Net Migration

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will introduce a new, points-based immigration system, and of course we will have the immigration and social security co-ordination Bill later this year. Noble Lords will know that reviewing legislation, having introduced it, will be at the top of the Government’s mind when they look at their overall priority of bringing the numbers down.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, what assessment has been made on provision of care if net migration is reduced? There is real concern in the care sector, as well as in the health sector, that it could cause problems if the noble Lord’s aim of reducing net migration were achieved in that sector.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is fair to say that the Government want to import the skills needed for the gaps in the market. We are looking to reduce low-skilled migration overall but will introduce a points-based system focused on skills and talents. That combination will mean that overall numbers will come down, I hope.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could agree with that, but I give the noble Lord the example of Wythenshawe in Greater Manchester, which has the largest council housing estate in Europe. It had one intervention, to bring the tram through it. The houses are still not worth very much, but in percentage terms they have had the greatest increase in value in Greater Manchester. That is an example of where strategic intervention really helps places to grow without particular legislation. Like everyone else, I look forward to the White Paper and contributing to it. As the Prime Minister said in Rotherham recently, we are going to do devolution properly: I know my noble friend Lord Heseltine will have great hope. We are going to maximise the power of the north, with more mayors across the whole of the north.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised Yorkshire. The Prime Minister also welcomed the establishment of a Yorkshire committee as a practical step facilitating greater collaboration on a Yorkshire-wide basis. I echo that and the bespoke ongoing discussions across Yorkshire to ensure the most appropriate arrangements. I have the scars on my back from some of the earlier discussions in Yorkshire. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Heseltine talked about the shared prosperity fund. We recognise the importance of reassuring local areas on the future of local growth funding once we have left the EU and providing clarity on the SPF. We will consult on the fund, alongside the White Paper, so that people have an opportunity to contribute their views on its design and priorities.

There is a lot of support in your Lordships’ House for the Domestic Abuse Bill. It came first from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but I think most noble Lords mentioned it. One thing he brought up—and I look forward to discussing it with noble Lords—was GPs charging fees to victims for providing a letter evidencing abuse. I did not know that that was the situation; I am really appalled to hear about it and I can advise him that the department of health is working with a range of other departments and agencies, including the Ministry of Justice and the British Medical Association, to assess the scale of the problem and find out how many GPs currently charge for this service and how much. Gathering the evidence is the first necessary step, but I deplore the fact that it is going on.

On equalities, my noble friend Lord Bourne talked about the Race Disparity Audit. He knows that it is to drive change by publishing authoritative data and analysis about ethnic disparities, differences of treatment or outcome affecting people of different ethnicities. The website “Ethnicity facts and figures” now covers 176 different topics across education, healthcare, criminal justice and the economy. The Government are committed to acting on the data provided. He also talked about Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. At that hate crime service there was a commemoration of a boy in Liverpool who was killed because he was a Traveller. He is absolutely right that the Race Disparity Audit shows that people from Irish Traveller and Gypsy Roma groups have the highest rates of temporary and permanent exclusions. In response, the Government commissioned the Timpson Review of School Exclusion, published earlier this year. The report stressed action to ensure that permanent exclusions are only used as a last resort, and made 30 recommendations which are currently being considered.

The noble Lord also talked about the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the APPG definition would create practical and legal challenges. It is absolutely vital that we get it right and that any definition reflects the experiences of those who have experienced anti-Muslim hatred. That is why we are appointing advisers to lead a review on the definition of Islamophobia. As he knows, the first of the advisers, Imam Qari Asim, was appointed on 23 July.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the reform of the adult social care system. We have given government access to £1.5 billion of additional funding for adult and children’s social care next year, and we will set out proposals to fix the crisis in social care in due course. I am sorry to say that there is no consensus on the best way to reform the system, but we need to get it right. I am afraid I cannot commit to a timeline at this point.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering talked about the Hague convention. We are committed to continued co-operation with the EU in cross-border, civil and family cases after Brexit. In particular, we are keen to ensure that there are clear rules on which court should hear a cross-border case and that UK legal decisions can be recognised and enforced in the EU. We will work with our European partners to establish the exact nature of a future agreement.

