Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

30: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that persons, and adult dependants of persons who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom are granted permission by the Secretary of State to take up employment if—(a) a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which the application was made, or(b) a person makes an application or a further application which raises asylum grounds, and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), regulations must ensure that permission granted allowing people applying for asylum in the UK, and their adult dependants to take up employment, are on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person with recognised refugee status.(2C) This permission is to be valid until the claim is determined and all appeal rights have been exhausted and individuals granted permission to work will be issued with physical proof of the right to work.””

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 30 in my name aims to introduce the right to work for asylum seekers who have been resident in the UK for more than six months. The arguments for the right to work have been well articulated in Committee and earlier, but I will summarise them so that we are clear.

I will begin with the economic arguments. The latest figures show that 125,000 people are waiting for an asylum decision. Every study shows that the net benefit to the state would be tens or hundreds of millions of pounds every year in improved tax-take. The UK economy is recovering after Covid and a lot of jobs have been created, but this has, in turn, created labour shortages. It makes no sense that asylum seekers who can drive HGVs or serve in our NHS are forced to sit around doing nothing for more than a year while they await a decision from the Home Office.

The second argument is one of integration. There is considerable evidence that the right to work has a large, positive impact on the integration of asylum seekers. The Government’s Migration Advisory Committee itself recently underlined that shorter waiting times had a large, positive impact on long-term employment outcomes for asylum seekers. Indeed, discussing refugees’ access to the UK labour market, one leading academic in asylum and refugee policy refers to what she calls the

“inherent contradiction between UK refugee integration strategies that focus on employment, and restrictive government policies that negatively affect access to the labour market.”

There is also the argument of public support for this policy. The policy is overwhelmingly popular with the public: 73% of red wall voters support the right to work, according to recent polling. Business leaders back easing the ban on the right to work, with the Survation poll showing that two-thirds of business leaders back it. It is rare to find a policy that has these three characteristics: economically advantageous, socially advantageous and politically advantageous.

There is one final reason why this is an amendment that the Government should accept. There is also a basic human dignity argument for this policy. We believe that every individual should be able to support themselves and their family. In fact, we would go further and say that, as Conservatives, we believe that every family has a personal responsibility to do so where they can. We have repeatedly, as a party, made the argument that work is the best route out of poverty, so the intention of this amendment is to ensure precisely that. Let people support themselves and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity while they await a decision. The lack of the right to work makes people vulnerable to exploitation, declining mental health, poverty and modern slavery.

If the human dignity arguments do not convince Ministers, this amendment should also be viewed as purely pragmatic. Reforms to the asylum system proposed through the Nationality and Borders Bill will take time to come fully into effect. In the interim, while asylum cases are being processed, the asylum system continues to be under considerable strain. By offering asylum seekers the right to work, the Government will take pressure off themselves. I anticipate, however, that the Minister and other colleagues might be inclined to dismiss this amendment, using the argument that the right to work could be a so-called pull factor. So, before I finish, I want to address the reasons I believe this is not the case.

First, push factors, such as war and famine, as we are seeing in Ukraine, drive refugee flows far more than pull factors do. Secondly, as I have said before in this House, the real pull factors are our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historical ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty—and we are not about to sacrifice any of these, thank goodness. Thirdly, it is worth noting that the UK is currently an outlier in enforcing a 12-month wait period for work and then placing strong restrictions on which employment can be taken up. No other nation, whether any across Europe, the States, Australia or Canada, has such stringent requirements. It is worth asking why they have not considered the right to work to be a pull factor. Finally, this view is backed up by the experts. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee underlined that there is no evidence in academic research that people decide to claim asylum based on these kinds of factors. The Home Office itself commissioned a study that showed little evidence of a link between economic rights and the destination choices of those seeking asylum, and, to my knowledge, it has never produced evidence to the contrary.

All of this is to say that I believe that the Government could quite legitimately, without any nervousness and in line with their own poverty strategy of families working their way out of poverty, adopt this amendment that allows asylum seekers to work after six months of being in the UK. I will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 30. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government’s opposition to the right to work was based less on the pull factor argument than on the impact on the integrity of the labour market. That is just as well. As the noble Baroness said, we have yet to see convincing evidence of the pull factor any better than the selective and somewhat misleading quote from a study that the Minister offered in Committee. She mentioned an impact assessment on that, which I believe is yet to materialise. When can we expect it?

If we consider the numbers involved, it is difficult to see how labour market integrity will be compromised. Indeed, the combination of the effects of the Bill and the welcome promised speeding up of applications, to which Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker should add some teeth, should reduce the numbers affected significantly. I imagine that the Migration Advisory Committee will have considered the integrity of the labour market before recommending the right to work after six months and in any occupation. Yet the Minister did not even mention the MAC report raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee.

Neither did she mention the MAC’s argument, and one central to the case I made, concerning the impact of the ban on working on integration, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which supposedly remains a government goal. Nor did she acknowledge the statement I read out from MIN Voices, made up of asylum seekers, who said that not being able to work made them feel less than human and corroded their self-respect and dignity—again, echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. As the chair of Surrey Heath Conservatives pointed out on ConservativeHome —my new favourite reading—this very much chimes with Conservative values, so that in his view the ban is “fundamentally un-Conservative”.

I conclude by repeating the plea of MIN Voices’ plea to

“see us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills”.

I should also mention the article by Sarah O’Connor of the Financial Times, who ended her recent analysis of the labour market implications of the ban by saying that

“if people want to work, we should let them”.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sorry to have given such a long-winded response, but I hope that, with my explanation, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this cross-party debate for their insightful and well-argued remarks. The comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that ConservativeHome is her new favourite reading, was the revelation of the evening. I felt that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on social solidarity hit the nail on the head.

I heard the Minister’s response. She used the twin argument of the integrity of our Immigration Service and pull factors to dismiss Amendment 30. Across the House, I thought we were able to pretty much rebut the right to work being a pull factor. The integrity of our Immigration Service is questionable too, when other European nations, Canada, Australia and all the other nations mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can maintain the integrity of their immigration services and not reject the right to work for asylum seekers.

Like all of us across the House, I believe that if we are to become the nation I know we are meant to be, with well-managed borders but a respectful and compassionate asylum system, this amendment can contribute much to creating such an environment. As we have heard in the contributions this evening, the right to work for asylum seekers after six months is a policy that is economically, socially and politically advantageous. It confers dignity on those who have sought safety here and, as we have heard, there is little to no evidence that it creates pull factors. It would also help the Home Office with pressure on its claims system.

I believe that there is support in the House for the amendment and that, even at this hour of the night, it would be appropriate to test the will of the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is me again, I am afraid. I rise to move Amendment 46, and I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Stroud, my noble friend Lord Blunkett—who had to leave—and the British Red Cross and Praxis for their support.

Again, this is a probing amendment. Together with Amendment 54, it would delete reference to the “no recourse to public funds” condition from the listed ways in which group 1 and group 2 refugees and their families could be treated differently under Clause 11. In other words, it would remove one source of potential discrimination from the list of examples of the discriminatory treatment of group 2 refugees. It is a probing amendment because while I am totally opposed to Clause 11 standing part of the Bill, it is important that we have more information about how the “no recourse to public funds” condition will be applied.

In fact, questioning the application of the no recourse condition reinforces the case against Clause 11. UNHCR makes it clear that denying refugees recourse to public funds is a clear violation of Article 23 of the refugee convention, which states in unambiguous terms:

“The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.”


Given that Ministers constantly claim that the Bill is compatible with our international obligations, does the Minister believe that UNHCR is wrong, and if so, on what grounds?

Similarly, the JCHR points to a violation of Article 24 of the convention, which specifically cites the right to social security. It argues that the differentiation policy, including specifically restrictions on recourse to public funds

“raises serious questions of compatibility with Article 14 ECHR—the prohibition on discrimination in the enjoyment of other Convention rights.”

It concludes that the policy is

“arguably disproportionate to achieving the stated aims.”

In fact, as the committee notes, the aim of dissuading asylum seekers from travelling to the UK other than by safe and legal routes ignores all the research, including that of the Home Office, which indicates that it is rare for asylum seekers to know what support is available.

