Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

The Bill is a chance to make a real difference to how domestic abuse is understood and responded to. The amendment gives us the best chance of ensuring that the primary driver of awareness is accurate, reflecting the gendered nature of domestic abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the support that they need. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 185 in my name is a modest, simple amendment that would require the statutory guidance to take account of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy alongside the existing requirement that the guidance takes account of the fact that the majority of domestic abuse victims and survivors are female. The latter was introduced by the Government in response to criticisms of the non-gendered nature of the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse, which my noble friend has been talking about so ably. The amendment has the support of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, to which I am grateful for its work in this area and its support, as I am to noble Lords who have signed the amendment. It also has the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and of the commissioner-designate, who has welcomed the amendment as ensuring that efforts to prevent and address domestic abuse are linked to an integrated and co-ordinated response to VAWG.

The coalition gives numerous examples of how domestic abuse is often experienced in the context of other forms of violence so that the two cannot be neatly separated out, especially in the case of black and minoritised women. These include the one-third of rapes going through the criminal justice system that were carried out in the context of domestic violence; forced marriages, which may involve coercive family control and abuse, rape and domestic violence; migrant women who have suffered domestic abuse, coercive control, sexual violence and financial exploitation combined; and the abuse of disabled women and girls, which also often involves rape and sexual violence.

While I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Gale, I see my amendment very much as a bottom line. It goes a small way toward meeting the recommendation by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that

“there should be greater integration of policies on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls to reflect the realities of the experience of victims.”

As my noble friend pointed out, the Joint Committee made it clear that this did not mean excluding men, boys and non-binary people from domestic abuse protection. The Joint Committee suggested that:

“The legislation and practice in Wales provide useful lessons in this area.”


In their response, the Government agreed that

“it is vital to integrate policies on domestic abuse with wider VAWG issues, and our situation of domestic abuse policy within our VAWG Strategy demonstrates our recognition of the gendered nature of domestic abuse.”

In similar vein, as my noble friend observed, the 2020 report on progress toward ratification of the Istanbul convention placed the Domestic Abuse Bill firmly within the context of VAWG.

Yet it is now clear that the Government, far from integrating the two strategies, intend their revised VAWG strategy, on which they are currently consulting, to be separate from their domestic abuse strategy. This has caused consternation among women’s organisations and others working to end VAWG in all its forms. They see it as breaking a 10-year cross-party consensus around the need for an integrated approach to tackling domestic abuse and other forms of VAWG. That is rooted in an understanding of the reality of women’s experiences and of the kind of integrated services provided by specialist services, particularly those by and for black and minoritised women. They fear it will accelerate a shift to a more gender-neutral approach to domestic abuse and violence.

The separation also goes against the EHRC recommendation that there should be:

“A single new cross-government VAWG strategy that addresses VAWG in all its forms, recognising domestic abuse as a form of VAWG, and the value of specialist by and for services”.


Furthermore, it is arguably at odds with Article 7(1) of the Istanbul convention, which requires Governments to adopt

“comprehensive and co-ordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence covered by the scope of this Convention and offer a holistic response to violence against women.”

There is a clear consensus among those who work on the ground and other key organisations that this separation is a retrograde step. Ministers are well aware of the strength of feeling yet insist that they are right. Moreover, they have not even included this key change of policy in the consultation that they are currently conducting on the new VAWG strategy. Could the Minister explain why the Government are so sure that they are right that not only are they refusing to listen to key stakeholders but they have not even included this issue in the consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said could be the subject of a Question for Short Debate or even quite a long debate in your Lordships’ House, so complex is what he has just said so simply. By making reference to gender in the guidance but also having a gender-neutral definition, we recognise two things: first, that domestic abuse is mainly perpetrated against women, but taking into account that men, such the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who outlined his story so eloquently, can also be victims of domestic abuse. I said at the beginning of my speech that our aim is to protect and support all victims of domestic abuse, so I hope that what the Government have done, notwithstanding the legislation in the Commons, has struck that balance right.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I very much appreciate the Minister’s sensitive response to the amendment, but I asked her two questions and I do not think she really answered them. First, when all the stakeholders—all the people working in this area—think that it is a retrograde step to separate, even if they are complementary, domestic abuse and VAWG strategies, why do the Government think that they are right and everyone else is wrong?

My other question was why the Government think that separate strategies will be more effective than an integrated strategy, which could have separate strands within it? The Minister said that my amendment—or our amendment, because it is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, to whom I am very grateful—is not necessary, but she has not said anything that convinces me that there is an argument against including it in the draft guidance. It is not about just gender neutrality; it is about integration, coherence and a holistic strategy.

I do not know how much she can say now, but it suggests that we may have to come back with this in order to get a more plausible answer about why this should not go into the guidance alongside what has already been put in it by the Government on gender.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness says. She made a point about VAWG versus DA. Of course, domestic abuse is a type of violence against women and girls, although violence against women and girls goes far wider than domestic abuse. We are going to be bringing forward a domestic abuse strategy later this year. I can see the noble Baroness shaking her head, and I do not think I am going to convince her at this stage.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am very happy to have put my name to this amendment. I support entirely what the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has just said, so I will not weary the House at this time by repeating any of it.

Local welfare provision schemes are vital to the ability of the Domestic Abuse Bill to offer what is needed in local authority areas, particularly in emergency situations, but also more broadly. It is very important that local authorities have sufficient funding. Again and again during debates on the Bill we have listened to those who have said, quite rightly, that the Bill is a good Bill but, unless it has the money, it will not work. Again and again we get very good legislation, but it does not get implemented. The main reason for the failure to implement good legislation is the lack of funding. We absolutely must not find ourselves doing that with this very good Bill. I would only add to it to please, please include welfare provision for victims of domestic abuse and those who suffer from forced marriage or modern slavery.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 101, which in some ways follows on from my group of amendments on social security, debated last Wednesday.

If we had a decent social security system that provided genuine security to survivors of domestic abuse, including economic abuse, and still had a national emergency scheme like the Social Fund, we might not need local welfare assistance schemes. As it is, such schemes, which constitute the final safety net—leaving aside charitable support—are in a parlous state, despite the welcome injection of cash to help cope with the pandemic.

When local welfare assistance schemes were introduced to replace the national Social Fund, the Government refused to make them compulsory or to ring-fence the money allocated, despite your Lordships’ best efforts. It is no surprise, therefore, that when local authorities are strapped for cash because of years of cuts, research by the Children’s Society last year found that one in seven local authorities does not even run a scheme any more. It found that, of 121 authorities that provided spending data, about three-quarters spent less than half their allocated budget on local welfare assistance schemes. That budget has itself been cut, so that overall, it stands at less than half the money that was allocated to the Social Fund it replaced.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has pointed out, the lack of any regulation has given rise to our old friend the postcode lottery, which is particularly damaging to domestic abuse survivors who might find themselves excluded by local connection criteria if they have moved local authorities to escape their abuser. A woman might find herself excluded because she is subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule. It is essential that any guidance issued under this amendment, should it eventually pass, ensures that these groups are covered.