On policing, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, gave his support, and I am pleased that other Peers also welcomed the commitment to policing through the recruitment of an additional 20,000 officers over the next three years. We are also committed to wider support and protection as part of the police covenant, which I was pleased to hear the noble Lord welcome. The Home Secretary has made it clear that she will give the police the tools they need, as evidenced by the recent pledge of £10 million to equip police officers with Tasers.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the recruitment of BME officers in the 20,000 uplift. There has never been a more important time to ensure that we increase the diversity of people joining the police so that the police look like the diverse community they serve. Of course, we want to attract talent from the widest possible pool. As of March this year, we have the highest proportion of BME and female officers since records began. There is further to go, but this is a promising step towards reflecting the community that the police serve. Work by police forces is already under way to ensure that they have a more representative workforce than ever before.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about extending welfare mitigations to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not have the power to instruct the Northern Ireland Civil Service; I am afraid that any legislation to extend welfare mitigations would have to be for a restored Executive.

She also talked about breakfast club funding; the Government are investing up to £26 million in the breakfast club programme, using funds from the soft drinks and industry levy revenues. The contract was awarded to Family Action in March 2018 and will run until March 2020. Family Action, in partnership with Magic Breakfast, have both been named as the leading charities responsible for running the breakfast club programme. Family Action is distributing the appropriate funding to participating schools that meet the eligibility criteria. The noble Baroness shakes her head.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene, but my question was: what will happen after March 2020? The evidence from the charities was that it is very successful but they are anxious about what will happen.

Asylum Seekers: Employment

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not doubt that asylum seekers have a range of skills; just because they are asylum seekers, it does not mean they do not possess skills. But it is important to distinguish those who need protection from those who want to work and not to blur the two.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, surely it is in the interests of the economy, as well as those seeking asylum, to enable them to work. All the evidence, from other countries and here, suggests that is important to their mental health and future integration. It is supported by the general public and a majority of the senior managers who were recently surveyed on this.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with what most of what the noble Baroness says. Asylum seekers can do voluntary work, which would certainly improve their mental well-being, but I disagree about the benefit to the economy.

Immigration: Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on children of the no recourse to public funds immigration condition.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government work with local authorities to support families with children who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. The condition applies to migrants with no leave to remain or those here on a temporary basis. They include skilled workers and their families where the minimum income threshold for a visa is normally £30,000. Those granted leave on the basis of family life may apply to have the condition lifted to avoid destitution.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the answer there was that no assessment has been made. “It’s just like living a life without being alive”, is how one girl described the impact of this immigration rule, which denies access to most benefits, free school meals and social housing. In view of the growing evidence of the hunger, homelessness and emotional pain that it is causing children, and the ineffectiveness of central and local authority safeguards, why are the Government not monitoring the rule’s impact and doing more to protect children according to their obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to give primary consideration to the best interests of children?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness will know that the no recourse to public funds condition has been set by successive Governments—it is not new. There are obviously exceptions for refugees relating to humanitarian protection and there are certainly discretionary leave cases. We also recognise the need for exceptions where the right to family or private life is involved under the Immigration Rules. We therefore allow for applicants to seek leave on family life grounds or to request that the no recourse to public funds provision is lifted or not imposed at all. Local authorities have seen real-terms increases and will do so up to the spending review. They should be well placed in addition to the extra £410 million allocated to them in 2019-20 to invest in adult and children’s social care services.

British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in this day and age, I think that we can all agree that the law should not discriminate against people simply because their parents were not married when they were born or discriminate against people just because it was their mother who was British and not their father.

The draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order seeks to remove discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981 for those applying for British citizenship under specific routes introduced to address historic discrimination against those whose parents were not married. The draft order was first laid in Parliament in March 2018.

This means that, once the law is changed, those seeking to register as British citizens who were born to an unmarried British father before July 2006 or to a British mother before 1983 no longer need to demonstrate that they are of good character where it would be discriminatory to require them to do so.

In two separate cases, the courts declared the good character requirement unlawful and made a declaration of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The legislation will correct incompatibilities identified by the domestic courts by removing the good character requirement for those applying for British citizenship in certain routes on the basis of historic discrimination. I am grateful to the JCHR for its scrutiny of the order and its careful consideration of a hugely complex and sensitive issue.

The remedial order process to correct incompatibilities in primary legislation with the European Convention on Human Rights is rarely used. It is therefore right that each order is scrutinised carefully to ensure both compliance with the procedure laid down in the Human Rights Act 1998 and to ensure that incompatibilities found by the courts are addressed.

