beginning to block that, which this suggests it will do, we will damage our standing in the global academic and intellectual world. That is what universities are most concerned about at present. We absolutely need some assurances on that. Last week, I was talking to a vice-chancellor in Wales who was not aware of the implications of this proposal. As the Minister will know, the academic lobby in the Lords is not entirely without a degree of influence. I will do my best to make sure that it is aware of it by the time we get to Report.

There are some large issues here about the private and public sectors, including the question of how we persuade the private sector to invest more in training. This is a Government who need a rather more active and concerned labour market policy. Someone said to me last week that further education funding is about to fall off a cliff. If the Government are looking to further education colleges to help to train apprentices, this proposal is not a good thing to do as part of a whole-government approach.

This proposal suggests that some young man aged 23 in either Policy Exchange or the Institute of Economic Affairs, with a first from some university or other, has written it at speed and the Government have swallowed it. There have been previous occasions in other Governments when those sorts of things have happened. This clearly has not been thought through. If the Government can publish some more detail on what they have in mind by Report, we might be able to make some progress. If they do not know by Report what the details of the policy will be, the House will find it very difficult to accept the proposals in the way the Government have put them before it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Her Majesty’s Government’s position is always credible and defensible. Most people would recognise that this is a sensitive area, but the UK has taken a very strong stand in the international community on tackling money laundering. It does that consistently through raising matters at the G20, which is a prime vehicle for operating on this, and through the OECD, which has its regulations as well. We will continue to do that. I would have thought that everybody would welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is taking this leadership and wanting to see how further things could be done. It is absolutely the role of this House to apply pressure to the Executive to make sure that they are living up to the arguments and principles that they seek that others observe.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Can I add a tiny bit of extra pressure on the Executive between now and Report and ask whether the Government have information about the effect on housing numbers and housing prices as a result of this policy? That might be quite difficult as a lot of it will be anecdotal, but it is a jolly big anecdote along the south bank of the Thames, with units that are sold off plan and will probably remain empty. There is a great deal of concern about the impact of the role played by those taking advantage of this route on the housing shortage and on housing prices.

[Lord Bates]

Housing is outside the scope. I know that the effect on the housing market will be an interesting point of research, but we are focusing on the visa that is primarily targeted into government gilts, or loan stock or equity in UK-registered corporations. Those are the bounds of it. I mentioned that we have taken action before. This will probably excite even more attention, but due to EU law on free movement of capital, the Government believe that there would be legal difficulties in treating residents and non-residents differently by, for example, restricting purchases or charging a higher rate of tax.

I have said what I have said. I am quite genuine. A point has been made. I should just temper the Committee’s expectations because I spent the first two pages of my speech defending the scheme, saying that it was important to send out the message and that these investors were coming. I do not accept the generic term of “dodgy” with “investor”. A lot of investment into this country has been of immense value in providing jobs and wealth to the people who are here. However, I will go away and reflect on the points that have been raised about the specific working of the scheme and come back on Report where those arguments can be tested.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

242T: Clause 56, page 50, line 3, at end insert “but only when a fast-track exercise of function is provided and if the excess is applied to reducing the cost of the normal exercise of the function.”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I hope this will be quick. This is a probing amendment. Clause 56 is about fees, not really about immigration, although some of it might be. The issue I would like to probe is about passports, not immigration. Clause 56 (4) provides that there may be fees which exceed the cost of “exercising the function” in question. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain to the Committee what is proposed and what lies behind this. Is it about a premium service, rather along the lines of the premium visa service? From time to time, over the years, I have heard complaints about that among the business community—probably not voiced directly to the Government. They are having to pay premium fees for what should be the basic standard service. Is there anything that the Minister can say about customer satisfaction on this? It is worth spending a minute or two getting on record the Government’s explanation of payment over and above the cost of providing proof of citizenship. I beg to move.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, the passport fee provisions in the Bill require that all Home Office passport-related costs are fully reflected in the fee structure. That means we can recover the costs associated with processing UK passengers at the border through the passport fee. This is reflected in our spending review settlement. They also allow for a surplus on optional, premium and fast-track services, which we intend to use to help protect the quality of, and fee for, the standard passport service and, over time, reduce the standard fee. We do not intend to generate surpluses to fund other unrelated Home Office activity. Premium or fast-track service delivery is currently, and will continue to be, based on insight into and awareness of customer expectations and needs. In future, we intend to set fees for premium services at a level which ensures that they are economically viable to the customer and ensure that Her Majesty’s Passport Office can recover the cost of the services delivered, while protecting and maintaining the standard passport service.

The services and fees will be set out in regulations. As set out in the existing Clause 56(1), fees are set to meet the cost of such functions associated with the issuing of a passport or other travel documents. They will require approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Parliament. Therefore, the regulations do not provide for fees to be set at a level deliberately aimed to achieve an excess or surplus on the overall service. The regulations would provide for the fee for specific premium elements of the service to be charged above cost, but any income derived from that would be required to be used to maintain or reduce the cost of other services provided within the overall passport function.

Although I recognise that this is a probing amendment, the proposal would not work, first, because the use of fast-track services is a matter of individual customer choice and therefore subject to fluctuating demand. Unplanned surpluses, or even deficits, may therefore materialise in-year. Secondly, and more importantly, the level of fees for individual services should be determined by the overall cost of delivering the whole passport function, not the other way around. Our ambition is for the standard passport fee to remain at the current level initially and to fall over time as the cost of passport functions is reduced. This will be achieved through transforming delivery through digital and online services, complemented by the customer’s ability to choose the access services with an appropriate level of fees to reflect the higher level and speed of service provided. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, having listened to that explanation, it seems that the amendment pretty accurately reflects what the Minister has been saying, but I will not spend time on that now. Since we are talking about passports, does the Minister have in his brief the target time for the issue of a passport on application at the moment—which I presume is the standard service—against which a premium service will be designed?

[Lord Bates]

It is five days for domestic and 14 days for overseas. There are, of course, some elements of variance, but those are the standard times.

[Baroness Hamwee]

That is helpful, because to issue a passport in less than five days strikes me as going some, though perhaps it may not be so difficult if it is a renewal. I shall be interested to see what the premium service purports to offer. I might be about to hear.

[Lord Bates]

The premium service is four hours: well worth the money.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I might hand it over to the noble Lord, Lord Green, to interrogate. What checks are undertaken for that? I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 242T withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 231, to which I have added my name, but I would be more than happy if Amendment 234 were to be accepted because I acknowledge that we need to act as quickly as possible to enable family reunion. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws talked about the experience of her husband’s family in the 1930s. It was very similar in my own family. My father came as a young man to this country from Nazi Germany in the early 1930s and his parents, my grandparents, were allowed to join him in the late 1930s having escaped to Palestine and then coming to this country, so the question of family reunion has great personal significance for me.

ILPA has provided us with extracts from parliamentary debates in the 1930s and 1940s, and I was particularly struck by a speech by the then Earl of Listowel, who said in 1939:

“There is a common assumption underlying this debate … that these refugees are a common responsibility of every civilised nation, and that each country has to play its part, according to its economic resources and according to its opportunities for offering temporary asylum or permanent refuge, in providing the means of life for these helpless and persecuted people. The question surely that is before our minds first and foremost this afternoon”—

they probably did not go quite as late in those days—

“and is naturally one that confronts every member of the British Legislature is: Is this country really making its rightful contribution?”.—[Official Report, 5/7/1939; col. 1026.]

The answer today has to be no. We are not playing our part according to our economic resources when compared with poorer countries in the region on the one hand and richer countries such as Canada and Germany on the other.

While I very much welcome recent government concessions, I fear that they do not go nearly far enough. This is the message of, for example, a statement made by more than 300 eminent lawyers last autumn who, among other things, called for the establishment of safe and legal routes to the UK from both within and outside Europe. One element of that, they argued, would be humane family reunion policies such as allowing child refugees in the UK to be joined by adult family members. This would help avoid the tragedies that continue to occur in the Mediterranean where already this year 149 people have died trying to cross, according to Save the Children. Just this week over 120 leading economists have sent a similar message in an open letter to the Prime Minister.