To repeat something that my noble friend Lord Rosser said, UNHCR warns:

“The adverse consequences of a ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ condition will fall not only the refugees themselves, but also on their families, including on any children who travel with them, are able to join them later, or are born in the UK. These consequences have been documented in numerous studies as well as in the context of litigation. They include difficulty accessing shelters for victims of domestic violence, denial of free school meals where these are linked to the parents’ benefit entitlement”—


—although this is currently suspended, and a very long review is taking place; this policy has been under review for 15 months now—

“and de facto exclusion from the job market for single parents (largely women) who have limited access to government-subsidised childcare, as well as significant risks of food poverty, severe debt, sub-standard accommodation, and homelessness.”

It also notes that public funds include payments specifically for children, such as child benefit, and for those in particularly vulnerable circumstances, such as carers and disabled people. It warns of the adverse consequences for integration and for local authorities which may have to pick up some of the tab for children and those with care needs.

Its conclusions chime with evidence from a range of organisations, including a recent Citizens Advice survey that documents the severe poverty and destitution caused by the rule, with children, women and people of colour disproportionately affected and with what it describes as a “devastating impact” on mental health. Likewise, the BMA has raised concerns that the rule’s effects can compound physical or mental health conditions among those with particular vulnerabilities fleeing violence or trauma.

There are real fears now that the Bill will increase significantly the numbers affected by the “no recourse” rule. There is also a lack of clarity as to whom among group 2 refugees it will be applied, both in the short term and each time their status comes up for renewal. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity and not fob us off with the response that details will be set out in the guidance and rules that follow, as was said in the Commons.

What was made clear in the Commons was that those already in receipt of Section 95 asylum support will not face restrictions on access to public funds. However, this is not made clear in the Bill itself. Can we be confident that most asylum seekers will have been in receipt of Section 95 asylum support? What about those refugees who face destitution but were not receiving Home Office support, such as those who choose not to enter the asylum support system and rely instead on informal networks of support because of accommodation being allocated on a no-choice basis? What about those who fall into destitution after being granted refugee status, which will be a greater risk as a result of this clause?

It is currently difficult to get the “no recourse” rule lifted on the grounds of destitution because the concession applies only to a minority of those affected and involves a difficult, complicated process. Citizens Advice warns that

“in our experience these limited exemptions for destitution give too little help too late”,

with a decision typically taking more than four weeks, according to the Minister in the Commons. Can the Minister tell us who exactly among group 2 refugees will in practice not be subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule? What is the Government’s estimate of the proportion of group 2 refugees who will be subject to it? What will happen when their status is up for renewal? Will the destitution exception be open to any group 2 refugee or only to certain groups, as is the case now? Will access to the concession be made easier than it is currently?

In recent oral evidence on the “no recourse” rule to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, refused to answer questions about the Bill’s implications, stating that policy work is ongoing. This elicited the response from the committee chair that, given that the Bill had already completed its passage through the Commons, surely we ought to know what its implications are—indeed. Surely by now the Home Office should be able to answer what are some pretty basic questions about how Clause 11(5)(c) and (6)(d) will work. It is crucial that we have this information should Clause 11 continue to stand part of the Bill, although I fervently hope that it will not, not only because it contravenes the refugee convention but also because it will spell hardship and insecurity for many group 2 refugees—who will be very much class 2 refugees. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I want to take the opportunity afforded by Amendments 46 and 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I was pleased to add my name, to probe the Government’s exact intention regarding the outworking of Clause 10 and the application of NRPF.

I have long been concerned about the NRPF policy, but I have profound concerns about its application to group 2 refugees. According to the Home Office’s own guidance, the NRPF condition must not be applied in circumstances where a person is destitute or at risk of becoming so. Can the Minister confirm that this understanding is correct, or would group 2 refugees not be able to receive asylum support and be subject to NRPF? Can the Minister also clarify what would happen should such a person qualify for the destitution test?

There are a number of areas where I would encourage the Minister to consider the impact of applying NRPF to group 2 refugees. I know that Members of this House would be happy to work with her if that is helpful. First, on the impact on local authorities, if the NRPF condition is extended to refugees subject to the new temporary protection status, the increase in the number of individuals subject to NRPF would increase the pressure on already overstretched local authorities. Such increased pressure could lead to more families with NRPF being wrongly refused assistance by local authorities. This would have a devastating impact on the health and development of children in these families and would counter any efforts to develop integration. In addition, it would affect already vulnerable families who have the same characteristics as those who are permitted to access public funds. This is an area of concern to me: they have just arrived here via different routes, but there is no difference in their vulnerability.

Imposing an NRPF condition will cause refugees to live without access to welfare benefits and housing support. When we are considering NRPF, we often think of out-of-work benefits, but this also affects in-work benefits. You could have the extraordinary circumstance of two auxiliaries working in a hospital, one being able to claim in-work support, and the other not. He or she would not be able to survive in those circumstances, even if they were doing everything right. There is also evidence from those already subject to the NRPF condition that this restriction can cause destitution and lead children to experience homelessness, hunger and mental health conditions.

If, as seems to be the case, group 2 refugees would be subject to NRPF, this policy may not achieve its intent. I would value the Minister setting out the exact policy intent of NRPF, as I have found it hard to find what the intent of no recourse to public funds is.

My work as chair of the Social Metrics Commission, a cross-party commission which measures poverty in the UK, finds that no recourse to public funds is a significant cause in driving poverty, homelessness and destitution. NRPF has been shown to have significant mental health consequences, including for children. It makes finding stable work more difficult, accessing education harder, and securing stable housing a challenge. These are all things we want to see for this community of people.

It is important for us to really understand who we are talking about. We are not talking here about asylum seekers or economic migrants. We are talking about people the Government recognise as bona fide refugees—that has already been decided—who have fled conflict, war or famine and arrived in Britain hoping to find a place of refuge. By tabling this probing amendment, I want to ensure that, purely by virtue of the route by which refugees arrive here, they will not be subject to profound insecurity, at a time when we are committed to ending rough sleeping, levelling up the UK and defining the character of the nation we want to be.

As this is a probing amendment, I ask the Minister to clarify whether group 2 refugees would or would not be able to receive asylum support. Would they be subject to NRPF, even when qualifying for a destitution test? If so, what is the exact policy intent of NRPF for this group of people? How would group 2 refugees have been provided for during Covid, when they would not have had access to furlough or universal credit? Finally, in what way is the Government’s commitment to ending rough sleeping, and NRPF for group 2, compatible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Given that the Government’s position is that they are right about the refugee convention; given that they disagree with the UNHCR but have their own interpretation under which they are honouring the refugee convention; and given that the Government’s position is that it is about parliamentary sovereignty and not the sovereignty of people elsewhere, why should we be forming our interpretation of the refugee convention on the basis of French criticism? If we are worried about pull factors, perhaps we should reinstall “Go Home” vans and a hostile environment for people seeking asylum.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My noble friend said that it would be good to identify what some of these pull factors actually are. At Second Reading, I sought to try to outline what I believed the pull factors were, and they are not things that we would want to destroy or diminish at all. My understanding of the pull factors—why people want to come to this country—is that they include our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty. These are the sorts of reasons why people want to come here. The small, pitiful amount of money that somebody gets to survive on is not something, when they are leaving Eritrea and thinking of the hellish journey that they are going to take, that is going to make them want to come here. It is much more likely that they experience push factors, which are war, famine and devastating impacts on their lives. We really need to understand the lives that are lived by these men and women who risk all to come here. We know that every system has elements that get exploited, but we have to make laws for the majority of people and the majority of cases, and to be the sort of nation that we actually want to be.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Well, I agree with every word that my noble friend has just said. What I am seeking to persuade colleagues to focus on is that surely the objective—the policy intent to which she referred—is to focus our efforts on helping people via safe and legal routes. If we can deter people from coming here in small boats and by other illegal means, we can instead focus our efforts on those people who are genuinely in need. Okay, if we are not prepared to countenance NRPF, what is our answer to reducing deterrent factors—or do noble Lords simply think that this is not an issue? If that is the case, what do we say to the French, who really do strongly believe that it is a problem?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am not disagreeing with the noble Baroness; I am just trying to get us to focus on what the Government are now putting forward as a policy intent, which is to reduce pull factors, push factors or whatever we call them. Surely, our whole objective in all this must be to help those who are really in need and to encourage them to come by safe and legal routes. That is surely what Clause 11 is all about.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the objective should be to encourage people to come by legal and safe routes. However, I think that what we have at the moment is a situation whereby people are coming across in small boats because there is no other way for them to come. We have to accept the fact that the small amount of money is not the pull factor that is bringing them across. We should really consider whether we would put ourselves at risk for that small amount of money coming across the channel.