More generally, domestic abuse survivors need the security of knowing that they can get appropriate help from local authorities and not just help in kind which may well not be appropriate. It is not good enough that we have to rely on a charity to provide basic information on state local welfare assistance schemes because central government have taken the Pontius Pilate approach and washed their hands of all responsibility for the schemes, ignoring the recommendations of the Work and Pensions Committee in a previous Parliament.

Paul Maynard MP on the Government Back Benches is leading a cross-party call tomorrow in the Commons for a review of local welfare assistance schemes, supported by among others former Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith. Mr Maynard stated:

“We need to ensure we learn the lessons of the pandemic to embed a better provision of emergency support for some of the most vulnerable in our society.”

This amendment would at least require central government to exercise some responsibility towards this particularly vulnerable group of people and it therefore deserves support.

I also want to speak briefly in support of Amendment 176, leaving it to the sponsors of the amendment to make the case more fully. I am sure no one would dispute the importance of specialised domestic abuse provision for a range of minority groups, including particular provision by and for domestic abuse victims and survivors. It is just such provision which has been particularly vulnerable to funding cuts and changes in commissioning practises in recent years, as was discussed earlier. That is sufficient reason for supporting this amendment, but it would also go some way to redress the balance, following the welcome introduction in the Bill of a duty on local authorities to assess the need for accommodation-based services by ensuring the duty in this new clause covers community-based services. As important as accommodation-based services are—they are very important—the Justice Secretary noted at Second Reading debate in the House of Commons that 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in a refuge. Many of them will seek support from community-based services.

The Government say they need more evidence about the need for community-based services and that nothing can be done until the domestic abuse commissioner designate has completed her investigation. However, the domestic abuse commissioner herself and organisations on the ground insist there is ample evidence to make legislative provision now. What further evidence do the Government need?

In Committee in the Commons, the Minister assured MPs that

“the Government are committed to addressing”

Whatever the domestic abuse commissioner’s findings are,

“that the commissioner will publish her report under clause 8”,

and the Government are

“required to respond to it within 56 days.” ”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 11/6/20; col. 249.]

That is all well and good, but this Bill will be on the statue book by then. The chances of another Domestic Abuse Bill coming along in the near future must be slim—just look at how long it has taken us to get to this point on this Bill. I hope the Government will listen to the experts, the domestic abuse commissioner designate and organisations on the ground and extend the duty on local authorities to assess the need for community-based services and accept this amendment as a way of doing so.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 176 and 177, in my name, and I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Rosser, for their support. Amendment 176 is broad, and, to try to help the House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby will speak to non-discrimination and the need for specialist services; the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will speak on community-based services and how they support victims and provide perpetrator programmes; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will speak to the unintended consequences that the Bill risks having.

As I said last week, I am delighted that it is my Government who are putting forward this Bill, which has my strong support. I thank Barnardo’s and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others, for their help and advice.

At the outset, I welcome the announcement today of £40 million funding for community-based sexual violence and domestic abuse services. The Government have acknowledged the effect that the pandemic has had. This welcome government support only strengthens my argument that community-based services need long-term and sustainable funding. I hope the Government can solidify their good intentions by announcing that they will place community-based services on the same statutory footing as accommodation-based services.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was right just now. On 16 June last year, the domestic abuse commissioner designate wrote to the Domestic Abuse Bill Public Bill Committee in the other place to follow up on her oral evidence to it. I am happy to quote from her letter:

“As I said in my oral evidence, I strongly welcome the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s proposal to require Local Authorities to provide accommodation-based services, but it must go further. In order to address the breadth of domestic abuse services, the statutory duty must encompass those community-based services that are accessed by the majority of victims, survivors and their children, and must also include quality provision for perpetrators. I have very real concerns about Local Authorities redistributing their funding simply to meet the statutory duty, and therefore deprioritising those critical community-based services that can intervene earlier and prevent a survivor from being forced to flee to a refuge. There is already ample evidence to support this, and while my mapping work may well add to this evidence base, it is wholly unnecessary for Parliament to wait for it to complete before considering this issue.”


This is very clear. The commissioner designate acknowledges that the exercise will provide useful analysis of spending by local authorities on community-based services, but, crucially, she says that Parliament does not need to wait in legislating. She said this in June, and she has not changed her mind. This governmental concern about waiting is not shared by the commissioner and so many others, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to look at this again.

The other main concern has been the need to consult other public authorities. The new clause in Amendment 176 is structured so that it would improve service provision with immediate effect, with public bodies able to take into account relevant circumstances in deciding what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency. Taking new information into account, the nature of what constitutes “reasonable steps” and sufficiency will change accordingly as and when the outcome of any consultation or mapping exercise becomes available.

Many agencies are needed to tackle domestic abuse: among them are the police, housing, children’s services and the NHS. A multiagency approach is critical to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse are able to live and rebuild their lives free of abuse. The amendment brings these agencies together in a holistic approach.

The path to tackling domestic abuse is ensuring that all victims, adults or children, are able to access the support they require to recover from the trauma that they have experienced. For some victims, fleeing their home and seeking refuge in safe accommodation —a truly traumatic event in itself—may be their only option. Of course, this is no easy decision to arrive at: they may move miles away from their support networks and abandon their possessions and, sometimes, livelihoods, and their children may be taken out of their school—all for the pursuit of safety, while the perpetrator remains in the comfort of their own home.

For many victims, leaving home is just not an option: 70% of domestic abuse victims never set foot in safe accommodation, and it is clear that victims who are disabled, elderly, BAME or LGBTQ all face additional barriers to accessing safe accommodation—not to mention the vast number of child victims who are trapped. This is why I urge the Government to be bold and ensure that the Bill will help as many people in need as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Part 4 duty in the Bill does not preclude the provision of community-based services. I understand what the noble Lord is saying: because local authorities have the duty to provide accommodation-based services, that means they will not provide community-based services. However, I do not think it does. There is a recognition that we need to explore this further, hence we have committed the domestic abuse commissioner to doing this mapping exercise. That work clearly needs to be explored, but it is very hard to make a bid to the Treasury without knowing exactly where the gaps lie. That is not to say there are no gaps—I am sure there are— but we are just not clear on what the actual ask of the Treasury will be.

As to whether we can ensure that some of the money given to local authorities goes to community-based services, local authorities clearly know the needs of their area, and I hope that they would allocate the money accordingly.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister gave the arguments that were given when the Social Fund was replaced by local welfare assistance schemes. Can she explain how the one in seven local authorities that do not have a local welfare assistance scheme will assess and meet the needs of domestic abuse survivors through such schemes when they do not exist in their area?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

34: Clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Commissioner must publish a report under this section, which—(a) investigates the impact of Universal Credit single household payments on victims of domestic abuse; and (b) investigates and presents alternative options for the payment of Universal Credit (single household payments) that protect victims of domestic abuse.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a legal duty on the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to investigate the payment of Universal Credit separately to members of a couple and to lay a report to Parliament.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 34 would require the domestic abuse commissioner to investigate the payment of universal credit separately for members of a couple and to lay a report before Parliament. I will first speak to Amendment 153, which would require an impact assessment of any future social security reforms on domestic abuse victims, because this frames the other amendments in the group.

