Rwanda Treaty

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Friday 8th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The money is actually going to the ETIF, which is responsible for the economic growth and development of Rwanda. Investment so far has been focused on areas such as education, healthcare, agriculture, infrastructure and job creation. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord that none of it came from ODA.

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

My Lords, can I just ask about the deterrent aspect of this issue? By my calculations, more than 30,000 refugees are coming per year and so far we have heard today that something like 100 will be going back. Now, my maths is not wonderful, but that to me is less than 1%. Why does the Minister believe that will be a deterrent for anybody fleeing war or imprisonment? Following on from that, does the Minister not agree that in terms of value for money—I know that he is very much in favour of value for money—it would be a far more effective use of that money to help the poorest through the coming winter?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

In answer to the noble Baroness’s first question, I say that the deterrent effect is already working; arrivals this year are down by around 30%, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary noted the other day. As regards value for money, the point of this is to stop the boats. As I said in answer to my noble friend, hotel accommodation is costing the taxpayer £8 million a day. How is that value for money?

HM Passport Office: Backlogs

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know the answer to the question of why we did not encourage that. Obviously, we project numbers each year, but those numbers clearly did not transpire last year and we are now facing 9.5 million applications this year.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, so we will go on to the next business.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Henig (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord.

A previous speaker referred to the “fine but empty words” of the Queen’s Speech. I would rather describe it in the graphic language I heard a lot of when I lived in the north, as “All fur and no knickers.” Yes, we have headline-grabbing proposals—a British Bill of rights, a Brexit flexibilities Bill—but what are they actually going to achieve in practice, other than to bypass parliamentary scrutiny even more, as we have already heard, and further enhance executive power? One looks in vain for concrete measures to deal with the escalating cost of living, with the problems that people are actually grappling with in their daily lives—help for local communities. It is all headline stuff, and there is so much that the Government could and should be doing to address mounting threats and problems.

First, I turn to an issue high on the Government’s agenda: making our streets safer. I should in doing this draw the House’s attention to my interests as set out in the parliamentary register, and in particular to those relating to private security. For a decade and more, leaders across the private security industry have campaigned for licensing of companies as a major part of a strategy to drive up standards across the industry. This is a key issue for public safety; in the last 10 years, nearly 20,000 police officers have disappeared from our streets, and it is private security that has taken on more and more of the responsibility of policing public spaces and private venues. So it matters to all of us that security guards on the front line are properly trained, effectively deployed and supervised, and paid at least the national minimum wage.

Ministers in this House as long ago as 2015 assured us that regulation of private security companies was a priority. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, declared it to be something that they were committed to and said that it would happen early in the next Parliament. Really? I must have missed it. No, these were empty promises; no measures were actually introduced. Then five years ago the Manchester Arena bombing happened, along with other terrorist attacks—and once again we were promised urgent action. Thanks to the persistent campaigning of Figen Murray, the Government were pushed into consulting on the Protect duty—but it has taken five years. I saw no mention of a Protect Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but the Minister referred this morning to a draft Bill. Its introduction is long overdue, and I look forward to hearing more about its provisions. It is far more important to have a Protect Bill than to target peaceful protesters, but such a Bill will require extensive action. Probably around half a million or more premises and venues up and down the country will need to be risk assessed, and there will have to be regulation of companies carrying out safety recommendations to ensure adequate public protection. So I await with impatience further information about the proposals in the draft Bill.

I turn now to the fan-led review of football—because, again, we see the same pattern. We see headline proposals for establishing an independent regulator for football, but no actual Bill. There are a lot of issues raised in the Crouch report that the Government accept, such as on corporate misgovernance and incompetence, the need for fans to have input into decisions that affect them and their clubs, and also, of course, the importance of football clubs for local communities.

We know that without urgent action there will be more football clubs going into liquidation: more Oldhams, Burys and Macclesfields. What happens to local football clubs matters to local people. As times get tougher, people will live even more of their lives through their local football club. I know this as I have supported my local football club, Leicester City, for over 65 years, through thick and thin—interestingly, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place but who has supported them for more than 70 years. My point is that our football heritage matters to people, which is why the Government, through DCMS, should be taking urgent action to implement the sensible and pragmatic proposals of the Crouch review, not putting them off and instead pursuing the vindictive privatisation of Channel 4, which makes no sense either economically or culturally.

