Domestic Abuse Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding has been allocated for a public information campaign to accompany the Domestic Abuse Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Bill includes an all-purpose definition of domestic abuse to ensure that the nature of abuse is fully understood. It emphasises that it is not only physical or sexual violence, but includes controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse. As part of our plans for implementing the Bill, we are considering options for public awareness campaigns.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. While I welcome the reintroduction of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will create a more effective approach to tackling domestic abuse, the problem will not go away simply because of legislation. One in four women in this country will suffer domestic abuse—one in four. Given that statistic, we may all know someone who is suffering behind closed doors, someone who is too ashamed, humiliated or frightened to come forward, even to their family or friends. I hope the Minister will agree that in order to break the silence, we really need to start a national conversation. The Government must play their role by raising awareness of this horrific crime and encouraging all of us to confront and challenge an issue that is still taboo in our society.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with everything that my noble friend says. Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall made the same point in her speech to the Women of the World Festival just last Friday, when she said that
“laws alone cannot change behaviour … Domestic abuse is everyone’s problem and the solution must be too.”
In terms of the role that the Government can play, we certainly see the merits of a public information campaign and we are exploring options for it. However, my noble friend is absolutely right: we all have a part to play in confronting this if it is not to continue to be hidden away as it has been for so long.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
Do the Government appreciate that there is still much work to be done on this? It has been recommended by a wide range of groups, particularly for those most at risk, the most vulnerable, those women with complex needs, that every public sector worker who has interface with the public understands, through trauma-informed training, the reactions of women who have been abused and who suffer trauma because of it. Will the Minister, as part of this drive to reduce domestic abuse and abuse against women, take it upon herself to investigate how trauma-informed work is spread, so that whenever a woman goes for help, the person she encounters understands the basis of her need and reacts appropriately?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wholeheartedly agree. The point about a trauma-informed response goes not only to those women—and it is mostly women—who suffer domestic abuse but also to their children. It informs literally everything around that trauma, whether it is the policeman who is called to the house, the healthcare professional assisting a woman in hospital or the person taking a statement, if she has to give one. I know the police are well on in bringing forward training for first responders, but everyone has a role to play in this.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that quite a lot of domestic abuse is intergenerational and is unreported, because a mother is very unlikely to report abuse committed by her son? She would feel ashamed. I think we overlook the amount of abuse that is committed in this way.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not think that that point has ever been made in this House; the noble Baroness raises a disturbing issue. It is true: people perhaps think they see it but cannot pinpoint it. It goes back to the point made earlier about people being trained to see these things, because some older people are in that horrendous situation.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for mentioning children. Given that the Bill will inform the way that people engage with domestic abuse, what provision will be made to ensure that the needs of children are properly highlighted to enable a child-focused response?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the one way the new Bill differs from the original Bill is that it introduces a statutory duty on tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children in safe accommodation. The other thing that might help the right reverend Prelate is that statutory guidance will also reflect the effect on children.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the Bill, which was well overdue even before it was delayed by events, can the Minister tell the House when she anticipates that, assuming its smooth passage through Parliament, it will actually come into force?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
All things being equal, it should be in force this time next year.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, at least 59 women have been killed in the UK by men who claimed that their death was as the result of sex games gone wrong. According to the campaigning organisation We Can’t Consent To This, in the last five years this defence has been used successfully in six out of 14 cases that went to trial, resulting in a conviction for manslaughter or even an acquittal. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will use the Domestic Abuse Bill to ban the “rough sex” defence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are some complexities in this, but it is absolutely right that we reinforce current case law so that a person cannot consent to something that leads to serious injury or even death. We are looking at the best way to achieve this.
Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this order is essential for the UK to fulfil its obligations under several treaties. It is required to implement an extradition agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland to which the UK is party during the transition period, and to implement bilateral extradition treaties with Kuwait and Morocco. I shall explain in a little more detail why these changes are being brought at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.
First, the first part of this order will replace the designation of Norway and Iceland as category 2 territories, currently based on the European Convention on Extradition. It makes it clear that Norway and Iceland become territories designated under category 1 of the Extradition Act, based on the surrender agreement between the EU and Norway and Iceland, which entered into force on 1 November 2019. The agreement will facilitate the exchange of warrants between judicial authorities, which is executed through a simplified decision-making system.
In short, this will mean that Norway and Iceland will be treated in a similar way to EU countries for the purposes of extradition. However, there are some differences. Notably, parties can refuse to extradite their own nationals and can refuse extradition on the basis that the offence concerned is “political”. This agreement also allows parties to require that an extradition take place only where the offence concerned is a criminal offence in both countries—something known as “dual criminality”.
As the Committee is aware, during the transition period, the EU justice and home affairs tools that the UK has opted into, including this agreement, will continue to apply. The legislation will ensure that there is no disparity between our international obligations and domestic law, which could result in legal uncertainty and impunity for wanted fugitives.
The second part of this order will implement the extradition treaties concluded between the UK and Morocco in 2013 and the UK and Kuwait in 2016. The designation of these countries under category 2 of the 2003 Act will allow the UK to process extradition requests from Kuwait and Morocco in line with the obligations of these treaties. Both treaties set out a timeframe in which a full extradition request must be provided to the UK by Kuwait and Morocco when an individual has been arrested on a provisional arrest warrant.
This order therefore also ensures that this is reflected in our legislation by setting out that, in the case of Kuwait and Morocco, the judge must receive the papers within 65 days of the person’s provisional arrest, in line with standard practice. This allows for the countries to provide the request to the Secretary of State within 60 days, as the treaty provides for, and for the Secretary of State to have five days to certify the request and send it to the appropriate judge.
Once the designations have been made, the Kuwait and Morocco treaties will be ratified. The introduction of the formal bilateral basis for extradition for conduct covered by these treaties will lead to a more efficient and effective process for extradition between the UK and the respective countries. Morocco and Kuwait are important partners for the UK, and these treaties will enhance our ability to work in close co-operation with them on important issues.
I urge the Committee to consider the amendments made by this statutory instrument favourably to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with its obligations under the relevant international extradition arrangements. When considering any request for extradition, our arrangements are balanced by the provisions in the Extradition Act 2003, which serve to protect an individual’s rights, including their human rights, where extradition is not compatible with our law.
Extradition is a valuable tool in combating cross-border crime, and offenders should not be able to escape justice simply by crossing international borders. No one should be beyond the reach of the law. Having efficient, clear and effective extradition arrangements is vital for safeguarding our security and preventing fugitives escaping justice. I commend the regulations to the Committee and beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. Kuwait and Morocco both still carry the death penalty; according to Human Rights Watch, there were seven executions in Kuwait in 2017, and I understand that it outlaws same-sex relations. Does the Minister have any information about seeking assurances in the past from these countries? She says that they are important partners, but are they trusted partners—as regards their judicial system or how politically expedient their approach to these matters sometimes is?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for explaining the order. I have no particular comments to make in respect of Norway and Iceland becoming Part 1, and no longer being Part 2, territories other than that, for me, it illustrates what a stupid decision it is no longer to take part in the European arrest warrant procedure. That is obviously for another time but I think that it will benefit nobody but criminals; I am sure that we will come back to that in other debates.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, outlined, there are some concerns about Kuwait and Morocco. In respect of Kuwait, the treaty was signed in 2016 but, since then, it has resumed executions and is now talking about lowering the age at which someone can be executed. There are genuine concerns about that and it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could explain what the process will be. We are genuinely worried. We do not support the death penalty in any circumstances and it would be very worrying if people could potentially be sent back to face it. In addition, Kuwait outlaws same-sex relationships, with a maximum prison sentence of seven years, so, again, we would be very worried if someone in that situation were to be extradited to Kuwait.
It would be useful to hear from the noble Baroness whether the Government have received any assurances from the Kuwaiti authorities since the treaty was signed in 2016 and since that country changed its laws regarding executions. In this respect, in 2018, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury tabled a Motion that was debated on the Floor of the House. It would be useful to know whether anything happened following that Motion being debated. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for the questions on this statutory instrument that they have rightly asked. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether our intention in the future is to remain part of the ECHR. At the moment, that is our intention, although, as she acknowledged, I cannot speak about what will happen in the future.
The question that I thought might be brought up was about the death penalty in Kuwait. It is important to make it clear at the outset that extradition is prohibited by statute if the person concerned might face the death penalty, unless the Secretary of State gets adequate written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed. The UK Government oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. As we all know, it undermines human dignity and there is no conclusive evidence that it is a deterrent. Any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is clearly irreparable, so extradition from the UK is not possible where the person has been, will be or could be sentenced to death, and that is made explicitly clear in the Extradition Act.
Extradition is obviously a very important tool in bringing perpetrators to justice. We can maintain extradition relations with countries that have the death penalty while making it absolutely clear that we will never allow a person to be extradited from the UK if they will face the death penalty elsewhere.
Kuwait and Morocco are not listed as priority countries in the FCO’s human rights report. Therefore, no explicit exchange of human rights assurances was sought in addition to those that make up the extradition treaty. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is all the more reason for us to be explicit on extradition and the death penalty.
Our very good relations with both Kuwait and Morocco provide further comfort, so we can raise a range of human rights issues with them. We do so in the context of ongoing bilateral dialogue.
On LGBT status, it is important to note that the same standard of safeguards applies to UK extradition relations with all Part 2 countries. Whether a request is compatible with a person’s human rights is assessed by the UK’s judiciary in extradition cases. If a court found that a person would, for example, be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment as a result of their extradition, they would not be extradited. I hope that provides the comfort that the Committee rightly seeks on this statutory instrument.
Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are introduced under the powers in Section 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. They provide an important right of appeal against immigration decisions on citizens’ rights. The regulations are required to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement.
The Government have been clear in our commitment to protect the rights of EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens who have made this country their home. They are our friends, our family and our neighbours, and we want them to stay.
The EU settlement scheme makes it easy for EU citizens and their family members who want to stay in the UK to get the immigration status they need. As announced last month, we have already had more than 3.2 million applications, with nearly 2.9 million people granted status. If an applicant disagrees with the decision in their case, they can apply again to the scheme completely free of charge and they have until 30 June 2021 to do so. They can also apply for an administrative review, meaning that their case is reviewed again by Home Office caseworkers, if they are refused on eligibility grounds or granted pre-settled status rather than settled status. The fee for this service, which is £80, will be refunded if the original decision is withdrawn due to a caseworker error. These appeal rights provide further reassurance to EU citizens that they remain welcome and can continue to live and work in the UK and that we will uphold our commitment to guarantee the rights of EU citizens.