I am grateful to Women’s Aid, Refuge and the Chartered Institute of Housing for their help with the various amendments, which address issues they see as crucial. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have put their name to them, as well as to DWP Ministers for a helpful meeting this week.

At Second Reading, the Minister explained that one of the Bill’s objectives is

“to improve performance across local and national agencies.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 21.]

This reflects the Istanbul convention’s stipulation that measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence against women and girls should involve

“all relevant actors, such as government agencies”.

Pursuing a similar theme, the Work and Pensions Committee argued:

“Getting the right support and systems in place for Universal Credit claimants … could play a small, vital role in minimising harm”,


and that the DWP

“has a moral duty to ensure the benefit system does not in any way facilitate abuse.”

Yet the Bill does not mention social security, even though the draft guidance notes:

“DWP employees are highly likely to come into contact with victims of domestic abuse”,


and the response to the Joint Committee report acknowledged that

“access to money is one of the main barriers to ending an abusive relationship”.

Indeed, over 50% of survivors surveyed by Women’s Aid and the TUC said that they could not afford to leave their abuser as they faced a stark choice between safety and poverty, heightened during the pandemic. Research by Women’s Aid and others shows how while the social security system, as a vital safety net, can “keep some survivors going”, it can also create barriers and an additional source of stress in the aftermath of abuse.

The DWP is to be commended for certain easements and exemptions for domestic abuse victims and survivors, and for domestic abuse training of one point of contact in each office. But I understand that there are difficulties in retaining this knowledge and expertise in jobcentres because of staff turnover. Can the Minister follow up in writing with information about how widespread a problem this is and what provision exists to refresh training, and respond to Women’s Aid’s request for the future full training of all work coaches.

More fundamentally, the very welcome inclusion of economic abuse in the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse will be undermined by the cumulative impact of some of the Government’s own social security reforms, including the two-child limit and bedroom tax, as well as those that are covered by other amendments in this group. It is worth noting here that the European Court on Human Rights ruled last year that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminates against victims of domestic abuse who have a panic room as part of a sanctuary scheme. Women’s Aid has discovered from FoI responses from 79 local authorities that almost one in 20 households using the sanctuary scheme has been affected by the bedroom tax. Yet nothing has been done to rectify this. Can the Minister explain why, if necessary in writing?

When a similar amendment was tabled in the Commons, the Minister responded that the Government were already obliged to consider the impacts of their policies through existing equality assessments, in line with the public sector equality duty. But as a Women’s Budget Group report noted, DWP equality impact assessments are very limited from a gender perspective and do nothing to assess, for instance, the impact on who in a couple controls resources, on the financial security and autonomy each enjoys, or on the ability to escape an abusive relationship. Surely it makes sense to consider such key implications for the Government’s domestic abuse strategy at the design stage of social security policy.

The case is exemplified in particular by the subject of the lead amendment. The payment of UC into a single account, even if a joint account, has been described by one commentator as “a weapon for abusers”. It can encourage and exacerbate economic abuse, potentially with long-term consequences. No one is arguing that separate payments are a solution to economic abuse, as Ministers often suggest we are, in response to criticism of this policy. But, as the Economic Affairs Committee pointed out in its recent report on UC,

“the design of the single household payment can, in certain circumstances, exacerbate the risk that financial coercion may take place and make it more difficult for people who have suffered from any form of abuse to escape.”

The committee also points out that payment into a single account

“does not reflect reality for many families today, who are used to both partners having their own income … This is important both for reducing the risks of financial coercion and domestic abuse more widely and for encouraging more balanced and equal relationships.”

This last point addresses the Government’s argument that separate payments would be out of line with how most couples manage their finances. I point out that according to a Refuge and Co-op survey, as many as 16% self-reported experiencing economic abuse; this is equivalent to 9 million people.

The chief executive of SafeLives told the Commons committee that

“split payments are something that everyone across the whole sector is crying out for.”

That organisation knows from experience that the current policy of allowing domestic abuse victims to request a split payment simply does not work, not least because it puts victims at risk, because the abusing partner would immediately guess why they are not getting the full payment for the family, or could easily discover the reason. Indeed, the operational guidance acknowledges the risk.

From the Minister’s responses in Committee in the Commons, she did not seem to understand this. When asked:

“Can the Minister not see the problem with a woman going in and asking for a split payment, and then returning home that evening?”,


she responded:

“That is why we do not have it as a default.”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 376.]


But if a separate payment were the default, the abuser could not blame the abused because the couple would be treated like everyone else. The Joint Committee recommended nearly two years ago that the DWP,

“should examine how different approaches to splitting the Universal Credit single household payment might mitigate against the effects of domestic abuse.”

The most recent of a series of such recommendations from parliamentary committees and others comes from the Economic Affairs Committee, which, like others, suggests that any review could draw on work being undertaken in Scotland.

Welcome as the decision to encourage joint payment into the bank account of the main carer is, it is not seen as the answer by those on the ground and does not help those without children. The consensus is that a review is still needed—hence, this amendment, which would allow for an independent, focused review that could take a detailed look at the evidence on how joint payments are working and consider the options for separate payments, which I know raise complex issues.

I turn to the other amendments, which are examples of how policies that have had a wider damaging impact could be mitigated for domestic abuse survivors. This is not the place to make the wider case against these policies, much as I should like to, but a precedent for exempting this group from them already exists in the job search easement. I trust that that will not be used as an argument against these amendments.

Amendment 150 would exempt domestic abuse survivors from having to repay any benefit advance made to protect them from the effects of having to wait at least five weeks for a first UC payment. The Economic Affairs Committee observed that this wait

“is the primary cause of insecurity in universal credit. It entrenches debt, increases poverty and harms vulnerable groups disproportionately.”

While, as I said, the Bill cannot be a vehicle for introducing the general non-repayable grant recommended by the committee and others, including the Joint Committee, the particular vulnerability that domestic abuse survivors face at the point of claiming justifies their exemption from repaying the advance. Think about it. If I had just fled an abusive situation, I could well be traumatised and have minimal possessions with me, and may need to replace essential items. I could be one of the nearly three out of five survivors of economic abuse identified in Refuge research as already in debt because of the abuse—an average debt of over £3,000, and over a quarter with debts of over £5,000. I could be one of the three out of five survivors that Surviving Economic Abuse found had been subject to at least one coerced debt. The last thing I would want would be to add to that debt through a repayable grant, even though it is interest-free and despite the welcome improvements made to the repayment terms, which, I am afraid, do not solve the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will not go through all those who supported the amendments individually, but their contributions deepened the case that I made and brought a number of different, very helpful perspectives to it. I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate and look forward to his future contributions to our debates on these and related issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, did not support the amendments. I hope that she will not mind if I address what she said along with what the Minister said, because she made some of the same points. I am grateful to the Minister for her full and detailed response. I am not going to try and answer it all now: I need to read what she said in Hansard. Some of her points were ones that I and other noble Lords had already countered in our contributions, so I do not want to go over all of that.

I take the point about the domestic abuse commissioner, but my understanding is that she is sympathetic. I know that she is certainly very concerned about economic abuse and I understand that she is, in a sense, already undertaking an investigation on community-based services which will be relevant to a later amendment for the Government.

