Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness D'Souza

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as supporting the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I rise to speak to Amendment 16, which seeks to minimise the risk of torture arising from the Bill and to safeguard torture survivors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Cashman for their support. They will speak to the first part of the amendment, while I will focus on the second. We brought it back because of our dissatisfaction with the response from the Minister in Committee. We hope that we might do better now, given the existential importance of torture, which represents one of the most serious of human rights violations.

We know from the work of organisations such as Freedom from Torture and Redress, whose help I am grateful for, that a good number of the asylum seekers in line to be sent to Rwanda will have survived torture. We also know, including from a recent report from the Mental Health Foundation, of the high incidence of mental health difficulties among asylum seekers, the risk of which is increased by traumatic experiences such as torture. These difficulties can only be exacerbated by removal to Rwanda.

In Committee, the Minister pointed out that an individual could challenge removal on the grounds of their “individual circumstances”. But Freedom from Torture warns that providing, in the time available, the necessary “compelling evidence” to meet the exceptionally high bar set by the test means that this does not offer torture survivors an effective safeguard. Indeed, the Minister himself admitted that successful claims on this basis are expected to be “rare”. That might have implications for some other amendments.

In response to my questioning about what mental health support will be available to torture survivors in Rwanda, the Minister referred me to Article 13 of the treaty, but that refers only to the special needs of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. I can find no reference to the needs of torture survivors.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws interjected that the mental health situation in Rwanda is very poor, with high levels of mental illness but very few suitably trained medical professionals. Since then, I have been referred to WHO’s 2020 mental health profile for Rwanda. This confirms the low level of provision and seems to show that there are no out-patient mental health facilities. If this continues to be the case, would traumatised torture survivors have to be admitted to a mental health unit to obtain any support? As was noted in Committee, civil society remains weak and therefore is unlikely to be able to step in.

More recently, last October, a press release from Interpeace, while commending the efforts that the Rwandan Government have made in this area, warns that

“the country still faces challenges such as the scale of mental health needs that outstrips the capacity of available professionals, low awareness and knowledge of mental health issues”

and “poor mental health infrastructure”.

From the Minister’s responses, it would appear that the Government simply do not know what support will be available and have made no attempt to find out, yet they are happy to condemn this highly vulnerable group to a life in a country that, with the best will in the world, is ill placed to provide that support. Of course, ideally, I would want the Government to accept the case for not sending torture survivors to Rwanda. At the very minimum, I ask the Minister to take this issue back to the Home Office—although I am not quite sure which Minister will respond—and give an undertaking that he will ask his colleagues to talk to the Rwandan Government about support for torture survivors and, if necessary, provide the necessary resources to ensure that support is available, perhaps earmarking part of the enormous sum to be paid to Rwanda identified by the NAO.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, what needs to be said about the risk of torture and inhumane treatment has already been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I simply emphasise the credibility of the reports of ongoing torture of even mild political dissenters, which continues to this day in Rwanda. Nor do freedom of expression and association exist there, however narrowly the terms are defined. However, the genocide ideology law is broadly defined and now carries criminal sanctions. The criminal code has recently been expanded to include

“creating a hostile … opinion of Rwanda”

by criticising the Government. These irrefutable reports indicate that Rwanda does not comply with the international obligations under various UN conventions, including the convention against torture. This can only add to the evidence that, at present, Rwanda cannot be regarded as a safe country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wanted to make a couple of brief points in support of Amendments 20 and 21. In Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, quoted at length the Lord Chancellor’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to justify breaching the universality of human rights. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor did not convince the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its majority report concluded that the provision

“threatens the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and should be protected for everyone”.

I still do not understand, given the concerns expressed by the JCHR, as well as the EHRC, the Law Society and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, why this Government continue to try to argue that disapplication does not affect the principle of universality, which the noble and learned Lord waxed lyrical about in his speech.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord promised to write to me in response to my concerns about the implications for the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement—following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ request for a full explanation before Report as to why the Government consider Clause 3 to be consistent with these agreements. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter but, to echo what the noble Lord, Lord German, said earlier, I gently point out that it was sent at 3.24 pm this afternoon, after Report began. That really is not good practice, and it does not meet the JCHR’s request that a full explanation should be published before Report. It seems that the actual full publication will not be until some time on Wednesday, when we will be finishing Report.

