Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

The House agreed to Amendment 157 on Report on the parity of funding at inquests, which does not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Accordingly, this amendment is to cover Amendment 157, and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the decision of this House on Amendment 157 on Report.

My name is also attached to Amendment 16 in this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, cannot be in the House today, but the House agreed to Amendments 188 to 193 on Report on support for victims and victims’ rights, which do not appear to be covered by the existing Long Title. Once again, this amendment to the Long Title is to cover Amendments 188 to 193 and comes within the Third Reading principal purposes as tidying up the Bill. I trust that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment in the light of the House’s decision on those amendments on Report. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 15 is a tidying amendment to the Long Title and consequential to stalking offences. When I moved the amendment that was adopted by this House last week, I regret that I was not aware that it was encompassed by the Long Title, so I apologise for any inconvenience caused. I take this opportunity to say that I very much hope that the Prime Minister will look at this amendment. She has been terrific on violence against women and girls and, if she had a look at it personally, she might agree to accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

15: In the Title, line 27, after “marriage;” insert “to increase the maximum sentences for stalking offences;”

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

187A: After Clause 152, insert the following new Clause—
“Sentencing for stalking offences
(1) In section 4A(5)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress), for the words “five years” substitute “ten years”.(2) At the end of section 32(4)(b) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (racially or religiously aggravated harassment etc) insert “save in the case of an offence under section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, in which case the person shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.””

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 187A, I declare an interest as a trustee of Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service. It is four years since a stalking law was introduced, following an amendment that I tabled in this House which was the culmination of terrific work by the independent parliamentary inquiry, whose adviser was the excellent Laura Richards and which included the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Howe of Idlicote. It was strongly supported by colleagues in the House of Commons, notably Yvette Cooper and Stella Creasy. I pay tribute to the Government for the progress made since 2012, the introduction of the offence of coercive control and last week’s announcement of stalking orders.

Stalking destroys lives. Some 40% of the victims of domestic homicide have been stalked, including Jane Clough and Holli Gazzard, and the punishment must fit the crime. When I tabled the original amendment, it was always the intention that the maximum sentence be 10 years. However, due to the two tiers in the Protection from Harassment Act, the higher test mirrored Section 4 harassment and became five years by default. Experience now tells us that this is not enough.

My amendment mirrors a 10-minute rule Bill introduced by Alex Chalk, the Conservative MP for Cheltenham, and supported by MPs from all parties, including Richard Graham, the MP for Gloucester, whose constituent, Dr Eleanor Aston, was stalked for eight years by a former patient, Raymond Knight. When he was sentenced to five years—the maximum sentence—the judge stated that he would like to have given Knight a longer sentence as he was a serious risk to Dr Aston. This case is not unique; I could cite numerous other examples, including Kristine Carlson and Katie Price. Extending the maximum penalty would set the tone, allow for greater flexibility and make it clear that stalking is a serious offence. An increased maximum sentence is necessary for the most serious cases, particularly where there is repeat offending. At present a defendant who pleads guilty to this most serious offence, even if it is a repeat offence against the same victim, will serve a maximum of 20 months. This is insufficient to protect the victim.

Sadly, too few cases still result in a stalking charge, and, when they do, the sentencing does not reflect the serious nature of the crime. This was highlighted as a cause for concern when we were meeting Home Office lawyers to discuss the drafting of the stalking legislation in 2012 and given the proposed maximum sentence of five years. Training is important. So, too, are sentencing guidelines. The maximum penalty should reflect the serious impact that this psychological crime has on the victim.

Stalking is a long-term pattern of behaviour. It is persistent and intrusive, and it engenders fear, alarm or distress. It results in long-term psychological harm and can escalate to violence and murder. Stalking is about fixation and obsession. It is clear that when people fixate and stalk, they are psychologically unstable. A significant minority are psychotic, and some may suffer from undiagnosed personality disorders. Currently, stalkers are not routinely assessed, and they should be. More robust sentences would allow for a robust mental health assessment which informs diagnosis, treatment and management.