Both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, made a point about legacy benefits. The whole point of universal credit is that it puts all your eggs in one basket. With legacy benefits, one benefit might be going to the man in the household; another, probably the one for children, to the woman—child benefit still does usually. This is why this has become an issue now. It was not the same under legacy benefits, yet Ministers continue to trot this argument out as if legacy benefits were somehow the same: they were not. Putting everything into one basket in that way is one of the problems with universal credit.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock, other noble Lords and I made the point that it is simply too risky to ask for a split payment. It may be done in privacy but men—it usually is men—are not so stupid that they do not realise that if the benefit they are getting is suddenly halved, that may be the reason for it. Women are, of course, frightened to go back and face the consequences. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, refuge workers on the ground say that women are just too scared to ask for split payments: they are not an answer. I know that the best way of doing this is complex and that is why a review, which has to be independent, is the best way to deal with it.

I am glad that the Minister referred to training, but she did not actually answer my questions on it. I would be grateful if, when she writes following this debate, she answers my specific questions on that.

I will not try to go through everything else that has been said; as I say, I need to read the details. I am glad that the Home Office is having regular discussions with the DWP on these issues, but, while it may not be able to say this to us, the evidence must worry it that what is happening in the social security system is undermining its objectives for dealing with domestic abuse, particularly economic abuse. I hope that it will relay to the DWP the messages that came across from virtually everyone who spoke in today’s very good debate —because we owe it to women who are suffering, or survivors of, domestic abuse to provide a social security system that gives them genuine security. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the Bill and pay tribute to all who have contributed to it, including organisations on the ground, whose experience and expertise must inform our debates. But these organisations are very clear that if the Bill is fully to achieve its aims, the Government have to make good its key omissions.

First, as noted already, the Bill must address the needs of migrant women, in particular those denied assistance because of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. While I applaud the Government’s willingness to act on the criticisms of the draft prospectus for the support for migrant victims scheme, they should heed the consensus—including from the commissioner-designate—that we do not need additional information from a pilot. Therefore, the protection of migrant women and the non-discrimination principle, in accord with the Istanbul convention, should be written into the Bill.

Also important from the perspective of the convention is the failure to integrate the domestic abuse and VAWG strategies in recognition of domestic abuse’s gendered nature, as acknowledged by the Government in their response to the Joint Committee’s report. At the very least, the Bill should state explicitly that the statutory guidance must take account of the VAWG strategy. Failure to do so ignores the reality of women’s experiences and threatens further to undermine specialist service provision, especially those led by and for black and minoritised women, which take an integrated approach to domestic violence and other forms of violence again women. Support for specialist services also needs strengthening and the welcome duty to assess need for accommodation-based services has to be complemented by a similar duty on community services, otherwise they will suffer, as the commissioner-designate has warned.

The inclusion of economic abuse in the definition of domestic abuse is welcome, but the failure to reform existing legislation on coercive control means that the Bill does nothing to address post-separation abuse, which all too often means that economic abuse continues or even escalates post separation, with devastating effects on survivors. In the Commons, the Minister acknowledged that this is

“a particularly potent and cruel weapon”—[Official Report, Commons, Domestic Abuse Bill Committee, 17/6/20; col. 392.]

but deflected an amendment with reference to a review of the coercive control legislation due to be completed by early autumn. That was in June. Nearly seven months later there is no sign of the review, despite an assurance in a Written Answer that the intention was to publish it in time to inform our debates. Can the Minister explain why it has not been published and when we can expect it? We will want to pursue this further in Committee.

I also plan to pursue aspects of social security policy, such as the joint payment of universal credit, the repayment of advances made to mitigate the impact of the five-week or more wait and the benefit cap. As many organisations and parliamentary committees have warned, such policies can facilitate and aggravate economic abuse, thereby undermining the Government’s own laudable goals. Could the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the DWP to ensure that social security policy supports domestic abuse policy?

Finally, I welcome the inclusion of the provision from earlier legislation, on which the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and I worked, to protect the lifetime tenancies of domestic abuse survivors, but note the need for training of all local authority housing officials, and issues raised around joint tenancies and the Government’s homelessness amendment.

We have the opportunity to turn a good Bill, as far as it goes, into a truly great Bill. I hope we will seize it.

Migrant Women: Domestic Abuse

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect migrant women who have been subjected to domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds.

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

My Lords, it is essential that migrant victims of domestic abuse, including those with no recourse to public funds, are treated first and foremost as victims. Already, the destitution domestic violence concession provides emergency crisis support to protect victims on certain spousal visas. We are taking steps to provide further protection through the £1.5 million scheme to support migrant victims, and to assess and address shortfalls in the current provision.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, instead of listening to the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, organisations on the ground and the commissioner-designate, the Government’s review of migrant domestic abuse victims has produced a pilot widely condemned as unnecessary, totally inadequate and, despite what the Minister has just said, potentially discriminatory, because it subordinates abused women’s needs to their immigration status. Will the Government act on these concerns and rethink the pilot or, better still, enshrine in the Bill protection for abused migrant women and the Istanbul convention principle of non-discrimination, as is widely called for?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We listened very carefully to the Joint Committee’s recommendations. I will discuss with colleagues whether there is any discrimination inherent in the scheme. While it will be in force for only four months, we fully intend to roll it out far beyond March. I will keep the noble Baroness updated, and certainly take back her point about discrimination within the scheme.

Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to when the fees were last agreed. They were set out in Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014, during the coalition Government.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the “task and finish” exercise which she promised at Report stage of the immigration Bill will address the barriers to children registering their citizenship, as covered in my amendment, and that the outcome will be reported to your Lordships’ House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On Report, I promised to meet with noble Lords. I called it “task and finish”, but I am still thinking of the best way to set that up. And yes, I would like to report some of the findings of that discussion to your Lordships’ House.

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

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 24, which appears under my name, is one of a suite of amendments that I moved in Committee. I continue to stand by all of them, but in achieving a disappointing response from the Minister then, I have restricted myself to just one. I record now, as I did then, the role of Liberty in working on all of them. When I saw that no one else had brought forward a similar amendment, I felt that this issue had to be raised in any immigration Bill.

This amendment is about “no recourse to public funds”. It is something I find myself talking about so often that the phrase rolls off my tongue like poetry, but of course this is the stuff of nightmare, of personal desperation and great suffering. It is the situation of the victim of domestic violence facing the choice between homelessness and penury for herself and her children and the very real danger of being maimed or killed if she stays. It is the situation of the child going hungry, suffering the miserable, desperate pangs that prevent concentration or hope, when his peers get free school meals.

I assume there is no Member of your Lordships’ House who would deny the human right to life, but “no recourse to public funds” denies access to the most basic essentials. People are forced to rely on the fragile, overstretched resources of specialist charities, and people fall through the cracks of that hopelessly underresourced, fragile net of support.