The regulations basically do two things. First, they establish appeal rights against a wide range of decisions affecting a person’s right to enter and live in the UK under the EU settlement scheme. This includes those refused leave under the scheme or those granted pre-settled status rather than settled status. It also includes those refused entry clearance in the form of an EU settlement scheme family permit or travel permit. The regulations provide an appeal route for those whose rights under the scheme are restricted; for example, where their status is revoked or curtailed.
Secondly, the regulations ensure that existing rules and procedures are applied to the operation of appeal rights. They go further than required under the agreements by providing appeal rights in line with the UK’s more generous domestic implementation. This means that anyone who can make an application under the scheme, including non-EU family members, will have a right of appeal if refused or granted pre-settled status.
Appeals under the regulations will follow the same process as current immigration appeals. They will be heard by the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. With permission, there will be a further onward right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal on points of law. The exception is where the decision is certified on national security grounds or where sensitive information cannot be made public. As with current immigration appeals, these cases will be referred to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The regulations are undeniably complex. This is because of the number of situations requiring a right of appeal under the agreements. There is also a need to apply existing rules relating to appeal rights, which are themselves complex.
However, we are committed to making the appeals process as simple as possible for applicants. The decision letter will tell them whether they can appeal and will direct them to the relevant information on GOV.UK. There is also support available by phone, in person or in writing for those who do not have access to online facilities or who need additional assistance.
These regulations ensure that we comply with the requirements of the agreements and are an essential part of our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. She mentioned administrative review. I want to take this opportunity to ask her about the experience so far. I came across a blog, although I cannot remember whose. I think it was a barrister’s. It seems to have become the custom for members of the Bar—I am very glad of it—to blog as their way of advertising their services. I will probably get some complaints, having said that. This blog said that, following a freedom of information request, the inquirer found that 89.5% of applications that had gone for administrative review were successful.
The noble Baroness mentioned refunds. Does she know how much has had to be refunded, what the associated costs of doing so might be and whether the Home Office has a view about why this is happening with so much success at that stage?
Since the order came into force on 31 January, when will time start running in the case of decisions made before today or before the matter goes to the House—in other words, before the SI is approved?
I confess to having some concern about Regulation 14, which allows for an appeal from outside the United Kingdom. Will it not be the case that many appellants will have been required to leave? Concerns have been expressed in other parts of the immigration forest about the difficulties of appealing from abroad.
Am I right in thinking that this SI will be the basis for any claim with regard to invalidity—for instance, if the Home Office has said that the applicant is not an EU citizen and is therefore not in the settled status scheme?
Given the number of grants of pre-settled status that have been made, has the Home Office made any assessment of the numbers of appeals against that status from people who think that they should have been granted full settled status? It seems to me that there could be an early and considerable spike in the work.
The Minister mentioned the considerable help currently available from a number of organisations that have received grants to assist applicants for settled status. The EU Select Committee—it may have been the EU Justice Sub-Committee—heard from some of the organisations a couple of weeks ago. At that stage, they were waiting to hear whether their funding would continue after the end of this month. If she has any news on that, the Committee—and, even more so, the organisations concerned—would be glad to hear it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
It is absolutely fine. I shall not repeat them because it would detain the Committee longer than necessary, but the noble Baroness has raised some very important points. I support the regulations and we are pleased they are here, but our concern and worry is that the people who are vulnerable are those who have not picked up on the need to use this system. If they do not use it, they will find themselves, in June 2021, to be in the UK illegally, even if they have been here for many years. That is what we are worried about.
The other point of concern is that there have been a few issues in the Home Office in terms of appeals and other problems in the past. We are very worried that someone might find themselves in difficulty, so what we are looking for from the Minister is some reassurance about that and about how people will be treated. What will the Government do to ensure that people know they need to apply for this? It may well be that some of those people who are here from elsewhere in Europe are in quite low-paid jobs, do not have a lot of money and are just not picking up on it. What we do not want is a situation where people do not understand that they need to apply and find themselves in difficulty with the authorities and potentially being removed from this country when, had they applied, they would have been given the right to stay here. That is the reassurance every noble Lord here is looking for. In principle, I am very happy with there now being a right to appeal, so I will leave it there.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I thought this would be the easy SI and that every noble Lord would be so happy with the appeal processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked why so many appeals are successful. An appeal may succeed where new information is provided.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise. I meant that an administrative review may succeed when new information is provided. I understand that about 900 applications for the admin review have been received. The noble Baroness asked when it starts—I am assuming 31 January.
On what happens if people miss the deadline, we have been very clear that where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline people will be given a further opportunity to apply.
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry; I did not think I had asked terribly difficult questions. On my question about the time running, there are time limits for appeals, but we have gone beyond the point when the SI is effective because that date is 31 January. I am not clear whether the time from 31 January to now is taken off the time available to an appellant to get the appeal in. This is quite a practical point. I will go on rambling so that the Minister can talk to her officials and is able to get this on to the record as I think that would be helpful. Perhaps I was clear in my question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We have some clarity now. It will run—is the noble Baroness asking me how long it will run for?
Baroness Hamwee
No. I am asking whether the period between 31 January and whatever the date is in March counts for the period towards the number of days within which an appeal has to be lodged because the order is in force but people will presumably will not be making applications under it until has gone through the parliamentary process.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On pre-settled status appeals, there are 900 applications for administrative review, but whether they are for pre-settled status I do not know. If I have the figures, I will provide the noble Baroness with them. On her question about immigration control, this is not for the purposes of immigration control. I thought the noble Baroness might be concerned about that. The funding for the groups that are helping runs through the financial year.
Baroness Hamwee
I am sorry for treating this as a conversation, but I understand that their funding goes to the 31st of this month, but they need to know, if they do not know already, whether they will be able to employ people to continue the service.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I understand that when this came up in the Commons the Minister said the thing should be resolved in a couple of weeks. That was a week ago.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is because we will be announcing the arrangements for the financial year 2020-21 shortly—in the Budget, I am guessing. I hope that rather clumsily answers the noble Baroness’s questions.
Baroness Hamwee
I wish to make it clear from these Benches that we do not think that is satisfactory. We understand about financial years and so on, but for a small organisation, or a medium-sized or quite large organisation, which does not know whether it will be able to continue the service it is pretty difficult that it will be within a couple of weeks of the end of the year.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally understand that point. It is frustrating for any group or organisation waiting for future funding announcements to be in this position right at the end of the financial year; I really get that. I just want to answer the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on vulnerable people. As he knows, we have set out some funding for organisations who will help vulnerable people. I think they are the last cohort of people on whom our attention will need to focus: as he says, people who do not even know that they must apply. That work is well under way across the country and, given the number of applicants, which is 3.2 million, it is clearly going well for most people, but he is right to raise that final cohort.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am glad that the noble Baroness has recognised that point, but can we have an assurance that the Government will look at them sympathetically? There will be people who do not know that they have to apply and, in a few months’ or a year’s time, find themselves illegally in this country who thought they were here legally. I hope that, at that point, the Government will treat people reasonably and understand that it may well be through no fault of their own—they have not picked it up—they are in these difficult situations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Totally, and that is what this reasonable grounds process is all about. We actually want to find reasons to grant people settled status, so the point the noble Lord makes about not being harsh on people is absolutely right. The other day, I came across a Romanian lady who did not know what to do. I helped to point her in the right direction of applying. Yes, those people who still do not know now will need that extra bit of help. I beg to move.
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsThursday 5th March 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 View all Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 3-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Grand Committee - (4 Mar 2020)
Lord Deben (Con)
I support what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay just said. There is a fundamental distinction between the Executive branch and the legal branch. My objection to the Bill is that it includes a country where that division is nothing like as strong as ours. One of the issues is that these mechanisms for extradition are politically motivated in one of the five countries. The distinction between the Executive and the judicial system is crucial in people’s protection. Therefore, I very much support my noble and learned friend making that distinction, which distinguishes us and four of the other countries from the fifth. We ought to underline that very strongly.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made their points on these amendments and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for moving Amendment 1. To recap, at Second Reading there was considerable cross-party consensus on the Bill’s aims and measures, alongside the robust scrutiny that I expect from the House, and now the Committee. The amendments before us rightly tease out some of those points.
Noble Lords will be interested to know that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill QC, wrote to the new Security Minister on 2 March. His letter, which I will put in the Library following Committee, says:
“Overall, it is the firm view of the CPS that this Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring sufficient human rights safeguards and delivering the capabilities that the police and CPS require in order to safeguard the public … under the current process there remains a risk that UK law enforcement could encounter a potentially dangerous person wanted for a serious crime by a trusted partner, but for whom they would have no power to arrest and detain … The Bill does not make it more or less likely someone will be extradited, but it does increase the chances that persons wanted for serious offences by some of our closest and trusted partners will enter, with all the existing safeguards, the extradition process.”
I know that reporting on the effectiveness of the legislation, and the reliability of Interpol alerts, is a topic of interest. If the Committee will allow it, I will address Amendments 1 and 2 together as both concern reporting on the legislation’s effectiveness.
On the perceived risk of abuse of Interpol notices highlighted in Amendment 1, I reassure the Committee that the immediate power of arrest proposed in the Bill will apply only to requests from specified countries—currently the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries have been specified as we have a high level of confidence in their criminal justice systems and use of Interpol notices. The Government have no intention of specifying countries likely to abuse the system to political ends.
Additionally, the UK is currently working with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the executive director of policing services for Interpol, the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK government lawyer has also been seconded to the Interpol legal service to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states. We will continue to work with Interpol to increase the reliability and trustworthiness of the whole red notice system.
Lord Deben
Did my noble friend notice that the President of the United States has just taken credit for 3,000 judicial appointments and said that he has therefore ensured that those judicial appointments will make decisions in line with his and Republican Party policy? How can one possibly say that this is the same kind of judicial system that we have?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A judge would take a view on whether something was politically motivated. Something blatantly politically motivated would be rejected.
