Employment Rights Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 143 is intended to provide a tougher remedy for breach of the obligation, which is a very modest one, to consult in cases of collective redundancy. At present, the remedy is an award of loss of earnings capped at a maximum of 90 days, which the Bill proposes to increase to 180 days. My amendment is not concerned with that. It proposes judicial intervention to prevent the breach, or at least to restore the position prior to the breach. So, where a declaration has been made by an employment tribunal, the union should be entitled to go to the High Court to obtain an order to enforce that declaration. The employment tribunal does not itself have the jurisdiction to make such an order; indeed, it does not have the power to enforce its own orders. That is why it is necessary for workers to issue further proceedings in the county court if their employer fails to pay a tribunal award.

The amendment makes it clear that any dismissal which should have been subject to Section 188 of the 1992 Act but was not will be void and of no effect, so the obligation to continue to pay wages and to honour the other incidents of employment will continue until the employer has fulfilled its legal duty. I should add, in case any of your Lordships doubt it, that the High Court does indeed have the power to restrain dismissal and declare a purported dismissal void and of no effect. The court has often done so where the dismissal was unlawful because, in breach of contract, the power is still more apposite where the unlawfulness is breach of a statutory duty.

Finally, the amendment puts beyond doubt that the normal consequences of non-compliance with an order of the High Court will apply: that the company and any officer personally frustrating the order may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court, including fine, sequestration and, in the most egregious cases, imprisonment.

The rationale for my amendment is obvious. We are talking about a situation in which an employer has broken or proposes to break the law by throwing a significant number of people out of work without properly consulting on measures which might have avoided that situation. A very limited financial penalty is plainly not enough to dissuade lawbreakers, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognised. What is required is not just a more dissuasive remedy but one which prevents the unlawful situation, or at least restores the situation to lawfulness, so far as it can be restored. Only the High Court has the power to do that.

There is another reason: the need to comply with international law which the UK has voluntarily ratified. Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization will need more detailed consideration in later amendments, but for current purposes it is enough to note that, together, they require member states—not just ratifying states—to respect and protect freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Compliance with international law is the eighth of Lord Bingham’s principles of the rule of law, and the importance of compliance with international law was emphasised by the Attorney-General in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute last week. It matters not whether the provision in question relates to trade, the environment, security, labour or any other matter, and compliance is not restricted to the black letter of the treaty but also required of the decisions of the bodies appointed by the treaty to supervise compliance with it.

One such constitutional body of the ILO is the tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, which consists of representatives of government, employers and workers. On 8 November 2023, it published its decision on a complaint brought against the United Kingdom by Nautilus International, the RMT, the TUC and a number of international trade union federations. This arose out of the P&O Ferries scandal mentioned earlier this evening. At 7 am on St Patrick’s Day 2022, the employer summarily dismissed 786 seafarers, with security guards escorting them from the ships past waiting coachloads of agency staff from third-world, cheap-labour countries recruited to replace them.

The report says that the committee notes the complainants’ indication that

“while breaches of the UK law entitle claims to be made in an employment tribunal, such claims are subject to statutorily fixed (and very modest) maxima; for this reason, the company was able to quantify with precision what the cost of the dismissals would be and to assess how long it would be before that cost could be recouped from future profits generated by the poverty wages and diminished terms and conditions of the new crews. The complainants thus allege that the dismissal of 786 seafarers to replace them with non-unionized agency workers constitutes an act of anti-union discrimination. The complainants further allege that the existing legislation is insufficient to deter anti-union discrimination as in practice, employers can, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by the law for cases of unfair dismissals, dismiss any worker for being a trade union member with better terms and conditions under a collective agreement. The Committee recalls in this respect that protection against acts of anti-union discrimination would appear to be inadequate if an employer can resort to subcontracting as a means of evading in practice the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining … The Committee considers that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, as set out in Convention No. 98, is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice, on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal, dismiss any worker, if the true reason is the worker’s trade union membership or activities … The Committee recalls that the Government must ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress … Furthermore, the compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damage incurred and the need to prevent the repetition of such situations in the future … The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, which should include sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasizing reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.

Of course, there the committee considered that the collective dismissals were in order to avoid long-standing collective agreements which provided for notice of dismissal and consultation over proposed redundancies, which it regarded as anti-union discrimination. That situation will not occur in every collective redundancy—of course that is the case—but it will be true in many, though not all, collective redundancy situations. I should add that what we are looking at here are really bad employers. The remedy that I am proposing will not be used against good employers that do their best to deal with the situation.

The tribunal remedies which the committee considered very modest were not just for failure to consult over collective dismissal but included compensation for unfair dismissal. Here we are considering the even more modest, statutorily capped compensation for failure to consult. As the committee held, what is needed are

“sufficiently dissuasive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress”.

Only an injunction will achieve that outcome. That would have stopped P&O Ferries in its tracks.