The Minster may well say that the Sentencing Council is undertaking a review and that it would be precipitate to pre-empt that review. The Sentencing Council reviews sentences within the framework set by Parliament, so it is for us to act and then for the Sentencing Council to build its guideline around the maximum tariff.

Of course, it is true that, alongside the stalking, there may be other offences—for example, assault or arson—that can be charged. But in a significant number of cases, stalking is the only offence, a very grave offence, which can lead to the victim being a prisoner in their own home, developing post-traumatic stress disorder, losing their job, losing their relationship, losing their mental health and ultimately losing their life. It is a serious offence and must be treated as such.

Paladin’s research shows that victims feel unsafe due to short sentences. Preventive orders do not lead victims to feel safe because it is the very nature of the stalking offence that means such boundaries are prone to being breached. In the most serious cases, the only time a victim truly receives any respite is when his or her stalker is behind bars. Victims continue to live in fear and are terrorised and terrified when the stalker comes out. It is clear that short sentences do not allow for any form of diagnosis, treatment or management, so the behaviour continues in a revolving-door fashion. This is costly to victims and to the criminal justice system.

It is important to highlight the fact that stalking occurs over an extended period of time. Often, stalkers are prosecuted only for breaching restraining orders. The maximum sentence for criminal damage, burglary and offence against property is 10 years. These offences are acute and one-offs. Allowing judges greater flexibility on sentences will acknowledge the repetitive nature of stalking, which can span multiple years, offences and breaches.

Some victims have felt helpless due to the long-term, insidious and persistent nature of this crime—as in the case of Helen Pearson, who was almost killed by Joe Willis and attempted suicide twice. The escalation to murder should be clearly understood. These cases are called “murders in slow motion” for a reason, and we have an opportunity to intervene earlier and prevent them. It is one of the few crimes where early intervention can prevent serious psychological damage, violence and murder. That is precisely why we need to increase the maximum sentence.

My amendment would give judges the greater flexibility they require in sentencing to allow the sentence to fit the crime and thus better protect the victim whose life is being torn apart. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I very much hope that your Lordships do not support this amendment. My reasons are both general and particular. As to my general reason, I am very cautious about any inflation in sentencing. Our prisons are already grossly overcrowded. When I was Prisons Minister at the back end of the 1980s, we had a prison population of some 44,000. We now have a prison population of just short of 85,000, and that makes for gross overcrowding. Until very recently, I was on the monitoring board of a local prison. As a member of the Bar, I go to prisons, and the facilities in prisons are overstretched almost beyond imagining. In this respect, the POA is right. I am very anxious that we should not do anything that tends to make courts increase the overall level of sentences. In the past five years, the average sentence has increased from 12.3 months to 16.4 months, and conditions in prisons are dire.

That takes me to the second point, and I shall be very brief. Five years—the existing maximum—is a long sentence, even when one takes into account the fact that the offender will not serve the whole of it. Being shut up in custodial circumstances in most of our prisons is a deeply unpleasant experience. If the offender is rational, then five years is a perfectly good deterrent. If the offender is not rational, then increasing the sentence will make no difference whatever to his conduct. All we are doing is to drive up the overall level of sentences, and that is thoroughly undesirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, carries out as a trustee of Paladin to support and give a voice to victims of stalking.

Obviously it would be wrong of me as a Minister to comment on individual cases, particularly on sentences imposed in those cases. However, I want to express my sympathy for the victims of these crimes, which can have significant effects on their lives. It is important to consider the evidence of how sentencers are using the range of penalties available to them today. It is very rare that sentences are given that are near to the current maximum. In 2015 only three people received sentences of over three years for the Section 4A offence, and the average custodial sentence was 14.1 months. The evidence therefore suggests that judges are finding their current sentencing powers for this offence sufficient.

We must also bear in mind that, in addition to this specific stalking offence, this type of offending can be charged under other offences such as assault, criminal damage and grievous bodily harm with intent. When an offender is convicted for one of those offences, they will face a maximum penalty of 10 years for criminal damage or life imprisonment for GBH with intent.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking steps to ensure that stalking is dealt with seriously. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, last Wednesday we announced plans to introduce a new stalking protection order aimed at ensuring that pre-charge options are available to the police to protect victims of stranger-stalking to the same level as victims of domestic violence and abuse. Breaches of these orders will be a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.