Lord Deben
I understand that, and we have the protection that the request has to go before a judge but, in this document, the Government give accreditation to the United States, which has no reciprocal arrangements with us, and talk about a “trusted partner” when it is not a partner. It will not do this the other way around and, clearly, it asks for the extradition of people on political or commercial grounds, which would not happen with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein or Switzerland. We are saying something about the United States that surely none of us believes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think my noble friend is referring to the Extradition Act itself, not the pre-extradition arrest process. I do not know whether he is questioning the Extradition Act’s efficacy, but that is not what we are talking about in the Bill. He also has an amendment down for later in Committee so perhaps we could come back to this at that stage if he wants to make further points.
Lord Deben
I am happy to do that; I merely say to my noble friend that I have tabled the amendment and wish to discuss it because this is our opportunity to do so and we are repeating our view. My noble friend is using phrases that are, I think, unsuitable, given the relationship. We are, after all, extending—perfectly properly, I think—the way the Extradition Act works. It seems reasonable at this point, before we go any further, to question whether one ought to use those phrases in these circumstances.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We will get on to my noble friend’s point, but we use Parliament to make law rather than to make points. I hope he will respect the point that I make.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked about obligation to extradite. He is absolutely right. The Bill creates powers for the police, not obligations to other countries.
Amendment 2 requests the publication of an annual statement on arrests. The NCA already keeps data and publishes statistics around arrest volumes in relation to Part 1 of the Extradition Act. It does it without being required to do so by primary legislation. We have no doubt that it will similarly do so in respect of arrests under this new arrest power, as this is a sensible operational practice. I have sympathy for the amendment, so I have asked officials to look at how we can give the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, some reassurance. I hope he will accept that I will liaise with him between now and Report.
I am not persuaded that the either the Secretary of State or the NCA require a statutory obligation to take these steps. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendments, but we will have further discussions between now and Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am obviously happy to withdraw my amendment for the moment.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has also made some important points, which I know we will come to later.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned Parliamentary Questions. Sometimes, the Answers we get are not very good, to say the least. That goes across government. I am going to have to start tabling Questions about Parliamentary Answers. I asked one recently of another department. I asked, “What do we here?” and the Answer had no bearing whatever on the Question. I raised that with the Minister concerned and he accepted that. I thought, “Just answer the Question. If you can’t answer it, tell me you can’t answer it.” They had sent back a ridiculous Answer that had no bearing and it is not good enough. Unfortunately, that is a problem across government. Maybe we need a debate in the House about it. I am going to try putting in FoIs and comparing answers between PQs and FoIs. Will the answers be as bad there? We will see. But that is a separate issue. I would love to think that PQs were the answer; unfortunately, in my experience of being here for nearly 10 years, they are not.
Having said that, I am pleased with the Minister’s response, especially to my second amendment. I look forward to further discussions between now and Report. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Amendment 5 in this group is in my name. It would simply put “National Crime Agency” into the Bill. Throughout the Bill, there are references to the “designated authority”, but there is no mention of a specific agency. I am sure that the Minister will set out why the Bill is framed in that way and I look forward to that explanation.
Other amendments in this group are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They are all useful, as they give the Minister the opportunity to explain further the Government’s reasoning in specific areas and to convince the Grand Committee of the protections in the Bill.
On Amendment 4, who will be responsible and accountable if the safeguards fail and we end up complying with a request that is politically motivated? Amendment 11 would take away the uncertainty built into the Bill. I do not like phrases such as “the designated authority believes”. “Believes” is a strange word to have in legislation. I like there to be a bit more certainty than is offered by a word such as “believes”. It seems very loose and open to all sorts of interpretations by all sorts of people.
Amendment 11A raises the circumstance where somebody could be rearrested under a new certificate. I accept that circumstances can change and maybe those powers are needed, but if somebody has been released under one certificate, we need to make clear what would need to change for them to be rearrested under a new one.
Amendment 11C has my full support. In many ways, it is a compromise between what the Bill says and what Amendment 5 says. Doing it through an SI is probably the best way forward, so I fully support Amendment 11C. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their points on these amendments. They have been grouped together as dealing with the functions of the designated authority and the criteria applied by it in certifying requests.
Amendment 4 proposes a new criterion for certification. This would require the designated authority to be satisfied that the request is not politically motivated. Making consideration of political motivation a precondition of certification for the designated authority would reverse the present position for arrests under the Extradition Act 2003. Presently, the courts are required to consider during the substantive extradition hearing whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. These statutory bars include whether the request for extradition is made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing an individual on account of their political opinions—that comes under Section 81 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Government’s position remains that it is right that the judge considers these points based on all the evidence before him or her during the substantive hearing and not the NCA prior to arrest. It is the judge who is ultimately accountable.
Furthermore, we are all aware that the Extradition Act contains substantial safeguards in respect of requests motivated by reason of the requested person’s political views. These safeguards will continue to apply, and we fully expect the courts to continue to exercise their powers of scrutiny as usual.
Arguments of political motivation are of course not usually simple. It is right that the question of whether an individual extradition request can be described as politically motivated should be assessed by a judge before an open court. It is vital, of course, that the requested person should be able to put their arguments on this basis to a judge, but it is also crucial, in the fulfilment of our obligations under the international arrangements on extradition that give rise to such proceedings, that the requesting authority should be able to respond to such arguments and put their own case as to why the request is not politically motivated. This should be openly and fairly arbitrated, so importing this consideration into the process for determining whether an individual may be arrested would be at odds with existing extradition law. Noble Lords will be aware that judges and justices of the peace are not required to consider such factors when deciding whether to issue an arrest warrant under Section 71 or Section 73 of the 2003 Act.
Were the designated authority to make such a deliberation in effectively, it would need to be able to invite representations on the point from both the requesting authority and the requested person in each case before certification. Not only would this be hugely resource-intensive, it would also advertise to the wanted person that they are wanted. I should note that the designated authority, as a public body, would already be under an obligation to act compatibly with convention rights under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. At the point of certification, this will include consideration of whether an arrest is ECHR-compatible.
I bring the attention of noble Lords to the types of territories proposed as appropriate specified territories. These are democracies whose criminal justice systems are rooted in the rule of law. I am certain Parliament would not accept the addition to the schedule of territories that we believed would send the UK politically motivated arrest requests. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness that there is no gap in safeguards here and that, consequently, she will be content with withdraw her amendment.
She also asked what is meant by the “seriousness of the conduct”. The language mirrors the test in Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. As she thought, there is indeed case law on the point. The intention is to capture only conduct sufficiently serious to ensure that the power is used only where proportionate. For example, the minor theft of an item of food from a supermarket or a very small amount of money is unlikely, without exceptional circumstances, to be sufficiently serious. Only when the designated authority decides that the offence satisfies the test will it be able to certify the request.
I turn now to Amendment 5, which seeks to define the designated authority as the National Crime Agency in the Bill. Our approach here mirrors that of the designation of the authority responsible for certification of European arrest warrants under Part 1 of the Act. The Government consider that the designation of the authority responsible for issuing a certificate is an appropriate matter to be left to secondary legislation. A regulation-making power affords the appropriate degree of flexibility to amend the designated authority in light of changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK. To future-proof the legislation, the Government believe that the current drafting leaves an appropriate amount of flexibility. As I said, the Government’s intention is initially to designate the NCA, which is the UK’s national central bureau for Interpol, as the designated authority. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that we have got the balance right and that he will be content not to press his amendment.
I turn finally to Amendment 11, on requests made in the “approved way”. My noble friend’s amendment suggests that a request should be considered to have been made in the approved way only if it is made by an authority that has the function of making such requests in the territory concerned, rather than an authority which the designated authority believes to have this function.
Perhaps I may momentarily be a bit philosophical. The amendment attempts to base the assessment of the authority’s function on an objective truth. That is admirable from the point of view of legal certainty, but the designated authority does not have a monopoly on truth. The best it could do in practice, when making the assessment described in the amendment, would be to decide, to the best of its ability, whether the authority in question has the function of making such requests, arriving at what I think we would characterise as being a belief that it does so. Of course, the designated authority, as a public body, must take decisions that are reasonable and rational.
As such, we expect there to be no difference between how the assessment would be made in practice under the amendment and how it would be made under the existing text. The benefit of the text, as we have proposed it, is that it mirrors language elsewhere in the Extradition Act—for example, when the designated authority under Part 1 may issue a certificate in relation to a warrant and when the Secretary of State may issue a certificate under Part 2.
On the perceived risk implicit in Amendment 11A—that an arrested person could be rearrested for the same thing, having been discharged by a court, perhaps because they were not produced at court on time or for some other failing—I reassure the Committee that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the new sections in the Bill. New Section 74A(8) makes clear that an arrested person may
“not be arrested again in reliance of the same certificate”
if they have previously been discharged. The intention of this drafting is to stipulate that an individual may not be arrested again on the basis of the same international arrest request once a judge has discharged them. This mirrors Section 6 of the Extradition Act 2003, which provides for the same thing, where a person provisionally arrested on the basis of a belief relating to a European arrest warrant may not be arrested again on the basis of a belief relating to the same European arrest warrant.
On top of that, new Section 74B(3) requires that a certificate has to have been withdrawn before any arrest takes place to allow a new one to be issued relating to the same request. This again illustrates that a further certificate cannot simply be issued on the basis of the same request once an individual arrested under this power has been discharged by a judge.
Of course, it is vital that a certificate can be issued on the basis of a new request, or on the basis of a wholly different request, so that an individual wanted for another crime is not immune to any further arrest because they were once arrested and discharged for a different crime. Organised transnational offences, such as people trafficking, often involve offences in different countries, on different dates, with different victims, and no individual should be able to avoid answering for more than one serious crime using a legal loophole. The amendment would create that impunity. For that reason, I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness and that she will be happy not to press that amendment.