What other ways are there of doing this? My noble friend the Minister gave this House a good challenge at Second Reading when she said that all she was hearing were problems and asked: where are the solutions? At that time, one of the solutions I put on the table was a negotiated settlement with the French post the French election. Most of us would agree that, prior to the French election, we are unlikely to get a negotiated settlement, but are we really saying that, post the French election, there might not be a possible breakthrough? The diplomatic route is one that I would still be seeking to use. We as a House must be putting creative solutions on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for explaining their Amendments 46 and 54. As I have said elsewhere, I hope I can reassure the Committee that the powers under Clause 11 are both broad and flexible.

To come first to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, there is no obligation to exercise the provisions and, where they are exercised, there is no requirement to do so in any particular way. We will of course produce guidance and rules in this respect in due course, but those products will reflect the flexibility in the clause by providing appropriate discretion to take into account people’s individual circumstances.

The same therefore applies to no recourse to public funds. Details will be set out in due course, but I reassure noble Lords that we will take particular care to take into account relevant factors when considering the imposition of the condition, if it is imposed at all, including the impact on families, children and other vulnerabilities that have been raised elsewhere. In addition, we are mindful of potential impacts on local authorities and wider civil society. The policies in the Bill are of course subject to an impact assessment in any event. I stress that no one will be NRPF if they would otherwise be at risk of destitution. If they are, they can apply for a change of conditions to remove the condition.

I shall pick up on a few points. The first was about the policy intent, which is to disincentivise dangerous journeys. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral is right: we have to disincentivise people from risking their lives.

My noble friend Lady Stroud talked about safe and legal routes. She was probably not in the Chamber when I laid out absolutely all of them. I refer her to the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, setting all of them out, including several routes for family reunion; I hope she will take a look at that. I commend her on coming up with the solution, yet again, of working with the French. I agree that we need to work not only with the French but with other countries because this is a global problem that now requires a global solution from each and every state on the globe.

I turn to push factors versus pull factors. Push factors do not explain secondary movement, there is no doubt about that. If push factors were all, people would stop in the first safe country that they reached—that is an absolute fact. We must keep all options on the table to stop illegal migration. I hope, but doubt, that I have reassured the noble Baroness that I appreciate and understand her concerns, and the requisite levels of discretion and sensitivity will be exercised with respect to—

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. I would like to clarify one point. I think she is saying that the removal or application of, or access to, public funds is discretionary. If that is the case, who has the discretion to apply or withdraw them? It is unusual for the welfare state to be quite so discretionary and, in effect, subject to subjective judgment. It would help to have clarity as to who can say this person will have access to public funds and that person will not.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the Minister answers—I am sorry to prolong the debate; I was going to leave this point until group 8 on the right to work—she talked about pull factors being an absolute fact, but the Migration Advisory Committee said in its annual report in December:

“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made.”

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, there are two questions which I believe we are seeking to answer by this Bill. First, what should it look like to take back control of our borders in a humane and legal way; and, secondly, how can Britain continue to be a place offering sanctuary to the world’s most vulnerable at a time of need?

Whether during the Holocaust or the flight of Ugandan Asians from Idi Amin, Britain has historically been a place of sanctuary. Post-Brexit global Britain should aspire to continue this tradition. While I agree with the objectives of the Bill, I will start with why I am raising concerns that it may not achieve its stated aim, and I will then turn to areas where it could be constructively amended, which it would be good to explore in Committee.

As we have heard, the Bill aims to disincentivise so-called irregular entry through the creation of a two-tiered system, in the hope of producing what the Home Office calls the “pull factor” of the UK asylum system. So let us pause for a moment on what the pull factors are which encourage people to come to the UK. A few of them would be our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty. In short, the pull factor is not our asylum system. The pull factors which set our nation apart as a desirable place of refuge are characteristics which make Britain what it is today. No one in this House would wish to dismantle them. Britain will always be an attractive place, even with a two-tiered refugee system.

Our Government’s own equality impact assessment recognises this, saying that

“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach”—

that is, increased deterrence to encourage people to claim asylum elsewhere—

“is limited”.

So can the Minister outline the Government’s reasons for weakening and potentially breaching the refugee convention by discriminating between people based on their arrival, and when there is such limited evidence of efficacy?

I also have concerns that the legislation as currently drafted would create a significantly greater administrative burden, making it even harder for the Home Office to process legitimate asylum claims. This concern leads me to ask for more information from my noble friend the Minister to help this House understand how this might be handled. First, what estimate have Her Majesty’s Government made of the cost of needing to reassess a refugee’s protection needs every two and a half years? Secondly, have Her Majesty’s Government assessed the likely legal costs of judicial review applications and the compatibility of the legislation with the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and the Children Act 1989? Will this legislation’s passage be possible only alongside reforms of our human rights legislation? What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that the legislation does not set back the progress made in the Modern Slavery Act?

There may well be a better way forward. In my view, the only meaningful way to resolve the issue of irregular arrivals from France is through diplomacy. I know this is difficult to achieve ahead of the French election, but are we really not prepared to wait until July to see whether this might not be possible? We could create a safe-returns agreement with the French, alongside a more regular and regulated pathway. This would be in both countries’ long-term interests. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of this approach post the French elections?

There could be two further areas where the Government could improve this legislation to better protect and support those in need of asylum. The first is designating new and improved safe and legal routes. The Minister will remember that this House was given assurances from the Dispatch Box during the Brexit Bill debates that the Government would institute safe and legal pathways. Because of these assurances, our amendment to that Bill was withdrawn. These promises are yet to be fulfilled. Will the Minister bring forward an amendment to the primary legislation or secondary policies laying out the exact nature of the safe and legal routes?

Secondly, I wholeheartedly support the Migration Advisory Committee’s recent recommendation calling for the Government to institute the right to work for asylum seekers. The arguments for the right to work after six months, ranging from the benefit to the Exchequer to the boon to integration, are compelling. I will be tabling a cross-party amendment on this, and I hope to work with my noble friend the Minister on this matter.

I look forward to working as a House to support the Government to achieve their stated objectives and to ensure that our character as a compassionate nation is fully expressed, while ensuring that people smugglers are put out of business and vulnerable people are no longer exploited.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was in his place earlier but has had to go elsewhere for the evening. He has asked me to speak on his behalf on the amendments in this group tabled in his name alongside those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I thank the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s for their support and helpful briefings.

The Church has a particular concern for vulnerable children. As far as the Church of England is concerned, there are 4,644 schools in which we educate around 1 million students. This educational commitment is combined with parish and youth worker activities that bring the Church into contact with thousands of families each year. Through the Clewer Initiative, many parishes and dioceses have worked closely on the issues of county lines and confronting the blight of modern slavery. Accordingly, we have seen at first hand and, sadly, all too frequently the terrible damage caused by serious youth violence and by the criminal exploitation of children. The latter is an especially insidious form of abuse, which one victim has described as “when someone you trusted makes you commit crime for their benefit”.

Amendment 50, as we have heard, seeks to create a definition of child criminal exploitation that would sit alongside other definitions of exploitation already in the Modern Slavery Act. The present lack of a single statutory definition means that local agencies are responding differently to this form of exploitation across the country. Research by the Children’s Society in 2019 found that only one-third of local authorities had a policy in place for responding to it. By its very nature, exploitation through county lines crosses local authority boundaries, so it is imperative that there is a national shared understanding of child criminal exploitation so that children do not fall through the gaps if they live in one area but are exploited in another. A consequence of the current lack of a shared definition and approach is that many children receive punitive criminal justice responses rather than being seen as victims of exploitation and abuse.

Youth justice data shows that in 2019-20, 1,402 children were first-time entrants to the youth justice system due to drug offences, with 2,063 being first-time entrants due to weapon offences. Both issues are often associated with criminal exploitation through the county lines drug model. Despite positive work from several police forces and the CPS, many criminal cases are still being pursued against a child even when they have been identified as a victim of criminal exploitation.

Relatedly, too many children are coming to the attention of services only when they are arrested by police for drugs-related crimes, as early warning signs are not understood or are simply missed. We too often find that not all professionals involved in children’s lives fully understand this form of exploitation and how vulnerabilities manifest in children. There are countless serious case reviews that point to safeguarding interventions not being made earlier enough in the grooming process.