I am not convinced that the answers to my questions would satisfy the JCHR, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Consortium of Northern Ireland. I am also not clear why the letter was not copied to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, given that she originally challenged the Minister on this point at Second Reading. I am not going to pursue the matter here, except to point out that I do not think we yet have a satisfactory explanation of the interactions with and the implications for these agreements.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness D'Souza

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Motion B1, under which Amendments 4C and 4D would amend government amendments 4A and 4B in lieu. I am grateful to the Government for going part of the way in meeting the concerns raised in the original amendments, which were supported by your Lordships’ House. The purpose of those amendments was to introduce levelling-up missions to address child poverty and health disparities throughout the life course. The latter was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is unable to be here today, but we have agreed the amendments that I am proposing. Both amendments received strong support on Report, including from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who regrets that he cannot be in his place today.

I am grateful, too, to the noble Earl the Minister for the helpful meeting we had last week. I am only sorry that the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Scott, is still unable to be with us, and I send her my best wishes. I am, though, disappointed that the Government did not accept the compromise that we proposed—I emphasise that it was a compromise. This compromise no longer pushes for specific missions and it accepts the government amendments in lieu, but would add to them the words

“including child poverty, and health disparities throughout the life course”.

I think they are still necessary—indeed, essential.

In the Commons and today, Ministers have acknowledged that child poverty and health disparities are

“essential factors when deciding missions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/23; col. 182.]

The Government’s argument against our original amendments is that missions may need to evolve over time, so their details should not appear explicitly in the Bill. But does anyone in government really believe that child poverty and health inequalities will not continue to be essential factors in any levelling-up strategies for the foreseeable future?

Just this weekend, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health emphasised the importance of long-term action on child poverty and health inequalities in the context of the climate emergency. Earlier, the early years healthy development review and the Marmot review into health equity underlined the need for a long-term focus with regard to these issues. This amendment would help ensure such a focus, without introducing the kind of inflexibility that the Government are so frightened of.

Given the time constraints, I will not repeat the arguments we made on Report. Child poverty and health disparities are a terrible blot on our society. Child poverty damages childhood itself and children’s life chances. Health disparities diminish life chances and physical and mental well-being at every point of our lives from before the cradle to the grave. The reference to life expectancy is only one element of health disparities; it is not the whole story by any means. Action on both fronts should be seen as an economic and social investment in the future of our society and as key to any levelling-up missions.

Acceptance of our amendment by the Government would constitute recognition of the importance of child poverty and health disparities throughout the life course and help ensure that, whatever the future levelling-up missions, they take account of these essential factors in levelling up our country and improving the life chances of all its members. Unless the Government are willing, even at the last minute to accept this compromise—and I hope I can persuade the Minister to accept it—I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, I too speak to Amendments 4C and 4D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. We are essentially discussing four non-contentious words: “throughout the life course”. The Government have gone out of their way to address most of the concerns expressed about the welfare of children, for which everyone is extremely grateful. However, it is puzzling why these four words continue to be resisted. We know that health disparities begin in pregnancy, even before birth, as the noble Baroness said, and continue until advanced old age. Surely any levelling-up Bill has to acknowledge that continuous investment at every stage will result in a healthier and more productive society. The Government argue that this is implicit in the Bill, but why not make it explicit in the Bill? I honestly fail to understand this reluctance on the part of the Government and, should the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, decide to press her Motion to a vote, I will follow her into the Lobby.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness D'Souza

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 1 and 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—who does not appear to be here—as well as in my name. These are not techie, administrative amendments; they are about people’s lives and have particular consequences for the lives of women, who are still the main managers of poverty on a day-to-day basis. At present, the out-of-work benefits, which the universal credit will replace, are paid fortnightly.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is discussing Amendment 1 in Clause 7.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I beg your Lordships’ pardon. I am speaking to Amendment 2, but also to Amendment 1, even though it has not been formally moved.