Amendment 11C would require an affirmative resolution procedure to apply to any statutory instrument that designates an authority as a “designated authority”. Given that the framework and criteria for the issuing of a certificate are provided for in the Bill, we consider that the negative resolution procedure affords an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have plainly set out what the designated authority will do and how they must do it. Which particular body exercises that function is not, in our view, a matter that needs to be subject to debate in both Houses. The use of the power to designate an authority is necessary to accommodate any changing circumstances, including alterations to the functions of law enforcement bodies in the UK, and we consider it appropriate that we can respond to this promptly. The application of the negative procedure is also, again, completely consistent with the procedure for designating an authority for the purposes of issuing a certificate in respect of a European arrest warrant under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
I am sorry for my long-winded response to these several amendments. I hope the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are happy not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
I do not think the Minister was long-winded; it is quite a long group of amendments. I am grateful to her for that. I should have brought my iPad so that I could have followed all the references to the 2003 Act. I take all the points that the Minister made—in particular, the point about organised crime. One does not always remember how the nature of crime changes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The amendments before us relate to the delegated power to specify any additional territories to which this new power may be extended. As I have said, in the first instance, the powers afforded by the legislation would be granted only to the UK’s closest criminal justice co-operation partners, these being the Five Eyes powers and the EFTA states. These are the countries in whose criminal justice systems and use of Interpol systems we have a high level of confidence. The amendments address the power to add, vary or remove countries from the Bill and a minor consequential amendment to vary what is meant by making an extradition request in the approved way if there is a good justification for doing so in the future.
I shall start with Amendment 9 because the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, began with it and other noble Lords have expressed a great interest in it. It specifies that territories should be added one at a time. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for speaking to me about this and I did slightly warn him ahead of time that we are not going to agree with it. That is not to say that we would want to add territories in multiples, but it is common practice to allow for multiple territories to be specified together for similar legislation. Noble Lords will know that this is the process for adding territories in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. I hope that the affirmative resolution procedure would give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the Government by voting either for or against a resolution and to express an opinion towards any country being added to the Bill. I expect that if the Government attempted to add a territory which Parliament did not agree with, it would act accordingly. However, I understand the substance of the point that the noble and learned Lord made.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred to our debate the other day on the Norway/Iceland issue. The Norway/Iceland surrender agreement operates under Part 1 of the 2003 Extradition Act, so an agreement with the EU based on that precedent would keep EU member states in Part 1 of the Act, where the power of immediate arrest already exists. The Bill is only for specified Part 2 countries where currently there is no power of immediate arrest. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the negotiations, but we may well return to this issue.
I shall reverse engineer, as it were, and go back to Amendment 6. It looks to determine how varying a reference to a territory will be distinct from the addition or removal of a reference. I assure noble Lords that the term “vary” aims to future-proof the legislation and to ensure that technical changes do not place a restriction on the use of the power. An example of such a technical change would be a situation where part of a territory seceded from a specified territory and the Government wished to maintain this power in relation to only the successor state. This is of course not a particularly likely scenario but one for which it is responsible to be prepared.
Amendment 7 proposes to remove the power to vary the meaning of making a request “in the approved way” under new Section 74C. In the current draft, a request is made “in the approved way” if it is
“made by an authority of the category 2 territory which the designated authority believes has the function of making such requests in that territory.”
The power in new Section 74B(7)(b) is included to enable similar provision to be made, where appropriate, to that in Section 70(5) and (6) of the 2003 Act. These subsections set out the variations to the meaning of “the approved way” for extradition requests made from British Overseas Territories and for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. I will set out some examples of how that power might be used.
Where a newly specified territory had a number of different authorities which had the function of making requests, the power in new Section 74B(7)(b) would enable one or more authority to be singled out as the appropriate authority for making valid requests, should that be necessary. A further example might be if the Government sought to specify one or several of the British Overseas Territories. In such a scenario, the Government may wish to provide for requests to be made by the governor-general of the territory rather than the authorities within it. In such circumstances, the regulations might provide for requests to be made in the approved way by or on behalf of a person administering the territory.
Regarding preparing and publishing a report on adding a new territory, as well as any intention to add further territories or negotiations with prospective territories, to the scope of this legislation as specified in Amendment 8, the Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the ability to question and decide on whether any new territory could come within scope. Therefore, it is mandated in the Bill that any Government wishing to add a new territory to the scope of this legislation should do so through the affirmative resolution procedure. Any statutory instrument laid before Parliament will of course be accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum, which will set out the legislative context and policy reasons for that instrument.
This procedure will give Parliament opportunity for scrutiny and will allow the House to reject the addition of any new territory to the Bill. Any Minister looking to add a new territory to the Bill would be expected to give Parliament good reason for doing so, therefore negating the need for this amendment. Having said that, I have sympathy with the spirit of the amendment and have asked officials to look into how we can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this. I will continue to liaise with noble Lords ahead of Report.
Amendment 10 would add a specification criterion for new countries to the Bill. This has not already been included to ensure that Parliament is given the full freedom to decide on any new territory. If criteria were to be added, Parliament might be put in the invidious position of having to accept that a particular territory that was not appropriate for specification for other reasons should be added. In this circumstance Parliament would likely want to consider all aspects of the proposal, so adding these criteria would limit Parliament’s discretion. As I have outlined, any Government proposing to add a new territory would also need to give clear reasons for doing so, both in the explanatory documents accompanying any statutory instrument and during any subsequent debate. We would not want to bind the hands of future Governments to decide on the criteria they use to specify a new country.
I think we can all agree that the factors identified by my noble friend will of course be important and relevant considerations that we would expect any Government to take into account when deciding whether it is appropriate to seek to add a new territory. However, we do not consider that they need to be in the Bill. The current drafting ensures that Parliament can assess the merits of each territory which is due to be added to the Bill and scrutinise any addition through the affirmative resolution procedure. I am not persuaded of the need for this amendment.
Amendment 11B aims to remove the United States from the Schedule. The US is a critical partner in fighting terrorism and international organised crime. It is a responsible user of Interpol and has a criminal justice system with extensive checks and balances. We are confident of these points in relation to the US as much as to the other countries that we seek to specify. The new power of arrest, which is designed to protect the public in this country, has nothing to do with whether UK extradition requests to other countries are successful. It is about ensuring, when we have robust and trustworthy information that a person is wanted for a serious offence, that the police can arrest that person. Requests from the US are backed by judicial warrants predicated on probable cause. This is a firm ground on which to bring a person before a judge in the UK to decide on their further detention.
My noble friend talked about the US President’s comments on judicial appointments. Of course, this was raised by the leader of the Opposition in another place. We need to bear in mind the context in which the President might have said that in an election year. The Prime Minister made his views on the US treaty very clear in another place last month. The Government’s long-standing position is that the treaty with the US is fair and balanced in practice.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Not at the moment. If my noble friend could wait until I have finished my comments, I will be happy to take his intervention. It is just that I have a number of points to make; I hope that is okay. The Prime Minister has committed to looking into the questions raised by the leader of the Opposition, so I am sure that my noble friend will look forward to that. This issue should not delay or undermine our efforts to ensure that police in the UK have the right powers in place to get wanted fugitives off British streets.
My noble friend talked about Anne Sacoolas, which is a valid issue; the US refusal to extradite her is a clear denial of justice. The Government and UK law enforcement continue to explore all opportunities to secure justice for Harry Dunn’s family. I bring to my noble friend’s attention the fact that this is the first case that has ever been refused under the UK-US extradition treaty. By contrast, we have refused 19 cases. The Government’s long-standing position is that the treaty is fair and balanced in practice. My noble friend also mentioned Dr Lynch. As we have stated, consideration of the substance of an extradition request includes any statutory bars to extradition such as political motivation. These are properly a matter for a judge at the extradition hearing. I will not comment any further as this is before the courts.
My noble friend also talked about reciprocity. What we are doing in this Bill is creating powers for the UK police, not obligations on the countries concerned. I know that he is concerned about reciprocity, but the Bill will enable UK police officers to protect the public more effectively. It is about ensuring that UK police officers have the power to remove dangerous individuals from our streets before they can abscond or offend, not relying on some sort of reciprocity that may depend on the nature of the regime in the other country. I am happy to take his intervention now if he wishes.
Lord Deben
I thank my noble friend the Minister. I realise what she is saying and acknowledge the care with which she is saying it; I thank her very much for that. I tried to intervene earlier specifically on the issue that President Trump had said what he said. The Minister said that we had to realise that that was an election situation. She then moved on to the Prime Minister. I put this to her: how happy would she be if our Prime Minister got up during an election and said, “I am very pleased that there are 181 judges that I have managed to get appointed, who will make decisions much closer to the Conservative Party’s views than the judges whom they replaced.”? I think that she would be deeply upset and would feel that that struck at the very heart of British justice. I am trying to make the point that the United States makes political decisions about judges, who are very often able to act in support of American business. In fact, this is one of the issues that President Trump has always raised—“America first”. My concern is that there is an actual case where that appears to be what happened. I do not think that it helps us to give the impression that the United States’ legal system is on a par with that of Switzerland, because it is not.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
On the point about taking the countries one by one, and the group that a country is in, as I said, in any secondary legislation that comes before your Lordships’ House there has to be a statement about the rationale for that secondary legislation, which Parliament can reject if it wishes. However, as I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I utterly understand where he comes from.
On the point about judicial appointments in the US, putting aside what President Trump said, I think that the US judiciary is very protective of its independence. Certainly, on the issue of arrest warrants, the US has a criminal justice system in which we can justifiably put this level of trust.
I have a note from the Box about favours from the US. This power is, of course, in our interests. It benefits UK police. On that note, I hope noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I do not have many remarks to make on this and I could not think of a quixotic quote. However, I really like Shakespeare because he is connected with the borough I grew up in, so I will remind you of this quote
“haste is needful in this desperate case.”
Some of the points which have been made are very important and should be taken on board. What are we doing here? We support the legislation in principle, but we have asked for reasons why we are doing this and we have gone through some of the wording before.
I look forward in particular to the Minister’s response to Amendment 12 because when you look at the wording it seeks to take out, it is quite worrying that it is in there at all. It may well be that there is a perfectly understandable explanation and I will be able to get up in a moment and say, “I fully support what the Minister intends to do”, but as it reads now, I am worried about what we are passing here. Perhaps she will say that it is fine because it talks about further consequential provisions in the sub-paragraph above and the Government will do nothing. However, there is an issue about the powers we are giving to the Executive and our ability to scrutinise or change them at a later date. That point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, so I want this to be looked at.