The Government welcome the committee’s recommendation that this order be approved today. However, it remains our position that the wider nationality issues raised by the committee go beyond the judiciary’s incompatibility rulings and are therefore outwith the scope of the order. I commend the order to the House and beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to use this opportunity to raise three burning injustices addressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the order. The first two concern children who have to register their citizenship entitlement because of their parents’ status. The third concerns the denial of citizenship to the offspring of fathers from British Overseas Territories who were not married to their mothers.

First, I and others in both Houses have many times raised the question of the level of fees charged to children who were born or who have spent most of their lives here, who are entitled to British citizenship but who have to register their entitlement because of their parents’ status. The fee is £1,012, of which only £372 represents the administrative cost of processing registration. Ministers bristle when the rest is referred to as profit, but profit it is even though it is ploughed back into the system to subsidise totally separate Home Office immigration functions.

The JCHR spells out what this means, stating that,

“children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and children in local authority care who are less likely to be able to afford the fees are more likely to be disadvantaged by the fee level impeding their ability to register as British nationals”.

The committee echoes the concerns raised by the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member. It concludes:

“Home Office fees for children who have a right to be British should be proportionate to the service being offered and should be priced at a rate that is accessible for children accessing their rights. This is not the case at the moment since fees for children are three times more than the cost of the service—four-figure fees merely to register an existing right to be British are unacceptable. Disproportionately high fees should not exclude children from more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds from accessing their rights”.


I shall not rehearse all the arguments again other than to remind the Minister that citizenship matters, not just for practical reasons such as access to higher education but for reasons of belonging, identity and security.

I find it depressing that despite the Home Secretary’s admission more than a year ago that the fee represents a “huge amount” and that he should look at it, despite concerns raised repeatedly in both Houses and despite the chief inspector’s critical report, nothing has happened other than that the fee was not raised this year. It is not good enough that we continue to be fobbed off with vague assurances that the matter is “under consideration”. Will the Minister explain exactly what is meant by that? Is it active consideration? If it is, who is considering it and how, and when will the results be made public? If not, when will it be actively considered?

As if the exorbitant fees were not bad enough, these children are also subject to what is called the good character requirement. The JCHR report traces the history of this and how it was inappropriately extended to this group of children, who are entitled to British citizenship, wrongly referred to by a Minister at the time as “coming to the UK”. This is an example of how, time and again, the Home Office conflates and muddles up nationality law, which establishes who is entitled to British citizenship, and immigration law, which is quite separate. The JCHR, and those giving evidence to it, questioned the appropriateness of applying the test to children who were born in, or have grown up in, the UK. It again cites the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, which questioned the age—10—from which the test is applied. The JCHR concludes:

“It is inappropriate to apply the good character requirement to young children with a right to be British, where the United Kingdom is the only country they know and where they have grown up their whole lives here’.


The JCHR is also critical of how Ministers refer to “heinous” crimes in relation to the test, ignoring how it is applied also to cautions, minor offences and some forms of non-criminal behaviour. Indeed, it notes that half the children denied their right to British citizenship on good character grounds have not even received a criminal conviction, let alone been prosecuted for a “heinous crime”. It notes that the Home Office has updated the guidance in response to an earlier report by the chief inspector, to make clear the duty of,

“safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children’,

and to make,

“the ‘best interests’ of the child a primary consideration”.

However, in essence, the revised guidance does not address the concerns raised and the JCHR observes that it seems that,

“to date, the best interests of the child and child safeguarding obligations are not being adequately taken into consideration in Home Office decision-making”.

It reports that the Home Office has still been unable to explain or justify why the test is applied to children who know no other country and, in particular, to children as young as 10 so that the policy,

“is preventing children whose only real connection is with the UK from becoming British”,

contrary to what was originally intended. It calls on the Government to review the application of the test again in view of their,

“obligation to consider the best interests of the child when considering the impact on children with such a close connection to the UK”.

It also says that the Home Office has failed to explain why a child should be deprived of this important right merely on the basis of a police caution. Will the Minister now give an explanation of, and justification for, applying the test to these children, undertake to review its application, as called for by the JCHR, and, while carrying out the review and without further delay, undertake to limit its application to serious crimes so that minor offences are excluded?