These payments used to be paid weekly and, according to Fran Bennett of the Women’s Budget Group, there is evidence from recent qualitative research carried out at Oxford University that the move to fortnightly payments has caused more problems than is sometimes claimed. “Struggle” was the word one woman used to describe what it meant. The leap from fortnightly to monthly payments will be much greater. As one claimant put it, “Very difficult to budget with two-weekly payments, impossible with monthly”. For those in-work recipients of tax credits who have opted to receive the credit weekly rather than four-weekly, who tend to be those on lower wages, the leap will be greater still.

We know from government survey evidence that nearly two in five of the lowest fifth of low-income families with children run out of money always or frequently, so we are not talking about a small number of vulnerable people in exceptional circumstances, nor are we talking in most cases about mismanagement. Again, research shows how well most people on low incomes manage their money—probably better than many of us, because they have to. However, managing money on a low income is very stressful, particularly for women who act as the shock absorbers of poverty, and it can have a damaging impact on physical and mental health.

One of the big fears is that monthly payments will lead to more families turning to high-cost credit and getting into debt. Just last week a big news story was the spread of payday loans which, according to an earlier report, have quadrupled in the past four years. In Committee, I read from an e-mail that I had received from a Conservative supporter, who described himself as a “responsible lender” to low-income households and who was enraged by the idea of monthly payments, which, he warned, would lead to an even greater reliance on such loans, which he wrote, had,

“risen up on the back of predominantly low income earners who get paid monthly”.

According to last week’s R3 report, nearly half the population sometimes or often struggles to make it to payday. In addition, there has been growing use of pawnbrokers, particularly by low-income women with children.

In Committee, we all got the impression that the Minister really listened and took on board the concerns expressed from all Benches. Indeed, he said that we had given him quite a bit of food for thought. This was very welcome. It is therefore disappointing that, having digested the overwhelming message coming from the Committee, he appears not to be willing to concede even on the point of giving claimants the right to opt for twice-monthly payments with the default remaining monthly, as provided for in Amendment 1. Instead, he appears to be looking to encourage access to budgeting products such as jam jar accounts, which would enable people to mimic jam jars in allocating their universal credit payment to different purposes through their accounts.

The Minister rightly observed in Committee that budgeting products mystified him, so, like a good academic, I have done my research. I can see the attraction in this context and I hope that the Minister is successful in developing the idea, but I am yet to be convinced that such accounts obviate the need for the amendments before your Lordships' House. Certainly, this is the view of the Personal Finance Research Centre. At present, only about 150,000 people use such accounts and typically they are charged between £12.50 and £14.50 a month for doing so. While I acknowledge that Social Finance, which provided these figures, is enthusiastic about the potential of such accounts to help people manage monthly payments, there is a long way to go to get there from here. Moreover, it has been suggested by the Personal Finance Research Centre that such accounts are more relevant to helping people who receive income weekly or fortnightly and pay monthly and quarterly bills, so they would still have a role to play in the context of the proposed amendments.

I know that the role of such budgeting tools will be explored in the planned demonstration projects, which according to the DWP will test some of the support mechanisms we will need to have in place for vulnerable groups. However, as I have already tried to explain, this is not just an issue for certain vulnerable groups. Anyone on a low income is potentially vulnerable to the problems created by monthly payments. Are they all going to be helped to access such budgeting products? I appreciate the effort that the Minister is putting in to try to develop the budgeting products solution to the problems raised in Committee, which he acknowledged were very real. However, I remain puzzled as to why he is so resistant to accepting the most obvious solution that we offered—more frequent payments.

“Is it because of cost?”, some people have asked me. It would appear not, as that was not an objection raised in Committee. The Minister himself emphasised in Committee that there is a distinction between payment period and assessment period, so that more frequent payment would not require more frequent assessment, which perhaps would have cost implications. The answer to a Written Question about cost in the House of Commons simply evaded the question. It leaves me to wonder whether the Minister’s solution is not more costly, particularly as it will also involve more frequent use of interim payments to tide people over as payments are made four-weekly in arrears. A story in the FT in September suggested as much. It said that,

“the plans had not yet been fully worked out or costed”.

In Committee, I asked that your Lordships’ House should receive a fully costed plan before monthly payments are finally agreed, but no such plan has been forthcoming. In its absence, I believe that it is only prudent that your Lordships’ House build in the kind of protection that the amendment would provide.