Amendment 13 seeks to remove regulations about “saving” or “incidental” provision. What is that about? We could make all sorts of changes by saying that something is a saving. We could get rid of whole swathes of stuff, so what are we agreeing to? We do not want to find ourselves saying months or years ahead that we did not realise when we agreed to this that we were giving those powers to the Executive. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response, but I may intervene at some point for further clarification.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank noble Lords for the points they have made and I hope to be able to allay any fears around what Amendments 12, 13 and 14 seek to address.
As noble Lords have said, paragraph 29(1) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make further provisions that are consequential on the amendments made by the Schedule to the Bill. This is a standard power which is commonplace in legislation and is naturally constrained. It can be used only to make provisions that are consequential and it is not a power to make substantive policy changes. Rather, it will allow the Government to make small, technical amendments for good housekeeping to ensure that that statute book is consistent and functions well.
As we implement the new arrest power, it is in everyone’s interests to ensure legal continuity for law enforcement partners and those subject to arrest for extradition purposes. While many of the amendments required to other enactments are made by Part 2 of the Schedule to the Bill, it is anticipated that further consequential amendments may be identified as part of the implementation process. That is why the standard power is taken to provide the flexibility to ensure that the new arrest power can operate smoothly and efficiently. Placing a timeframe such as 12 months on the use of the power would unnecessarily frustrate the aim. In any event, as noble Lords will know, the power cannot be used to amend future legislation.
As to the scope of the possible amendments, the Bill is narrowly focused. Its purpose is to provide a power of provisional arrest for specified category 2 territories for extradition purposes. I stress the point that it does not affect or relate to the subsequent extradition process. The purpose of the consequential power is to deal with the consequences of those changes to the statute book. As such, just as wider amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 fall outside the Bill’s ambit, so amendments to effect wider extradition policy would fall outwith the consequential amendments power. The power extends to provisions that amend, repeal or revoke any provision of primary legislation. As I hope I have made clear, this is not unusual or exceptional. It is standard practice to take such a power to provide flexibility for smooth and efficient implementation.
Similarly, the power to make saving or incidental provision by regulations found at paragraph 29(3) of the Schedule is a standard power commonly given in legislation for the purposes of smoothing the introduction of a change to the statute book. Incidental provision would include only amendments that are necessary or expedient to make the Bill’s substantive provisions work. Saving provisions are required where it is necessary to preserve existing law following a change to legislation —for example, to ensure fairness or consistency in court proceedings in progress at the time of a change to legislation. As I have stated, these are standard clauses. Any amendment by regulations that amended, repealed or revoked primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of paragraph 29(5), as befitting a Henry VIII power of this type. I hope that I have allayed noble Lords’ fears about that.
As a final point to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, the power in this Act would not allow us simply to move countries from Part 1 to Part 2 of the Extradition Act, nor to substantively amend Part 1. Those are not consequential amendments. With those explanations, I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister very much for explaining that. I am reassured to a large extent by what she said. Would it be possible to give an example of one of those little technical things that would be changed so that we are clear what we are all talking about? If she cannot now, maybe she could write to us.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I acknowledged that the regulations referred to in paragraph 29(2) must be within paragraph 29(1). I come back to the point that good housekeeping should be done before a Bill is presented to Parliament, not least because it would reduce the amount of time needed on the Bill in Parliament. For many years, I have recognised that it is a great deal easier to sit on this side of the House or Committee and pick holes than it must be to draft this stuff. Nevertheless, it is our job to pick some holes.
I do not apologise for raising this and cannot say that my concerns are wholly allayed: the words “necessary” and “expedient” were used in the delegated powers memorandum, along with “detailed and technical” about the nature of the amendments. I would like to assure myself that the words in the Bill reflect what has been said. I will possibly talk to the noble and learned Lord before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 12.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the reference to the National Assembly for Wales with a reference to Senedd Cymru, reflecting the change made by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (anaw 1) to the name of the Assembly.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government have laid Amendment 15 to reflect Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, which changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment is a technical consequential amendment. It follows the new practice of using the Welsh name when referring only to the Welsh legislature. I hope noble Lords will be able to join me in voting for this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am very happy to support this amendment. While looking at it, I was thinking that Members of the Welsh Parliament are called Assembly Members. What will they be called in future? They are in a Parliament and are called AMs—will there be some consequential change there? Maybe someone could clarify that at some point.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will try to do that. It is a technical point to which I do not know the answer.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it might assist the noble Lord if I point out to him that they are Aelodau Senedd, or AS, in Welsh. It is “Senedd” with a “th” sound, not a “d” sound.
Historic Sexual Offences: Investigations
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, allegations of sexual offences are serious matters and must be treated as such, regardless of when they are alleged to have occurred. Increasing numbers of people now have the confidence to come forward and report what happened to them. It is right that the police are investigating these allegations and encouraging that they are securing convictions and providing victims and survivors with the justice that they deserve.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, as the Carl Beech affair now draws to a close, is not the real scandal in its management the fact that decent, honourable people, who have and had given a lifetime of public service to their country, have had their reputations destroyed by the headline-grabbing accusations of ambitious self-publicists and irresponsible policemen, who believed and promoted the lies of a fantasist, and that the damage that these purveyors of untruth have done can never be mitigated? Surely the perpetrators of this huge injustice bear responsibility for what has subsequently happened and it rests on their conscience, and history will never forgive them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. Once someone is falsely accused, that can never be undone and it can blight their entire life from that moment forward. Of course, some of the people whom I am sure the noble Lord is referring to are dead and cannot defend themselves. There is some remedy in law—perverting the course of justice or perjury in court—but he is absolutely right that those allegations can never be reversed and can destroy lives for ever.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Did my noble friend read the moving words of Diana Brittan, the widow of our former colleague Leon Brittan, and does she not agree that one who has abused his place in one House of Parliament should not be admitted to another?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I read the words of Diana Brittan. I hope that the whole House will take comfort from the fact that, when the House of Lords Appointments Commission decides whether people will come into your Lordships’ House, it should consider whether that person will bring the House into disrepute.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that complainants should always initially be cared for as genuine survivors of sexual offences but investigations should always be an objective search for the truth, and that there is no contradiction in such an approach?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord knows that I agree with him.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, in view of the life-changing and career-ruining result of some of these accusations, is it not time that people were not named until charged? I wonder what the Government’s attitude is to that. It would be a great remedy in future to protect public figures from ruination by glib accusations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend will know that the guidance on this states that the police will not name those arrested or suspected of a crime save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so, such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or when police have made a public warning about a wanted individual. However, my noble friend will also appreciate that, in the case of Jimmy Savile, for example, had people not come forward, those victims’ voices would never have been heard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness consider that police forces have any insight into the impact of their behaviour? I have in mind particularly Wiltshire Police in the case of Ted Heath. So far, one has faced a stone wall and hardly received a decent apology for the way in which they pursued a ridiculous case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in this House we have talked about several cases such as the one that the noble Lord has referred to. It is right that lessons are learned from these things and that the IOPC steps in, and it is also right that these matters can be pursued through the courts.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, can the Minister explain how we will learn from the sorts of examples that we have had—for instance, the case of Sir Edward Heath in Salisbury—unless there is an independent review? In the past, we have been told that the Home Office cannot do that and that it is the responsibility of the police and crime commissioner. The police and crime commissioner for Wiltshire says that the police force there was acting as a lead authority on behalf of others. We need to accept that more than 40 allegations had to be investigated. How will we learn unless there is a review, and what can the Home Office do that will help to restore the reputation of both Sir Edward and, I have to say, Wiltshire Police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly take on board that last point about restoring the reputation of Wiltshire Police. I guess that it is for that force to ensure that the cultures change over time. Three successive Home Secretaries have now said that they will not instigate an inquiry and that it is a matter for the police. The IOPC has already had an inquiry into Operation Midland. HMICFRS is now carrying out a lessons-learned review into Operation Midland, and that report is due in the next few weeks.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has just said that there have been three Home Secretaries who have not made an investigation into Operation Conifer, but, as the right reverend Prelate said, we are not going to move forward here. Why will a Home Secretary not order an investigation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, for the simple reason that the police are operationally independent of the Government; it is a matter for them. There are funds available should they wish to launch inquiries, but it has been the clear view of three successive Home Secretaries that an inquiry is not appropriate.