The British Red Cross writes of heart-breaking cases it encounters of separated families not covered by the existing rules, such as the two Syrian brothers who wanted to be reunited with their mother stuck in a camp in Iraq, having been recently imprisoned in Syria. She was alone with no family and in a second country but did not qualify for family reunion. I know that the Government’s argument is that if refugee children were entitled to bring their parents into the country, it would act as an incentive to send children on ahead to secure leave. But as ILPA points out, these children are given leave to remain not because they are children but because they are recognised to have a claim as refugees. While parents understandably prioritise getting their children to safety, surely it is cynical to believe that they would deliberately put their children in the hands of smugglers to make such a dangerous journey alone as a ploy to get entry themselves. As Save the Children put it, we are talking about:

“A terrifying push, not an enticing pull”.

It reminds us of children’s rights under the UNCRC to remain with or be reunited with their family.

The Government claim to be the party of the family. In the guidance on the family test, the list of,

“relationships at the heart of family life”,

as it puts it, includes a wide range of family relationships, including extended families. Yet the Government take the most narrow and exclusionary approach to family relationships when it comes to the reunion of a particularly vulnerable group of families. I believe that if the Government were to accept one or other of these amendments, or bring forward their own amendment on Report, this would be widely welcomed.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as my name is to Amendment 234, I will give my story of doctors—I am thinking of the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—who left the country because of our family visa restrictions. I did some work on family visas in 2013, a year after the current rules were introduced. I felt as if I had almost physically been hit between the eyes when I realised that these rules were applying in situations which noble Lords have described. It is possible for the Government to grant visas on the basis of exceptional, compelling or compassionate circumstances outside the rules. The Minister will recall his Written Answer to my Question that disclosed that the number of applications granted outside the rules was 77 in 2011 and by 2014 had declined to 12.

The basis of these amendments, and the fact that we do not believe that this would be a pull factor, has already been covered. I shall try not to repeat too much of what has been said. I am very aware that it is not sensible to seek to make too many arrangements on the basis of anecdotes and very individual circumstances—hard cases, bad law, and all that. But there are so many stories. The Guardian published an article about two British citizens who had been granted refugee status and then become citizens, but could not bring their family members to the UK because of the income threshold that is part of the family visa rules. They are actually living with their wives and children in a camp in Dunkirk. Those who have seen the conditions in that camp will be appalled that that has come about.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

232: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—
“Families of British citizens and other persons with leave to remain
(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend the Immigration Rules regarding any person who satisfies the conditions in subsections (2) and (3), in the ways specified in subsection (4).
(2) The first condition is that the person is applying for—
(a) entry clearance to the United Kingdom,(b) leave to remain in the United Kingdom, or(c) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.(3) The second condition is that the person is applying as the non-European Economic Area national partner or dependent child of a person who is—
(a) a British Citizen,(b) present and settled in the United Kingdom, or(c) in the United Kingdom with refugee leave or humanitarian protection.(4) Immigration Rules shall specify that, for a person who meets the conditions in subsections (2) and (3)—
(a) the minimum annual income requirement shall be—(i) for a partner, the equivalent of one year’s salary (net of tax and national insurance contributions, and allowing for four weeks’ holiday) at the rate of the national minimum wage in effect at the time,(ii) for one child in addition to the partner, the additional sum of £2500,(iii) for each further child, the additional sum of £2000, and(b) subsidies and financial support (including the value of accommodation provided) shall be applied towards the calculation of income.”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendments 232 and 234AA are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. They stay on the issue of family visas, although not necessarily in the context of the refugee crisis. My noble friend Lord Teverson is going to remind us about “the party of the family” and marriage in the current context.

As I mentioned, I was involved in work on the impact of the family visa rules that were introduced in 2012. The situation has not eased since. In a search for a solution, my own thinking has developed only as far as, “These rules will not be changed until a Cabinet Minister’s son falls in love with a woman from Costa Rica and wants to bring her to live here”.

The rules apply to refugees; they apply to people who are far from being in a refugee situation. They are academics and businesspeople: people from a wide range of backgrounds and in a wide range of situations. It has to be said that many of them would bring a great deal to this country. A comment that I have heard from so many people who, because of the rules, are unable to live as a family in this country is: “I am a British citizen and I pay tax. Why is this happening to me?”. Families are separated and children are not living with both parents as a result of these rules, which must have an impact on a child’s development.

There are situations where, if the rules were not as they are, savings would be made for the state. I remember a gentleman from a low-earning area with a 17 year-old daughter, from his first marriage, with developmental problems. He married for a second time, to somebody really dodgy—a teacher from Canada, and because he could not meet the threshold, he could not sponsor her to come here. I understand that a lot of spouses are being refused visitor’s visas now, because it is not believed that they will leave at the end of a visit. In the case of the couple I have just mentioned, the last I heard was that she was detained when she arrived here and was in Harmondsworth. She had to stay over two or three nights because her physical reaction to what was happening to her meant that she was not well enough to be returned.

The financial threshold in place is beyond the means of something like half of the British population. The provisions which we are proposing in subsection (4) for the income requirement are, instead of £18,600,

“the equivalent of one year’s salary”.

I have spelled that out a little by saying,

“for a partner … at the rate of the national minimum wage”.

Then there are figures, which I accept are arbitrary, that would allow for children and for third-party support, because there are many examples of where families would help. The amendment says that,

“subsidies and financial support … shall be applied towards the calculation of income”.

The cost of the application is also of course an issue. During the debate on the last group of amendments, I read out a letter that I had just received. Because my name has been associated with some work on this, I quite often get letters and emails from people asking me to help and telling me of their situations. I will read just a little from the most recent, which came from a gentleman yesterday. A British citizen who had been living in Argentina, he came over here to a job. His wife and three year-old daughter were in Argentina, and when he tried to bring them over, he discovered the problems. He says:

“I understand the importance of doing everything by the books and would be ashamed to do it any other way. The difficult situation for me to understand here is how, being a British Citizen, should I have to wait for nearly a whole year without seeing my wife and daughter”.

He says that it is,

“unexplainable to a 3-year-old … All the thousands of pounds paid can be made with hard work but the time lost is never coming back”.

The second of our amendments refers to adult dependent relatives. As I said in the previous group, that route has now become more or less theoretical. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned the gain to this country from two daughters of a refugee qualifying as medical practitioners. The story I have to tell, which I dare say the Minister has heard me tell before, is of a woman who could not bring her elderly parents over from Singapore. She was a consultant in the NHS, so she decided she should go there to look after them. Her sister, also a senior person in the NHS, thought it was unfair to leave all the burden on her sibling and went out as well, and then the husband of one of them, also a consultant in the NHS, went out to join them. Those are three senior people lost to the NHS because we cannot somehow sort this out.

I am very aware of the time; I am also aware that I am not bringing any new points to the Committee because, by definition, they are not new: this has been going on since 2012. That does not diminish the importance of the matter, and I beg to move.

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 239A, and I very much agree with all the points that my noble friend Lady Hamwee just made.

It is quite obvious to all of us that we live in a global society. We welcome that, we participate in it and encourage it. We study abroad, we work abroad and we are proud that Britain is an outward-looking nation. As part of that, our sons and daughters and other relatives go out as students, to work and for leisure to other parts of the world—we are not just part of the European Union. It is quite appropriate in February, the month of St Valentine, to say that they occasionally fall in love—I expect that some Members of the House have come across that—and get married. All too often, when deciding to take that step, they do not think about the practicalities. They do not think about the fact that they might not be able as a couple, as a family—in future, as a larger family—to live back in the United Kingdom because of that decision.