Alongside the work of government, the independent Sentencing Council is currently considering sentencing guidelines for intimidatory offences, including the stalking offence covered by the noble Baroness’s amendment. The council aims for its definitive guidelines to come into force in early 2018, following a consultation on the draft guidelines early next year. I encourage the noble Baroness and others to respond to the consultation.

We are also looking at the wider picture of how stalking offences are dealt with and prosecuted. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate are currently carrying out a joint inspection on the effectiveness of the police and CPS response to cases involving stalking and harassment, and to examine the service received by victims.

In setting maximum penalties, we must also consider the penalties available for other, related offences. These include the other offences under Sections 2 and 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act, which can cover similar offending behaviour. We should consider carefully the potential impacts of creating such a large difference between the maximum penalties for the Section 4 and 4A offences, as the amendment proposes. Other relevant offences include assault occasioning actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm, for which the statutory maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. To increase the maximum penalty for stalking offences causing fear of violence would mean that the penalty for causing fear of violence would be higher than that for causing the violence itself.

We recognise that it is often the case that raising the maximum penalty appears to be a straightforward solution to a problem. I do not think it is a straightforward solution in this case. It may be necessary in due course but, before moving to raise the maximum, we should give careful consideration to the implications for other related offences and avoid creating anomalies in the criminal law.

However, I recognise the strength of feeling about this issue and the harm that can be caused by the most serious stalking cases. The Government will therefore review the operation of the Section 4A stalking offence and related offences. We will consider the maximum custodial sentences available to the court and, in addition, consider mental health sentences to consider how best to identify and address the underlying issues that are present in the most serious cases. The review will supplement the work being done by the Home Office to prevent stalking by looking at the ultimate sanctions available for those who continue to commit offences. I hope this review will also provide further material for the Sentencing Council to draw on as it produces sentencing guidelines for stalking and related offences. Given this commitment to review the operation of Section 4A, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful for that response from the Minister and for the contributions from other noble Lords. Of course I hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says. I too loathe prisons; I recognise that they are overflowing and that the conditions inside many of them are abhorrent. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that many people who are sentenced to prison should not be there, but that does not mean to say that the people who in my view should be in prison should not be there. So I do not agree with the noble Viscount.

It is true that other crimes can be taken into account but I am referring to one specific crime, stalking, and I think we should take that specific crime seriously. It should not always have to be taken into account along with other crimes.

The Minister pointed out the potential differences between sentences; as she says, actual bodily harm has a maximum of five years. However, I believe that is because the harm that is caused does not have to be really serious; typically, it is bruising. What we are talking about here is something that blights people’s lives and those of their families year after year.

I am grateful for the offer from the Minister for a review but, as I mentioned in my speech, this is something that I and many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, cared about four years ago when we argued that the maximum sentence should be 10 years. The last four years have shown us that a five-year maximum is not enough, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

Stalking and Domestic Violence

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Stalking, coercive control and domestic violence are not generally one-off offences but recur time and again. There are perpetrator programmes with which some of the charitable organisations we work with engage. It is sad that it is the other way round and the victim tends to flee the scene of the offence, as opposed to the perpetrator receiving that kind of ongoing work.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the excellent charity Paladin. My fellow trustee, Dr Eleanor Aston, was the victim of horrendous stalking. Her perpetrator was jailed for five years, the maximum sentence. When he was sentenced the judge said he wished that the maximum sentence could be raised. Mr Alex Chalk, the MP for Cheltenham, therefore introduced a Private Member’s Bill at the other end to increase the maximum sentence to 10 years. Why would not the Government support this excellent Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I understand the concern about why the maximum sentence is not higher than it is. The Government keep these issues under review but we do not have any plans at the moment to change the maximum sentence.