A statutory definition agreed and understood by all local safeguarding partners would enable professionals to spot the signs earlier and divert vulnerable children away from harm, in much the same way as the recently adopted statutory definition of domestic abuse is now helping to improve responses on that issue. I am sure that every Member of this House shares the desire to protect vulnerable children. Adopting this definition would send a strong message to those children that their abuse is seen, heard and understood.

This also leads me briefly to address Amendments 21, 23 to 27, 42 and 43, which would amend the serious violence duty. Concern with the serious violence duty, as presented here, is about a lack of clear commitment to the safeguarding of children. No differentiation is drawn between how this duty impacts on children as opposed to adults.

Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response. Being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. It is important to understand these underlying causes of why children may be involved in violence, and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within certain areas to be addressed. We need to intervene to protect and divert children, not treating them as adult criminals. This requires a co-ordinated approach to preventative safeguarding which focuses on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first signs of issues in their lives to prevent them being coerced into activity associated with serious violence.

Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies, and in any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. The duty as currently drafted does not mention “safeguarding” once, nor does it signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area. A failure to write into the duty the need to safeguard children risks young people falling through the cracks in statutory support and receiving a punitive response from statutory services. It makes the duty all about crime reduction at the expense of safeguarding. It would also hinder the ability of the duty to be truly preventative if it did not specify the involvement of children’s services.

I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister on the commitment to safeguarding, ideally on the face of the Bill, but certainly a commitment that the issue of how the duty relates to safeguarding will be more closely considered in guidance.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 50 and 52, which seek to create a statutory definition for child criminal exploitation and provide training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.

The intention of these amendments is to ensure that those who first encounter victims—most often, police officers on a child’s arrest—know what they are looking for and are prepared to respond to signs of child criminal exploitation and secure the intervention and support for children who are being exploited.

This amendment could well be needed to ensure that we no longer allow our most vulnerable children to slip through the cracks and end up in a cycle of exploitation, violence and criminality. I was particularly struck by a story published by the Children’s Society in which a child was repeatedly exploited to transport drugs and weapons, and his mother threatened by older youths when he failed to provide money to those coercing him into criminal activity. He was known to his youth offending team, but the extent of the ways in which he had been exploited did not become manifest until his tragic murder in January 2019. His story is just one of thousands.

The Children’s Commissioner has estimated that at least 27,000 children in the UK are currently at serious risk of gang exploitation. The national referral mechanism has begun to recognise the weight of this criminal exploitation as a form of modern slavery, and 2,749 of the 4,964 child victims that it encountered in 2020 had been subject to child criminal exploitation. However, only a minority of exploited victims ever reach the national referral mechanism. These amendments are designed to probe whether we need a clear definition and understanding of criminal exploitation, and training which equips local authorities to intervene and protect children from it.

It is important that we recognise that when a child is being exploited, first and foremost, as we have heard this evening, they are a victim. According to an FOI request by Barnardo’s, only one of 47 local policing departments responded with existing awareness and a strategy for combating child criminal exploitation, leaving 29 which had no approach and 17 which were unresponsive.

Without awareness of child criminal exploitation and a policy in place for its detection and eradication, children are arrested as criminals and enter the criminal justice system with no assistance against the coercion that they face. This often results in their continued exploitation on release and a perpetuated cycle of coerced reoffending.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to say it is beyond argument that this is an important Bill. In my professional career, I dealt with many cases of child abuse. I practised at the criminal Bar, not the family Bar. Fortunately, sitting as a recorder, I did not have to try or sentence anyone convicted of child abuse.

It is important to get the legislation right. At my first reading, I thought the Bill was sufficiently comprehensive to deal with any wrongdoing. The steps in the ladder are clear: first, the relationship is set out in Clause 1(2); then we go on to the type of relationship, supplemented in subsections (3) and (4); then subsection (5) deals with indirect behaviour. The amendment’s supporters seek to redefine this, by adding words to give an example of behaviour which is reprehensible. I understand the aims of the proposers and their real concerns. We have listened to the passionate speeches made today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has added his name to the amendment. From long experience, I would listen to his words, and the House always does with very great respect.

My fear is that this amendment is over-prescriptive. Putting this into the Bill might limit the generality of the encompassing nature of subsection (5). At the moment, I have serious doubts about whether the amendment is needed at all, as such particularising may limit the thrust of the subsection so far as other conduct is concerned. In these circumstances, having heard all the arguments, I would recommend its rejection by your Lordships.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Meyer on her courage and resilience in tabling this amendment again today. I first had the privilege of meeting her and hearing her story many years ago, and since then she has been a tireless campaigner on this issue despite, as we have seen both today and in Committee, often intense and personal challenge.

As we have heard, parental alienation is a devastating form of abuse that can extend for decades and have deeply traumatic effects on both the children and the excluded parent. There has, however, been strong resistance to recognising this as a form of abuse. Those who oppose it argue that abusive parents may themselves use the defence of parental alienation to continue their abuse. Surely, though, this is precisely why we have judges. We must have confidence in our courts and our police to make these judgments, just as they have to make countless others every day of the week.

The amendment seeks insert into the legislation the line

“such as a parent’s behaviour deliberately designed to damage the relationship between a child of the parent and the other parent”.

I am hopeful that the Government should be able to confirm that this is indeed included in the definition of coercion, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my noble friend Lady Meyer have requested. This addition would specifically draw attention to parental alienation while simultaneously giving the family courts a sound basis on which to better distinguish between genuine and false allegations of parental alienation. The amendment identifies parental alienation and protects those who are vulnerable from exploitation of the law.

The dynamics expressed in the amendment are important for a number of reasons. Alienation adversely affects the psychological development of a child in that it prevents a natural, healthy bond and relationship with a parent. A child needs to be nurtured and protected by its mother. Erica Komisar, a leading expert in attachment theory and the neuroscience of motherhood, highlights that children are at a higher risk of social, emotional and developmental issues when the essential presence of a mother is missing. But it is equally important that the child should have a relationship with their father. In a major study by the Journal of Applied Economics entitled The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency, it was found that when the interactions between a parent and a child diminish, such as in the case of parental alienation, the child perceives a decline in that parent’s benevolence. If the decline is sufficient, the child will accept its implications and move to feelings of abandonment, alienation and a lack of trust. Both the parent and the child are worse off.

Research from the Institute for Family Studies has also found that, controlling for race and parental income, boys raised without their father are much more likely to use drugs, engage in violent or criminal activity and drop out of school, while girls are more likely to engage in early sexual activity or have a child out of wedlock. The consequences of parental alienation can be deep and severe on the next generation.

There can be no doubt that judicial decisions in cases involving children must take account of all aspects of the family dynamic, including all types of abuse. There is a need for qualified professionals to assist the court in assessing whether there is abuse and, if so, its severity and how it should affect child/parent residence and contact arrangements. But the need for expertise in handling these delicate situations should not dissuade us from addressing this often hidden but deeply damaging form of abuse.

The Bill is strengthened if it captures all forms of domestic abuse and improves outcomes for those who are vulnerable to experiencing it, and we look to the Minister today to confirm that the concept of alienation is included within the definition of domestic abuse.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too wish to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for her two decades of campaigning after a horrific experience that most people would not be able to turn into such a positive contribution. I wish her, the co-signatories to the amendment and all Members of your Lordships’ House a happy International Women’s Day. It is a celebratory moment, as well as a moment of remembrance which was started over 100 years ago by radical working women.

I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for doing something that seems all too rare in our polarised and sometimes even toxic public discourse. She has listened. I did not participate in this part of the debate in Committee, but I was struck by her speech and by the contributions that were informed by the work of various women’s organisations, and survivor organisations in particular, about the contested or loaded nature of the term “parental alienation”. I am not a psychologist, a social worker or an expert on this topic, but I was moved by contributions from those who are, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

It seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has indeed listened and has attempted in her reformulation to address behaviour rather than syndromes in a precise way that is more appropriate to legislation on difficult issues. I have no doubt that many abusive men will seek to use the term “alienation” as a stick with which to beat the surviving former partner, but, equally, I have no doubt that men and women are capable of weaponising their children during terrible relationship breakdown. I also have no doubt that this is a gendered world and a very unequal one, whether we like it or not, and that this inequality affects women, but also men and boys. It is a very vicious spiral indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

7: Clause 3, page 3, line 3, after “abuse,” insert “including in utero exposure,”

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 and the corresponding group in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their support for these amendments.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for her time since we last debated these amendments in Committee. As we spoke, I was encouraged by her deep commitment to ensure that the Bill provides protection for all children—whether they be in utero, newly born or on the cusp of adulthood. I am hopeful today to receive assurance that guidance will protect these children. I thank all noble Lords who offered their support and feedback on our initial amendments as we worked towards finding a nuanced pathway that would ensure that the Bill does in fact protect all children but does not open up a legal minefield.