European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the UK withdrawing from participation in the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and membership of Eurojust.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK stands ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. An agreement in this area should support data exchange for law enforcement, operational co-operation between law enforcement authorities and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This agreement should equip operational partners on both sides with capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has not even attempted to answer the Question. Not being a member of Europol or Eurojust relegates the UK to observer status, rather than driving and directing pan-European law enforcement operations and intelligence sharing. The Government say that they want a similar agreement to that reached by Norway and Iceland to replace the European arrest warrant, but that agreement took 13 years to negotiate and implement and does not allow extradition of an EU member state’s own nationals. Is it not inevitable that the UK will be less safe and less secure if we withdraw from these arrangements?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The first thing to say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement on this. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and operational analysis in 2018.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister set out for the House who she believes are the beneficiaries of this decision other than criminals seeking to evade justice? How will she ensure that fugitives in Europe will not just laugh at us for failing to bring them to justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the beneficiaries of this should be the people of the UK. It seeks to replicate many of the operational capabilities in the European arrest warrant, while containing safeguards.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that not all European arrest warrants are the same? A European arrest warrant from France or Germany, with whom we share the same respect for the rule of law, is one thing, but a European arrest warrant from one or two other countries—here I particularly mention Romania—is not the same because often political interference has taken place in the judicial system.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a very good point about political interference. In fact, that is one of the safeguards within what we are seeking. He is right to make the point that not all EU states are the same.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, will the situation after withdrawal be as effective as it is at present?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this seems the most bizarre decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it is that the Prime Minister’s hard-right colleagues in the Cabinet do not like anything with the word “Euro” in it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Not that I have heard. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation. But we will have left the EU.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend talks about political interference. This, to many of us, smacks of political interference: fixing something that is not broken. Time and again in the last two or three years, Ministers on the Front Bench have indicated the value of these arrangements. Why are we walking away from them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are areas in which we will attempt to have very similar arrangements to those we have now with the EU. As I said, this will be very similar operationally to the EAW, but with enhanced safeguards.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, how is it that we have come to this pass when, time and again, before our departure from the EU, we were promised from those on the Front Bench that we would work towards replicating the arrangements for the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust? We now appear to be negotiating something inferior and different.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I would not say it is inferior, but I agree that it is different. The Norway-Iceland arrangements seem to work perfectly well with those enhanced safeguards.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, back when we were discussing the European withdrawal agreement six months ago, it was frequently said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the same rules apply as we go forward towards the new agreement that we are now negotiating? If we do not manage to agree everything, what position will we be left in with respect to these aspects of criminal justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We obviously want an agreement across all areas of law enforcement co-operation—I cannot hypothecate what the noble Baroness says—because we want to keep our citizens safe.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, how will the Government extradite criminals from Germany given that, constitutionally, they are not allowed to do so unless it is within the European Union?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, arrangements will have to be in place that allow the system or the arrangements to take part in that country.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister remembers what the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said about the loss of the European arrest warrant. It was one of his highest concerns about Brexit. How much was he consulted in this decision and how much has the relationship between the north of Ireland and Ireland been considered in this decision?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As the noble Baroness will know, and as I have said on several occasions, we have engaged with the devolved authorities on all things, particularly in the area of law enforcement.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the European arrest warrant has one enormous advantage among many in that countries that do not normally extradite their people, do so under the EAW? What assurance have we that, in future, this will hold good? Many signals have come from European countries saying that they will not do so in the future. Does that not make us as a country weaker and more vulnerable to criminality?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think it would mean that those states will try in their own countries—I have talked about the enhanced safeguards—but I do not think that will make this country less safe.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is this one of the areas in which the Permanent Secretary advised the Secretary of State of the dangers of going ahead, and which the Secretary of State paid no attention to and shouted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, one thing I cannot comment on is private conversations between Secretaries of State and their officials—
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Given the continued controversy with regard to the treaty on extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that the bars in each country are different—“reasonable suspicion” in Britain and “probable cause” in the United States—which of these standards will Her Majesty’s Government insist upon when they enter any new extradition treaties?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord asks a question which I do not think I can answer in terms of the level, but I can get back to him. I would be making it up if I were to give an answer.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, one of the problems of the European arrest warrant was that, if there was a crime in the country that was trying to extradite but not in the country that the person was being demanded from, we used to have difficulty. I seem to remember there being an issue over xenophobia in one of the European countries and there was also a problem with plane spotters who took photographs of airplanes. Presumably, these issues will disappear under the new negotiations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
This will come under what we call “dual criminality”. If the issue at hand was not a crime in this country, it would not be applicable. We would add some of those more difficult cases where the crime was not a crime in our country.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will want to be aware that earlier this week we also laid an order under Section 3(6) of the Terrorism Act 2000, recognising that System Resistance Network or SRN is an alias of the right-wing terrorist organisation National Action, which was proscribed in the UK in December 2016. That order came into effect on Tuesday. We are clear that these groups should not be able to continue their activities by simply operating under alternative names.
The threat level in the UK, which is set by the Independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at substantial. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is likely and could occur without warning. While we can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat to the UK and our interests abroad and to disrupt those who would engage in it. Recognising that terrorism is a global threat that is best tackled in partnership, it is also important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs.
The order before the House today adds Sonnenkrieg Division, otherwise known as SKD, to the list of proscribed terrorist organisations; merges the proscriptions of Kurdistan Workers’ Party, otherwise known as Partiya Karkeren Kurdistani or PKK, and Teyrebazene Azadiye Kurdistan, otherwise known as TAK; and recognises Hezen Parastina Gel, otherwise known as HPG, as an alias of PKK by amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
This is the 24th order under that Act. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt terrorist activities, and it sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. She takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise this discretion. They include the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities, the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation and recklessly to express support for a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or display articles in public, such as flags, which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or to publish an image of an article of a proscribed organisation, such as a flag or logo, in the same circumstances.
Proscription sends a strong message to deter fundraising and recruitment for proscribed organisations. The assets of a proscribed organisation can also become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. Proscription can also support other disruptions of terrorist activity, including, for example, immigration powers that allow individuals linked to a proscribed organisation to be excluded from the UK on account of their presence in the UK not being in the public interest.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises the power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes information taken from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as from careful consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
The cross–government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of each case. Given the impact the power can have, it is appropriate that proscriptions must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that SKD is currently concerned in terrorism and that TAK and HPG are aliases of PKK. As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn.
This order proscribes SKD, a white supremacist group that was established in March 2018 following a splinter of System Resistance Network, which is an alias of the proscribed group National Action. Members of the group were convicted of encouraging terrorism and possession of documents useful to a terrorist in June 2019. The group has encouraged and glorified acts of terrorism via its social media posts and distributed imagery. This includes an image depicting the Duke of Sussex being shot—as part of its campaign against “race traitors”—following his marriage to the Duchess of Sussex, and home-made propaganda using Nazi imagery calling for attacks on minorities. The images can reasonably be taken as implying that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism.
This order also amends the proscription of PKK and TAK to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases of PKK. As I am sure noble Lords will be aware, PKK is primarily a separatist movement that seeks an independent Kurdish state in south-east Turkey. The group was formed in 1978 by Abdullah Öcalan. In 1984 the group launched an armed struggle calling for an independent Kurdish state.
PKK has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK since March 2001 and is also listed as a terrorist organisation in more than a dozen other countries, as well by the EU. TAK has also been proscribed in the UK since 2006. However, we now assess that it is an alias of PKK. HPG is also assessed to be an alias of PKK.
The Government keep their response to terrorism under review and it is entirely appropriate that we take all available opportunities to strengthen the UK’s response to both domestic and international threats. Amending the PKK proscription to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases of this organisation is part of that response.
In conclusion, I think it is right that we proscribe SKD—and amend the PKK proscription to recognise TAK and HPG as aliases—on the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 28 February.
I beg to move.
Pre-charge Police Bail: Time Limit
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, on 5 February the Government launched a public consultation on proposals as part of our review of pre-charge bail. These proposals include extending the time limit on the initial pre-charge bail period from 28 days to either 60 or 90 days to more accurately reflect how long investigations take in complex cases.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
My Lords, whether a person is released on pre-charge bail or is under investigation, the aim is to gather more evidence, often using forensics. This week, the Forensic Science Regulator issued the Government with a stark warning. She stated that failures in forensic science were putting justice at risk, that the service was on a “knife-edge” and that there was a
“a woeful level of compliance”
in digital forensics. So no matter what the Government decide to do after the consultation, which the noble Baroness referred to, closes, it is clear that reform of bail alone is not enough. Does the noble Baroness agree with the regulator’s assessment and what will the Government do about the severe lack of investment in forensics, especially digital forensics, which are needed to deliver swift and fair justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I completely agree with the noble Baroness that this is not just about bail versus release under investigation; there is far more to concluding and charging people than just those two things. She referred to forensics and she will know, I hope, that we have put £28 million into increasing forensic capacity. She will also know, I hope, that we fully intend to put the Forensic Science Regulator on to a statutory footing.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to be very cautious about this for two reasons. First, by definition, it is not under judicial supervision. Secondly, extending the time limits would encourage the police to be rather dilatory in their inquiries.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we fully intend to put this on a statutory footing. RUI has increased following the legislation we passed some two or three years ago, sometimes to more than what bail would have been. We have to look at this area, but I take what my noble friend says.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, when this matter was debated before the Government placed restrictions on police bail, police chiefs, the Police Superintendents’ Association and we on these Benches told the Government that these limits and restrictions were unrealistic. As a result, in 2017-18, 46,674 people were released under investigation in London alone, which is the worst of both worlds: allegations hang over the accused indefinitely with no power for the police to impose conditions. When will the Government start to listen to those who know what they are talking about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I had a feeling that there might be an “I told you so” moment today. The noble Lord is absolutely right: he and others did question the length of time. However, I recall that I was quite clear at the time that we would review this and clearly it is time for review, hence the consultation and our intention to do something about it.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that this Question is very relevant to the subject of domestic abuse? She will know about the case of Kay Richardson, who was murdered by her estranged husband in Sunderland in 2018 after he had been released under investigation. He had a history of domestic abuse and she had reported him for rape. Under the previous provisions, he would have been bailed with conditions. The difficulty is that there are no conditions attached to releasing under investigation. There should be a power to release suspects under investigation where necessary with enforceable safe -guarding conditions. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally recognise the point that the noble Lord makes about domestic abuse. Our proposals will ensure that bail is used in most domestic abuse and sexual offences where necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the House will soon have the opportunity to debate a report on forensic science provision and the criminal justice system that the Science and Technology Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has produced. It strongly recommends that the regulator should be put on a statutory basis. I know that the noble Baroness has just said that this is the Government’s intention, but it was not in the Queen’s Speech. When will that legislation be brought forward? Furthermore, forensic science provision, as she knows, is in dire straits, with private providers going bust all the time.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I pre-empted that the noble Lord might, rightly, bring this up. I know that it was not in the Queen’s Speech, but it is our intention to bring that legislation forward, and I shall keep him posted on its progress.
Immigration: Points-based System
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the United Kingdom’s new points-based immigration system. Last week, I announced our plans for a radical new approach that works in the interests of the British people. It will be a fair, firm and fundamentally different system in the control of the British Government that prioritises those who come to our country based on the skills they have to offer, not on the country they come from. It will enable the UK to become a magnet for the brightest and the best, with special immigration routes for those who make the biggest contribution. We will create new arrangements for new migrants who will fill shortages in our NHS, build the companies and innovations of the future and benefit the UK for years to come. As this Government restore our status as an independent sovereign nation, we will set out our own immigration standards and controls as an open, democratic and free country.
The Government have listened to the clear message from the British public and are delivering what people asked for in the 2016 referendum and the December 2019 general election. That includes ending free movement through the introduction of a single global immigration system that prioritises the skills that people have to offer, not where they come from, and restoring public trust in our immigration system with a system that truly works for this country. That is what the people voted for and we are a Government who will deliver on the people’s priorities.
We are ending free movement: that automatic right for EU citizens to enter and reside in the UK, which does not apply to people from other countries. Now that we have left the EU, this ambitious Government of action are ending the discrimination between EU and non-EU citizens so that we can attract the brightest and best from around the world. Our country and people will prosper through one system and an approach in the control of the British Government—one that will also deliver the overall reduction in low-skilled immigration that the public have asked for.