Immigration: Overseas Students

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and to be the first to congratulate her on her truly excellent speech. Of course I knew it would be excellent: she has extraordinary experience, expertise and energy, and I am delighted that she is sitting on the red Benches on this side of the Chamber. I have known Shami since the heady days of the Labour Government, and we had some rather interesting discussions about our policies at that time, when I was in the Cabinet—your Lordships will recall debates about the 42 days—but we never fell out over those things. She is a consummate professional—to such an extent that when she was director of Liberty no one really knew what her politics were, quite rightly. Indeed, a noble Lord said to me a couple of days ago that he had been convinced that she would be in the Lords some day soon, but that she would be on the Conservative Benches. Well, their loss is certainly our huge gain.

It could be said that my noble friend has had a baptism of fire, which I deeply regret, but as in so many of her past battles she has come through unscathed, and is relishing her new responsibilities as shadow Attorney-General. With her passion for human rights, justice, equality and social justice she is a tremendous addition to our Benches, and I know that she will make a great contribution to the work of your Lordships’ House.

I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for securing this very important debate, and I start by declaring my interest as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Bath, where we celebrate the contribution of our international and diverse body of students and academics. I am immensely proud of the research undertaken by taught and PhD students as well as postdocs, many of them from outside the UK, which is enabling our country and the world to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

At a time of global uncertainty, when our relationship with the EU is diminished and we are refocusing our relationship with the rest of the world, the soft power at which we have excelled for decades has assumed a greater importance. Encouraging and welcoming foreign students to the UK is one of the most effective ways of garnering and sustaining that soft power. As Prime Minister Modi said on our Prime Minister’s recent visit to India,

“education is vital for our students and will define our engagement in a shared future”.

We can all cite individual examples of people studying in the UK who in their future lives and careers have prioritised a relationship with the UK but, as we have heard, the statistics are staggering. The international education sector is one of the biggest service exports, and one that has significant growth potential. It is also well placed to help our universities weather the implications of Brexit. So why have the Government developed policies to further restrict the number of international students based on what I would call a fictitious number of students who do not leave the UK at the end of their studies? The IPPR recently provided an excellent analysis of the situation, which was followed by further revelations in the press. I hope that today the Minister will use this debate to release the data seen by the Times that indicate that a very small number of international students overstay. So much for evidence-based policies.

The Government also seem to ignore the evidence from a poll carried out by Universities UK that the majority of people do not view international students as immigrants—clear evidence that a more restrictive policy is unlikely to assuage public concerns on migration. As with our main competitors in the international education sphere, Canada, Australia and the US, students should be classified as temporary rather than permanent migrants and should not be subject to a target. My noble friend called them “visitors”, and I think that that is quite right.

One of the key recommendations in the excellent IPPR report, Destination Education: Reforming Migration Policy on International Students to Grow the UK’s Vital Education Exports, was that, like Australia, the UK should set out a 10-year plan for expanding its education sector as part of its industrial strategy and that, as part of that plan, the Government should reintroduce the post-study work visa for STEM and nursing graduates. That makes complete common sense, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view, especially in light of the expected announcement by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement that there will be a significant investment in infrastructure spending which will create a vast number of engineering jobs, at a time when we already have far too few engineers to meet demand. There is also a looming crisis with regard to nurses. Dame Julie Moore, chief executive of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust has recently said that some of her staff from the EU and Ireland want to go home because of the uncertainties of Brexit and the racist abuse. I can say that it is the same for hospitals in Gloucestershire.

The number of international students coming to the UK has fallen over the last six years, while global demand has grown 60% since 2007 according to the OECD. Our competitors are having a field day—and why would they not? The Prime Minister says, and no doubt the Minister will repeat, that Britain is attracting the brightest and the best, but is that really true and will it continue, especially with Brexit and the uncertainties that surround every aspect of economic life? It is absolutely clear that the Government’s new policy on international students, announced by the Home Secretary and driven in large part by their objective of reducing net migration to tens of thousands, will cause further unnecessary harm to individual universities, FE colleges and our education sector as a whole. It will also harm the economic and cultural vibrancy of the university towns and cities. It simply does not make economic sense to provide additional barriers to attracting international students, and we should not forget the societal and cultural loss that we would suffer. In the globalised world of the 21st century, we must equip our students to be citizens of the world, which means studying alongside international students. With the future of EU student recruitment at UK universities uncertain, and with UCAS figures showing a 9% decrease in applications so far this year, how will the Government communicate that all students from outside the UK are still welcome here?