As my noble friend said, I have made that point before, so I too shall be brief. It seems to me fundamental, perhaps more so to those on the Benches opposite than anyone else, that family life is sacrosanct. Subject, clearly, to the legal restrictions in the Marriage Act and elsewhere, which we all accept, a British citizen should have the right to marry whom they want, and then be able to live with their spouse or civil partner back in their home in the United Kingdom, should they wish. That right should not be discriminated against by income; in effect, that discriminates against certain ages, those in certain parts of the country or in certain occupations more than others, and perhaps on gender as well. People should have that freedom. If anything should be the birthright of us as proud citizens of the United Kingdom, it should be that. That is the simple thing that my amendment tries to achieve. That was all swept away in 2012, during the period of a coalition Government— unfortunately, as far as I am concerned.

Since I have got involved in this issue, I can name all sorts of instances of people affected by this who have come to me on the internet. Most recently, there was a young man whose family live near me in Cornwall and who is working for a British company out in South Korea. He has married a Korean national and is unable to come back. He earns a lot of money out there, and she is very capable as well, but because of the rules they cannot come back together. That is completely wrong. There are an estimated 33,000 people in that position.

This problem does not make a huge difference to migration figures, but if the Government ever introduce a British Bill of Rights, please make this right No. 1. I ask the Minister to look at this again, think about the principles that the Government espouse so well in this area, listen to that rhetoric and correct analysis about the centrality of the family and family life, and change this policy area so much for the better in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, what better way of integrating can there be than living with a British citizen? I am genuinely quite puzzled about that. The arguments are financial ones; this is the price of family—or, indeed, the price of love. I do not think that the central, fundamental point is being addressed. As for restoring confidence, that is not the experience that I have from the many representations from and on behalf of British citizens who say that we are taxpayers as well—if that were necessary to support the argument. Of course, I am not going to seek to press the point or prolong the debate now, but it is one that we will keep coming back to.

I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Teverson sought to make the argument on a more elevated plane than I have, by addressing the central philosophical point, which is very important. Although I deplore the phrase—and I have told my noble friends to chuck me off the Front Bench if I ever use it in this Chamber—are marriage and family not among the British values? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 232 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, apart from all the powerful arguments of support that have been put forward, the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is one that we must all take particularly seriously. No one in this House has put their own life more on the line on issues of this kind than she has, and she has consistently done that with great courage. When she comes to us and says, “Please take this one step that would help, in terms of all that I have experienced”, we must take that seriously. I also feel very deeply that there is a real crisis in credibility with populations across the world. Governments speak with great rhetoric about these issues, but sometimes fail to provide the practical evidence that that rhetoric adds up to anything. Here is a chance to demonstrate that we mean what we say.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, from these Benches I support the amendment. When I first started going to ceremonies to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, what struck me most were the current examples that were used and of which we were reminded. Each year a theme is chosen and it is salutary to realise how topical those themes are. This is topical. There are many groups of people who are the subject of the treatment which has been described, and it has been notable during debate on this Bill how many noble Lords have referred to the experiences of their families. We may not be directly related to the people who are in such a situation, but as noble Lords have pointed out, we are all part of that one family.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate either, but having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and others, I cannot help but raise a voice on behalf of the Christian community. We are to a greater or lesser extent Christians in this country. We may not be very good Christians, but the idea that we cannot intervene on behalf of a Christian community because we might be discriminating strikes me as being absolutely unacceptable and appalling. I hope that the Government will take close notice of that and think about this serious issue.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

236ZF: Clause 39, page 41, line 17, after “may” insert “, having consulted the Secretaries of State with responsibility for children and for communities and local government,”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My noble friend Lord Paddick and I also have Amendments 236ZG, 236ZH and 236ZJ in this group standing in our names. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will be glad to know that we have not cut out his amendments on the position of the devolved Administrations.

Clause 39 is a relatively new clause drafted by the Government to address the situation of certain local authorities coping with very large numbers of children—the relevant children for the purposes of the clause—who are in need of care, supervision and protection in the current circumstances. These amendments are essentially probing. I preface my remarks by saying how much I understand the dilemma that both local authorities and central government are facing in trying to address all this. I know that they are working together to try to find the best arrangement.

Amendment 236ZF is not traditional drafting, and I do not defend it in that way, but it deals with the regulation-making power about arrangements under this clause, which provides that the Secretary of State may make further provision by regulations, as is usual. I know it is normal to refer simply to the Secretary of State but there are clearly a number of Secretaries of State who should have a role in these arrangements. I rather doubt that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be the one taking the lead. I appreciate that that is not necessarily implicit in the way that the clause is drafted. The amendment refers to consultation with:

“Secretaries of State with responsibility for children and for communities and local government”,

who clearly are involved, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the situation is being addressed across government.

Clause 42 allows the Secretary of State to prepare a scheme to transfer responsibility from one local authority to another. Amendment 236ZG would provide that:

“Before finalising the scheme, the Secretary of State must consult the local authorities to which the scheme relates”.

I am sure we will be given assurances about this. We tabled this amendment because we are instinctively unhappy about the notion of a Secretary of State having a power of direction over local authorities. Clearly, the best way to deal with these problems is through discussion and coming to arrangements, compromises and so on by the local authorities concerned. Again, I seek some reassurances from the Minister about the Government’s approach.

Amendment 236ZH would provide that the scheme for the transfer should,

“specify the provision of resources”.

We are talking about a very resource-intensive exercise. The Local Government Association is being very moderate in its language referring to this but clearly it is a concern for local authorities. Indeed, it is because of the strain on Kent in particular that the Government have now produced these proposals.

We tabled Amendment 236ZJ to seek assurances that the points raised in a proposed new clause on the best interests of the child will be carried through into guidance and practice, even if they are not spelled out in the Bill. These issues are already in guidance in respect of other situations and provide that the child’s best interests are considered in any decision to move a child to a different local authority. They spell out some of the factors that would weigh against the child being moved, such as having lived in the initial authority for some time, having family members or other relationships in the first authority, that the processing of the child’s asylum or immigration application has started, that a legal representative in the first authority has been instructed, and that the child is established in education there. Regard should also be had to,

“the availability of legal advice and representation … in the second authority”,

and,

“the availability of services in the second authority to meet the religious and cultural needs of the relevant child”.

As I say, these issues are well understood and in guidance relating to other situations. I look forward to the Minister giving assurances. They should not be very difficult to give, particularly on that last amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I wish to address myself to Amendments 237 and 238, which are linked with this group. I apologise—I almost interrupted a little earlier when I thought that we were rushing forwards in a way that had overtaken my amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the Secretary of State having power of direction over local government. My concern is with the implication of Clause 43: that the Secretary of State may have powers of direction not just over local government but over the national Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If we are indeed to have the respect agenda to which the Government have made much reference over recent months, then in so doing there should quite clearly be a question of prior consent before that is taken on board.

Amendment 237 would insert the words,

“if consent to such application has been granted by the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively”.

I would have thought that was basic common sense. I would also have thought that this is the way in which the Government would have wanted to act. The provisions in these amendments may be covered elsewhere, in some way which I have not picked up, but if they are not I suggest strongly to the Government that some such provision should be built in. In any case, to what extent have the Government had any discussions with the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with regard to the implementation of these provisions? I would be very interested to know that.

I should emphasise that the question of children’s policy has been uppermost on the agenda of the National Assembly for Wales. Our Children’s Commissioner was among the first in these islands and a lot of attention has been given in public policy to ensuring that children are uppermost in our thoughts. I have no doubt at all that the National Assembly for Wales—and, I am sure, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly—wants to play a constructive and positive role in helping in these circumstances. But it should be by partnership, not by direction, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Yes, that is something that I am happy to undertake to do. To clarify the situation, the six local authorities I referred to were just for the Kent dispersal scheme. It is invidious to single out particular local authorities. I was making the more general point that it would be wonderful if more local authorities came forward. We certainly want to ensure that the generous offers made, to which the noble Lord referred, are fully explored, so that help can be provided where it is offered.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it might be invidious, but I am going to do it, although in a related context. On the call for local authorities to assist with providing accommodation for refugee families, I am ashamed that the leader of my local authority of Richmond upon Thames explained that it was not possible to assist because it is not a housing authority. I think that that is using technical language which could be applied very widely across the country, but has not deterred others.