I pay tribute to those who have campaigned relentlessly on these issues, in particular the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and give due notice to the Home Office that their champions in this and the other House do not intend to give up the fight. With a new Prime Minister, why not put an end to these two injustices and claim some credit for doing so? I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned on the final citizenship injustice I will raise, particularly one of its victims, Trent Miller, who has been writing to me about it ever since I acted as a humble foot soldier to the late and much missed Lord Avebury who went as far as the constraints of the Immigration Bill allowed on this issue during its passage in 2014.

The JCHR refers to the recommendation made in its previous report in 2018. It deemed it ‘unacceptable’ that acquisition of British nationality should depend on whether a person’s father or mother was a British Overseas Territories citizen and on whether or not their parents were married. It recommended urgent legislative action to remove this discrimination affecting those born before July 2006. The Government’s response was that they would undertake consultation with the overseas territories at a point when a suitable legislative vehicle was identified. The JCHR expresses dismay at this further delay. It also notes that the Explanatory Memorandum to the order explains that the legislatures of the overseas territories,

“have not been consulted since they have no competence in matters relating to nationality and citizenship”.

One might have thought that the Government would have known that before committing to such consultation. As it is, we seem to be back we where we started. The JCHR was unsurprisingly not impressed, and made it clear that:

“The Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should not wait to consult on this at some unspecified point in the future, but should take action to consult and actively seek to remedy this human rights violation as swiftly as possible, rather than proffer excuses for delay”.


In fact, according to a Written Answer I received on 10 May, it seems there has been “engagement” with the British Overseas Territories to,

“seek their views on possible future changes on the matter”,

and, once again, there are those weasel words:

“This matter is under consideration”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has lasted longer than it did in the other place. That does not surprise me, because your Lordships are so much more forensic.

Most noble Lords made similar points, the first of which was around the good character test for children. The good character requirement for British citizenship is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981 and applies to those seeking to register as British who are aged 10 and over at the time of application. This is because 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Children as young as 10 can and do commit very serious acts of criminality, such as murder and rape, and it cannot be right that such offences are disregarded when assessing a child’s suitability for citizenship. The Government do not believe that the good character requirement for children is at odds with the statutory obligation in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.

However, I wish to make clear—I think it was either the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, or the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who raised this issue—that having a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship is automatically refused, particularly in the case of minor offences attracting an out-of-court disposal: for example, a youth caution. Each case is considered on its individual merits, and guidance for caseworkers makes it clear where discretion can be exercised.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the issue of repeated fees—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Before we move off the good character test, while it is helpful to have that explanation, could the Minister explain how, according to the JCHR, half of the children denied their entitlement to British nationality on the grounds of good character have not even received a criminal conviction, let alone been prosecuted for the kind of dreadful crimes that she mentioned.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will write to the noble Baroness on that because if people have not even had a conviction or indeed been found guilty of any small crime, that would appear to contradict what I was saying.

All noble Lords asked about the fees for children. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, made the distinction between ILR and citizenship. That is absolutely right. Upon application for citizenship there is a fee, but citizenship is not an absolute right and acquisition is not automatic; it remains subject to an application being made and the fulfilment of statutory requirements such as taking an oath and making pledges at a citizenship ceremony in the case of adults, and the payment of fees. There are provisions for those who are destitute, including children living in local authority care, to be exempt from application fees in specific circumstances. This is clearly set out in guidance for caseworkers and the Government consider it sufficient to allow vulnerable children to access the services they need. Nevertheless, I am aware that this issue has been raised several times recently, both in this House and in the other place, as well as being the feature of the recent inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. Given the attention that this subject has attracted, the Government have agreed to keep the current position under review. Before the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, screams in frustration, I will keep the House updated on that. Clearly, we are about to go through a period of slight flux with a new Administration, a comprehensive spending review and a new Prime Minister, so I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for being a bit more vague on this occasion. I do not think she does, but it is as much as I can say at this time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the British Overseas Territories. The JCHR is concerned that the discriminatory provisions this remedial order seeks to remedy will still apply to British Overseas Territories citizens. Regrettably, that is true. When changes to nationality legislation were made, they were introduced at a very late stage in the parliamentary process and there was no time to consult fully with the territories about introducing similar provisions for the status of British Overseas Territories citizens. It would not have been right to introduce legislation that would affect the territories and potentially the status of those living there without that consultation. We recognise the difficulties that still are faced by those citizens who might want to pass on their citizenship to their children and we are actively considering how best to address those concerns, taking into account the opportunities for doing so.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the compatibility of the order with the ECHR. The draft order is compatible with human rights; we confirmed this in the Explanatory Memorandum that was relaid yesterday.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to interrupt again. I am slightly behind so I am a bit out of sync. I am very confused now because the Minister said it would not be right to make these changes without consulting the British Overseas Territories, but the Explanatory Memorandum says that British Overseas Territories have not been consulted since they have no competence in matters relating to nationality and citizenship. There is also the Written Answer to me saying that there has been engagement with them. If not now, could the Minister explain in a letter what exactly is the state of play in relation to the British Overseas Territories and whether it is possible to move this on, because it has been going on for a long time.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very valid point. I suspect the answer is that engagement is not the same as formal consultation, and we do not tend to do things to the overseas territories without consulting them formally. I will confirm that to her if I can. She is right that we need to remedy this sooner rather than later because there is a gap which needs to be sorted.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about a government response to the JCHR report. The Immigration Minister will today respond to the JCHR’s most recent recommendations and a copy will be laid in the Library.