It is clear that the policies of fear rather than pragmatism are driving immigration policy, which is having many perverse and adverse effects, especially on our higher and further education sector. We have outstanding universities and colleges which make a vital economic and social contribution to our country and enhance our reputation in the world—a reputation that has been severely dented by Brexit. We say that we are proud to be an outward-looking, open and welcoming country, but the policies pursued in relation to overseas students and immigration tell a different story. It does not have to be like this and I have no doubt that the message from your Lordships’ House today will be loud and clear—asking the Government to think again. I hope that they do so and that they not only rethink their new proposals but take the bold decision to remove from the immigration target the international students who are welcomed by the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was just saying to the noble Baroness that, because we do not place a limit on the number of students, the fact that the ONS includes students in the migration statistics does not impact on students’ abilities to come here. I do not know if I have made that very clear; the noble Baroness does not look very convinced. If I could make progress and she could look at Hansard, perhaps I could make it clear in writing as well.

My noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked the initial question, “What is the problem?”. I do not think we are anything but in agreement that international students are absolutely vital to the UK, whether it is in medicine, engineering, or anything else. But we must remain vigilant, maintaining safeguards against the types of abuse that we saw previously. We will be inviting views on what more we can do to strengthen the system to support our excellent higher education institutions and those that stick to the rules to attract the best talent.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, asked me to confirm that the Home Office will think liberally and openly about EU students. The Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals already living in the UK. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible is if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return. There will be no immediate changes to the immigration status of EU students or the way that universities are able to recruit students.

My noble friend Lord Lexden asked about minor infractions being reported to UKVI, resulting in heavy sanctions being unfairly imposed. Sponsors benefit directly from migration and are expected to play a part in ensuring that the system is not abused. They must therefore fulfil certain duties to ensure that immigration control is maintained. We already apply discretion to sponsors who have fewer than 50 international students when they undergo their annual compliance assessment and we do not apply sanctions lightly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, asked whether we could introduce a post-study work route for STEM students and nurses. The post-study provisions we have in place must strike the balance between providing competitive options for the brightest graduates from around the globe and maintaining safeguards against the type of widespread abuse that was seen under former post-study work schemes. The noble Baroness also said that the Times report suggested that only 1 per cent of students overstay, and asked why we therefore needed to review the student visa system. We think that the reforms we have made in the last few years have worked and greatly improved compliance. However, that does not mean that we can be complacent. We will shortly be consulting on non-EU work and study immigration routes.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

All I asked for were the data. Can we see the facts with the data?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can reply to the noble Baroness in writing. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, it is prudent to await clarification before policy decisions are made. However, I will get more detail to the noble Baroness on that if I can.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about the recent visit to India, and the fact that the number of Indian students coming to the UK has dropped. We issue more tier 4 visas to students from India than any other country except China and the US, although I of course accept the point made by the noble Lord. We have seen increases in the number of student visas granted elsewhere to China and Indonesia in the year ending March of this year. The proportion of Indian students coming to study in the UK has increased from 50% in 2010 to around 90% in 2015, so the trend of smaller volumes of students with greater concentration in higher education is likely to reflect the recent policy changes to clamp down on immigration abuse by non-genuine students and bogus colleges.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, talked about tier 2 salary thresholds being too high. For the most part they are based on the annual survey of hours and earnings—ASHE—published by the independent ONS. The salary requirements were based on advice from the Migration Advisory Committee, which is an independent body made up of labour market economists.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said that the Fresh Talent Scheme worked, and that therefore Scotland needs a post-study work visa. The Fresh Talent Scheme operated in Scotland between 2004 and 2008. That scheme placed few restrictions on those who wanted to stay in the UK to work post-study and granted free access to the whole of the UK labour market. Evidence published by Scottish Government Social Research in 2008 found that only 44% of applicants had remained in Scotland at the end of their two years’ leave and a significant proportion were not in skilled work. We do not intend to return to the post-study work visa. That does not necessarily lead to skilled work.