The statement from the Local Government Association on the current position, issued especially in response to the calls for admitting 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, starts by calling for the programme to focus on family reunification, which takes us back to debates we just had. The statement refers to the current financial arrangements for taking on full Children Act responsibilities and funding the leaving care support. It says that these are currently due to expire at the end of March. The statement was dated 27 January and I would guess that the Minister has no further news about that—he shakes his head. Clearly that is worrying the LGA and it must worry us all. Of course, I agree that reaching a consensus and partnership—the word I was struggling for before—is the most important way of addressing this. As I have said before in this Chamber, the costs would be considerable. There is the shortfall in the number of foster carers. Whatever the number of altruistic people who offer to take children, there is no avoiding the cost of support for them in undertaking an extremely difficult job in looking after these children. The LGA also says that a regional approach to resettling refugees rather than a case-by-case model controlled centrally would be more effective in utilising the funding for local authorities to support resettlement.

The Minister answered Amendment 236ZF but I do not think he said whether those factors will be included in guidance. Given the hour, I will not ask him to continue—but he made a sort of semaphore indication that he will write on that point. I am grateful for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 236ZF withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support Amendment 227 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others.

The briefing note on Clause 34 to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred is a model of clarity. It was certainly very informative to me. It made clear, as the noble Baroness said, the statutory duty on the Secretary of State,

“to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in the UK who … may be affected by any immigration decision”—

that duty is not in doubt—and that,

“the best interests of the child are a primary consideration”.

While I understand that a primary consideration may not be the only one, I do not understand how a primary consideration can be set aside even if it is in some way qualified. If it is trumped by other factors, it does not seem to be a primary consideration. So there must be a risk that Clause 34 unamended could undermine the Secretary of State’s statutory duty.

I do not doubt the Minister’s and the Government’s best intentions here, but there is widespread concern among organisations such as the Children’s Society, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, which deal with vulnerable children on a daily basis, not least about the Home Office’s capacity to cope with an unamended Clause 34. Without an adequate process to determine the child’s best interests,

“children could be returned to countries and circumstances where they may be at risk of serious harm including sexual abuse, neglect … violence, forced marriage”,

and so on. There is plenty of research to indicate the way in which separation from a parent when vulnerable causes long-term harm to a child’s developmental and emotional well-being. We should not be making such separations more commonplace.

The Home Office briefing argues that appeals from abroad have been effective and fair but, as we have heard, the cuts in legal aid for immigration cases are bound to undermine the capacity of families to put forward evidence, and the danger of not knowing the facts in an appeal must surely grow.

I have been talking generally about the impact of all this, but of course it will always be experienced in particular. An example given by the Children’s Society vividly illustrates the risks. A woman came to the UK 16 years ago to escape forced marriage. After an agent stole her documents, she lived under the radar and now has three children aged 11, seven and two. She received help from the Coram Children’s Legal Centre two years ago—pro bono—to make an application for leave to remain on Article 8 grounds. It was refused, largely because it was said that the family could return to the woman’s country of origin. She appealed and had to wait more than a year for the appeal to be heard, apparently because of a “shortage of judiciary”. The children speak only English; the older two are doing well at school and the eldest child, I understand, is now eligible to register as British.

Under the Bill’s provisions, this woman and her family could have been removed from the UK for more than a year while waiting for her appeal. The children would then have lived in a small African village with their estranged maternal grandmother, with whom they do not have a common language. Their schooling would have been interrupted, since there is no teaching in English locally. The youngest child would have been at risk of female genital mutilation in a place with limited health services. The removal of the eldest child from Britain, the only country he has ever known, would have made him ineligible to register as British since it would have happened just before his 10th birthday.

I want to believe that this family would have benefited from a Home Office caseworker’s laborious and careful sifting of all that evidence, resulting in a recommendation that the family should stay here. But how can this be guaranteed without some amendment of Clause 34? We need full and proper scrutiny before we deport such families or children. I hope that the Minister will offer us some comfort that these points have been heard.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we support Amendment 227 and the opposition to Clause 34 standing part of the Bill. I will not speak to Clause 35.

The right reverend Prelate has just mentioned legal work provided pro bono. I would like to take this opportunity of echoing a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, from the Dispatch Box the other day when he repeated an Answer to a Question on legal aid. He said that there are a lot of legal firms which are not “ambulance chasers”. Those firms do terrific work in very difficult circumstances, and many of them are engaged in this sort of work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to comments on the last Bill from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The committee, of which I am a member, has drawn the attention of the House again to particular difficulties which might be faced by appellants if a non-suspensive appeals regime is extended in circumstances in which judicial review is the only means of challenge. This could mean that families with meritorious Article 8 claims are subjected to extensive separation. I think that she also referred to the report of the Constitution Committee, which commented among other things—there were two or three pages on this—on the practical extent to which legal aid is perhaps not likely to be available in respect of judicial review challenges to certification decisions.

We use the term, “Deport first, appeal later”, but of course it is not quite that. It is “Be deported and appeal later”, or deport first and then be appealed against in a situation in which the appellant can apply only in a way that the Court of Appeal and the Solicitor-General have acknowledged is less advantageous—that is the term used in the court. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to this and it is certainly less advantageous for the appellant or potential appellant. There is difficulty in paying for legal representation and liaising from abroad with legal representatives—if you can find any who can help in the circumstances—difficulty in obtaining, submitting and giving evidence, and difficulty for the tribunal in assessing evidence.

The human rights memorandum published by the Home Office said that,

“there is no intention to apply this power to cases relying on Article 2 and 3 rights”,

and that,

“case law … makes plain that where there is an arguable Article 8 claim, there needs to be the effective possibility of challenging the removal decision”.

If Clause 34 has to remain, it would be good if it could somehow refer to what is in that ancillary documentation.

It struck me during discussions about this how difficult it is to certify a negative. It is almost as difficult as proving a positive. The Secretary of State has to certify a claim, as we have heard, if she considers, first, that removal is not unlawful and, secondly, that the appellant would not face a real risk of irreversible harm. I am sure that the Minister will, as the noble Lord said, refer to the recent Court of Appeal case which ruled that the regime was lawful. However, that was in the context of deportation, and the fact that it was lawful does not make it right.

There is no equality of arms and a perversity about this. As the Law Society has pointed out,

“the spouse of a national of any EEA”—

European Economic Area—

“member except the UK would retain a full in-country right of appeal … whereas the spouse of a UK national”—

not the spouse of any national of any other EEA member—

“would have to leave the country”.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I am proud to be British and was both proud and privileged to serve for nearly 41 years in the British Army. But I have to admit that I am not proud of much of the thrust of this Bill, which seems to be based on the assumption that every would-be immigrant or asylum seeker is illegal, and should be treated as such. That is akin to regarding everyone awarded a prison sentence as being a combination of mass murderer, armed robber, rapist, arsonist and paedophile, and treating them accordingly. The vast majority of would-be immigrants and asylum seekers are legal, which should be the default thrust of any regulatory legislation.

On 12 July 1910, the then Home Secretary, the 36 year-old Winston Churchill, winding up a debate on prison estimates, said that the way in which any country treated crime and criminals was the true test of its civilisation. He could well have added immigrants and asylum seekers. On Monday night, I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, read from his brief an assertion that:

“The Government already have a raft of guidance and standards in place for ensuring that the regimes in detention centres operate at appropriate levels and in the interests of the welfare of detainees”.—[Official Report, 1/1/16; col.1696.]