Sustainable Development Goals

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that in her Written Statement on the VNR the Minister underlined that the goals apply to all people in all countries, including here in the UK, so there is a focus on the domestic in the review. It will perhaps not surprise noble Lords that that will be my focus as well.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Audit Committee identified a doughnut-shaped hole in domestic implementation of the SDGs despite the Government’s fine words, and I am afraid I do not think much has changed since then, the VNR notwithstanding. The committee used SDG 2—zero hunger—as a case study through which to examine the domestic focus. It concluded that the Government continue to see hunger and food insecurity as overseas issues, with DfID the only department to include them in its single departmental plan, and lamented the blind eye to UK hunger. It cited UNICEF data provided by the Food Foundation which indicates that a higher proportion of children live in severely food-insecure households than in any other EU nation. The UK Stakeholders for Sustainable Development rated the UK only amber or red on nutrition-related targets under SDG 2. While the decision to start measuring food insecurity is welcome, it must be only a first step.

Food insecurity is a helpful concept, but it can serve to sanitise the fact that in some cases we are talking about hunger. Let us not forget that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was ratified by the UK, places a duty on government to ensure the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. According to Human Rights Watch, the UK Government are failing in that duty, as its research revealed families of children going hungry in a country with ample resources to make sure that that does not happen. This is borne out by countless other studies.

A particular issue which integrates the domestic and global dimensions of the SDGs concerns migrant families with no recourse to public funds, which was debated yesterday evening. Children go hungry because they are excluded from free school meals because of the rule. Will the Minister undertake to take this up with relevant colleagues in the context of the SDGs?

The implications of hunger for children’s education has been brought home to us by numerous surveys of teachers noted in recent months in this House. Recently, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders reported a conversation he had had with a group of head teachers. When asked what was the biggest issue facing them, the answer was, “Hungry children … It’s shaming”.

The NVR document makes no mention of this shaming hunger. However, it cites investment in a national school breakfast programme as an example of action taken in the UK to deliver food security. This investment is welcome. I met recently with the leaders of the two organisations spearheading the programme and was impressed by what they have achieved in just a year. They are driven by the knowledge that “some children are too hungry to learn”.

In just a year the programme is delivering a nutritious breakfast to an estimated 280,000 children. The benefits reported by schools include improved behaviour, attendance and attainment. The Government’s contribution to the costs, at least half of which are met by schools themselves, is a mere £26 million over two years funded from the soft drinks industry levy, which raised £240 million in just one year. I challenge the Minister to come up with a more cost-effective programme to further the aims of SDG 2 domestically. Its leaders are sick with worry because the Government are refusing to give an assurance that the programme will continue beyond March next year.

A Parliamentary Question eventually elicited the response that,

“decisions about any funding beyond March 2020 will be taken as part of the upcoming Spending Review”.

However, who now knows when that will be, given the current uncertainties? In the meantime it is impossible for them to plan for the future, yet schools need to know what will happen for the new school year. Given that this comes within the purview of the SDGs, I urge the Minister to take this back to the Department for Education and seek an assurance that at the very least a year’s extension will be granted without further delay, leaving longer-term decisions for the spending review. Given that the Government’s contribution is a mere fraction of the soft drinks levy, there is no excuse not to do so.

As the UKSSD report notes,

“poverty and inequalities are major underlying factors in the nutrition targets of SDG2”.