I keep getting notes saying that I have two minutes left, then notes saying that I have no minutes. However, I think that I have probably outstayed my welcome at the Dispatch Box. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, once again.

France: Dublin Regulation

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is what I have, I hope, been explaining that the Home Office is in fact doing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that there are now going to be two officials in Calais looking into these crises for children. I find that unacceptable, as I think the whole House will. I hope she will take back to the Home Office the fact that we do not think two officials working in Calais is enough. There may be a special unit in the Home Office, which is very welcome, but we need more people on the ground processing these children’s applications.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are not just two officials working on this: there is an asylum expert seconded to France, and another one will be following. There are a number of people, both in France and in this country, working on a number of areas, as I hope I have outlined in answering these two Questions, and funding is going in—for example, to the FDTA—to identify people who are vulnerable to exploitation. There are not just two people working on this; myriad people, both in France and in this country, are working to get children and vulnerable people in particular to places of safety within France.

Calais: Refugee Camp

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs, whose persistence in gaining justice for unaccompanied child refugees, including hundreds of psychologically scarred and terrified children in Calais, has been and continues to be extraordinary. It is also extraordinary that no child has yet arrived under what one might call the Dubs amendment. After all, the amendment was agreed by the then Home Secretary, who is now our Prime Minister.

My home is two hours away from London, yet it takes just one hour to get to Calais where about 9,000 people are living in deplorable, insanitary, lawless and inhuman conditions, with more arriving every day. These are our fellow human beings whose courage and tenacity know no bounds, yet it is as if they are existing in a different world. These are some of the most traumatised and vulnerable people on the planet, many of whom have fled wars and terror, seeking security. The children on whom we are focusing today have travelled thousands of miles, encountering dangers that we cannot even imagine. At least 387 of them should now be in this country with their families. Like others, I pay tribute to the volunteers, and I particularly thank Clare Moseley of Care4Calais.

The Minister tells us that some progress has been made, and this is welcome, but I have to question the figures. She suggested that 70 children had been accepted for transfer to the UK, but I understand from charities on the ground that only 30 have actually been transferred. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments. In addition, the Government tell us that the UK contributed £530,000 towards a project run by the French NGO France terre d’asile to identify and protect vulnerable people in the camp. Apparently the organisation ran a project in June and July to assist in processing the applications of unaccompanied minors, but, of 20 cases identified, only eight were completed before the project shut down because it had run out of money. Further action needs to be taken.

So what is really happening to speed up the process? Colder weather is coming and the camp is due to be dismantled by the end of the year. Speed is of the essence. It is critical that the Government ensure that there is a plan in place for safe closure and that particular responsibility is taken for unaccompanied children with a legal right to be in this country. We know who these children are, so what are the Government doing to expedite the collation of information about them and their families and the necessary documents and to assist them through the process of making a claim through the French asylum system and getting their asylum claim transferred to the UK? If 70 children have been accepted this year, that is about two a week, as the noble Baroness said earlier this week, so suddenly it seems highly unlikely that the 387 children left will arrive before the camp is dismantled. What work are the Government doing with the French Government to provide suitable accommodation for the unaccompanied children, together with the legal and social care they require?

A leaked document from the French Interior Ministry highlights plans to keep under house arrest individuals whose asylum request concerns another EU country when the transfer is arranged. From mid-October, children with valid claims to come to the UK could be in detention. This is unacceptable for asylum or migration purposes, and I wonder what representations the Government have made to the French.

Last week, the Minister assured the House that local authorities receiving the traumatised children who arrive in this country will be fully funded. I ask for further assurance that the Government will continue the funding for as long as the children need expert help and support. Local councils are desperately underfunded, so I do not blame them, but I criticise the Government and I am deeply ashamed at the contrast with Germany and Sweden in terms of both numbers and resources.