In view of my experiences while inspecting them, I thought of Churchill and was completely flabbergasted. Has no one in the Home Office paid the slightest bit of attention to inspection report after inspection report, which point out that what the Minister described as,

“a raft of guidance and standards”,

is not subject to any meaningful oversight? For “appropriate”, he should have said “'wholly unsatisfactory”. So stunned was I that I totally failed to ask the Minister what the word appropriate meant, and who in the Home Office was responsible and accountable for allegedly ensuring the operation of such regimes, and whether their reports could be made available to noble Lords.

That was bad enough. But Clause 34 is so far outside the rule of law, let alone what decent people regard as civilised, that I am ashamed to think that anyone British was responsible for the concept, let alone its inclusion in the Bill. I know that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the imposition under the Immigration Act 2014 of out-of-country appeals in deportation cases is legal, but such appellants have committed serious crimes and received substantial prison sentences before being deported. How can any Home Office Minister seriously bring forward so draconian a proposal for those whose presence in the United Kingdom is entirely legal knowing that, currently, 61% of immigration appeals are either allowed, remitted for the Home Office to retake its decision or acknowledged by the Home Office to be flawed before a hearing? This means that 61% of those whom Ministers intend to force to make their appeal from abroad will have legal grounds for compensation, which is bound to add up to more than the cost of continuing to do the decent and civilised thing.

Included in the 61%, as the Solicitor-General acknowledged to the Committee and the other place, is an appeal success rate of 42%, which the latest figures from the Asylum Support Tribunal show to have risen to 44%. On what grounds do the Government think their proposal to force legal, as well as illegal, potential appellants to leave the United Kingdom before appealing against such appalling and proven faulty decision-taking is justified, appropriate and civilised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is not immediately apparent to me that it is applicable to this proposal, but in this context one has to bear in mind that a primary consideration is the interests of the child or the children. To that extent, what might be regarded as an aspect of the family test is being applied. That is always a primary consideration. There are circumstances where it may be appropriate for the children to accompany a person out of the United Kingdom, and there may be no difficulty about that. There may be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the children to remain with a parent or carer within the United Kingdom. If there are circumstances where they will have no parent or carer within the United Kingdom and it would not be appropriate for them to leave the United Kingdom, again, there is the safety net of the certification, dealt with in Clause 34, as there is under the existing legislation. To that extent, it appears to me that the matter is dealt with.

The noble Baroness went on to mention again the interests of the child and to ask how many children would be affected by this. It is not possible at this stage to say. On the basis of unofficial and informal figures, I understand that no child has been certified for an out-of-country appeal under existing legislation. Of course, the present amended legislation has been in force for only a short time, since 2015, so it is difficult to discern figures from that.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich referred to particular cases. I hope that I have addressed his concerns. If there was such a serious risk to a child as he alluded to, it appears to me that, with respect, the safety net in Clause 34 would apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to difficulties in producing evidence in the context of an out-of-country appeal. I do not accept that it would be materially more difficult to produce evidence in these circumstances. We are talking about an appeal to a specialist tribunal that is well equipped to decide the form of evidence it requires in a particular case. As I mentioned, when dealing with a case that is going to arise largely on the basis of Article 8 of the convention, if there is to be a convention appeal, one is concerned with family links with the United Kingdom, which are going to be spoken to by persons within the United Kingdom. In so far as there is any factual issue to be addressed by an appellant, it can be done in writing, by video link or even by telephone. That may appear less satisfactory than taking oral evidence but, as the noble Baroness may be aware, it is far from exceptional for appellants not to give evidence in such appeals before a tribunal. It is certainly far from exceptional for appellants not to give oral evidence in such proceedings.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for that. I did acknowledge the Court of Appeal decision, but I said that in our view it did not make the situation right. However, do the Home Office or the Tribunal Service give information or even assistance to appellants who are outside the country—as a minimum, information on how they can set about dealing with an appeal from outside the country?

While I am on my feet, the Minister credited me with a comment about the best interests of the child which I think came from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I have an amendment on that later so it is understandable that he might have thought that I was going to say what I will be saying.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Without the benefit of second sight, I cannot say whether I thought she was going to say what she had not said but was planning to say later—but I acknowledge that the original comment came from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I acknowledge the observation made, but I cannot comment on the particulars of such a case. What I can say is perhaps only related and not directly on point. Part of the thrust of the next part of the Bill is to address the time taken for appeals to be processed. That matter will be addressed by my noble friend Lord Bates in due course. In general, it is hoped that appeal processes in simple cases will not exceed six months and even in complex cases will not exceed 12 months, so that there will not be the degree of separation that has been alluded to, even in cases where one child perhaps goes out of the United Kingdom and another remains in the United Kingdom. I rather suspect that that would be an exceptional case—albeit it is amazing when you read the facts of some of these cases just how diverse the family arrangements can be.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Is the noble and learned Lord able to answer the question I asked?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Baroness asked about communication of out-of-country appeals procedures. I do not have that information immediately to hand. I am aware of the tribunal regulations. Perhaps I could undertake to write to her to outline what the guidance is.

My research has come to a conclusion already. There is published guidance on the GOV.UK website on how to appeal from overseas, so it is there. I knew that it existed but I was not aware that it was actually on the website. Whether further steps are taken with regard to this matter, I cannot say. If in fact there is something over and above the website, I will write to advise the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I support Amendment 230 in this group. My colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, spoke at Second Reading of his concern about the architecture of Clause 37 and Schedule 8. I share his belief that the reduced weekly support of £36.95 per person, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, for an asylum seeker under the current system is inadequate. Where that financial provision is refused, it is subject to a right of appeal. I note that in nearly two-thirds of such appeal cases, the appeal is successful or the refusal is withdrawn.

There seems to be an inexorable but ultimately self-defeating utilitarian logic in government policy in this area. The argument seems to be that when an asylum seeker’s application is refused and an appeal is unsuccessful, there is no further need for or right to any financial support. It seems to be assumed that this will be an incentive in itself to leave the United Kingdom. I fully understand the Government’s desire to maintain the integrity of immigration control by ensuring removal, whether voluntary or not, but I wonder how effective this policy will be.

As we have heard, the criteria under the new provisions for any financial support in such situations are destitution and genuine obstacles to leaving the UK, and there is then no right of appeal. What constitutes,

“a genuine obstacle to leaving the United Kingdom”,

is not defined, although it could appear in the Bill rather than be left to regulation. In another place, the Minister expressed hope that greater engagement with failed claimants would lead to many more voluntary departures. He said that under existing legislation such engagement led to 377 people leaving between April and October last year.

The Refugee Council notes that this engagement often went on over months and involved many meetings with families and case conferences. Such experience suggests that a significant period of grace, with some financial support, in such cases is both necessary and constructive. I may have misunderstood but the Bill’s existing provision seems inimical to developing this practice and may well undermine its very aim. Scrutiny of the existing system—one which, after all, involves rather modest financial maintenance—shows that on appeal there are a significant number of corrected decisions. That is why, if the provisions of Clause 37 and Schedule 8 are conceded, they ought to be subject to appeal. I hope the Minister may be sympathetic.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have added our names to the objections to Clause 37 and Schedule 8 standing part, and we have a number of specific amendments in this group.

I will deal with what I have noted as minor amendments —although one of them is not that minor—before coming to the more general point. My Amendment 229ZD deals with “further qualifying submissions”. The provision requires them to fall to be considered by the Secretary of State under the Immigration Rules, which I saw, when I was looking for various things on the GOV.UK website, are described as legislation. But, as noble Lords will be very well aware, they are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The purpose of the amendment is to ask about the process for scrutiny, if any, of current and future amended rules and the application of these to the schedule.

The provision that is the subject of my probing Amendment 229ZE merely changes “claim for asylum” to “protection claim”. My amendment would omit “as may be prescribed”, which applied to the claim for asylum under the previous legislation. I found that slightly odd in the context, but I wonder whether there has been any experience of a prescription claim under the legislation. Perhaps the Minister can flesh that out a bit.