I turn therefore now to SDG 1, “no poverty”. Here the UKSSD’s domestic scores are one green, three amber and one red. It concludes:

“Unless the UK takes a different tack, everyday life for its most financially challenged will continue to become more stressed and the prospect of achieving SDG1—conceived as a national indicator of income poverty—is a remote possibility”.


That is not exactly a vote of confidence. However, it tallies more with the evidence presented by the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, deemed “factually correct” by the lead official, than with the complacent picture painted in the VNR report.

Responsibility for SDG 1 lies with the DWP. According to the VNR report, each UK government department has embedded the goals in its single departmental plan; and each plan outlines how planned activity will support delivery of the goals. I therefore turn now to the DWP plan. The goals are so well embedded they are virtually invisible. There is not a single explicit reference to them in “our objectives”. Indeed, those objectives do not even mention tackling poverty, which I find extraordinary. There are no UK-wide poverty targets as one would expect if SDG 1.1 and 1.2 were genuinely integrated into the plan. The Scottish Government seem to be making a more serious effort to integrate the SDGs in their anti-poverty strategy and have retained the child poverty targets abandoned by the UK Government.

The plan reads as though it were drawn up without reference to the SDGs and then officials went through it, adding in parenthesis where they thought an action could be presented as contributing to them. That is not what I call embedded. Nor is there any evidence of a delivery strategy for SDG 1. The same is true of the DWP annual report, which makes but brief mention of its responsibility for SDG 1 and tells us nothing about progress in meeting it. In a recent analysis of domestic progress on SDG 1 in the journal Poverty, Fran Bennett observes that the contrast with DfID’s departmental plan,

“may suggest the Government is taking its external responsibilities relating to poverty more seriously than the equivalent domestic agenda”.

She notes:

“There has been some recent acknowledgement of the UK government’s less than stellar performance to date … especially target 1.2 relating to poverty at home”.


According to the VNR document, the International Development Secretary has overall leadership and policy oversight for the goals, with the Minister for Implementation in the Cabinet Office helping to ensure a co-ordinated cross-government approach to delivery. The Minister has acknowledged that more needs to be done on co-ordination. What co-ordination has there been between DfID/the Cabinet Office and individual departments in drawing up their single departmental plans? If the DWP’s plan, with its scant reference to the SDGs, has been deemed adequate to the task, does it not support the contention that the Government are not taking the domestic SDG agenda seriously and that the institutional mechanisms for pursuing that agenda need reviewing, as my noble friend Lord McConnell spelled out so clearly?

While target 1.2—reducing poverty in all its dimensions—is key for the UK, it would be wrong to assume that target 1.1 on eradicating extreme poverty is irrelevant. I have already spoken about hunger, which one might consider an indicator of extreme poverty, but more generally there is growing concern about destitution in our midst, to the extent that a Joseph Rowntree Foundation study developed a measure of destitution appropriate for a wealthy country such as the UK, and on that basis estimated that 1.5 million people, including 365,000 children, were destitute at some point during 2017. They could not afford to buy the bare essentials that we all need to eat, stay warm and dry and keep clean.

I fear the numbers will be even worse by now as the benefits freeze and other cuts have taken their toll, pushing many already in poverty further below the poverty line. There are particular concerns in this context about asylum seekers and newly recognised refugees, who are totally invisible in the VNR report, yet refugees have been identified by UN member states as a key group in pursuing the SDGs, as the International Rescue Committee pointed out. Will the Minister take note of the IRC’s call on the UK Government to support the inclusion of refugees in the political declaration at the upcoming high-level political forum? Will she ask colleagues to ensure that they specifically include them in their departmental plans?

Fran Bennett concludes:

“The potential of Goal 1 as a powerful instrument for driving forward positive and co-ordinated action to ensure that by 2030 in the UK extreme poverty (and destitution) (target 1.1) are eradicated, and poverty in all its dimensions (target 1.2) is cut by half, has certainly not been realised to date”.


So, when in his foreword to the VNR report the Secretary of State states,

“We are proud of what we have achieved but humbled by what we haven’t”,


I humbly suggest that the Government have little to be proud of when it comes to their domestic poverty agenda. Instead, the growing evidence of suffering as a consequence of the Government’s own actions—I reference in particular the recent study by the Church of England Child Poverty Action Group, of which I am honorary president, which details the devastating impact of the two-child limit on family life—suggests they are impeding rather than making significant strides towards the achievement of SDG 1 and related SDGs, as claimed by the Secretary of State.