I fear that in this Bill, the Minister and I are trapped on a merry-go-round. I believe I can foresee the response I am likely to receive: that this is discriminatory if applied only to people newly covered by immigration law, EU and EEA citizens, and not to everybody. At the risk of sounding like a recording, I want this to apply to everybody. The Government could and should end any application of the “no recourse to public funds” rule. In this amendment, I have tried to save as many as the rules of the Table Office will allow me. Saving some people from being penniless and homeless, from hunger and abuse, and perhaps from death, is better than saving none. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 24. In supporting it, I will not repeat the evidence I rehearsed in Committee showing the damaging impact of the “no recourse to public funds” condition on children denied free school meals, in particular—she mentioned that particular group. But I will draw attention to a national survey published since then by the Children’s Food Campaign and Food Active, which found that nine out of 10 parents agreed that eligibility for free school meals should apply regardless of immigration status.

I also want to return to some specific points I raised in Committee. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister for responding to my question about data in her letter. I hope the department will follow this up with the Children’s Society, to see how it might improve the data so as to provide a better indicator of the levels of hardship created and the demographics of the groups worst affected.

In Committee, the noble Baroness the Minister referred to what I said about the temporary extension of eligibility for free school meals to support families with NRPF. But she did not acknowledge the point I made that this was a partial concession covering only some NRPF families, nor that the concession has now been withdrawn. I asked what possible justification there could be for this, and I quoted from a letter from 60 organisations to the Education Secretary, which among other things noted that these children will face having to make up half a year of lost learning on empty stomachs. Could the noble Lord the Minister who is speaking today respond to that point now and, at the very least, commit to taking it up with colleagues in the Department for Education?

According to a briefing from the Children’s Society and others, the Government have indicated that there will be a full review of the free school meals system and that that is needed before the extension to NRPF families can be made permanent. But why? Why does it need a full review? Hunger cannot wait for a review. What is the scope and timetable of this review? If the Minister cannot answer that now, please could it be covered in a subsequent letter?

The Minister did not respond either in Committee or in her letter to a specific question that I posed, echoing the Work and Pensions Select Committee. I asked for a definitive clarification as to whether local welfare assistance funds counted as public funds for these purposes. They act as a kind of safety net below the safety net—a rather ragged safety net below the safety net—but if even those are not available, it makes life that much harder for this group. Again, if the Minister does not have the answer, could it please be covered in a subsequent letter?

The comprehensive improvement plan, published last week in response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, identified the NRPF as one of six primary streams in the compliant—aka hostile—environment. It is interesting that the Home Secretary, as far as I can see, did not refer to this rather important plan of the Home Office in her speech on Sunday at the Conservative Party conference. But in contrast to the plan’s emollient tone, while talking about compassion and so forth, we have learned in the media—and I know that the Minister will say that he cannot respond to leaks, but it did not seem like a leak; it seemed like it had been deliberately placed—that there is a push by Downing Street to

“radically beef up the hostile environment in 2021.”

If this is true, it makes a mockery of the review of the hostile/compliant environment detailed in the Home Office’s plan. Can the Minister provide a categorical denial that the intention is not to radically beef up the compliant/hostile environment, because that certainly was not what Wendy Williams was calling for?

I refer back to the exchange that I had in Committee with the Minister on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review—and I thank her for the offer of the meeting. It seems to me from the comprehensive improvement plan that the review of the hostile/compliant environment will not include questioning its legislative underpinnings. For instance, it will not question the right-to-rent legislation itself, but simply how it is being implemented. What if the review concludes that the legislation itself is not proportionate in meeting the Government’s stated aims, which is part of what Wendy Williams’s recommendations said it should be looking at? I would be very happy if the Minister responds to say that I have misinterpreted what the plan says, and that the terms of reference are that it is open to those reviewing the hostile/compliant environment to question the legislation, if that is where the evidence takes them. Surely—going back to my first point—the denial of free school meals to hungry children is not proportionate.

Asylum: British Overseas Territories and Ferries

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I think any noble Lord who listened to my right honourable friend yesterday will at least concede that humanity was at the heart of what she was saying. She was talking about a “firm and fair” immigration system, and about the people traffickers who exploit the most vulnerable. I can confirm that we will act in accordance with our international conventions, and I will not comment on the leaks.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have read the Home Secretary’s speech, but how do such ideas, which are widely condemned as inhumane and dehumanising, square with her stated ambition to build a

“more compassionate … Home Office that puts people first”?

Are asylum seekers not people with human rights who are entitled to be treated with dignity? According to the central recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, that should underpin all Home Office policy.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness will appreciate that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s words do not accord with many of the things that were leaked. She is absolutely committed, as the noble Baroness will have heard, to accepting all the recommendations in the Wendy Williams lessons learned report. We are working through those now and we want a humane, fair but firm immigration system.

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

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee I expressed dismay that in their negotiating proposals the Government seek to replace refugee children’s rights under Dublin III with a discretionary provision that provides vulnerable children with neither the certainty nor the security that they need. The Minister did not respond on that point and I would be grateful if she could do so today.

I also raised the question of when the Government plan to restart the resettlement programme, paused because of Brexit. Although she justifiably made much of Britain’s record on resettlement, she did not answer the question, which was also raised in the Private Notice Question by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Last Monday in the Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained that,

“as soon as we are safely and properly able to resume activity, we will do so.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/9/20; col. 10.]

Can the Minister tell us what criteria will be used to decide when it is safe and proper to do so? I am not sure that she answered precisely the right reverend Prelate when he asked a similar question on the PNQ.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

16: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the rights to British citizenship of relevant persons.(2) The report under subsection (1) must provide—(a) an assessment of the level of awareness among relevant persons of their rights to British citizenship (“the level of awareness”) including the reasons for any lack of awareness among such persons;(b) an assessment of the level of exercise by relevant persons of their rights to British citizenship (“the level of exercise”) including the reasons for any failure to exercise these rights by such persons;(c) an assessment of the impact upon either the level of awareness or the level of exercise of each of the following—(i) any fee imposed by the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of rights to British citizenship;(ii) the requirement of good character under section 41A of the British Nationality Act 1981 for registration as a British citizen;(iii) any guidance or policy of the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of rights to British citizenship;(iv) the practice of the Secretary of State in relation to data held by or accessible to the Secretary of State that may confirm a person’s rights to British citizenship;(v) the availability of legal aid in relation to rights to British citizenship;(vi) the capacity or willingness of parents to assist relevant persons to exercise their rights to British citizenship;(vii) the practice of local authorities in relation to rights to British citizenship; and(viii) the practice of the family courts in relation to rights to British citizenship.(3) The assessments required by subsection (2) must include—(a) consideration of the circumstances of relevant persons who share a relevant protected characteristic for the purposes of section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; and(b) comparison of the circumstances of relevant persons with other persons having the same rights to British citizenship.(4) In making the assessments required under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, which shall include children and young persons with rights to British citizenship and organisations with expertise and experience in assisting and representing those children and young persons in connection with those rights.(5) The report under subsection (1) shall include specific consideration of each of the following groups of relevant persons—(a) children and young persons who are or have been a looked after child;(b) children and young persons who are or have been in the criminal justice system;(c) children and young people who are or have been the subject of a mental health assessment or mental health order;(d) children who are not living in a household with two parents;(e) children and young persons in poverty; and(f) children and young persons who are victims of domestic abuse.(6) For the purposes of this section—“children and young persons” includes any person under the age of 25 years;“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2020; “in poverty” means living in a household whose income is less than 60 per cent of the median United Kingdom household income;“in the criminal justice system” means having received a conviction or caution for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (whether or not that conviction or caution has been or can be spent);“mental health assessment” means an assessment of the person’s mental health that was required by a court order or under legislation;“mental health order” means an order of a court requiring a person’s admission to a hospital or other institution for the purpose of treatment or care on account of that person’s mental health;“relevant persons” means persons who—(a) immediately before the repeal of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 (exemption from requirement for leave to enter or remain for persons exercising EU rights etc.) under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act, were entitled by virtue of that section to enter or remain in the United Kingdom without leave; and(b) have at any time up to the passing of this Act had rights to British citizenship;“rights to British citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British citizenship by birth, adoption or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide a report on factors affecting the awareness of and exercise of rights to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981 by those affected by the repeal of section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 (exemption from requirement for leave to enter or remain for persons exercising EU rights etc.).

