Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness Brinton

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will certainly do that and take that back to pass on to my Cabinet Office colleagues. One of the reasons why the new Government introduced the single named caseworker was in direct response to the type of criticism that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has brought forward. We hope that it will streamline the process, improve consistency, increase transparency and remove the duplication, because those are the factors that have led to delay. If there is good practice from the Post Office and infected blood compensation schemes, and/or vice versa from this, the Government should self-evidently adopt it and make sure that victims get the justice they deserve at the time they deserve it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful that the Minister just referred to the two other schemes that are ongoing at the moment, but victims of those schemes are saying that it is not just about the speed but about the very intrusive and traumatic questions they are being asked, and delay is coming in. Can the Minister ensure that, following the Home Secretary’s reintroduction of the Windrush unit in the Home Office, we will not again see cases like that of Dijoun Jhagroo-Bryan? He is the son of a Windrush victim and submitted paperwork, but the Home Office unit demanded that he also supply a DNA test to prove that he was his father’s son. Some months later, that has now been rescinded, but will the Minister guarantee that this sort of behaviour will never happen again?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the individual mentioned has had that level of distress, I will apologise from the Dispatch Box for the intrusion into their private life and for the justification for a scheme for which there should have been automatic qualification. The purpose of the Windrush unit—it was disbanded but has been re-established by this new Government—is to tackle the very issues that the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin, Lady Brinton and Lady Berridge, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned. I will take those factors back and we will resolve them. I hope that this House can accept that this Government are committed to putting energy into the scheme, which we will deliver as quickly as possible, and that we will announce a Windrush commissioner shortly. That is a solid manifesto commitment, not just a whim from the Dispatch Box.

Tackling Stalking

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness Brinton

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a very old declaration of interest, but I was a member of the independent parliamentary inquiry on stalking, led by Elfyn Llwyd MP, which published its results in 2012 and led to the first change of legislation that identified stalking as a separate criminal offence, as opposed to it just being gathered in under harassment, as had happened before. I was also a victim of sustained stalking before the days of online stalking, over a period of two and a half years. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Thornhill was also in receipt of some of the very unpleasant attentions of this person.

The independent inquiry found that victims of stalking, whether domestic or not, had little confidence in the criminal justice system, from the way that police handled cases and helped victims and how the CPS frequently plea-bargained with perpetrators, resulting in a distinct lack of justice for egregious cases of stalking. I wish that I could say that this was history, but it is not. Nothing has changed in the cultural way that the entire criminal justice system deals with stalking. The law may have changed, but far too many stalking victims are still told that they should welcome the attention. Far too many find that their cases are plea-bargained away to harassment or some other minor offence and, as a result, that gives encouragement to the perpetrators. The reason that I mention this is that one of the things that was recognised was that many stalking cases involve perpetrators with fixated threats; they are manipulative people who have coercive-control behaviour, very deceitful behaviour and—most worryingly—with some perpetrators, a ratcheting-up of their illegal behaviour. Not enough is done to support victims of stalking.

In my particular case, it did not start with violence at all, but the reason why the police moved quickly at the end of a two and a half year period was because the perpetrator was using kitchen knives to slash tyres and their adviser said that, having done this to houses and damaged houses of the people he wanted to target, the next thing he would do after using these knives on inanimate objects would be to move to people. He was then swiftly arrested. Helpfully, he pleaded guilty and there has been nothing else since, but it was a pretty awful two and a half years.

This Statement focuses on the police response, where the Minister talks about those who have not been listened to or have even been told that they should have been flattered by the stalking actions. I welcome the fact that the Government recognise this, but the three issues that the Government are responding on—multi-agency statutory guidance on stalking, again; a review of stalking legislation, again; and publishing more data, again—are all welcome, but will not change things.

I pay particular tribute to Nicola Thorp. She is a brave woman, and we salute her, but she is one of many women who repeatedly have to tell their stories. Why, therefore, are false claims to families, friends and workplace victims able to be ignored when it comes to plea bargaining? I ask that, because these really manipulative stalkers do that. London’s victims’ commissioner, Claire Waxman, is herself a victim of stalking. Her perpetrator, whom she did not know, has been jailed seven times, and the behaviour continues. Once known, police can advise victims on how to protect themselves—for example, by installing alarms in their homes. If the individual who is being stalked recognises them, they can go to the police and say, “I’ve seen them in the vicinity of my house”. If they do not know who they are, how can they report when they are in danger?