Refugees

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent destitution among newly recognised refugees in the light of the British Red Cross Report Still an ordeal, published in December 2018.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are working on a number of important initiatives to ensure that refugees are able to access benefits and housing promptly, once their Home Office support ends. These include provision of a biometric residence permit with a national insurance number on it and arranging an appointment with their nearest Jobcentre if they confirm that they want assistance to make a benefit application.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been three years since this House was promised action to ensure that refugees have enough time to claim social security before their asylum support is stopped. The British Red Cross report shows that the actions mentioned by the noble Baroness have not solved the problem. The refugees surveyed who had claimed universal credit were left up to 72 days in destitution. Will the Minister therefore undertake, first, to publish the evaluation of the mitigating scheme, which was expected over a year ago, and, secondly, to meet with me and the British Red Cross to discuss the calls made for a long time by organisations on the ground to extend the moving-on period so as to end the ordeal and misery faced by this uniquely vulnerable group of people?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I acknowledge the report that the noble Baroness mentioned. There were something like 26 people interviewed, but that is not to dismiss it at all. I can confirm that the evaluation work that she mentioned on the impact of some of things that we are doing has been undertaken, and the results are to be shared with the Work and Pensions Select Committee and NGOs thereafter.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

When?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can only say “in due course” at the moment, but I am very happy to meet with her and the Red Cross.

Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, delivering a deal with the EU remains the Government’s priority. We are nevertheless preparing for a range of scenarios.

UK domestic law has given effect to our obligations in the fields of immigration, nationality and asylum arising from our membership of the European Union. The UK has also been subject to directly effective EU law. When we leave the EU, aspects of our legislation and retained direct EU law will fail to operate effectively. They will contain deficiencies if they are not modified or revoked by this instrument.

These regulations make changes to a range of domestic primary and secondary legislation to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in law arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. They ensure that our statute book operates on exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal until new legislation on these issues is commenced.

First, the instrument makes technical changes required to correct wording in our legislation that describes the UK in terms of our membership of the EU or European Economic Area. The changes do not alter the effect of the legislation. Similarly, it also makes technical amendments to domestic legislation that refer to EU rights that are retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Secondly, this instrument revokes relevant retained EU legislation relating to immigration. It also revokes a number of instruments which give effect to the UK’s membership of the EU asylum acquis and which will be inoperable on exit. This is because by leaving the EU, the UK also leaves the asylum acquis. The order therefore revokes the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation—that is where I got up to last time.

The instrument makes a number of transitional and saving provisions in relation to the measures being amended by it. This is so that the amendments do not have an inappropriate effect in respect of decisions or other action taken before their commencement.

Finally, this instrument applies the UK rules for criminality to EEA, Swiss and Turkish nationals; the amendment applies only to their conduct after exit. Our intention to apply the same rules to new arrivals, irrespective of the country from which they come, has already been announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

The Government believe that we must plan for every eventuality, including a no- deal scenario. Through introducing this instrument, they are taking practical steps to ensure that the UK statute book operates effectively on exit in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

This instrument will prevent deficiencies in immigration and asylum law arising from the UK leaving the EU. It ensures continuity until the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill allows the Government to introduce the new future borders and immigration system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states that the Home Office anticipates that loss of provisions of the Dublin regulations will have a minimal impact on how those seeking asylum in the UK are handled, yet the British Red Cross, which does invaluable work with asylum seekers in the UK, has raised real concerns in its briefing. I propose to raise just one—that which it says concerns it most.

As I understand it, the Government have committed only to maintaining the Dublin III regulation for unaccompanied children. Of course, that is welcome. However, it will leave many who are currently able to use Dublin III’s family reunion provisions excluded. In 2018, of 1,215 Dublin III arrivals, only 159 were unaccompanied children under Article 8, and 869 were wider family reunion cases under Article 9, which allows people who claim asylum in another Dublin member state to join a relative in the UK who has been granted protection. Will the Minister give a commitment that the Government will retain these Dublin protections in our domestic law post Brexit? I believe that this would require an amendment to our family reunion legislation. This would give substance to the Home Office’s assurance that loss of the Dublin provision will have minimal impact—or, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum,

“a small impact on net asylum transfers”.