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not originally intended to return to the question of children’s right to citizenship on Report, as I had simply wanted to register our continuing concern in the context of this Bill, which will mean that many more children stand to be affected in future, adding a new urgency to the issue. However, the strength of feeling expressed from all Benches in Committee, combined with the disappointing response of the Minister, made me think again. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have added their name to the amendment, as well as to others who spoke in support in Committee. Once again, I thank the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International UK, for their help with the amendment and the work they do.

Colleagues pursuing this issue have now taken the name of “Terriers United”—united in our determination to achieve justice for a group of children in vulnerable circumstances: a group of children born in this country or who have spent most of their lives here and who have the right to British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981, but who have to register that right because of their parents’ immigration status. In Committee, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who, as we have heard, cannot be here today, stated that

“the Home Office has no business erecting barriers, financial or otherwise, that prevent people registering as British citizens, particularly children, when those people have been granted that right by this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 9/9/20; col. 857.]

This amendment would require a report from the Home Secretary on these barriers. I shall not go into all the details, as noble Lords can read them; nor do I expect the Minister to do so—she might be relieved to hear—but it covers all the issues addressed in Committee: the role of local authorities, particularly with regard to looked-after children; awareness and information, with reference to which I ask whether the Minister is able to report back to us yet on her welcome commitment in Committee to raise with the Home Secretary our calls to raise awareness of citizenship; and, of course, the level of the fee, which was our main focus.

The amendment also covers other barriers such as the “good character” test, a discretionary test which can be used to prevent children aged 10 and over registering their right to citizenship even where they have had minimal contact with the criminal justice system, such as receiving a caution. The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, raised concerns about this, and in particular the age from which it is applied.

The amendment calls for specific consideration of a number of groups of children and young people who face particularly vulnerable circumstances. Again without going into detail, I note that proposed new subsection (3)(a), which covers those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act, would include Roma children, who, according to the European Children’s Rights Unit, are more likely than other EU children in this country to be entitled to British citizenship and to be economically disadvantaged.

I am aware that the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published a report on fees last year, but this ranged much more widely and did not cover other barriers to citizenship registration. That said, the inspector raised a number of concerns about children’s citizenship fees, reflecting the volume of evidence received from stakeholders. He recommended a new, wider public consultation on charges generally. Although this recommendation was not accepted, the Home Office did accept that

“consultation in specific areas could be useful to inform future policy development.”

I suggest that this is just such an area, and that the serious implications of the end of free movement for the children of EEA/Swiss nationals with a right to register as citizens, detailed in Committee, make it a matter for urgent policy development.

The amendment provides a vehicle for such a consultation. It requires that such consultation includes children and young people affected, and the organisations that assist and represent them—in line with recommendation 8 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review report, which states:

“The Home Office should take steps to understand the groups and communities that its policies affect through improved engagement”


with communities and civil society, and that officials should be expected

“to seek out a diverse range of voices”.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to such an approach in last week’s Statement and comprehensive improvement plan.

In Committee, I and other noble terrier Lords from all Benches made a principled case relating primarily to the level of the fee and the position of looked-after children. It was premised on the importance of citizenship to belonging, security, identity, inclusion and integration. In support, we quoted from a recent High Court judgment that deemed the level of the fee unlawful because it had been set without regard to the best interests of the child. The judgment underlined why citizenship is important and how the inability of many children to exercise their right to register as citizens because of the fee causes many children born in the UK to

“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”.

It is a matter of regret that the Home Office is appealing that judgment, to be heard next week. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has described the fee as “prohibitive and regressive”, “indefensible” and “iniquitous”—in short, “simply unacceptable”.

In her response, the Minister brought no arguments of principle to the table. There were instead three planks to her case—rotten planks, I suggest. The first plank was purely technical, concerning drafting points stemming from the requirement that the amendment was confined to EEA/Swiss nationals in order to be in scope, thereby, she argued, creating a two-tier system. Of course, as other noble Lords have pointed out with reference to other amendments, the solution to that lay in the Government’s own hands. In any case, today’s amendment sidesteps that problem by simply requiring a report; moreover, it would require that the report considered this group of children in relation to the circumstances of other children in the same situation so as to avoid any suggestion of a two-tier system.

The central plank was financial: that the fee of £1,012, which is £640 more than the Home Office estimate of the administrative cost, is necessary to provide the resources required to operate the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship System. I have two responses to that: first, a right conferred by Parliament to ensure that children and young people connected to the UK should have the security of citizenship should not be undermined in the interests of the wider finances of the overall BICS; and, secondly, in conflating the cost of registering citizenship with that of the costs of the borders and immigration system, and at an aggregate level, the Minister evaded the key question of the mark-up for citizenship registration at the level of the individual. She glossed over how that money is being used to cross-subsidise borders and immigration operations that have nothing to do with citizenship registration. In doing so, the Home Office is once more committing the fundamental category error of treating the right to British citizenship as being part of the immigration system. It is this category error that lies at the heart of why so many British young people continue to grow up effectively excluded from the citizenship that is theirs by right under the British Nationality Act.

The third plank rests on another category error—that leave to remain represents the equivalence of citizenship. So while it was welcome that the Minister did not try to argue that citizenship is not important, it was in fact implicit in her response to the attempt to exempt looked-after children from the registration fee. Access to limited and indefinite leave to remain is no substitute for the security of citizenship. What this means for children is brought home by a young woman brought up in the UK since the age of two who was quoted by Ian Birrell in a recent article for the i newspaper:

“It puts you in a very bad place with anxiety and depression. Even though I’m a legal resident, it feels like they can take it away any time.”


I finished my speech in Committee by quoting a former Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who described the fee as “huge”. According to a Times report dated 13 August 2019, Priti Patel raised concerns about the level of the fee just two weeks before becoming Home Secretary. She had told Citizens UK that she would contact Home Office Ministers over the issue and that she understood the

“concerns surrounding this sensitive matter”.

Towards the end of Committee, the Minister kindly agreed to relay to the Home Secretary the request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a meeting with Peers who had supported the amendment on this question. I understand that the Home Secretary’s diary did not permit such a meeting now but we can be patient, so I repeat that request now for whenever the Home Secretary’s diary does permit, particularly in light of her known concern.