Many of the values that define our great country originated from the huge benefits that immigration has brought to our nation throughout its history. People from every corner of this globe have made an enormous contribution to the fabric of our society. This is why at the heart of the new single global immigration system will be a focus on attracting talented people from around the world and on the contribution that they and their families will make, irrespective of their country of origin.
Last Wednesday, I published a policy statement setting out our new UK points-based immigration system, which will start operating from 1 January 2021 and work in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. This will be a single, comprehensive, UK-wide system for workers and students from around the world. Our points-based system will provide simple, effective and flexible arrangements and give top priority to the skilled workers we need to boost our economy and support our brilliant public services. All applicants will need to demonstrate that they have a job offer from an approved sponsor. The job must be at an appropriate skill level, and the applicant must be able to speak English and meet tougher criminality checks and standards.
We have acted on the advice of the independent Migration Advisory Committee to make the skilled workers route more flexible, as businesses asked for. We have reduced the required skill level to the equivalent of A-level qualifications and cut the general salary threshold to £25,600. The threshold for many NHS workers and teachers will be set in line with published pay scales to ensure that our public services do not suffer and we attract the talent that we need. Experienced workers who earn less than the general threshold—but not less than £20,480—may still be able to apply tradeable points to reward vital skills and bring us the talent that our economy needs. For example, a PhD in a relevant subject will earn extra points, with double the number of points for specialists in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Additional points will also be awarded for occupations that struggle to fill vacancies, and I am asking the Migration Advisory Committee to keep its list under regular review to ensure that it reflects the needs of the labour market. The Government will ensure that talented employees from overseas, on whom our great NHS relies, can come here to work and provide high-quality, compassionate care. That means we will prioritise qualified staff who seek to move to the UK to work in our NHS, as well as retaining our own national commitment, through the investments made by this Government, to invest in and train more brilliant nurses, doctors and health professionals in our own country. The new NHS visa system will provide a work visa with a fast-track decision, a larger dedicated advice service for applicants and reduced fees.
Like many other Members, I represent a partly rural constituency. Our commitment to British agriculture is clear. In addition to the reforms that I have outlined, I am quadrupling the size of the pilot scheme for seasonal workers in the horticulture sector to ensure that our farms, and our horticultural sector, continue to thrive. This is happening immediately.
We will continue to welcome international students who want to study in our world-class universities across the United Kingdom, and there will be no cap on their numbers. Those who apply will be accepted, provided they are sponsored by an approved educational institution, have the necessary academic qualifications and English-language aptitude, and are able to support themselves financially once in the United Kingdom. When they have finished their studies, our new graduate route will allow them to stay in the UK and work at any skill level for up to a further two years. Let me also take this opportunity to reassure the House that the immigration arrangements for members of the Armed Forces, musicians and performers are completely unchanged and these routes will operate as they do now.
In line with ending free movement, there will be no immigration route for lower-skilled work. No longer will employers be able to rely on cut-price EU workers. Instead, we are calling upon them to invest in British people, as well as investing in technology and skills to improve productivity, and to join the UK Government’s mission to level up our skills and economic growth across our country. These changes are vital if we are to deliver a high-skill, high-wage and highly productive economy, and, because we have provided certainty in respect of the new immigration system, the economy and businesses have had time to adjust.
The proposals set out in our policy statement are just the start of our phased approach to delivering a new immigration system. We will continue to refine our immigration system and will build in flexibility where it is needed. Over time, more attributes for which points can be earned—such as previous experience and additional qualifications—may be added, which will allow us to respond effectively to the needs of the labour market and economy. However, to be effective, the system must also stay simple, so there will not be endless exemptions for low-paid, lower-skilled workers. We will not end free movement only to recreate it in all but name through other routes.
The world’s top talent will continue to be welcomed in this country. From January, we will expand our existing global talent route to EU citizens, giving all the world’s brightest and best the same streamlined access to the UK. Reforms that I introduced last week will allow us to attract even more brilliant scientists, mathematicians and researchers through that route to keep this country at the cutting edge of life-changing innovation and technology, and the points-based system will provide even more flexibility to attract the finest international minds with the most to offer.
Alongside the employer-led system, we will create a points-based unsponsored route to allow a limited number of the world’s most highly skilled people to come here without a job offer, as part of the phased approach, if they can secure enough points. Our new, fair and firm system will send a message to the whole world that Britain is open for business, as we continue to attract the brightest and best from around the world, but with a system that the British Government have control over. Our blueprint for taking back control will transform the way in which people come to our country to work, study, visit or even join their family. Our new independence will strengthen border security, allowing us to reject insecure identity documents from newly arriving migrants. We will be able to do more to keep out criminals who seek to harm our people, communities and country.
Finally, I am pleased to say that, when it comes to EU citizens already in the UK, the EU Settlement Scheme—the biggest scheme of its kind ever in British history—has already received 3.2 million applications, resulting in 2.8 million grants of status. Through this system we will finally develop a true meritocracy, where anyone with the skills who wants to come here will have the ability to do so. This is just the start of a phased approach to delivering a new system. I will shortly be bringing forward an immigration Bill and radically overhauling and simplifying the complex Immigration Rules that have dominated the system for decades. For the first time in decades, the UK will have control over who comes here and how our immigration system works. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the points they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, started off by talking about our aspiration, or rather our intention, to reduce overall numbers but not having any idea of what those numbers will be. We have been quite clear that we are not getting into a numbers game, but what we are getting into is a new immigration system where the British people know that the numbers coming in are under democratic control. That is the important thing here.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about low-skilled workers and, more particularly, care workers. We have been clear—and I was clear in the Statement—that we will not implement a dedicated route for low-skilled workers and that UK businesses will have to adapt, upskill workers and not rely on cheap labour from the EU. Care workers can, with an A-level, or the equivalent, be able to come to the UK under our new skilled worker route. The salary levels have reduced as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about loopholes through the shortage occupation list. We have recognised that there is a high demand for certain skills, both in the regions of the UK and in the UK as a whole. I think it is a very sensible suggestion to create that list so that those people can come quickly and efficiently to fill those skill gaps.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about creatives. The system will not change for the creative sector as it is as present. It will be exactly the same system, but she makes the point that EU versus non-EU will now be one and the same: it will just be non-UK.
The noble Baroness also made a good point about the MAC having access to good data. It will give regular opinions, behind which will have to be good data on what it proposes next. I take her point that the effective monitoring of data will be important in informing our future thinking. She also asked whether the new system will be in legislation or rules: it will be both. I hope that answers the question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is correct to raise this. We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of any new system. In my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I said that there would be regular reviews and advice to the Government from the MAC. As with any new system, it will be under regular review. At the heart of what the Government want to do is taking control of our borders and immigration system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to suggest that the Government’s policy will not hold. It will certainly not hold in the health and social care sector; it is only a question of when they will be forced to reverse their policy. Does the Minister acknowledge that health and social care has relied on migration ever since it started? The 50,000 nurse target that the Government are committed to depends on thousands of nurses coming to this country. I accept that they can come under this new policy, but what about the care sector? According to the Minister yesterday, in 2018 the ludicrous MAC said that the problems of the care sector should be solved by the sector itself investing in,
“making jobs in social care worthwhile”.—[Official Report, 24/2/20; col. 9.]
Have noble Lords ever heard such nonsense? The care sector is collapsing. There is no resource there—no funding for training and recruitment. The Government are saying that they are prepared to see the whole sector collapse as a result of this ludicrous policy. It is only a question of time before the Minister comes back to tell the House that she will reverse this policy; she will have to.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord is agreeing that we should allow more migrant workers in health and social care. He will know that we have had a 150% increase in migration from non-EU countries to health and social care. I am well aware that we have relied on migration for health and social care for many years. It is the reason I am in this country; both my parents are migrant doctors. We are lucky indeed to have them, generally, in this country. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to have the funding to underpin making extra places for doctors and nurses in this country. The Government have announced a huge increase in funding for the healthcare sector. It has always been our intention that, when we leave the EU, EU and non-EU migrants will be treated exactly the same. The competition will be there to get the best and brightest people, from all parts of the world, for our NHS.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome this new development in immigration policy from my noble friend, in particular the flexibility to which she referred, which creates huge opportunities, I believe that this is an important policy that must be controlled and delivered from the centre, from the United Kingdom Government. Nevertheless, there are so many wide variations in different parts of the United Kingdom of a social, economic and demographic nature that it is very important to take this new opportunity that we have with the flexibility the policy allows to take account of these circumstances and to try as fully as we can to meet them. Therefore, will my noble friend consult with the Governments of the devolved parliaments and assemblies to find out the facts that they able to provide and also to test their opinions as to how the Government can best help them in getting a policy that will bind the United Kingdom together?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for raising that question. He is absolutely right that we should be mindful of regional variation, regional demand and regional supply. In fact, the shortage occupation list that was drawn up does not look much different in Scotland than it does in the UK as a whole. But he is right to make the point that, in terms of engagement, we should listen to the devolved Administrations and be mindful of what they say. We would not want them to be unable to have the workforce that they need in their areas.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I do not understand when the Minister says that musicians, for example, will be treated exactly the same. If they are going to be treated as though they are from non-EEA countries, it will be a massive change; it will not be the same at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was absolutely right to mention reciprocity. Of course, what we will do to the EU will be done to us. From the point of view of the creative industries, which are so important culturally and economically, it is hugely disappointing to see in paragraph 25 of the policy statement:
“We will not be creating a dedicated route for self-employed people.”