Why are these amendments needed? We know that around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during pregnancy. These are horrific statistics. Alongside this, we know that the first 1,001 days, from conception to age two, is a period of uniquely rapid development when babies are particularly susceptible to their environment, so here we see high vulnerability to abuse and violence coupled with essential days for child development colliding and creating a unique environment that needs protection.

Domestic abuse in pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm birth. A mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development by altering the environment in the womb, and ongoing stressors such as domestic abuse can disrupt babies neuro-development. This can affect children’s cognitive functioning and emotional regulation, shaping behavioural and emotional outcomes for years to come. We also know that the sad truth is that the single best predictor of children becoming either perpetrators or victims of domestic violence later in life is whether they grew up in a home where there was domestic violence. These amendments seek to break this cycle and allow for early intervention, which can have life-changing outcomes for victims.

So what needs to happen and what can these amendments do? The amendment to Clause 3 would ensure that professionals take in utero exposure into account when identifying children as victims of domestic abuse. The amendment to Clause 7 relates to the general functions of the commissioner and would ensure that identifying children affected by domestic abuse also includes babies in utero. The addition of a new clause after Clause 72 would require the Secretary of State to

“make provision for publicly-funded traumainformed and attachment-focussed therapeutic work to be made available to all expectant parents and parents of children aged under two years old where those children are victims of or otherwise affected by domestic abuse.”

The amendment to Clause 73 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the effects of domestic abuse on babies who were in utero at the time of the abuse and on babies and young children under the age of two.

These amendments and what they represent are crucial. As the Bill stands, there is a requirement that the commissioner must “encourage good practice” in identifying people who carry out domestic abuse, victims of domestic abuse and children affected by domestic abuse. My amendment would mean that encouraging good practice in identifying children affected by domestic abuse must include the unborn child by reaching out to pregnant women to offer support relating to domestic abuse, and by being alert to the need to offer support and safeguarding to the child post birth if necessary.

The addition of a new clause focused on trauma-informed support is about access to support for parents. The Bill will be ineffective if there is no provision for people to get the help they want and need. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a step change in our response to domestic abuse. The reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. It is therefore essential that they have access to support that can actually change behaviour.

An evaluation of the For Baby’s Sake programme, which provides trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic support for parents, led by King’s College London, found that support at this time can harness parents’ motivation and empower them to make changes for their babies and themselves. A SafeLives report highlights that 80% of victims have told us that they think that interventions for perpetrators are a good idea. A main conclusion from Breaking Down the Barriers, the findings of the National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage, was the call from survivors for trauma-informed support to break traumatic cycles. It is essential that we make this provision.

As the Bill stands, there is a requirement that the Secretary of State issues guidance about the effects of domestic abuse on children. The amendment to Clause 73 would ensure that the unborn child is included in that guidance to make sure that they are visible.

The protections that would be created by these amendments are needed because we know that the first 1,001 days of a child’s life are an opportune time for intervention and the best time for breaking the cycle. Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many mothers and fathers and a time when there is the most motivation to change.

Although this is not a gendered issue, the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London, in conjunction with For Baby’s Sake, found that intervening in the perinatal period may prevent early childhood trauma and its consequences. New fatherhood is a motivator for change in men who use violence in their relationships. Therefore, intervening in the perinatal period and including a focus on parenting may improve engagement in programmes to reduce violence.

There is much that is good in this Bill and much that we can be proud of that has already been done to increase the protections for many. However, we have an opportunity to go just that bit further and to be crystal clear that it is our intention to protect all children, including those aged under two and during pregnancy. It is essential that we get this right. I understand that legislation may not be required to achieve this goal and hope to receive assurances from my noble friend the Minister of what may be achieved through guidance. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this amendment, but especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their contributions. Their contributions were moving, constructive and hugely valuable. For me too, hearing the cross-party nature of the support for the very youngest right the way through to the age of two was a special moment in this House. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the way she has listened and sought to ensure that all children, including babies in utero, are recognised as potential victims of domestic abuse. The assurance that all babies in utero are to be recognised in guidance is very precious. I thank her and her officials for responding so fulsomely. I am so grateful to her for her work in ensuring that the draft guidance will recognise that pregnancy is a specific risk factor that can make victims more vulnerable. This is hugely important because pregnancy, as we have heard during this debate, can be a trigger for domestic abuse. Existing abuse can get worse as well during pregnancy.

I am delighted too that guidance recognises that domestic abuse experienced during pregnancy and in the earliest years is harmful to birth outcomes and babies’ early development, and that trauma-informed support will be available for these families. This is crucial because a mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence, as my noble friend the Minister said, on foetal development and on-going stresses, such as domestic abuse, can disrupt babies’ neural development.

Finally, I am delighted that guidance will recognise that while pregnancy may increase risk of abuse, the interaction with health professionals provides an opportunity for women to seek support, as well as for professionals to reach out to women who may be experiencing domestic abuse. This is a moment for us not to miss. These women are already in the system and standing in front of a professional. We can harness this moment of opportunity to ensure protection for these very vulnerable babies.

I am mindful of the words of warning of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the need to remain vigilant on the effectiveness of guidance. I am sure that Ministers who have spoken in this debate will join us in remaining vigilant so that these protections become a reality. There is clearly strong cross-party support to recognise babies and the unborn as potential victims of domestic abuse, and to seize the moment to intervene. at a crucial juncture for parents. I thank the Government for the steps they have taken and given assurances that they will take.

I finally thank the more than 70 experts, doctors and charities of early childhood and domestic abuse who put their names behind this amendment. An extraordinary number of organisations and professionals have backed this, including Amanda McIntyre of For Baby’s Sake, Alison Morton of the Institute of Health Visiting, and Sally Hogg from the First 1001 Days movement. Their work on the frontline is what makes all the difference. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

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

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay, particularly Amendments 94 and 21. These recognise the importance of substance abuse, addiction and mental health provision in the fight against domestic abuse. As the Committee has heard, these issues are a persistent factor for both perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse. People with mental health problems find themselves disproportionately victimised in domestic abuse settings and children can find themselves equally vulnerable. A Crying Shame, published by the Children’s Commissioner in 2018, highlighted 50,000 children aged nought to five, including 8,300 babies under one, living in households where the destructive impact of domestic abuse, alcohol or drug dependency and severe mental ill-health were all present. A further 160,000 children aged nought to five, including 25,000 babies under one, were living in a household where two of the three factors were present. The Bill represents a huge opportunity to deliver a step change in our response to domestic abuse and, therefore, can only benefit from the inclusion of the provision of mental health and substance abuse support.

I support Amendment 94 as a vital first step, as it requires local authorities to make an assessment of the need for, and publish a strategy on, the provision of substance use, addiction and mental health support for all victims and their children in relevant accommodation. Although the amendment specifically refers to support in “relevant accommodation”, the reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. Research by the UK women’s organisation Agenda shows that women who have experienced extensive physical and sexual violence are more likely to use alcohol or drugs problematically, compared to women who have not experienced it. While local authorities making these assessments and strategies in relevant accommodation is an important first step, we must consider opportunities for intervention and support for the majority who experience abuse but do not ever seek refuge.

Amendment 21 ensures that the provision of substance use, addiction and mental health support are identified in the Bill as areas for which the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice. This support for those affected by domestic abuse should extend to perpetrators as well. As I argued in my speech on Amendment 172, specialist support for both victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse is a crucial component of ensuring that we actually break the cycle of abuse with this Bill. Fewer than 1% of perpetrators currently receive an intervention designed to change their behaviour. A lack of funding for perpetrator services was recently identified as the biggest issue by front-line practitioners across England and Wales. Based on evidence from SafeLives’ Every Story Matters platform, 74% of those surveyed wanted mental health support for perpetrators.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have withdrawn. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for moving this amendment and pay tribute to her vast experience in this area and her constant fight to ensure that early intervention is part of our psychological landscape.