I understand why the decision has been taken to demolish the camp, but it is not a long-term solution to the situation in Calais. In February, more than 50% of the camp was destroyed, but it is now bigger than it has ever been, and there has been an increase in the number of people living in smaller camps along the northern coast of France.

The evidence is that, despite the demolition, refugees will continue to arrive. This is a humanitarian crisis that has become an intractable political problem, and it is not going to go away. I strongly urge the Government to work even more diligently with their French counterparts to find a sustainable, long-term solution that will help the refugees, the hauliers and the people of Calais. I hope that next week’s high-level summit at the UN General Assembly will be a catalyst for real action.

Bus Services: Local Government Funding

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with my noble friend but, as I have said already, it is very much a decision-making matter for local authorities. We are, through various legislative measures that we have taken in the previous Government and in this Government—only yesterday through the devolution Bill—underlining the importance this Government attaches to local decision-making, including on transport.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, local decision-making is extremely important but it requires funds to underpin it. However, much has been made about the need for good rural bus services. At the moment the cuts in rural bus services are hitting students particularly harshly. Will the Minister have a discussion with his colleagues in the Department for Education so that we can ensure that students choose their post-education studies on the basis of what is best for their future and not on the availability of buses to get them to and from their courses?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Baroness that I have regular discussions and conversations with colleagues across a vast range of areas and across different ministries. The total transport pilot fund I have highlighted again underlines the Government’s commitment to look at how funding works and how government funding is sourced and provided at a local level across a range of different departments. We are half-way through the pilot and I shall report back once we have completed it.

Kurdistan Workers’ Party

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I think the Prime Minister said that there are 20,000 Kurdish fighters, who of course are Peshmerga and from the PYD, which of course is not a proscribed organisation. The noble Lord’s point about EU co-operation in these matters is absolutely central, although of course we will retain the power to decide these things at the national level. We have the cross-government Proscription Review and Recommendation Group, and the Home Secretary acts not only on its advice, but also on advice from other external organisations which can make their representations to her.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has mentioned the peace process in Turkey, which is extremely important. I am sure that the Government, along with our European partners, are urging Turkey to carry on with that process. However, will they also urge Turkey to return to a ceasefire in order to create the conditions for a proper dialogue? Perhaps I may suggest that, because of our experience in Northern Ireland, we might have a lot to offer in terms of working with the Turks to find a resolution to this difficult question.

[Lord Bates]

Certainly our position is that we are very supportive of a resumption of the peace talks because that is the only way to reach a lasting solution. It is part of a wider package which we need to recognise in terms of Turkey’s aspirations to join the European Union and how that is related to its progress on issues such as human rights and freedom of the press. All these are bundled together and linked also, of course, to the ongoing problems with migration and the situation in Syria.

Domestic Violence

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many convictions have been obtained under the laws relating to stalking and whether they are satisfied with the adequacy of legislative powers to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence.

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon.

Shared Spaces

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who has provided a lot of very practical ideas in this debate. However, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for initiating this debate, which is of interest to thousands of people, but especially blind and vision-impaired citizens up and down the country, and this is a great way to raise awareness. I pay tribute to the work he has done on shared spaces and to his excellent report, and I also pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Low.

My own interest in this issue comes from my association with an excellent small charity in the Forest of Dean, Forest Sensory Services, of which I am patron. It provides invaluable support to people with audio or visual impairment, who too often are isolated and sometimes in despair when first diagnosed. One of our great supporters and users is Bill Waddell. He spoke to me of his concerns about shared spaces many months ago and introduced me to the brilliant campaigner, Sarah Gayton, who has done so much to raise awareness of the problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has provided a real public service by taking the time to write an honest, tough report. It is eye-opening in so many ways, as he speaks, as he said, with the voice of those most affected. I wholeheartedly endorse the three recommendations, about which he has questioned the Minister this afternoon.