Finally, I turn to the pervasive issue of fraud. In this digital age, we are all at risk of internet, computer and mobile phone fraud. Not surprisingly, the number of victims of fraud across the country has rocketed; 40% of all crimes committed now are crimes of fraud. However, many people are so ashamed they have been taken for a ride that they do not tell anybody about it, so the crime is probably underreported. What are the Government proposing to do to tackle this epidemic of fraud? Not very much, it seems. There is a reluctance even to acknowledge fraud as a crime. When the Prime Minister declared recently that crime levels were going down, apparently he left out fraud cases, which seems rather surprising.

Your Lordships will be reassured to hear that a Lords Select Committee is now on the case. Under the dynamic leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, the Fraud Committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, is busy uncovering the true extent of the problem, and it will come up with a range of suggested measures to tackle it by the end of the year. I just hope that we are more successful in getting a positive commitment to urgent action from the Government than the members of the fan-led review of football. We need to do something to tackle fraud. Undoubtedly, this crime is going up and up and something needs to be done about it.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently in this debate. It is of great importance to some very beleaguered communities. I too note the widespread and authoritative emphasis on enabling local authorities to provide enough sites. I understand that the Minister is bound to follow the instruction to implement a manifesto commitment and stick to the disproportionality of Clause 63, but I think we need to strike a better balance. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such an amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 27 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely in the debate on Amendment 28. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

Amendment 28

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 2. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 2

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek once again to put parental alienation both in capitals and in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has again outlined her reasons for this. However, I do not hear any difference in objective from the amendments tabled in Committee. Those of us who oppose the amendments believe that adding parental alienation to the Bill is redundant because the alienating behaviours that she referred to are already caught in the definitions of coercive control. Further, the Government have agreed to add a phrase about alienating behaviours to the statutory guidance, which will sit alongside some of the other patterns of behaviour in domestic abuse.

As was mentioned in Committee, there are already problems in our family courts with one parent—often but absolutely not always the father of the child or children—alleging such behaviour. Unfortunately, as outlined in the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel report, fear of false allegations of parental alienation means that survivors and children of abusive and coercive relationships are suppressing evidence for fear that the charge of alienation will be made against them. Indeed, it is becoming such a worry in the family courts that even their solicitors are advising them against such evidence. There can be a history of abusive behaviour, especially coercive control, that is not presented formally to the family courts. This can include violence, restraining orders, criminal convictions and long-term patterns of such behaviour. Perpetrators of such fixated behaviour can often sound convincing and their ex-partners are often terrified of their behaviour, even in a court hearing.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and I went through some of the history of the development of parental alienation syndrome, which I will not repeat today, since we are now on Report, other than to say that there is evidence from the family courts of some abuse of a parental alienation defence. There are also some questions to be asked about the role of so-called experts in this area. Practice direction 25B, on the duties of an expert, the expert’s report and arrangements for an expert to attend court, is very clear on the requirements, including registration with a UK statutory body or having appropriate academic qualifications. The expert must also have completed the training. There are concerns from contested cases that some experts in this area might not have met this high bar, so I ask the Minister what checks there are to ensure that all expert witnesses meet practice direction 25B.

That is also why the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Marks have tabled Amendment 44. We need to ensure that the courts are aware of the implications of a whole range of behaviours, especially in some of these egregious cases where there might have been some controlling, abusive, coercive and even alienating behaviour. The definition of coercive control—after many years of campaigning by organisations such as Women’s Aid and others, it is thankfully now a crime—is

“an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten”

the victim. That seems to fit very well the definition that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has been seeking. I hope that, on this basis, she will withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Winston. No? We shall move on, then, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have supported this amendment on the basis that it shows what the general definitions reveal and include. I do not think that it will be necessary to pursue it, if we have a clear understanding that the sort of behaviour that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has described is covered by the phrase “controlling or coercive behaviour”.

There is another important definition that deals with children being used as weapons against their parents. It points out that activity towards a child may well be against the parent. Clause 1(5) says:

“For the purposes of this Act A’s behaviour may be behaviour ‘towards’ B despite the fact that it consists of conduct directed at another person (for example, B’s child).”