Psychological therapy is an essential cornerstone of our domestic abuse response and Amendment 27 is potentially one of the most important we shall have a chance to debate today. It places a requirement on the commissioner to ensure nationwide access to psychological therapy services for couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse. As we have already heard, the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%—never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. Many go beyond the care of psychological therapy. A SafeLives report highlights that 80% of survivors think that interventions for perpetrators are a good idea—and not just for those experiencing domestic abuse themselves.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

I feel ambivalent about putting parental alienation into that ever-expanding label of domestic abuse, but I am wholly sympathetic to the arguments that accusing a partner or a carer of something like domestic abuse can be used maliciously. It does happen for other ends, and it is at great cost to family relationships and especially to children. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that parental alienation is not a discredited category but one she takes seriously, and that we can consider how we make it part of the Bill without expanding domestic abuse too broadly.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak in support of Amendments 2 and 4 tabled by my noble friend Lady Meyer. I remember being horrified when I first heard her personal story, many years ago. But since then, I have learned and seen that this is not an isolated incident, unfortunately.

As we have heard, while there is no single definition of parental alienation, it is recognised by Cafcass as when

“a child’s resistance or hostility towards one parent is not justified and is”,

tragically,

“the result of psychological manipulation by the other parent.”

It has devastating impacts on the child, but is a form of abuse and control of the other parent and in line with emotional abuse of a controlling and coercive nature.

As I have listened to this debate unfold, I have thought back to the battle that has taken place over a long time to include coercion in our definition of domestic abuse, and to recognise children as victims. I hope that it does not take as long for us to wake up to include parental alienation.

No one wants their relationship to break down but, when it does, both parents are responsible for the healthy development of their child. This includes promoting a proper, loving relationship, which includes frequent, regular contact between the child, both parents and their extended families.

Alienation adversely affects the psychological development of a child, as it prevents a natural, healthy bond and relationship with a parent. A child needs to be nurtured and protected; that is especially true of a baby. At a time of total dependence, a mother’s physical and emotional presence regulates the baby’s fear response and overproduction of adrenaline and cortisol. Brain scans of toddlers who have experienced abuse and been deprived of emotional nurturing were shown to have disproportionately large and active limbic systems. As a result, these “fight or flight” hormones remain in the body and the child is in a constant state of anxiety and distress, not dissimilar to a soldier suffering from PTSD.

But it is equally important that the child has a relationship with their father. This is not a gendered issue. A major study in the Journal of Applied Economics, “The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency”, found that when interactions between a child and their parent broke down, and the perception and view of the other parent deteriorated, it was the child who suffered and transitioned to emotions of abandonment, alienation and a lack of trust, with both parent and child worse off.

There is no statistically significant difference between men and women as perpetrators and victims of parental alienation. Raising issues of gender discrimination to discredit the experience of many is not the way forward. But the effects on alienated parents, who lose the trust of their children and therefore their willingness to see them due to the actions of the other parent, are devastating.

There can be no doubt that judicial decisions in cases involving children must take account of all aspects of the family dynamic, including all types of abuse. This is crucial, as we have heard this afternoon. There is a need for qualified professionals to assist in court in assessing whether there is abuse, and if so its severity, and how it should affect child-parent residence and contact arrangements. But we also need to be mindful that children’s expressed wishes in court are not always their own. They do not always feel free to express their actual wishes, particularly when young, and they can be used as a weapon by an abusive parent.

Therefore, it is important that parental alienation is recognised in the Bill as a form of abuse, so that it can be identified and addressed.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, before I had the pleasure of meeting my noble friend Lady Meyer, I had read about the unbelievably distressing time she went through following the alienation of her children by their father. Today she has told us that story in the most moving way. I apologise for the fact that, as she is sitting behind me, she is seeing only my back rather than my front as I make this speech.

I admire my noble friend for all she has done to raise awareness of parental alienation through the setting up of her charity and getting the academic and judicial profession to realise that parental alienation needs to be recognised. Along with her, I want parental alienation recognised, but it must be tackled in law in the right way. Hasty law makes for bad law and will not elevate parental alienation to where we all want it. This important Bill must not become a Christmas tree on which we hang too much, which leads to minimising what it wants to achieve.

I cannot agree with the amendment to this Bill. Clause 1 sets out to define domestic abuse by listing different types of abusive behaviours, and not how they may be manifested. This is important, because to do this could be risky and give more weight to how a particular type of behaviour is displayed, and potentially ignore others. As many noble Lords have mentioned, the introduction of parental alienation into the Bill could have unintended consequences due to the absence of a common definition. Consequently, in a family court, cases of parental alienation could mean whatever the judge wants it to mean.

A child may form their own reasons for resisting contact, and there are cases where a parent, for no justified reason, restricts the other parent’s relationship with the child. These are two very different situations under the parental alienation label, which serves to validate the misuse of parental alienation and to obscure the tactics of perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Parental alienation needs to be looked into in its own right. This is now being done after too many years of misunderstanding, lack of clarity and muddle among the experts. My noble friend Lady Helic mentioned how the Ministry of Justice set up an expert panel and reported in June 2020. The panel made a series of recommendations, which I do not have time to go into here, to reform the child arrangement programme in family law. Leading on from this, the Government published an implementation plan for some of the recommendations. One recommendation said:

“A review of the presumption of parental involvement … is needed urgently in order to address its detrimental effects.”


In November, the Government announced an advisory group to begin this work. I welcome these initiatives and feel strongly that this is the way forward, to make sure that parental alienation gets the recognition it deserves.

I want my noble friend to get all she feels is necessary to have parental alienation recognised in law, but my fear is that adding her amendment to this Bill will have a detrimental effect on the work that is going on, and will minimise the importance of this appalling problem. We must make sure that parental alienation is put into legislation where it can be properly dealt with, and this Bill is not that legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my noble friend will look favourably on these amendments. If there was some way the Government could see fit to widen the scope to encompass the caring provisions set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and others, as well as enforced marriages and the harrowing situation to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred, the Bill would be much improved.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 10 and 14 tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It seems there is significant agreement on the need for these amendments, so I will keep my remarks relatively brief.

Amendments 10 and 14 are reasonable amendments that seek to clarify the wide variety of domestic situations in which abuse can occur. Numbers of people up and down the country are now accustomed to doing things such as renting out spare rooms and having people not related to them living in their household. Amendment 10 rightly recognises that when a perpetrator and victim live together in a domestic situation, the abuse should be considered domestic whether or not they are biologically related or in a romantic relationship.

Amendment 14 recognises that it should be considered domestic abuse when the perpetrator has regular contact with the home or lives in the home despite not having legal guardianship or a biological relationship with the child, as we have heard. Both amendments are about ensuring that the Bill is thorough in recognising what constitutes domestic abuse and in identifying the victims and perpetrators, to ensure that we can identify and intervene in the wide range of domestic abuse scenarios.

Amendment 10 relates to the legal definition of “personally connected” when assessing the relationship between a perpetrator and victim. The suggested insertion of the line,

“they are ordinarily resident in the same household”,

recognises that “personally connected” should capture those living in domestic situations who may not otherwise be in a romantic relationship or biologically related. As the definition of domestic abuse is set out in Clause 1, abusive behaviours, such as

“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”,

are all able to and do occur in domestic situations where the perpetrator and victim live in the same household, but are not in a romantic relationship. As such, I argue that those who live together should be considered personally connected, in the context of the Bill.

Amendment 14 relates to how we define abuse as domestic in relation to a child and recognises that children can be victims of domestic abuse where their perpetrator is not the legal parent, the guardian or biologically related. The suggested insertion of the line,

“the person lives in the same household as the child or regularly visits the household”,

broadens the scope of the different environments in which a child can be personally related to their abuser.

Children can be and are victims of domestic abuse, even where there is no legal guardianship or relation to the perpetrator, as this amendment suggests, when the perpetrator lives in the same domestic situation or is a regular visitor to the home. An obvious example, and why this amendment is necessary, is the case of a new partner to the parent or the child who regularly comes into contact with the child and may spend prolonged or regular contact in the home, or even live in the home, without legal guardianship. Abuse in this situation is self-evidently domestic, despite the abuser not having legal guardianship of the child. Child abuse is 40 times more likely when single parents find new partners. According to a study of children living in homes with unrelated adults, children are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries, compared with children living with two biological parents.