I briefly mention one particular case where an ex-partner, who had continuously stalked his ex and her son, was given her new secret address by the children’s social worker, because he said he was so distraught at not being able to see his son. As a result of that action a handful of years ago, he broke into her new flat, threw his son against the wall and then raped the mother in front of the child. That is because the agencies did not know. It is fine to have victims informed, but can the Minister say whether other agencies involved in these cases will also know, so that that sort of mistake cannot be repeated?

Can the Minister also confirm, as has already been mentioned, that he will commit to requiring social media companies to publish reports setting out the actions that they have taken to address online abuse and stalking against women and girls? Will they be informed about these perpetrators who are repeat offenders? Social media companies will not pick it up on their own but, once they have a name and an IP address, which the police will have, it would be easy to do so.

I end by saying that I broadly welcome this Statement, as I think all victims of stalking do, but the biggest issue is how we can change the culture in the police and the criminal justice system. It is apparent that, 12 years since the new laws were introduced, it is the culture on the front line of the criminal justice system that needs to be changed.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for their support for the measures and for the work that was done by the previous Government in highlighting and putting in place legislation that had Opposition support at the time to at least start to address this problem. I say to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that I think the Government’s pledge, our manifesto commitment, to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period will send a clear signal to both central government and external agencies that relate to government on this issue and many others that this is a really important issue that has to be addressed by the state and by other bodies involved in dealing with the state. I hope that will assure the noble Baroness that this issue is being raised in importance. With a target being set of halving of violence against women and girls, of which stalking forms part, that is a measurable impact that agencies, the police and others will need to respond to government on, and I hope that raises it as a whole.

I particularly welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of Nicola Thorp and her work. It takes a great deal of bravery to come forward, and she has done that. He mentioned the co-operation between government departments. Certainly, the Ministry of Justice, the department of the Home Office that I represent, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have a stake in improving the performance of the Government and agencies in this area.

One thing that came out of this Statement, which both noble Lords mentioned, is the multiagency guidance and the guidance to various agencies dealing with this, including government agencies that are responsible as arm’s-length bodies or agencies delivering for central government departments. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said “again”, but I say to her that there has not been any guidance given to date by government on a multiagency basis that is effective. This is the first time this has happened and, in the Statement, we have agreed to do that.

Cyberstalking is important and will be part of the assessment of the government response downstream. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned resources. We are in a very strange time, as the House will recognise, when we have not yet announced the police settlement for next year until December, we have not yet allocated resources for 2025-26 and we have not yet determined, with the Treasury, resources for 2026-29. These matters will come in due course, but we have not done that yet.

The issue of culture change, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is extremely important, as is putting victims at the heart of the response, which is why we refer not just to Nicola Thorp but to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the way it has responded. The noble Baroness raised a number of issues relating to social media. That is equally important, but I say to all Members of this House that if they look at the Statement, the work on multiagency guidance will be brand-new and important. The review of legislation to see how we can improve many of the areas which both Front Bench spokespeople mentioned is important. The collection and publishing of data for the first time is important. The victim’s right to know, which the noble Baroness focused on, is extremely important, because once the victim knows, then steps can be taken and action monitored and individuals can respond to the agencies that I mentioned. That is in this proposed legislation the first time. The management of behaviour to tackle some of the long-term issues of low-level offenders, initially, who may raise the level of their game is equally important and is in for the first time. The stalking protection orders that we will put in place when parliamentary time allows are extremely important and will help prevent further engagement by stalkers when those are legislated. The national standards for examining how we can deal with individuals will raise the level of this issue and improve the performance of our agencies, which are all equally important.

Many of these matters that were announced in another place this week and are being repeated here today will require legislation in this or a later Session of Parliament, but I hope the Government’s intention is clear: we will not stand for stalking; we want to give victims protection; we want to improve the performance of the Government and their agencies in this area; and we want to ensure that there is a legal basis to give the type of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both suggested. This will be an ongoing discussion as legislation comes before the House, and I look forward to both noble Lords contributing to helping improve the performance for victims and the prevention of this activity in the first place.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness Brinton

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, this order has been laid to introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services, and to set the maximum fee that can be charged. For noble Lords’ benefit, I will provide some background to the fee structure we currently have in place. For the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are subsequently set in separate secondary legislation—the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018—which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.

The fees for the services we are seeking to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, including family, skilled worker, settlement, and student routes, where that route requires an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. There are a number of ways in which the English language proficiency test can be taken, using an academic qualification obtained in English and awarded by an educational establishment outside the United Kingdom.

Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in the English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, these must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd provides these services through a concession contract with the Home Office and has done so for over a decade.

It is important to be clear at this point that we are not introducing a new cost for applicants seeking to enter or remain in the UK: the requirement for applicants to use these services has existed for a number of years. Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through the website and pay an appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment and around 30 working days for a qualification equivalency assessment. The maximum fee in this order for the qualification and English language proficiency assessment is set at £400. This will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at the current levels, which are £140 for English language and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximum above this level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing these services.

The Home Office is bringing this order forward today and legislation to regulate these fees now where they have already been charged and where the nature of the service itself, or the requirement in the Immigration Rules, have changed. This is due, again, to the department identifying, in the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, that these fees should already have been regulated, due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified this oversight, action was taken immediately to legislate at this earliest opportunity to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing, although this process was delayed, as indeed was the instrument we dealt with earlier, because of the general election in mid-2024.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the Explanatory Memorandum that was published alongside this order, and produced a report on 10 October raising concerns that the Explanatory Memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement about why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the need for transparency. I recognise the committee’s view that further explanation of the context of this legislation was required, and my colleague the Minister for Migration and Citizenship sent a letter to the committee chair, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on 15 October explaining in more detail why the order was brought forward now and the exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.

I am not yet able to confirm the specific approach to be taken on how we regulate those fees downstream and, given the uncertainty, it is not appropriate or helpful to go into further detail now. However, I emphasise that this department takes its responsibilities on parliamentary transparency seriously. I assure noble Lords that we are taking forward considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority and the intention of this order, subject to the approval of this House, is to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in early December to set the fee levels that we have considered in the order today. I hope noble Lords will accept that we are trying to rectify an oversight that has crossed over from before the general election. We are regulating to close that loophole and I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot sit at the right desk, so I apologise for being in the wrong place.

I thank the Minister for explaining the reason for the order, although I think his description of “an oversight” for fees that have actually been charged illegally, because they were not approved by Parliament, is a bit of an understatement. I am also concerned that we still have no opportunity to see a new Explanatory Memorandum that sets out the record, but I will come back to that. I particularly thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful and thoughtful third report of Session 2024-25.

However, before I come on to that, I want to note that this is the second Home Office SI on immigration matters that has come to Grand Committee since the Summer Recess which has not just been problematic. The other one—the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Amendment) Regulations 2024—corrected policy matters in the Act that meant it could not be enacted because they were wrong, so it was also illegal. Therefore the amendments that the Grand Committee saw—I was going to say last month but it might have been a little before that—were to remove retrospective elements of the Illegal Migration Act that were themselves illegal.

Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness Brinton

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I hear what my noble friend says. I wish to find the 90 children who are still missing. I wish to ensure that we give support to local authorities and the police to do that, and it has to be the primary focus of the Home Office. I can reflect in due course on what both she and my noble friend Lord Touhig said, but ultimately our focus has to be to find those people who went missing because of the performance of the previous Government’s management of this issue.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to Kent County Council. Earlier this year, questions were asked in your Lordships’ House about whether Kent was getting extra reimbursement for the phenomenal responsibility of being the first point of call for these children. Has that happened? It is wonderful that Kent is doing all that it can, but if it cannot do it without resources then children in Kent will also suffer in the longer term.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There was an enhanced incentivised funding programme in operation for Kent County Council, which gave support of £15,000 for transfers within two working days and £6,000 for transfers within five working days. Those schemes are coming to an end because the pressure is not there as it was, but that support was put in place to help Kent to deal with the initial challenges.

Operation Conifer

Debate between Lord Hanson of Flint and Baroness Brinton

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that the College of Policing has looked at investigating allegations and calls for allegations made against individuals both living and dead and is currently potentially issuing guidelines to police forces around these matters. Again, this is a complex area. I want to reflect on the points raised today, and I am open to further scrutiny from this House in due course.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, following the publication of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in October 2022 and the government response a year later, the Government issued a consultation on mandatory reporting by professionals working with children when they suspect possible abuse. The result of that consultation has still not been published a year on. One of the best ways of ensuring that there are no malicious allegations against senior politicians is to see that result and for a government response. When do this Government plan to implement the recommendations of the IICSA report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may, I will look into the issues that the noble Baroness has raised and write to her with the detail very shortly in response.