The last of these three specific amendments, Amendment 230ZB, is much more material. Schedule 8 provides for support not to be in the form of cash. The experience of the Azure card is not a happy one. I can just about see that vouchers for certain services might be defensible. Vouchers for goods require the recipient, in effect, to shop in places which are not convenient, do not provide what may be sought within a particular culture and are not the cheapest. In particular, they cannot be used in a market. They may mean travelling to a place where vouchers can be used but vouchers are not available for travel. Getting to essential appointments, such as medical and legal appointments, becomes a huge problem. Children are affected not only through hunger but because the card does not cover things such as school trips or, as I say, travel fares. We have had evidence that the payment system affects people’s mental health—I am sure that this is not news at all to the Minister. It affects their ability to maintain relationships and to participate in social, cultural and religious life. Not every cashier in shops where the card can be used is properly trained, so embarrassment can be caused. The card can generally be a source of stigma because it singles out the recipients.

On Clause 37 and Schedule 8, reference has been made to the current Section 95 regulations. When I was preparing for my Motion to Annul those regulations in October, I was shocked to read how minimal was the provision for essential living needs. One of my noble friends commented to me afterwards that it was obvious from the expressions on several faces opposite, where a number of the Minister’s colleagues were sitting, that they were shocked by what they had heard. The Official Report does not record facial expressions but on that occasion I felt, as I have sometimes felt on others, that the Minister may not be a particularly good poker player.

I was very critical on that occasion of the methodology used to assess essential living needs, which in the case of a child could hardly be called an assessment. It does not include nappies, formula milk and other items specifically for babies. There was a very blunt tool for applying the approach of economies of scale. By just using that rough and ready term, without any disaggregation or analysis, the adult rate was applied. Of course I did not win when I then put the matter to the vote—the regulations have been in force since August—but one outcome was some discussion both privately with the Minister and during the debate about consultation with the NGOs and others who work in the field on periodic reviews of the support rates. The Minister said:

“We would certainly welcome evidence and data”.—[Official Report, 27/10/15; col. 1160.]

That is not of course in the context of the new Section 95A, but it is relevant, and I hope that the Minister can give the Committee an assurance about the process of arriving at the rates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to set that out in a little more detail. I think it would be helpful to say how we envisage that working. The plan is for the family engagement officer—who is a key figure in this, working with the family to manage their return—to have cognisance of their circumstances not only while here but when they return, so that will be taken into account and will be something that we look at. I will write more on that; I am happy to do so.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, while we are on this subject, the noble Lord, in response to my Amendment 233, talked about the current process. The amendment was tabled after discussion with the Red Cross in particular and other organisations that commented on the need for the items set out in the amendment, namely,

“a caseworker … a named point of contact … and … legal advice”.

The part of the amendment dealing with a review refers to,

“the level of financial support provided to failed asylum seekers when they leave the United Kingdom, and … the level of contact with organisations in the country of return necessary for the welfare of the failed asylum seekers”,

which was very much the point my noble friend was making. The Minister has just described a caseworker and named person. I am not clear whether this is intended to be a change from the current process or whether his notes are defending the current process. If it is the latter, the comments I received which led to this amendment indicate that the current process, which the Minister described, is not working.

While I am on my feet, I am afraid I must take the Minister back to the Azure card. He said that, generally, support would be in the form of accommodation and cash. What are the exceptions to that?

[Lord Bates]

First, I am a huge admirer of the work of the Red Cross and pay tribute to all that it does in this area. The noble Baroness referred to my charitable endeavours over the recess. Last year, I raised £90,000 for projects for the International Red Cross in China. My response to the point about the Red Cross study is that we are engaging with it. Home Office officials are in contact with the Red Cross and we are working through its recommendations, which I have read. There is some question—which we need to understand better—about the cohort. I think that the Red Cross looked at some 60 case studies. The majority—all but five or six, I think—were failed asylum seekers, but there was not really sufficient explanation of why they had failed. Suffice to say that we take this very seriously. We want to engage with organisations such as the Red Cross so that we move forward sensitively.

I have said that I will write on the point about the Azure card and perhaps I could include the exceptions. With that, I hope that noble Lords will accept my explanation and withdraw their opposition to the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my warm support to my noble friend in moving this amendment. For any of us who have been exposed to the realities of the situation, it is impossible to forget the mental turmoil that is so often present in the case of the person going through the process. The minds of those who have suffered torture are already in a pretty twisted and confused state. Just trying to cope with the procedures is physically and mentally exhausting. That is aggravated, frankly, because sometimes they have been through all the injustice of ill-prepared cases against them by the Home Office, which were subsequently totally dismissed as unacceptable, allowing the person to acquire asylum status. All this adds to the psychological pressure.

The other thing that strikes me—both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend referred to this—is the amount of arbitrariness in this process. Some come up against wonderful people in the community. I can think of a case not very far from where the Minister lives where there was a wonderful amount of support forthcoming for the couple concerned, and they roped me in on it, but all the time I was thinking, “But what about all those who do not have this support?”. It was bad enough for them.

Let us consider the arbitrariness that people encounter at the appeal stage in terms of the procedures in court. I was present for this couple’s case, and indeed I was called as a witness. The judge was simply incompetent, but fortunately for this couple, they had a superbly good lawyer to present their case. She was able to shred the case brought by the judge almost within minutes. What was again constantly in my mind was the fact that the couple were fortunate to have the support of a wonderful family and an excellent lawyer, someone who was commended by her own profession for her work, but what about all the others? This indicates that we need to look closely at what is realistically possible.

To be fair, I should add that when I became involved in this case, I was given a lot of helpful support by the Home Office. It was obvious that some people there were unhappy about the situation and they were trying to help. But only a minority of cases have the good fortune of the kind intervention of others. We cannot take the business of fairness lightly and we must be able to think ourselves into the shoes of the people going through this process—what they have been through, what state their minds are in and how capable they are of coping with what is required of them during the period of transition. I hope that the Minister, who I know is an extremely fair-minded man, will listen carefully to the plea of my noble friend and resolve this.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, our Amendment 229 also addresses the issue of people who have been granted refugee status, humanitarian protection and various forms of leave to remain accessing mainstream benefits. I am sure that being able to work, and as a secondary to that being able to access mainstream benefits and accommodation, is what people in this situation want. They do not want to be supported. But delays in the Home Office in issuing biometric residence permits and delays at the DWP in issuing national insurance numbers so that people can get identity documents and thus establish a claim to benefits mean that the system is not working as it should.

Our amendment would not make as many changes as its length might suggest. The relevant addition to the definition of when,

“a claim for asylum is determined”,

are the lines,

“and the claimant or dependants of the claimant do not appear to the Secretary of State to be destitute”.

In other words, adding that in as another condition to be met, as it were. I can understand that it must be much easier to have an automatic time trigger for these things, but we have heard throughout the debate on this Bill how matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, and it seems that this is another occasion when that consideration should be applied.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the interests of time, perhaps I may first draw the attention of the Committee to my letter of 21 January and in particular to the accompanying document, Reforming Support for Migrants Without Immigration Status: The New System Contained in Schedules 8 and 9 to the Immigration Bill, and specifically to pages 10 to 12 which deal with the handover situation of people on support from the Home Office and moving them on to a local authority, and how that system can be improved.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I respect enormously for his humanitarian instincts, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the British Red Cross report. It was published on 13 January, I think, which is fairly recent in terms of government decision-making. We are engaging with the charity and we will have more to say on the report in due course.