In conclusion, both Amendments 10 and 14 are sensible and reasonable, and strengthen the Bill in its aims to promote awareness, and better protect and support victims of domestic abuse and their children. I hope that we find a way to take these amendments forward.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I speak briefly on Amendments 6 and 7, which I support. Unfortunately, I was cut off from making further comments at Second Reading as I would have exceeded the time limit. I seek clarification on Clause 2(1), which I would have mentioned then. On the face of it, it appears to cover most, I hope all, the eventualities of which we can conceive. But I must express concern when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—who knows more about these matters than anyone else in your Lordships’ House—seeks to amend the Bill, and I endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. They seek to add to the definition of “personally connected” in the Clause, with the words “guardian of the other” and

“lives in the same household as the child”.

An amendment that goes in the same direction adds the definition that one person is a “provider of care” for the other.

In my Second Reading speech, I would have referred to my recollection, as a very young man, a long time ago, of occasionally appearing in undefended divorce cases. To claim a divorce for your client, one had to satisfy the judge of, first, the grounds for the divorce, which did not usually take up much judicial time, and, secondly, the arrangements for the “child of the family”. That was taken seriously. The child of the family did not need a blood relationship. I found no difficulty with this extended relationship from the make-up of my own family.

Of course divorce law has changed considerably since that time, but on the face of it, if you couple the definition in Clause 2 and the words “parental responsibility”, having the same meaning as in Section 3 of the Children Act 1989, which I have reconsidered, it should be sufficiently all-embracing. Obviously the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is concerned, and the Minister should dwell deeply and give us clarification.

The mischief we are trying to cover adequately is the definition of parent and child and the words “parental responsibility”. My short point is, having regard to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is the Minister satisfied that Clause 2 is sufficiently all-embracing? I would be surprised if it is not, but I am not a family lawyer. I have been only a criminal lawyer for most of the past 40 years. I hope the Minister will give the Committee the assurances which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and all of us would like to have.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

15: Clause 3, page 3, line 9, at end insert “, including babies from conception onwards”

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a privilege to move Amendment 15 and to speak to Amendments 20, 172 and 179 in my name today. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, for her cross-party support of these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, for her support of Amendment 172.

I am looking forward to noble Lords’ speeches as we debate the importance of recognising the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and I am delighted that the Institute of Health Visiting, NHS England Safeguarding, the First 1,000 Days movement and For Baby’s Sake have all supported these amendments to improve outcomes for the youngest who are at risk of domestic abuse. We must seize the best opportunity to break the cycle of domestic abuse.

By way of context, Amendment 15, to Clause 3, clarifies that the term “children” includes babies from conception onwards, recognising the vital period from conception to the age of two, as highlighted by the first-class work of the First 1,000 Days movement. Amendment 20, to Clause 7, ensures that the domestic abuse commissioner’s responsibility to encourage good practice regarding children affected by domestic abuse includes babies in utero, infants and children under the age of two.

Amendment 172, to be inserted after Clause 72, makes explicit that the Secretary of State is to make provision for publicly funded trauma-informed and attachment-focused support for parents during pregnancy and before their child reaches the age of two.

Finally, Amendment 170, to Clause 73, stipulates that the Secretary of State’s guidance on the effect of domestic abuse on children will cover babies who were in utero during the abuse and babies and young children aged under two.

Why are these specific amendments needed? The Government are to be hugely congratulated on introducing Clause 3, which ensures that children can also fall under the definition of being victims of domestic abuse. I think all noble Lords view this as a major step forward. However, there is currently insufficient clarity in the definition of a child. In her concluding remarks at Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said:

No age group has been out of the debate, including the unborn child and the foetus.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 124.]


The fact that it was said demonstrates that it needs to be said. This amendment seeks to probe this concern and is looking for an assurance that the Bill covers children from conception to the age of two.

In the Bill, a child is considered a victim if he or she

“sees, hears or experiences the effect”

of the abuse. Without the clarity of this amendment, it is not difficult to see where the legal battles will lie. The unborn child may be just as much a victim of domestic abuse and may experience and hear domestic abuse but not see it. We can say in this House that it is our intention to strengthen support for victims and improve the effectiveness of the justice system. This amendment gives the clarity needed to ensure that the intent of the Bill to protect all children is upheld.

There are other reasons why Amendments 15, 20, 172 and 179 are so important. If we are serious about strengthening support for victims, intervening as early as possible has the best chance of success. Around 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy, while 40% to 60% of women experiencing domestic abuse are abused during pregnancy. These statistics are shocking. The reason it is important that both the mother and the unborn are viewed as victims is because this is one of the most important developmental stages in the life of a child.

The first 1,001 days, from conception to age two, is a period of uniquely rapid development, when babies are particularly susceptible to their environment. Domestic abuse in pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and preterm weight. A mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development by altering the environment in the womb, and ongoing stresses such as domestic abuse can disrupt babies’ neurodevelopment, which can affect the cognitive functioning and emotional regulation of children’s shaping and behavioural and emotional outcomes for years to come.

Another reason why these amendments ensure that the first 1,001 days are a policy and funding focus is that this is the optimal and most effective moment for intervention and breaking the domestic abuse cycle, which is a key focus of this Bill. Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many mothers and fathers and the time when there is most motivation to change. New fatherhood is a motivator for change in men who use violence in their relationships. Therefore, intervening in the perinatal period and including a focus on parenting may improve engagement in programmes to reduce violence. Identifying the specific emotional challenges and unhelpful coping strategies that are relevant to new mothers and fathers can help target interventions at the most relevant issues to lead to behavioural change. Here I must give credit to Amanda McIntyre and the work of For Baby’s Sake; the organisation is nothing short of inspirational.

Finally, these amendments are important because Amendment 172 includes a requirement that the Secretary of State makes

“provision for publicly-funded trauma-informed and attachment-focussed”

support for parents during pregnancy and before their child reaches the age of two. Presently, interventions generally focus on supporting the needs of victims and survivors alone. Few seek also to target the causes and environments of domestic abuse and its associated consequences, in conjunction with perpetrators and children. Even fewer interventions adopt a whole-family approach that seeks to address the mental health problems experienced by parents and protect and support the mental health of the baby and other children in the family. By recognising babies in this Bill, we have an opportunity for early intervention—to break the cycle of domestic abuse not only for this generation but for future generations, and bring about some of that much-needed cultural and societal change that my noble friend the Minister referred to in her opening remarks at Second Reading.

I am also mindful of a number of concerns that have been raised with me about this amendment. I understand that there may be resistance to it, as children are already included in the Bill. However, having been involved in policy-making across government for many years, I and many noble Lords know that, when resources are constrained, policymakers reach for what they have to do, not necessarily what is most effective. The first 1,001 days—conception to age two—is a moment in time when the impact is greatest. Let us make it easier for officials and future Ministers as they battle for resources and ensure that this golden opportunity to break the cycle is not lost.

Secondly, noble Lords have raised whether these amendments could give opportunity to those wanting to reignite the debate around abortion. I have listened carefully to these arguments, as this is not the intention of this amendment. Ideally, the Government would come forward with their own amendment on Report, appropriately worded if we have not got it quite right. I assure noble Lords that this concern does not need to be an obstacle to this amendment.

NHS safeguarding already has good practice in place for managing this concern. At the moment, an unborn baby who is at risk of significant harm—for example, due to a mother’s substance misuse—can be placed on a child protection plan as an unborn baby. The baby is recorded on the CPIS under the mother’s NHS number; once they have been born, this transfers to the baby.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about community-based support, and I look forward to having a full debate about that later in Committee, but I hope that, in light of my explanation and the reassurance I have given, my noble friend will feel content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to debating the amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, who put her name to it. These issues have hugely benefited from noble Lords’ various perspectives. I also thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for signing the amendment. It is a huge privilege to have his support. I thank noble Lords for expressing their commitment to ensuring that babies are recognised as potential victims of domestic abuse in utero and through to the age of two.

I have looked at various government children strategies. Over and over again, unless it was an early intervention strategy or one specifically linked to the early years, each one I looked at did not contain nought to two year-olds. While I completely understand my noble friend the Minister’s comments that babies from conception to the age of two are already included in the Bill, it is my concern that unless they are in the Bill they will be forgotten again in strategy terms when we get to policy-making. However, I am reassured that she is personally committed to ensuring that all children who could be victims of domestic abuse are protected by the Bill. On that basis, and with the hope of future conversation with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

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

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I add my support for this Bill and the fulfilment of our manifesto pledge to support all victims of domestic abuse.