I hope too that the Minister will be able to accept our amendment, or a version of it, at Third Reading as providing a way forward on this sensitive and vexed issue, as it will not go away. Otherwise, Terriers United gives notice that we will be snapping at the Home Office’s heels until we achieve justice for this vulnerable group of children. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, from right across the House, and who very much strengthened the case. Some important points were made and I pick out just two. One is that, over and over, people emphasised the modesty and reasonableness of the amendment and pointed out how carrying out a review like this would be very much in the spirit of both the lessons learned review and the recent Public Accounts Committee report, helping to provide the evidence that it said was lacking. Here—just thinking about the Trump terrier—we are not talking about fake evidence; we are talking about real evidence, based on people’s experiences. There is a sort of incomprehension that the Government cannot accept this modest, reasonable amendment.

That said, I welcome the Minister’s tone and her acknowledgment that there is absolutely no point in trotting out the arguments that have been trotted out up to now, because we simply will not accept them in this House. I feel that we have made progress on that score. I welcome her willingness to talk about it further and I welcome the fact that she has committed to take it back to the Home Secretary. The point about the review that we have asked for is that it requires a report to come back to Parliament. We do not have a clear channel that will ensure that we have an opportunity to come back to this, to say, “Okay, the Minister has agreed to look at this further and to discuss it with the Home Secretary”—I would be very happy to give way if the Minister could say in what way we can then hold her to account in this House on that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Noble Lords never fall short in holding me to account. I would quite like to do a sort of task-and-finish activity, but one of the ways I can take this forward is to think about how we can then bring that back to the House, if that is sufficient for the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Thank you. That is very welcome. While obviously I am disappointed that the amendment has not been accepted, I feel that we have made progress this evening. That is partly because of the strength of support from noble Lords across this House. I am very grateful to them, I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I must admit that the first I heard of a specialist Home Office team to trace and locate absconders, which I thought was a police responsibility, was in the Minister’s letter of 28 September. Ever since I was chief inspector, I have been recommending a root-and-branch review of the whole immigration system; I still do. I intend to test the opinion of the House. Until then, I beg that this amendment be accepted.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 23, to which I have added my name, and the others in the group. Since Committee, the Public Accounts Committee’s report has come out —we have heard about it—and it was highly critical of the lack of evidence informing immigration enforcement policy. That has to raise a big question mark over the Minister’s claim, in her letter to Peers, that:

“Detention plays a key role in maintaining effective immigration controls and securing the UK’s borders”.


We have to ask: what is the evidence supporting that claim?

PAC also expressed disappointment that the Home Office is still not sufficiently curious about the impact of its actions, and that little evidence exists that the department actively seeks to identify or evaluate that impact. This is highly pertinent to the impact of segregation and the indefinite detention of detainees, while not knowing how long that detention will last. We have already heard about the lack of hope that means. In both cases, as I documented in Committee and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has done tonight, the impact on mental health is a particular concern. This lack of curiosity around impact might account for the parallel universe that I identified in Committee, in which the Minister’s picture of detention and its effects is light years away from that documented by organisations on the ground.

Another example is the Minister’s claim in Committee —to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already referred—that

“Removal from association is only ever used as a last resort when other options have been tried … but failed, and only as an effective response to the safety and security risk presented by an individual in detention”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1020.]


However, as Medical Justice—which I thank for its support—points out, over 900 incidents of segregation in 2019 alone does not seem indicative of a “last resort”. Medical Justice maintains that it is simply not true that segregation is used only in response to security and safety risks. It has experience of it being used as punishment or to manage detainees with mental health problems, of whom far too many are still being detained. In doing so, segregation is aggravating these mental health problems, which could also have been aggravated by the lack of a time limit, and it is diverting attention and energy from addressing underlying systemic problems that contribute to the behaviour that prompts segregation.

I will ask a couple of data-related questions. I thank the Minister for the management information she gave me on the use of association between January and March 2020. However, I also asked why the Home Office does not routinely publish these data once they can be treated as official. I would be grateful if she could look into this, perhaps, in the interests of transparency. I also thank her for the information on female detainees in her letter to Peers, but those data go up to only 30 June—they are the latest published quarterly statistics—which is three months ago. Is management information available on the current situation; namely, on how many women are currently detained in Dungavel House, Colnbrook, IRCs or prison?

In conclusion, I will argue that nothing in the Minister’s response in Committee or her subsequent letter makes me rethink my support for the amendment, and I hope that others will join me in voting for it in the name of fairness, humanity and the compassion that is supposed to be the future hallmark of Home Office culture.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I add my strong support to this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, argued cogently—as she always does—in support of these changes to the Bill.

In her helpful letter, the Minister suggests that

“Detention is used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary.”


Detention Action tells a very different story. One of the most important elements of these amendments is that they would end indefinite detention. As someone who worked in mental health services for many years, I am acutely conscious of the appalling consequences of detaining people without any indication of the length of time involved. Many detained indefinitely and for long periods—and, indeed, re-detained—have already suffered severe mental health problems due to their appalling experiences. Even with professional treatment, these problems may take many years to resolve. In my view, it is unforgivable for us, as a nation, to disregard this suffering.

As Detention Action has told us, in a recent case, the High Court found three separate periods of unlawful detention in respect of a vulnerable autistic person, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. This is a shocking example of what can happen under the current law. The importance of these amendments is that they would prevent that from happening in the future.

I want to put on record that our Minister was wrongly briefed when she suggested that detention of more than 28 days was limited to those who have committed serious offences. In reality, people with no offending history are regularly detained for periods exceeding 28 days—and even re-detained. These amendments would put an end to these unacceptable practices. The right to apply for bail is no solution for these vulnerable people; they do not all have access to professional legal representation, and many do not speak English. Of course, the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems—are the least able to advocate for themselves.

Another crucial element of the amendments is the commitment to ensuring that re-detention cannot happen unless there is a material change in the detained person’s circumstances. The case of Oliver—quoted in Committee —underlines the cruelty of re-detention. Oliver, as noble Lords will remember, suffered with PTSD, having been imprisoned and tortured in his home country and trafficked twice, yet he was re-detained a year after his release from initial detention. How can we do this to such a vulnerable person?

Of course, not all immigrants have a history as bad as Oliver’s but many detainees have experience of torture or ill treatment and have significant and chronic health problems. Noble Lords know that attempted suicides are commonplace in detention centres and actual suicides have been on the increase in recent years. Some 68% of detained immigrants are not removed from the UK. Surely their detention has been pointless and therefore unjustified. As Detention Action argues, the current system is ineffective, inefficient, harmful and costly. We spend £100 million a year on detention. As we emerge from Covid we can ill afford to be throwing money away. This amendment is a gift to the Chancellor. I was pleased to read that the Home Office is considering alternatives to detention. If the Government also want to avoid detention except when it is absolutely necessary, I hope that the Minister will be able to table amendments at Third Reading to achieve the objectives that I believe we all want to achieve.

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

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, after the powerful debate we had in Committee, I am very sorry that it was still necessary to put this down again.