At the heart of what the noble Baroness wants is whether we will agree to a meeting to look specifically at this issue. The next group of amendments is a significant one about children leaving care. I was going to suggest that we should have a meeting on that issue, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will probably find very helpful. I am happy to incorporate this specific point into that wider meeting, given that we already have five meetings coming up before Report. If that is helpful to her, I shall restrict my remarks to drawing attention to the document I have just mentioned and agreeing to combine this issue with those to be addressed in the meeting as a result of the next group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have my name to a number of the noble Earl’s amendments. We have all received a considerable amount of briefing material. He just referred to the work of the Children’s Commissioner. I will use that as the basis for questions—not even that: I will simply read out some of the key questions that it is said need answering. There will be a certain amount of overlap with the noble Earl.

Will the statutory guidance on transition be revised as a result of changes made in the Bill? The noble Earl referred to that. We are all concerned about young people missing from care. The Children’s Commissioner asked:

“Will transfers from local authority accommodation to Section 95A accommodation by adult migrant care leavers be monitored to look at the impact the policy is having on the missing figures and to determine whether the new arrangements have been successful in encouraging former unaccompanied children to leave the UK?”.

I share the noble Earl’s observations about the likelihood or otherwise of these children going back.

Will the Minister clarify what happens to failed asylum seekers without status turning 18 who make further submissions under the Immigration Rules, resulting in either the grant of leave or acceptance of the further submissions as a fresh claim for asylum? Will this group return to being eligible for leaving care support from their former local authority? Will the Minister clarify what provision—whether under the Children Act 1989 or under Schedule 3—will be available to care leavers with no status who do not have a pending non-asylum application or appeal when they turn 18?

Our amendments in this group are all small probing amendments. As I know that the Minister’s briefing will refer to them, I will mention simply three types of amendments. One refers to an “application … of a kind”. This phrase occurs in two places in government Amendment 234G. Does that application of a kind refer to the leave which is applied for? I think that it probably does, but I was not sure about that.

A couple of our amendments seek to replace “may” with “must”. I am beginning to think that I might seek a debate just on this issue; I think that most Members of the House would take part in it. These provisions are about making regulations. The Minister will no doubt tell me that they will be made and therefore I do not need to worry. However, I do worry about these things.

Amendment 234X concerns regulations to be taken into account in making a determination with regard to accommodation and subsistence in new paragraph 10A of Schedule 9 to the Bill. New sub-paragraph (7) states that the regulations may specify factors which the person who is to take the decision,

“may or must take into account in making a determination”.

I would like to take out the words “or must”. I find it a very curious thing to give discretion to somebody to make a determination and then have two categories of factors to be taken into account, some of which the person may take into account and some which he must take into account. If you are giving somebody the job of making a judgment, I do not think that the judgment should be fettered in this way. However, the main points have already been made by previous speakers.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

Given that response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment; I will move mine when the time comes.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am emulating the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in retreating to the Back Benches to intervene at this late stage. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government would consider further the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Amendment 163. The Minister did not quite address—again, I emulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—the point made by the noble Lord about the desirability or otherwise of dealing with the matter either through the CPS taking a view as to whether to prosecute or through sentencing. I hope that the Government will consider whether it might be better not to have a strict liability offence rather than leaving it to the CPS to consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute in a particular case.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, the strict liability nature of this offence is consistent with some similar driving offences. It is an offence, for example, to drive whilst disqualified or drive otherwise than in accordance with a licence, regardless of whether or not you realised that you were committing an offence. Therefore, we believe that that is consistent, but obviously, I will look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said and if need be I will respond in writing to her.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, you are more likely to know whether you are disqualified than whether there is a problem over leave to remain.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this relatively brief debate, and I thank the Minister for his response and for his willingness to look again at this issue of absolute liability with regard to this new offence prior to Report.

My feeling at the moment is that the Government want a defence to be available, but want it to be exercised through the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service through not prosecuting cases rather than putting it in the Bill. Of course, if the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service came to the conclusion that they did not think that there was a case for somebody to say that they believed that they had the appropriate status to be in this country and they were prosecuted, when it got to court the court would not have a chance to look at the grounds that had been put forward, because it would be an absolute offence and the individual would presumably be found guilty.

I hope that the noble Lord will look hard at this issue as to whether it is better for the courts to make the decisions on whether an individual has made a case that they genuinely believed they had the appropriate immigration status with regard to this offence. However, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments—in particular, where they deal with exemptions for children who cannot be expected to have large earnings and for victims of domestic violence. May I suggest to the Minister that he consults on this his noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns? After all, she has worldwide responsibilities for protecting women in particular but also, no doubt, children against violence, whether domestic or arising from wars and civil conflicts. It would be paradoxical for us to go to considerable lengths to get better worldwide protection while diminishing it or removing it from people here.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in these two amendments. They have been described as modest; I think they are remarkably modest in the light of the descriptions that we have heard. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that I would think twice about £640.

We are told that immigration fees are charged on the basis largely of cost recovery. Does this administration charge reflect the cost of administration? I find it quite interesting. It makes me wonder not only about the efficiency of it but that so much more is being paid for the administration than for the health service. When the proposals for a health surcharge were first mooted, there was a lot of debate about the dangers of either driving people underground or deterring people who have a right to a service from seeking it because they do not quite understand how it all works and fear that they might be prejudicing their own immigration status by seeking health advice and health treatment. My noble friend has raised immensely important points.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness just said what I would have said, so I add only one plea to the Minister: would he please explain the point of the regulations? We have discussed them before on previous immigration Bills and they keep coming back because they are so obviously unfair. We have to know whether they are intended as a deterrent, because if they are they will not have the slightest effect.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

178: Schedule 4, page 90, line 26, leave out “may” and insert “shall”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. They concern the provisions about bank accounts—the restrictions on bank accounts and, more particularly, the requirement for banks to make checks and the opportunities for the Secretary of State to apply for a freezing order prohibiting the use of the account.

I accept that all these provisions are to be reviewed within five years of the schedule coming fully into force. I am glad to see that in the Bill. We are often told that of course all legislation is routinely reviewed after three years so I do not know the significance of the five years or the particular significance of it coming “fully” into force. Is there some plan that perhaps the Minister can share with the Committee for the gradual implementation of the provisions?

Amendment 178 would provide that an exception shall—not may—make certain provisions. I assume that “may” in new Section 40D(4) is legislation speak for “shall” but as we so often say, if that is what it means, it would be nice if it said so, because the day will come when a court says, “Parliament knew what it was saying when it said ‘may’ not ‘shall’”, and that what we meant was that the matter was permissive not mandatory. Amendment 179 is to probe why the right of appeal is to be limited to a current order. That may relate to perhaps the major issue in this group: compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am glad to have confirmation that compensation falls within the phrase “incidental or consequential orders”: that was not how I read, or misread, the previous debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a really interesting point that was not fully answered. Unless there is a liability on the bank, we will not get to the point of considering whether individual directors have any liability. The Minister said that there would be no place for that in an immigration Bill; there is no place for a lot of the provisions in the Bill.

Overwhelmingly, I get the message: “We should not worry about it. Everything can be put right if it goes wrong, so there is no need for provision for compensation”. A different way of putting that is, “We won’t worry about it. Probably compensation would be appropriate only rarely, because things will be put right as soon as they go wrong, if they go wrong at all”.

But clearly we need to move on to other business so, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 178 withdrawn.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, this group of amendments indicates that the Government have accepted the view of this House, as expressed through the carrying of an amendment on Report, that when sentencing an offender for the offence of supplying or offering to supply a psychoactive substance, it should be regarded as a statutory aggravating factor if that offence took place on prison premises. The only change the Government have made is to replace the reference in the Lords amendment to “prison premises” with “custodial institution”, and we welcome the Government’s decision to accept the view of the House on this matter.