The effect on our own UK workers will be devastating if there is not a dedicated route, unencumbered by the need for sponsorship and allowing onward movement, among many other things, not only in the arts and the creative industries but in the UK services sector more widely, for which Europe is the major market.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Earl’s point on board and I will try to get a fuller answer on the creative industries, because I recognise the point that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, make. As I was on my feet, I was thinking that maybe it was because of the short time for which performers might want to come to the UK. But I will get a fuller answer for the two noble Lords and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, it is estimated that there are more than 10,000 Indian restaurants in this country, and between them they employ more people than the British coal, steel or shipbuilding industries. During the referendum campaign, Priti Patel launched an appeal urging voters to save our curry houses by leaving the European Union. She then said that it was “manifestly unfair and unjust” that south Asian chefs should have to deal with a “second-class immigration system”. Can the Minister explain how the proposed points system will assist in recruiting chefs from the Indian subcontinent?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think the point that my right honourable friend was making was that people from the Indian subcontinent were less advantaged when wanting to come to this country than those from the EU, and this now levels out the playing field. Indeed, in this country we have some world-class chefs and people with fantastic skills, who, on the points-based system, I am sure would not only command decent salaries but have the requisite skills to come to this country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, most carers are women, which is one reason their work is undervalued and treated as not skilled. According to the Women’s Budget Group, the proposals will discriminate against migrant women generally, because women are underrepresented in privileged occupations and therefore less likely to reach the points threshold. I am sure the Minister will agree that women are just as likely as men to be among the Government’s beloved “brightest and best”. Given that the Government are obliged to have due regard to the impact of their policies on equality, when will they publish an equality impact assessment? If these proposals, as seems likely, demonstrate an adverse gender impact, will they rethink them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Of course, the Government, in whatever legislation they bring forward, publish an equality impact assessment, as the noble Baroness knows. But I have to agree with her point about how women are adversely affected by policy. Immigration alone will not be the solution to some of the problems that women in the care sector face. The point I made about employers upskilling workers and not relying on cheap labour—I think that would be to the benefit of women in the care sector. I want women to be more valued in the work they do.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister made reference to the uncapped and fast-tracked global talent visa. It has been widely welcomed by the science and innovation sector, which will be critical for our post-Brexit success. Will she also undertake to look into the problems faced by world-leading experts who are seeking to come to speak at academic conferences and universities in the UK? Such short-term collaborations are critical to scientific knowledge exchange and the UK’s reputation as an innovation nation, and any immigration form that seeks to attract the brightest and the best will have to get this right.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally concur with my noble friend. On 20 February—only a few days ago—we launched the new fast-track arrangements, managed by UK Research and Innovation, which enable UK-based research projects that have received recognised prestigious grants and awards to recruit that top global talent. However, as she also says, we want those experts to be able to come and furnish us with the benefit of their knowledge: I will most certainly take that back.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister answer a couple of questions about the impact of this points-based system on the higher education sector? First, she said in the Statement that there would be an English test: is that test to be carried out by the Home Office or by the higher education establishments, which are required to offer a place to a student before they can get a visa? Secondly, I think she said, but perhaps she can confirm this, that the points-based system will not apply to higher education. However, my reading of the Statement is that it will apply. What I cannot understand, for the life of me, is how on earth students coming to our universities can acquire the points that are required. They certainly cannot state that they are going to get a particular income. They are not getting an income at all: they are coming with a large amount of money in their hands to pay to us. Will she answer those two points about higher education, and also perhaps say how we are going to test whether they have enough funds to see them through a three- or four-year course?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A student coming to this country will have to demonstrate that they have the funds to pay for the course and be sponsored by the relevant university or higher education establishment. I think that point has long been clear. As for a student coming to this country having the English language, I have a feeling it depends on the course, but I will check that for the noble Lord and return to him on that point. Of course, the student can now stay for an additional two years after they have qualified in order to find work, which obviously makes the system far more generous than it was before.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, given that, for more than a century, our catering and hospitality services have been heavily staffed by young Europeans, to the apparent satisfaction of our own people and tourist visitors to the United Kingdom alike, are the Government absolutely confident that the importance of this sector to our economy will in no way be impaired by the new system?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have made it clear that it is incumbent on UK businesses to start to upskill the people who work for them and not to rely on cheap labour from the EU and beyond, as they did before. That is the challenge to businesses, but I take my noble friend’s point—I can hear the tutting—and obviously we will keep the system under review. It is a brand new system and the MAC will, of course, be advising us on it as we proceed.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the words that she has uttered today will have given little comfort to the many employers in this country who are worried about having enough people to work and do the necessary jobs that they have? The Statement referred to talented employees and she talked about people with A-levels and so on. Is there not a danger that we will simply be denuding key industries of the people we need? Is there not a terrible danger to the health service, particularly in social care? I am not aware of anything in what the Minister suggested that would make us feel that social care is going to work. It is on the point of collapsing anyway, and it will collapse even further if there are no people willing to do the job. Of course, the answer is to have a whacking big pay increase for people in social care, but that is not for this afternoon: it is for another occasion. I implore the Minister to understand that employers are desperately worried about what is going to happen, and they have not had any assurances in what she said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in the coming months, we will engage widely with different sectors and, I hope, allay their fears. It is important to say, though, that employers should be moving away from reliance on the UK’s immigration system as an alternative to investment in staff retention, particularly in areas such as technology and innovation. There are two things that run alongside each other: immigration must be considered alongside investment in, and development of, the UK’s domestic workforce. That includes—and this relates to the noble Lord’s point—valuing care staff and paying them a decent wage.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, will the changes being made result in good-quality fruit and vegetables rotting in the ground because they cannot be picked? What assessment have the Government made of that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, on 19 February, the Government published a new policy statement, to which noble Lords have referred. As part of this, we announced the expansion of the seasonal workers’ pilot, which raised the quota for this year from 2,500 to 10,000 places. It is not designed to meet the full labour needs of the horticultural industry; it is designed to test the effectiveness of our immigration system and to support UK growers during peak production periods, while retaining robust immigration control and ensuring that the impact on local communities and public services is kept to a minimum. It must be said that seasonal workers can stay in the UK for up to six months in any 12-month period.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I have made the point before, and the Government have recognised, that our science and innovation sector is world-class. That cannot be achieved without a team, and that includes a lab technician. Yet the Government, through their immigration policy, do not recognise that, although they are skilled workers, they are not paid up to £20,000. Is it not bizarre that we train our own people as lab technicians and pay them less £20,000 but we cannot accept through our immigration system somebody who is paid the same amount of money because it is less than £20,000? The same applies to computer scientists: we have a great shortage in cybersecurity of low-level, trained, skilled people who will, in due course, move up, but initially they do not earn £20,000.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
New entrants will receive a 30% reduction on the salary threshold that would otherwise be required for their occupation. Given that the skills level has come down to A-level, I think a new technician entrant would meet the salary threshold.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that only very rich disabled people will be able to afford help? What will happen to all the thousands of disabled people who are not super-rich? Does it not mean that disabled people will be discriminated against?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the care system in this country ensures that people on low incomes have access to the care that they need. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is referring to immigrants to this country—
Baroness Masham of Ilton
I am asking about disabled people living in the community.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Disabled people living in the community have access to a means-tested care system which has long been established in this country.
Immigration: Refugee Doctors
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, our new immigration system will ensure that the UK has the skills it needs, including those of doctors. Our refugee resettlement schemes rightly focus on support for the most vulnerable recognised refugees, and those we resettle are supported to apply their skills in the UK.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of a BMA working group to support refugee and asylum-seeking doctors. Given the significant hurdles when people flee with no papers or proof of qualifications and are unable to meet the English language requirements or pay the exam fees they need to register, how have the Government sought co-ordination across all healthcare regulators to ensure refugee doctors and other such professionals can achieve registration and bring their experience and skills to the NHS? Given that UNHCR estimates that over 1,000 people who identify as qualified doctors are stranded in refugee camps—many having been trained, in part, in English, yet only 46 having applied last year to the GMC—can the Minister tell us how many were refused entry last year?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know, I am sure, that doctors and nurses are on the shortage occupations list. In that sense, they would not be refused entry, but I completely understand the point she makes about someone who is fleeing who does not have proof of their qualifications. The National Academic Recognition Information Centre is the designated UK agency to help doctors and healthcare professionals get their qualifications recognised by various NHS bodies. Individuals can, I know, apply for a statement of compatibility to have that recognised.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, if the Home Secretary is looking to the economically inactive to fill the gaping labour market holes that her immigration policy will create, will the Government now rethink their opposition to allowing asylum seekers the right to work after six months?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, our policy on that has not changed, but these things are constantly under review. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is right that, if someone is seeking asylum but not yet legally resident here, they should not be in a position to be able to work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister makes great play of the fact that doctors are highly skilled; of course they are. But what about care workers? Why is the classification used by the Home Office going to deny us thousands of people coming from other countries to work in our care system? This is complete madness.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is fair to recognise that the problems in the care system are not fixable only through immigration. The MAC recognised in 2018 that the sector needs to invest in making jobs in social care worthwhile careers rather than be propped up with immigrant labour.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to co-operation and collaboration between the various agencies and the Government to enable refugees who are doctors to practise. Can we add the availability or non-availability of clinical attachments to that list? After all, many of these doctors are among—I hate the term, but the Government use it—the brightest and the best.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Some clinical attachments will, if people have the skills required, come under the purview of doctors, nurses and other medical staff on the shortage occupations list. If not, obviously the requisite salary will be required.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, it is important that Her Majesty’s Government give serious consideration to complementary pathways such as this for refugees to find sanctuary while they are contributing professional skills of all kinds. However, the Minister will be aware that, this year, the existing refugee resettlement schemes will be consolidated into a new global resettlement scheme, for which only one year of funding has been announced. Is the Minister yet able to confirm that funding will continue for refugee resettlement for the full term of this Parliament, to maintain refugee resettlement at current levels?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The right reverend Prelate will recognise that the ambition for this coming year is that it should exceed previous years, and he will know that under our various resettlement schemes we are on course to resettle 20,000 people from the region this year. It is difficult to make commitments beyond this year because of the spending review, frustrating though that is, but I will keep him posted on our future ambitions for resettling people.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am grateful. Will my noble friend ensure that any doctor who seeks to practise, whether a refugee doctor or otherwise, is registered to practise in their home country and has not, under any circumstances, been struck off and banned from practising there?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly confirm in writing if that is the case, because we do not want people who are ineligible to practise. We have had examples of that.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Will the noble Baroness be kind enough, after Oral Questions, to revisit the answer she gave a moment or two ago about the health service being “propped up” by immigrant labour? We rely on many immigrant doctors. Many of us have had experience of relying on those immigrant doctors in this country. It was an unfortunate term to use, considering the shortages, the waiting lists and those people—we all know someone—who have waited a very long time. She should reconsider her answer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Noble Lords will know that, in using that word, I did not mean it to be in any way derogatory; nor is it a derogatory term.