The Bill takes us forward in a number of significant ways, but I want to probe a little to see whether even more progress might be possible. The Government are to be congratulated that Clause 1 provides the first ever statutory definition of domestic abuse in England. Although long overdue, this is a crucial step in tackling domestic abuse, increasing awareness across our public services and facilitating better identification of and support for victims.

Clause 3 is a further step forward. It recognises that children are equally victims of domestic abuse, not just witnesses. This is crucial for their care and for breaking the cycle of domestic abuse.

There are three ways in which the Bill could be strengthened further. First, I suggest that the definition could be strengthened yet further by recognising the unborn and babies as well. Exposure to domestic abuse in the first 1,001 days of life—from conception to the age of two—is associated with adverse outcomes including poor mental and physical health, lower academic achievement and impaired social development. We also know that a mother’s emotional state can have a direct influence on foetal development by altering the environment in the womb. Here, I highlight the work of the For Baby’s Sake pilot, which recognises that pregnancy and birth are the perfect time to intervene and provide support for parents as this is when motivation to be a good parent and resolve potential issues is at its highest.

Secondly, through the appointment of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner—as set out in Part 2—we have the opportunity to strengthen the relational landscape for our next generation of children, with marriages and committed relationships becoming the centrepiece of educational and health programmes. The need for this Bill stems from the failure of relationships; the obvious solution to breaking the cycle of domestic abuse is the creation of strong, supported families.

We also know that marriage operates as an important protective factor against domestic abuse. According to the ONS, there is a far greater prevalence of domestic abuse in cohabiting couples compared to married and civil-partnered relationships and, in the year ending March 2019, three times as many cohabiting women had been a victim of domestic abuse in the past year compared to married and civil-partnered women. As the gap between those born to married parents and those born to parents in cohabiting or single-parent families grows, we need an honest public policy debate about how we can best equip the next generation with the skills to build strong, healthy and lasting relationships. Through the appointment of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, we have an opportunity to strengthen significantly the relational landscape for our next generation of children. Marriage and committed relationships should be the centrepiece of educational and health programmes.

Thirdly, we need to ensure the provision of nationwide, whole-family, trauma-informed support, accompanied by a programme for perpetrators that is designed to change behaviour, rebuild relationships and keep families safe. Interventions need to start as early as possible. As UNICEF highlighted:

“The single best predictor of children becoming either perpetrators or victims of domestic violence later in life is whether or not they grow up in a home where there is domestic violence.”


Furthermore, less than 1% of perpetrators ever receive rehabilitation and the average perpetrator will have up to six partners and victims.

People could be looking to the successful approach of Barnardo’s Opening Closed Doors project in Wales. Barnardo’s whole-family approach allows both parent and child victims to receive trauma-informed support, while the perpetrators of domestic abuse access a programme designed to change behaviour, rebuild relationships and keep families safe. Without proper intervention and rehabilitation, we will never break the domestic abuse cycle.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness about to conclude her remarks?

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

If the Bill is to be about anything, it needs to be about breaking the cycle of violence. I congratulate the Government on the Bill and look forward to contributing in Committee to ensure that we support all victims of domestic abuse.

Asylum System

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I can tell the noble Lord is that, as he will know, caseworkers have gone through an awful lot of training with the help of UKLGIG and Stonewall to ensure that people who apply on the grounds of homophobia in their country of origin have their cases treated fairly. I hope that that is reflected—although the noble Lord disagrees with me—in the outcome of those cases.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

What assessment has my noble friend made of Talent Beyond Boundaries’ remote recruitment model as she looks to reform the current asylum system?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was very pleased to meet my honourable friend Kevin Foster MP and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham last week to establish how people, whether they are fleeing a country because of persecution or conflict, can apply for jobs. Many of these people do not want to come here to claim benefits; they want to work. We have been discussing that with the right reverend Prelate, and those discussions will be ongoing.

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

Baroness Stroud Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall focus on Amendment 31, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is an important amendment that brings a sensible and balanced approach to immigration in the commercial sector, to build up our economy—not just hospitals and care homes, but businesses, which also need to employ skilled and semi-skilled people. The amendment will help those fleeing conflict and persecution in their own country to build their lives in the UK.

Employers and businesses are interested and keen to take part in schemes to support such workers. I declare an interest: after running a fashion company in the UK for over 40 years and employing over 300 staff, before the pandemic, I know that the majority of businesses require all sorts of people, such as accountants, HR people, salespeople and cleaners, as well as warehouse staff.

I support the amendment because it has the foresight to do something positive for displaced people at a time in their life when they often have no one to turn to, and no means of supporting themselves and their family. This country has a long history of helping displaced people, and the humanitarian kindness it has shown countless refugees over the years is well known. Through this amendment we will do something truly remarkable—helping people in need while enhancing this country through the skilled workers who wish to make it their home. We will maintain our world-class image by helping refugees and displaced persons in their time of greatest need, while also filling skills gaps in this country.

However, the existing and future tier 2 general framework creates structural barriers, preventing applications from skilled refugees and other forcibly displaced people, due to issues such as stringent restrictions and the demand for documentary evidence. Fragomen, a leading immigration law firm in the City which conducted a survey of 500 corporates with operations in the United Kingdom of various sizes and in various sectors, found that 73% of respondents said that they would consider skilled displaced people with the required skills and experience, or would actively pursue the opportunity to employ displaced people. This level of demand is likely to grow, as businesses become more aware of the opportunity to hire displaced talent.

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 31. Three tests must be met when a democracy considers the development of a robust immigration system that serves both its own citizens and those seeking to make the UK their new home. First, does the system serve the demands of business and the economy? Next, does it provide equity for those applying to work here, so that it is their skill set, not their passport, that determine eligibility? Finally, does it provide genuine asylum for vulnerable and displaced people, not only expressing Britain’s humanitarian commitments but reflecting the values of the British people?

The amendment, through the introduction of the tier 2 displaced talent visa stream, responds to all three of those questions affirmatively. In connection with the first test—the business test—the end of free movement will, as this House knows, impact on the availability of EEA and Swiss nationals, leading to a contraction in the number of skilled workers available to UK employers. This means that, after focusing on the development of UK workers, employers may still need to look overseas for suitable talent, where shortages exist.

This is particularly true of, say, the health and education sectors. It is estimated that the care sector requires 520,000 additional workers before 2035, just to support the UK’s ageing population. For the past decade, approximately one in six of the 1.5 million care workers in England have been non-UK nationals. Furthermore, previous recruitment drives have done little to alleviate the sector’s chronic labour shortages. Despite a 20% increase in advertised care roles in the first quarter of 2020, applications decreased by nearly 20%. This is just one example of the many sectors that would greatly benefit from the creation of a new displaced talent visa.

The second test is the equity test. The Government have been right to champion a points-based immigration agenda, with a focus on equity for applicants, by seeking out people’s skills set not their passport. But there must also be a recognition that there are significant structural barriers facing displaced people, which prevent them participating in that level playing field. These include, as we have heard, the payment of substantial government fees, charges, difficulties in securing official travel documents, and an inability to evidence English language competence.

According to Talent Beyond Boundaries, it can take over six months for a displaced person to access an English language test when applying for asylum from Lebanon. It has a ready-to-use programme with an extensive talent catalogue, and a model that has already been successful in Canada and Australia. It manages this talent catalogue of nearly 21,000 skilled forcibly displaced people living in Lebanon and Jordan, many of whom have fled the conflict in Syria. The registrants represent more than 150 occupations, most of which are included in the UK’s skills shortage list. A large proportion of registered candidates already fit the UK’s targeted profile of being the “best and brightest”.

That brings us to our third test—the humanitarian test. The amendment is not intended to replace our UN commitments to refugee settlement, but rather to answer the call of employers who are willing to support vulnerable people, while closing their own labour and skills gaps. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, in a survey of 500 corporates of varying size and sector conducted by Fragomen, 73% said that they would either seriously consider, or actively pursue, the opportunity to employ displaced people. The British people are instinctively responsive to those who are vulnerable but want to work hard to give their families a better future, and to contribute to the building of the nation that offers them safety. They want to be responsive.