However, this group of amendments also provides for a new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution as opposed to the far more serious issue of supplying such substances, which is now already covered in the Bill. The new offence of possession will cover inmates, visitors and staff in prisons with, I think, the maximum penalty being two years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both. Thus, the only new power the new offence would give is the ability further to punish inmates and others in a prison for possessing psychoactive substances for their own use, as opposed to supplying them to others. Since those who run our prisons already have powers to discipline and punish inmates for possessing controlled psychoactive substances, I ask the Minister this: where has the late pressure come from to create this new offence, since the Government did not previously think it should be provided for in the Bill? Has the pressure come from those running our prisons, or from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman or the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who have both certainly expressed concern about the impact of psychoactive substances but neither of whom, as far as I am aware, has called for a new offence of possession? What they have argued is that better and more effective detection mechanisms need to be in place to detect psychoactive substances in our prisons, along with more frequent drug testing.

Is not the reality that, for those who possess psychoactive substances in the confines of our prisons, where the bullying and violence associated with the existence of such substances has already been identified by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the need is to regard this primarily as a health issue and to focus on education with an appropriate drug education and awareness strategy? What are the Government actually doing to combat possession of new psychoactive substances for personal use through these means, which are surely likely to be more effective, if the resources are provided, than the new offence proposed in this group of amendments? Is that not the support that those who run our prisons really need to address this issue, along with the resources to provide effective detection mechanisms and more regular drug testing? Are not those the resources that this Government have so far been failing to provide, as, in my opinion, the Minister implicitly acknowledged in his opening comments? What is the Government’s estimate of the reduction in the personal use of psychoactive substances in our prisons that will result from the creation of this new offence, and on the basis of what information was that estimate made?

Finally, will this new possession offence in prison for inmates, visitors and staff also apply to poppers? I ask this in view of the support there has been, including from the Commons Home Affairs Committee, for adding poppers to the list of exemptions to the ban on psychoactive substances because of the potential consequences of such a ban in this case. In the light of the decision by the Home Secretary to refer the issue of poppers for further consideration by expert bodies, do we really want to create a new possession offence in respect of a substance which is popular in some sections of the gay community, has been used recreationally in Britain for more than 30 years and has not so far been banned by any Government, given the likelihood that within the next few months a decision could be made as a result of expert consideration that it should continue to not be banned?

Having said that, and having made my points, I want to make it clear that we certainly do not intend to oppose the Commons government amendments creating the new offence of possession, but we want answers to the points that I have raised.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the situation described by the Minister is very serious and seems to lead directly to issues of prison reform—drugs being one of the considerations—but one would want to look at far wider causes than how concerns about prison manifest themselves in this issue. I wondered what ingenuity might be applied to introduce the issue of poppers, since it would be quite difficult to provide an amendment to the government amendments to deal with that, so I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on finding a way to introduce the subject.

We, of course, will not oppose these amendments, but I must say that we will now have possession of a controlled drug being an offence, possession of a new psychoactive substance not being an offence, but possession of a new psychoactive substance in prison being an offence. In our view, that is too muddled but, of course, at earlier stages of this Bill we were calling for a widespread health-based review of all drugs laws, so I am sure that the Minister will not be entirely surprised that I make that comment.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly endorse all that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said. One aspect of Amendment 9 that the Minister mentioned was that a number of improvements were being made in prisons to the detection of new psychoactive substances. I should like to refer particularly to a very powerful report published last month by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on the use of new psychoactive substances. He said:

“Drug misuse is a serious threat to the security of the prison system, the health of individual prisoners and the safety of prisoners and staff”,

but the new psychoactive substances are an even more serious offence and,

“are now the most serious threat to the safety and security of the prison system”.

Because dealing with the new psychoactive substances—searching for them and so on—was so patchy in the Prison Service, the Chief Inspector of Prisons recommended:

“The Prison Service should improve its response to current levels and types of drug misuse in prisons and ensure that its structures enable it to respond quickly and flexibly to the next trend”.

I will mention the next trend before I conclude. The chief inspector recommended:

“A national committee should be established, chaired by the Prisons Minister, with a membership of relevant operational experts from the public and private prison sectors, health services, law enforcement, substance misuse services and other relevant experts. The committee should be tasked to produce and publish an annual assessment of all aspects of drug use in prisons, based on all the available evidence and intelligence, and produce and keep under review a national prison drugs strategy”.

If that annual report was required, it would, of course, cover the possession mentioned in the amendment that we are discussing, but I am particularly concerned that, in briefing the cross-party group on criminal justice, drugs and alcohol that I chair, the chief inspector mentioned the next trend causing him and his inspectors even more worry, which was the introduction of powdered alcohol. Therefore, we must have a system in place that monitors trends as well as current practices. I ask the Minister: what is happening about the establishment of such a national committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I welcome these amendments very much, particularly the ones relating to research, a concern about which was shared on these Benches. I remember asking about veterinary research, as distinct from research relating to human medicine. There were some raised eyebrows at that point and I had better not pursue it now. But I assume that these provisions will enable research regarding the medicinal use of cannabis, about which we were particularly concerned and on which I moved an amendment. The possible limitation of research was one of the concerns underlying that amendment.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I hope I gave him enough notice of them. I am sorry that they came so late by email. Both relate to the definition of,

“a relevant ethics review body”.

The first is on the use of the term “individuals” in paragraph 4(b) of the proposed new schedule. I wondered whether that might suggest—clearly absurdly—that we were looking at research involving separate individuals rather than cohorts of people. When I looked at the Human Medicines Regulations, I realised that the term “human beings” was used and that seemed a rather more appropriate term, less likely to be interpreted in a different way.

My second concern is with regard to charities. We very much want to see wide research so we welcome this approach. I recognise that the regulation of charities has been the subject of some concern and some change recently, but we may not be altogether rid of—how can I put it?—dodgy charities. Is there any sort of loophole here that would enable a dodgy charity to have an ethics committee—it would probably be rather a dodgy ethics committee but, nevertheless, it would be one—that would allow less than appropriate research?

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I would like to pursue the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as well as touch on a broader aspect of the legislation. I am in the slightly odd position of having arrived in this place after the original debates in Committee, and I would like to make two points.

First, there is something I do not really understand—and I say this having been chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association. Pubs were created in 1751. This legislation is all or nothing. There is no allowance for things that might be sold in either a licensed premises or a regulated premises. There are many things in British life that are sold under such circumstances and I do not understand why we have to have an all-or-nothing approach to these substances. I understand the nature of the legislation but there are chemical circumstances under which people could define things and regulate them. If we have been doing something for 260 years, I think the Home Office might catch up. It is probably not its finest hour in terms of legislative process.

To follow up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, since the Government say—this is a change of position, although it was not a specific government amendment—that they will look at something, they could do one of two things. They could either adjust the timetable for the whole legislation and defer it slightly or rush through a consideration of something that is likely to be driven underground in the mean time. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether we are going to ban and then unban. What advice will be given to the police in the mean time? Are they to disregard the sale of illegal products or are they just not to prosecute? It really does not make sense. I suggest that we either adopt a position of regulating products or defer the introduction of this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

In a sense, my argument is about what alternative we have to this. The moment for putting something through now, in primary legislation, has passed. We have to allow this to take its course. Our concession was to say that we would undertake a review in consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Following the enactment of the Bill, and before the Summer Recess, we will consider whether there is evidence to support these claims. There is a question mark there and we believe that that research and consultation need to happen before we take any further action at this stage.

I see that the cavalry has arrived; I am, as ever, grateful my noble friend Lady Chisholm. To add to the list of exemptions requires the Home Secretary only to make regulations subject to affirmative procedure. To remove from the original list of exemptions would require further primary legislation. I think I have already said this, so I rest my case at that point and beg to move Amendments 2 to 4 in my name.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the point is well made and this is an almost insoluble dilemma. I entirely see the Government’s concern to have the overall legislation in place quickly. However, first, can the Minister give the House any news as to when this may come into effect? Secondly, with regard to the particular situation which has been described, this is by no means a solution, but has the Minister been advised as to the likely view of the judiciary—if that is not an improper question for a Minister to answer—in a situation where, by the time a charge comes to be heard by a court, an exemption has been made through regulations?

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.