When so much concern has been expressed by such a wide range of our population—from blind people and cyclists to the chief executive officer of the Institute of Highway Engineers and the House of Commons Transport Committee—and when there are frequent, often serious, accidents, I simply do not understand why the Government have not introduced a moratorium on shared space schemes while impact assessments are conducted, let alone why they have not updated their guidance so that local authorities better understand their responsibilities under the Equality Act. The view of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the reason for the delay in updating the guidance is indeed illuminating, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on that.

According to Guide Dogs, which I must thank for a very useful briefing, current estimates suggest that there are 2 million people with sight loss in the UK, of which around 360,000 are registered as blind or partially sighted. As noble Lords have said, it is essential that local authorities meet their obligations to them under the public sector equality duty. However, by authorising shared surface schemes, local authorities are doing the opposite and turning city centres into no-go areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, when Minister for Transport, wrote to all local authorities to remind them of the current guidance and duties under the Equality Act. She said:

“The Government expects highway authorities to work towards high-quality, attractive and inclusive streets that work for people of all abilities”.

Sadly, this has had absolutely no effect, so action is now needed.

In my own city of Gloucester, we had a shared spaced at Kimbrose Triangle. As with every other shared space, this was a nightmare for visually impaired people. I can say from experience that it was not comfortable for drivers and sighted pedestrians, let alone for mums and dads with small children, the elderly or people with other disabilities. Bill Waddell and others made representations to the councils and said that the shared space should be replaced by a puffin crossing, which I understand is best for blind people. However, in their wisdom, the authorities continue with a courtesy crossing, which not only is inappropriate and dangerous for visually impaired people, and a headache for cyclists, but has led to a congestion problem, about which drivers, including taxi drivers, are understandably concerned.

I realise that that is a parochial concern and I would not expect the Minister to comment on the specifics, but it is an example of local authorities’ unwillingness to listen and, I would add, to take seriously their responsibilities under the Equality Act—an Act that I am particularly attached to, as I took it through this House.

There is evidence throughout the country that shared spaces are not working; quite the contrary, they are dangerous and some have even called their proliferation,

“the largest systematic institutionalised discrimination against blind people the UK has ever seen”.

Therefore, does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to assess the reality of what is happening in respect of these schemes so that there is a real evidence base? I noted in the noble Lord’s report that a DfT spokesperson said that it is for local authorities to assess the suitability of introducing a shared space scheme on their roads, and I fear that the Government may therefore refuse to take any action at a national level. But, as with so many issues, this devolution of responsibility simply is not good enough. This is a question of safety, and central government should make a national assessment.

This problem is not limited to the UK. As the noble Lord himself said, schemes are being developed in many European countries. One was introduced in the Netherlands but they have now also been introduced in Austria, Germany and other countries. They are having a terrible impact on the lives and mobility of blind people, as well as causing accidents, so I wonder whether we should be looking at this from a European perspective. Whatever one thinks about the principle of freedom of movement—and I strongly support it—the truth is that because of the growth of shared spaces, the freedom of blind people to move independently in this country and in other parts of the European Union is being impaired.

On the issue of Europe, can the Minister confirm that European funds are being used to build shared spaces in Coventry, Stoke, Blackpool and Wakefield? If they are, I am not sure that proper account has been taken of the European regulations, which state that accessibility for persons with disabilities must be taken into consideration when programmes are prepared and implemented.

I also take this opportunity to highlight an issue which I am sure leads to some headaches in the Department for Transport: the potential conflict between the pursuit of green transport policies and the needs of blind people. For example, the removal of traffic lights to ease congestion makes it difficult, at times impossible, for blind people to cross the road. If you put together the removal of standard crossings with the welcome growth of electric and hybrid cars, which are often very quiet, you create an immense problem for people who are visually impaired. One solution would be to ensure that all new cars are required to make a noise, and I wonder if that is now mandatory.

Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, this has been an excellent debate and I trust that the Minister will now ensure that words are turned into action. This is important for all citizens, but especially for blind people. I remind him that 3 December is UN international day for persons with disabilities. The theme for 2015 is access and empowerment for people of all abilities, and one of the sub-themes is making cities inclusive and accessible to all. The Minister now has seven weeks to act so that blind and vision-impaired people can have a real celebration on that day.