In our debate on Amendment 6, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, referred to the long and continuing discussion the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and many others—including myself—had in Committee about the many amendments that we sought to have applied to all affected by immigration law, the ruling out of the scope of those amendments and the claims from the Minister that what we were tabling was subsequently discriminatory. However, that is an argument that cannot—or, certainly, should not—be applied to this amendment; the situation of Britons married or partnered with Europeans is particular, but it can only be said that it is particularly awful.

No one with a non-EU spouse or partner could have predicted the “onerous” and “unjustified” minimum income requirement applied in 2012. Those are not my adjectives but those of a High Court judge. What I would call an unreasonably harsh assessment might be to say “Well, they should have known that the rules could change when they made their family arrangements”. Yet the many Britons who have been writing to me—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, no doubt to many other Members of your Lordship’s House—who established families in Europe decades ago, in many cases, could not conceivably have imagined the dreadful state of British politics over the past five years that has brought us to the current pass. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking all of them for taking the time and having the courage to share their circumstances with us in the hope that we can get the Government to listen.

Rather than making my own arguments, I want as closely as possible to let Jane, a Briton who gave me permission to share her story, speak for herself in your Lordships’ House. She says:

“I am a British citizen, resident in Italy since 1993 with my Italian husband and children; I have my widowed mother, aged 76, living alone in the UK. She is fortunately in good health at the present time. However, one must be realistic. In time, she may need extra care. As her only child, I, with my husband, have always reassured my mother that we would be there to care for her in her later years, but due to the possible outcome of this Bill, we are increasingly worried.


Like many other Britons who moved to the EU while Britain was a member, I had—and expected to keep—an almost unfettered right to return to the UK with my family. My mother and I were safe in the knowledge that I could always come back should the need arise. I do not want my mother to have this worry. I would like her to grow old knowing that we can come back to the UK should that need arise. Unless this Bill is amended, this right will be removed on 29 March 2022, creating impossible choices for me and thousands of families like mine.


The Government’s answer is that we are given 15 months from the end of transition to return with our families to the UK. This is ignoring the massive practical difficulties of uprooting ourselves from family life and work in our country of residence. I have my own business here in Italy, not to mention my husband’s work and our children’s education, and there may be no need for that uprooting.”


Will the Minister personally respond to Jane and tell her what the Government’s justification is for putting her and her family in this situation?

The Green Party group wholeheartedly offers the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, its support if she chooses to put her amendment to a vote.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I was prompted to speak in support of the amendment by an email that I received this week from a British citizen born of British parents in Britain. During voluntary service overseas, she met and married an Italian. She lived in Italy, working for a UN agency for 30 years. They adopted a boy whose nationality is Italian. After her husband died, she hoped to return to the UK, where her brother and sister live. However, this would now mean her leaving her son behind, which, she writes,

“I could never do. We are very close. I could never leave him behind, with me in one country and him in another.”

Both she and others in a similar situation cannot believe that their families will be split up in this way in future.

I refer to what the Minister said in Committee at the end of the debate on another amendment relating to family reunion. She appeared to agree with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for raising the minimum income threshold—referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—from £18,600 to £25,700, or even £38,000, to cover the cost of public services or make a net contribution to public finances. I know that these figures came from the Migration Advisory Committee but they are premised on a narrow understanding of what constitutes a contribution to our society. It is the same kind of thinking that will exclude care workers and other key workers from immigration, as we heard during the debate on a previous amendment. The argument discounts the importance of the right to family life. I hope that the Minister will say now that I misread what she was saying and that she was not supporting the suggestion to raise the threshold.

The damaging impact of the minimum income threshold has been documented in a number of studies, most recently from the University of Bristol. It wrote of

“not just emotional impacts of separation, but financial, mental and physical hardship.”

The family reunion rules divide far too many families already. They need reviewing. For now, we can at least prevent even more families—like those of the mother who emailed me and the many other people who have emailed other Members of your Lordships’ House—being split up in this cruel and heartless way. We can prevent that happening by supporting this amendment.

[Lord Oates (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has already eloquently set out the powerful arguments for this amendment, as have the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Lister of Burtersett.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee told us, in Committee she asked the Minister how she would advise a couple, one British and one an EU national, who both have elderly parents, in which country they should choose to live. Which set of elderly parents should they pick? In response, as my noble friend reminded us, the Minister said that the Government had given people “plenty of time”, but that is not an answer. It does not matter how much time they have had; they could have had all the time in the world. It does not change the fact that the Government are forcing them to make an invidious choice, to make it by 2022 and to live with it ever after. If they need to stay in the EU member state of the EU national to look after his or her parents, after 2022 they will no longer be eligible to return to the UK together. I ask the Minister once again: how should that family make their choice? I would like her to provide an answer to that essential question—which she failed to give to my noble friend—because it goes to the heart of the issues and the terrible choices that will be inflicted on our citizens and their families as a result of the Government’s policy.

The Government have made much of taking back control. This is a test for Ministers of what that control will mean in practice. Will they act with compassion or with cold-hearted indifference and in doing so inflict intolerable injustice on thousands of families of our citizens? I am sure I am not alone—and we have heard testimony from previous speakers—in having been contacted by numerous British citizens with heartrending stories of the misery that the Government’s present policy will cause to them and their loved ones. People who settled as British citizens in the EU and who made their lives there with their partners, who now, through no fault of their own, face their future plans being torn up by ministerial obduracy and callousness.

One such example is Fiona, who lives in Luxembourg with Miguel, her German-Chilean husband. He studied his O and A-levels in the UK, where his father was a professor. He later took a job as a translator in Luxembourg, where Fiona joined him. They have now been married 25 years and have lived in Luxembourg all that time. They always assumed they would be able to return together to the UK, as Miguel was an EU citizen, and they made their life plans on that reasonable assumption. Now—through no fault of their own—unless they return before 2022, Fiona would only be able to do so alone. In theory, her two children could come with her, as they are dual nationals, but if this is the way the UK intends to treat their German father they have no wish to do so, and I cannot say I blame them. Fiona says: “As a British citizen, I feel exiled from my country of birth and the rest of my UK family.” That is the reality of the Government’s position: to de facto exile British citizens from the land of their birth.

The only argument I have heard Ministers advance to justify the injustice they are about to inflict is that somehow maintaining the existing position would not be fair on British citizens living outside the EU who are married to non-UK nationals. This is the hollowest of empty arguments. British citizens moving to live in an EU member state had the reasonable expectation that they would be able to return to the UK with their partner at any point. The gross injustice lies in the fact that existing rights are being stripped away. If the Government do not move on this policy, British citizens will face a very stark choice come 2022: they will either have to return alone, without their wife, husband or other family members, or not at all. That is the reality.

I hope that all Members of the House will be clear, when they eventually get to vote on this amendment, that they will not be voting on some abstract piece of policy; they will be deciding the future of thousands of British citizens and their families. They will be deciding whether those families have to pick which elderly parent they will stay to care for, or which life plans they have to tear up. Above all, they will be deciding whether to lift a massive burden of anxiety from the shoulders of our citizens in the EU or to impose a further weight of misery upon them. Even at this late stage, it remains in the Government’s hands to show, by accepting this amendment, that they have a human face. However, if they do not, I hope that they will be resoundingly defeated when the virtual Lobbies function once again.