I am certain that there are a large number of cases in which one parent, using his or her relationship with the child, seeks to damage that child’s relationship with the other parent. It is a natural weaponising in a conflict, which is apt to come forward in this sort of fighting between parents. When they are antagonistic towards each other, they are apt to try to bring children to their side of the dispute, which strikes me as extremely dangerous.

I believe that the attempt to use one parent’s relationship to damage the children’s relationship with the other parent is an obnoxious type of controlling or coercive behaviour. I verily believe that, if allowed to persist until the end, you will get parental alienation, because the operation of trying to damage the child’s relationship with that parent ultimately succeeds. That is what alienation is: by that means, the child has been successfully cut off from the other parent’s company, love and support. As we show, the law as it stands includes that.

The reason for the amendment is to illustrate that that is so, simply to make it possible to have this debate on Report. There was a tremendous amount of debate in Committee suggesting that parental alienation should not be contemplated. Sadly, I fear that, if the conduct that we have described succeeds, it will continue to happen. The Bill already, properly, includes a definition that deals with the kind of behaviour that underlies attempts to alienate the other parent from their child.

I strongly believe that this broad definition should not be restricted. I felt that the addition of qualifications in other amendments restricted the wide definition presently in the Bill. That is important, because domestic abuse is a large area and the definition manages to encompass it with great success. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is to illustrate that the conduct in question is included in the definition. Once that is accepted, as I hope it will be, the amendment will not be unnecessary.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Meyer, who is right to highlight the protection of children. I acknowledge, empathise and sympathise with her terrible experience of parental abduction, which, as she said, led to her being alienated from her children for years. We know that domestic abuse has devastating consequences, not only for adult victims but for their children, which is why the Bill rightly recognises children as victims in their own right. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, this is very much part of the court proceeding, as has also just been articulately outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Some of the protections that have been outlined in the Bill, such as preventing cross-examination in courts, mitigate this in some ways.

I also agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in questioning the judicial training that must support the outcome of such proceedings, whatever it is. We know that child arrangement cases involving domestic abuse or allegations of abuse often include allegations of alienating behaviours, where one parent seeks to undermine or frustrate the other parent’s relationship with their children, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also outlined. These actions, as my noble friend highlights in her amendment, are often referred to as “parental alienation”.

My noble friend Lady Helic, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out how the term has so often been used to sidetrack from the issue of domestic abuse. She pointed out that the pro-contact culture of the courts quite often leads to the wrong decisions being made.

To answer my noble friend Lord Polak, there is no widely accepted definition, nor a commonly held framework, for parental alienation. Instead, views are wide-ranging: some focus on the parent’s behaviour, some focus on the child’s behaviour and others focus on the impact or outcome of the behaviour. For these and other reasons, I refer instead to “alienating behaviours”. That phrase is used in the guidance, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Bennett, point out. The guidance will be subject to consultation after Royal Assent. The beauty of the House of Lords is of course its scrutiny of Bills. To that end, we very much welcome views on how to deal with this issue.

Alienating behaviours can include a range of attitudes and actions. Some are subtle, such as drip-feeding negative views, while others are more obvious, such as deliberately flouting child arrangement orders. I am clear that these behaviours are wrong and problematic, but they are not limited to cases involving domestic abuse. They occur in the context of acrimonious separation and other high-conflict cases, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s wish to address these behaviours, but I submit that the definition in Clause 1 for the purposes of the Bill is not the right context in which to do so.

Alienating behaviours should be considered primarily in terms of the impact on the child. Most noble Lords referred to that and to the potential emotional and psychological harm to the child that can result, for example, from repeatedly hearing negative views about a parent or being prevented from spending time with a parent. From the perspective of risk of harm to the child, the relevant legal framework is provided for in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, together with the Section 31(9) definition of harm in that Act.

I accept that alienating behaviours can, in some circumstances, be indicators or manifestations that point to a wider pattern of psychological or emotional abuse. To be absolutely clear, I do not accept that alienating behaviours should be defined as domestic abuse in their own right. However, in circumstances where such behaviours are indicative of a wider pattern of emotional or psychological abuse, we can be confident that the Clause 1 definition already applies and renders the proposed amendment unnecessary.