If the 2018 pattern continues, we would otherwise be excluding more than 70% of Dublin III arrivals if this commitment is not given. Is this really what the Government intend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. By far the biggest area that noble Lords concentrated on was of course the Dublin regulation. The regulation contains rules to establish the criteria and the mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or stateless person and the legal framework for returning and accepting asylum seekers to and from the EU. As I said, the instrument ensures that the statute book will continue to function effectively in a no-deal scenario for asylum and provide transitional arrangements.

In the event of a no-deal scenario, retained EU law becomes deficient, and with respect to asylum, the regulations we use to repeal the Dublin regulation and other common European asylum system measures that we are part of—for example, Eurodac, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, and the European Asylum Support Office temporary protection directive—will reflect that we will no longer be part of the acquis. This SI ensures that the statute book will continue to function. However, should the UK leave without a deal, Dublin requests relating to family reunification still pending resolution will continue to be considered under the existing provisions, and that will apply to any take-charge requests that we have received before exit day.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked whether the Dublin regulation will apply in the event of no deal. I will give an example of the numbers we are talking about. Clearly, we will not be a participating state in the Dublin regulation. While this presents a challenge, it also presents in some ways an opportunity to seek new agreements with the EU on asylum which better reflect our position as a third country. Since 2016, we have accepted more Dublin transfers than we have returned to our EU partners. The latest statistics, published in March of this year, show that 209 people were returned to the EU 27 under Dublin in 2018, making up around 5% of the total asylum returns. The Government have committed under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to seek to negotiate an agreement with the EU that will permit unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to join family members. It would replicate a similar mechanism in the Dublin regulation which would allow children under 18 to join close family members where it is in their best interests.

On returning any individuals under other routes—I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about that—we will always seek to return those who do not require international protection or have the right to be here in accordance with domestic law. We will continue to make returns to countries where appropriate, and on a case-by-case basis.

Continued co-operation on migration issues is in the shared interests of the UK and the EU. We will work to secure a comprehensive returns agreement with the EU to replace our obligations under Dublin once we leave the EU. If unsuccessful, we will look to work bilaterally with EU member states to strengthen our relationships. For example, we will look to build and strengthen our reciprocal agreements with France as set out in the Sandhurst treaty.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about family reunification without Dublin, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. We strongly support the principle of family unity, and there are several routes by which families can be reunited safely. The UK’s family reunion policy is generous, and we continue to reunite refugees with their immediate family, including by granting over 26,000 family reunion visas over the last five years. We are considering the options to ensure effective co-operation on family reunification of asylum seekers after exit. Deal or no deal, Dublin requests relating to family reunification still pending resolution will continue to be considered under the existing provisions, and, as I said, this would apply to any take-charge requests that we received before exit day.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Before the Minister moves on, can I be clear that the Government will look at the broader family reunion position? Can she give us an assurance that the aim will be that there should not be any diminution of rights for family reunion that currently exist under Dublin III?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can give an absolute assurance to the noble Baroness that those obligations, which we take seriously and have done for decades, will continue to apply in giving people who need it asylum or refuge. That is why I just went through the various channels and resettlement schemes that we have engaged in. It does not diminish our will to give people who need it refuge and asylum in our country.

I shall move on, but I stay on Dublin. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who asked about any other international agreements affecting asylum that would be affected by Brexit.

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has oversight of all decisions taken on these children.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, do the assessments to which the noble Baroness referred include an assessment of the best interests of the child under the UN convention?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, it does.

Gender Equality and Rights in the Workplace

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

David and Steve must be listening. The noble Baroness really pinpoints how far we have to go, but at this point I must also talk about how far we have come. I think that way back in 2014 12% of board members were women; now, over 30% are women. The noble Baroness talks about women in leadership positions. Of course, leadership is provided by ensuring that women are on boards, but I think that at this point in time there are no male-only boards. That may be a small step but it is a step none the less.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the “proud record” but analysis by leading scholars from Manchester University shows that,

“far from being a pace setter in the area of European gender equality law, the UK has usually sought to stall, dilute or divert legal measures”.

Therefore, how can we have confidence that these rights will be real? As a minimum, can the Minister give us an assurance that we will implement the work-life balance directive currently under consideration by the European Union and, in particular, following on from the earlier question, introduce paid leave for carers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are sixth out of 28 in the EU’s equality index. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to talk about carers—they are the typical low-skilled, low-paid people who often cannot get out of that situation. The noble Baroness talked about another directive—we have implemented all relevant directives into UK law. In many ways, we have gone further with our gender pay gap and public sector equality duty.