Recent Changes to US Immigration Policy

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, on threats of terrorism I rely on the advice of our security agencies and border security, to whom I pay great credit. I saw them in operation when I returned earlier this month from a Foreign and Commonwealth meeting overseas. I have great respect for the work that they do. I am not going to jump to any conclusions here or announce the results of any assessment. It will be for those in the United Nations to take a view on the matter of law and whether this is a breach of the 1951 convention. I would hope that advice was taken before the order was issued.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said about refugees, but it is not clear what the British Government have said to the US Government, particularly regarding the blanket, open-ended exclusion of refugees from Syria, which must clearly contravene the obligations under the refugee convention and protocol. What has been said to the US Government on this specific issue?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the fact that we have said this is divisive and wrong encompasses that as well, as does the fact that we would not carry out a similar act. That covers the fact that this is not the way we would behave towards refugees. The Home Secretary has of course made it clear that it is important to understand whom one is describing when one talks about refugees, and to take into account the security of a nation in the way one screens those arriving in one’s own country. We make careful efforts to do that, but that also means that we would not use this kind of executive order.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, like Amendment 50 debated last week, this amendment is designed to minimise the adverse effects likely to result from the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, in order to be of assistance to the noble Baroness, who is seeking to move a very important amendment, may I suggest that those leaving the Chamber do not pass in front of speakers? That is not the habit of this House. May they please leave the Chamber by another route, so that we may hear from the noble Baroness?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Thank you.

The amendment is about accountability. Considerable concern was raised in Grand Committee about the accountability of local authorities for the moneys devolved to them when the discretionary Social Fund is abolished. The amendment has been drafted with the help of Family Action, to which I am grateful, so as to put into effect the recommendation of the Communities and Local Government Committee report Localisation issues in welfare reform. While the CLG Committee accepted the Government’s case against ring-fencing the money, its report said that this,

“may carry some risks at a time of difficult financial circumstances for councils”.

The committee therefore recommended that,

“central government identifies clearly the amounts that are being allocated to local authorities, and collects information about their use, until the new arrangements have bedded in—we suggest a period of five years. … This would provide some reassurance about the effectiveness of the new system in helping those in need”.

Ministers have been giving out mixed messages on this issue. I hope that means that they are genuinely trying to find a way of answering the concerns about lack of accountability that have been raised in a number of quarters. One ministerial response has been to rely on the ballot box, even though the people affected are those least likely to vote, and also to contend that it is sufficient to set out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter.

However, a chink of light emerged in the Government’s response to the call for evidence, when they said that the settlement letter, mentioned last week by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley,

“may be supplemented with a requirement to report on how the funding has been used”.

The CLG Committee observed:

“This would fall some way short of the accountability mechanisms suggested by some stakeholders”.

Nevertheless, if the Minister now committed the Government to imposing such a requirement, we would be satisfied.

Last week, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about supplementing the planned review of a cross-section of local authorities in order to collect more information on how the money is spent. While I welcome the spirit in which this very small concession was offered, I fear that it falls short, not just of what we believe is necessary but of what the Government themselves hinted at in their response to the committee’s evidence.

We are still awaiting an answer to some astute questioning in Grand Committee from the noble Lord, Lord German, about how the Government will meet their obligations of stewardship for the money allocated to local authorities in England. As the noble Lord stated very powerfully, this is a question of accountability to Parliament. How can such accountability be ensured if local authorities are not required to report on how they spend the money allocated to them?

The purpose of Amendment 50ZB is to allay the fears voiced by voluntary organisations such as Family Action, Women’s Aid and Platform 51 that local authorities might impose a local or residence condition as a way of rationing assistance when allocating social housing. Again, I am grateful to Family Action for help with drafting this amendment. Given the pressures on local authorities, it is quite conceivable that some at least might seek to impose a local connection test—that is, confine help to people who already have a local connection with the area. In Committee, I tabled a general amendment to prevent such a test. This amendment is drafted more tightly to ensure that such a test is not applied to people fleeing domestic violence—or, more accurately, people who have fled domestic violence—young people leaving local authority care, people who are homeless or who have been homeless within the previous 12 months and people leaving institutional residential care such as a hospital, prison or a young offenders’ institution. In other words, this amendment is designed to safeguard the interests of groups who are likely not to have a local connection.

As the voluntary sector consortium headed by Family Action points out,

“These groups of people are much less likely than others to be able to demonstrate local connection. Without crucial assistance from a Community Care Grant to buy essential items such as cooking equipment and bedding, they may struggle to set up and maintain a home. This puts them at risk of reoffending or moving back into temporary or institutional accommodation, which is far more costly and means they lose their newly-found independence”.

The consortium is particularly concerned that, without a clear legal prohibition on requiring a local residence connection, women who have experienced domestic violence will be discouraged from moving elsewhere to flee their violent partner, or will return to their partner because they are unable to provide basic household items such as a cooker to prepare cheap healthy food for themselves and their children. The consortium’s concerns were echoed in the impact report published last week by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, which looked at the impact of the legislation in relation to children’s rights. When questioned on this matter in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State assured Members that local authorities had a moral duty. Welcome as this recognition is, I fear that if a woman who has fled domestic violence or an ex-prisoner cites a moral duty to their local authority they will not get very far. Surely if the Government believe that a moral duty holds, they should translate it into a statutory duty.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, did not address these issues in Committee but kindly wrote to me afterwards. However, he simply set out in his letter the local connection provisions on homelessness contained in the Housing Act 1996. I shall not spell those out now, but they protect a person from being denied any assistance anywhere because of a lack of local connection. If the Minister is saying that the same rule will apply here, then I welcome it, but does it not need to be written into the legislation? As I understand it, the Housing Act 1996 does not apply to the legislation we are discussing here. If the Minister were to offer to bring forward his own amendment at Third Reading to give effect to the Housing Act provisions on local connection, I would happily withdraw the amendment as unnecessary. As an absolute minimum, can the Minister assure the House that the settlement letter will spell out that local authorities should follow the same provisions as in the housing legislation?

It seems to me that the aims of these two amendments are not that far from what the Government themselves wish to achieve. I hope therefore that the Minister might be willing either to accept them or to agree to bring forward his own amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Anelay of St Johns

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Anyone can call a Bill controversial—that is true. I remind the noble Lord that we agreed that the very controversial Extradition Bill would go into Grand Committee—there are very good precedents—as did the Welfare Reform Bill and the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill. There is a clear impact on other Bills if this Bill does not go into Grand Committee.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware of the consternation that is being expressed by disabled people about this decision. I have been copied into an e-mail to the noble Baroness. Noble Lords have received a number of e-mails. There is both a practical and a symbolic significance to this decision. I am new to this House and I do not know the ins and outs of where Committee stage is taken, but disabled people feel that their democratic right to observe the proceedings at the Committee stage is being severely curtailed by any decision to take the whole of the Committee stage off the Floor of the House. It has been accepted on this side that some of the Committee stage should be taken in Grand Committee, but there are clauses in the Bill that are highly controversial. It is not just about experts coming in; it is about people who feel that their lives or livelihoods are at stake.