Our approach in Clause 1 is to define domestic abuse by reference to different types of abusive behaviours and not by reference to the form in which those behaviours may be expressed or manifested. If we were to include within the Clause 1 definition a list of possible indicators under each type of abuse, we would risk appearing to give more weight to one form of behaviour and therefore creating a hierarchy of behaviours. Should a particular indicator or manifestation of psychological or emotional abuse not be listed, it may be deemed to be less serious or, worse, not a form of abuse at all.

The arena in which we can most effectively address alienating behaviours as potential indicators of a recognised type of domestic abuse is the statutory guidance under Clause 73, which has been published in draft. I have gone through how that will be consulted on. It has been created and continues to be edited in consultation with the sector. As I said earlier, we welcome further suggestions on how the guidance can be further strengthened, including in the area of alienating behaviours. Once the Bill is enacted, the Home Secretary will formally consult the domestic abuse commissioner and other key stakeholders before the guidance is promulgated.

I note the points by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Chisholm that the unintended consequences might be to swing the pendulum of this good Bill the other way. My noble friend Lady Newlove warns of parental alienation creating a loophole in which to perpetrate abuse. I give the final word to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who warns that, if these amendments are accepted, victims might be painted as abusers.

I hope that, in the light of this explanation and our commitment to address alienating behaviours in the statutory guidance, my noble friend Lady Meyer can withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 3

Moved by

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Were the Scottish Government to not recommend consent, then, respecting the Sewel convention, the Government would seek to table amendments at Third Reading which carve out authorisations for devolved purposes in Scotland, and would not move government amendments on Report where they relate to devolved matters. I would appreciate noble Lords adopting a similar position in this scenario, if their amendments relate specifically to RIP(S)A. I have already discussed this matter with the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy. However, I undertake to write to all noble Lords before the debate on Wednesday outlining the final position, any reasons for the decision and any operational impact that it might have.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister and to ask a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, with regard to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the Minister said that the Bill does not “in practice”—I stress those words—interfere with its operation. Can she confirm that it does not interfere with the scheme either in law, as distinct from practice, or as the scheme is currently drawn; in other words, should we regard the term “in practice” as limiting the scope for application to it, which noble Lords have made clear is something that concerns us?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 5. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 5

Moved by

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

I understand noble Lords’ concerns and look forward to further discussions with them to consider before Report whether there are ways to provide, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, additional reassurance and safeguards, as well as provide assurance about some of the safeguards that are in place.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. We will start with the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her very full reply. I asked whether the approach of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich in 2016 to the scrutiny of the Investigatory Powers Act, as it went through both Houses, might not be a model to follow. In our meeting last week, the Minister discussed with myself and those of us who are sceptical about the use of child CHIS for evidence the requirement for this. To convince us, she was kind enough to indicate that the 17 cases that we know of through IPCO produced a result that was deemed, in the balance of all things, positive and justified the use of those cases. In the absence of that sort of evidence, those of us whose primary concern is the best interests of the child are understandably very cautious and a little sceptical. We are willing to be convinced but we need the evidence to be convinced, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we must finish at 8.45 pm but the next group has only five speakers, so if noble Lords are willing to keep their comments brisk and brief then we may just be able to finish it before we have to adjourn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We come now to Amendment 49. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.

Amendment 49

Moved by

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Henig Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the technical hitch; it is the first time that the voting system has let us down. I am afraid that it is not going to be fixed today. We have talked to the clerks and the usual channels, who have shown great flexibility, and I think noble Lords will be amazed at the speed at which we are altering procedures. We intend to carry on with the debate outlined in today’s list. As usual, movers or Front-Benchers must give notice of whether Members wish to vote or wish to withdraw their amendments in the normal way. Then we will have a deferred Division on the amendment at some time in the future if the mover or Front-Bencher indicates that they want a Division. That will probably be on Monday 5 October, the second day of Report. That will allow the House to continue its scrutiny and also, where necessary, to test the opinion of the House, albeit later.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Division on Amendment 3 has been deferred, so I now call Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. As we have just heard, anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division—which I should emphasise will not take place today—should make this clear in the debate.

Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision

Amendment 4

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for the return of this amendment, on which we had an interesting and mixed debate in Committee; it has been no different on Report.

As I outlined in our previous debate on this matter, this amendment would have the effect of reintroducing into regulations a resident labour market test for EEA and Swiss nationals and reversing a government decision to abolish this test under the UK’s new points-based immigration system. I have to say to noble Lords that the Government did not take this decision lightly or indeed in isolation. On the face of it, it sounds absolutely fair and sensible to require a job to be advertised in the UK for 28 days to establish whether there is anyone suitable in the domestic labour market before the job can be offered to an overseas migrant. However, we should be imposing a resident labour market test only if we think it would genuinely offer extra protection to resident workers and, in turn, support UK employers and organisations to access the skills and talents they need. The Government do not think that is the case. Not only does it add a burden on business and considerably slow down the process of recruiting a skilled migrant, without any guarantee of a vacancy being filled from the resident workforce, but it does so at a time when we are seeking to streamline and simplify the system and give UK employers and organisations the certainty they need.

My noble friend Lord Lilley—I am glad he is in the Chamber—rightly drew our attention in Committee to his experience of visiting Nissan, highlighting its enthusiasm and drive for training and retaining people in the UK. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that this is something to be celebrated and encouraged. Indeed, it fits with the Government’s clear assertion that immigration must be considered alongside investment in and development of the UK’s resident labour force.

However, I recognise the valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is not in the Chamber today, about the immigration system not being the way to enforce and encourage training of domestic workers. Where I would respectfully stray from her view is to say that while our immigration system should not be considered a silver bullet, it absolutely has its part to play in supporting businesses and ensuring that they invest in training to encourage staff retention. We must achieve a sensible balance.

That view and the decision to abolish the existing resident labour market test is not just a government opinion; it is based on the clear economic advice of the Migration Advisory Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Green, and others in this House are correct in saying that the MAC’s expertise is focused on economics, but one strength of the MAC is that it does not represent any one sector or industry. The MAC is well used to running large-scale consultations and assimilates evidence from many employers, businesses and sectors to produce carefully considered conclusions that apply to the best interests of the whole of the UK. This is exactly what the MAC did in reaching its findings and recommendations in its September 2018 report. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Green, made about the MAC’s view on the salary threshold at the time.

The decision to abolish the resident labour market test was not simply a U-turn undertaken given pressure from businesses. I highlighted this during our debate on this subject in Committee, but it is worth reasserting what the MAC said given the concerns of many Peers—which I and the Government share—around the uncertainty that many UK workers will face as a result of the current pandemic.

In addition to the economic arguments, as part of its September 2018 report the MAC said:

“We do think it important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers. The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge and not the RLMT.”


The Government agree, and that is why we are maintaining a firm requirement in the new points-based system for migrants who come under the skilled worker route to be paid a salary which does not undercut domestic workers.

We are also retaining the immigration skills charge. The requirement to pay that charge—alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the proceeds of which contribute directly to the UK skills budget, helps ensure that employers are unlikely to employ a migrant when there is someone more suitable to undertake the role within the domestic labour force. Given the expansion of the skills threshold and the fact that UK employers will no longer be able to rely on recruiting EEA citizens coming to the UK under free movement, we consider it very likely that the charge will create an appropriate barrier and will result in businesses thinking twice before looking immediately to the overseas labour force.

On the basis that we are maintaining robust protection for resident workers, and because the key expert advisers have said that we should not apply a resident labour market test, which echoes views heard by the Government from extensive engagement with stakeholders across the UK, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

There are no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover of the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. This is not the time to counter anything that she might have said, but I fear that the Government may come to regret their reliance on a group of economists, however capable they certainly are. For example, she made no mention of the concept of fairness. I think that most of us who have dealt with employees of any kind understand the overriding need for people in charge to be fair. Therefore, I was amazed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, care so little, it would seem, about the genuine concerns of what I like to call real working people.

I will leave it at that, except to thank the other noble Lords who spoke with most effective support for our proposals. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 8

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 9 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 10. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 10

Moved by