I say to my noble friend the Minister that I can see no reason not to add this remedy to those available to restrain such unlawful activity. While the increase in maximum award, from 90 to 180 days—as the tribunal has to assess compensation as what is just and equitable up to that cap—is not sufficient in itself, since injunctions are available for breach of contract, why are they not for breach of statute as well? I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his powerful and clear speech; he has said it all. I just want to add that this issue has arisen from the P&O scandal that took place three years ago. The maritime unions are particularly concerned about this, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some comfort for the arguments that have been presented. The issue of pre-emptive injunctive relief for seafarers and other workers is a crucial issue and it is possible that we will need to return to it on Report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the intent behind Amendment 143. After all, we are all familiar with the high-profile cases, such as P&O Ferries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred in his introduction.

I cannot pretend that I was au fait with the case details that the noble Lord explained, but we have some concerns about the practical and legal consequences of what is being proposed here. It seems to us that the amendment would allow employment tribunals to declare dismissals void and as having no effect; therefore, in effect, reinstating employees regardless of circumstances.

That is a major departure from the current legal framework, where the remedy for a breach is compensation, not nullification. That obviously raises serious questions. What happens if a dismissal is declared void months later? Is the employee reinstated, and are they entitled to back pay? What if the role no longer exists or has been filled? For many businesses and many workers, that would create uncertainty and not protection.

There is also the issue of enforcement. Giving tribunal decisions the force of the High Court, and allowing contempt proceedings for breach, risks confusing two fundamentally different judicial systems. Tribunals are meant to be accessible and the High Court is not.

I also question whether this change would meaningfully deter bad-faith employers. Those who already factor in the cost of breaking the law may simply budget for this risk too. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized employers acting in good faith could face disproportionate legal exposure for administrative or technical errors. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Brixton]

143A: Clause 29, page 51, line 11, leave out “120” and insert “52”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment applies the provisions for collective redundancy notices for ships’ crew to ships providing a service entering a harbour in Great Britain on at least 52 occasions in the relevant period.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back three years to 24 March 2022, when the P&O Ferries chief executive officer Peter Hebblethwaite made it clear to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that he knew that his decision to sack 786 British seafarers broke the law. He went on to explain that he knew there would be penalties to pay, but these were simply, in his view, a cost of business. He even had the audacity to say that he would make the same decision again.

My noble friend Lord Hendy has already dealt with this, but it is a crucial issue which has raised important questions about how industrial relations operate in this country. The gross premeditation of the company’s action was evident to the whole country, as private security guards boarded ferries to physically force the crew out of work, to be replaced by cheaper agency crew recruited internationally and oblivious to the circumstances.

I have been relatively modest in putting all my proposed amendments in a single group, given the extent of the degrouping of amendments that has taken place. There are three issues being dealt with here: first, the need to widen the scope of the promised seafarer’s charter, mentioned by my noble friend the Minister; secondly, the need to reduce the threshold for the application of The Seafarers’ Charter in terms of visits by ships to UK ports; and thirdly, to ensure the necessary monitoring of the effectiveness of the legislation.

On the need to increase flexibility in The Seafarers’ Charter, the key amendment is 200AD; the rest are consequential. These amendments provide the flexibility to strengthen the mandatory seafarers’ charter, in addition to standards on pay and roster patterns. They are constructive in spirit and look to explore the Government’s position on mandatory employment standards for seafarers at work today and in the future.

Back in 2023, on the first anniversary of the scandal, Labour’s shadow Employment and shadow Transport Ministers committed the party to a mandatory seafarers’ charter as a direct response to this appalling episode. In a joint article in the Independent they wrote:

“The P&O scandal was … supposed to draw a line in the sand for seafarers’ rights. But for too many low-cost operators, their business model is based on exploitation. That is why we will introduce a strong, legally-binding Seafarers Charter that smashes the business model dependent on the cruel manipulation of vulnerable workers from around the world. This will mandate an agreement between unions, government and employers on minimum protections for pay, roster patterns, crewing levels, pensions, taxation and training”.


The unions, together with many MPs and Peers, continue to support that explicit aim for the charter set out by the Labour Party.

I also understand that the RMT was given ministerial assurances only last December that there would be flexibility to add employment conditions to the mandatory charter. Regrettably, DfT and DBT officials now tell us there will be no flexibility, citing difficulties around compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are told that UNCLOS prevents the Government adding other employment conditions such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions. This is hard to understand, and I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain. Even the voluntary seafarers’ welfare charter, introduced by the last Government in July 2023, includes sick pay and pension rights, as does the French Government’s legally binding seafarers’ charter, introduced on ferry routes to the UK in June 2024.

I beg the Minister to help us understand why national legislation on pay and hours of work for seafarers on international routes from UK ports is UNCLOS-compliant, but other areas of employment, including remuneration such as sick pay, holiday pay and pensions, are not compliant. If the Minister cannot do so in reply to this debate, a summary of the Government’s position should be circulated before Report. I ask the Minister to meet with the unions to explain why we have ended up in this situation. I reiterate that a public promise was made by the then shadow Secretary of State for Transport and the then shadow Minister for the Future of Work that the charter would cover not just pay and rosters but other issues, including sick pay, pensions and training.

Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC deal with the threshold for application of the seafarers’ charter created in Schedule 5. We of course welcome the seafarers’ charter, but its effectiveness is set by the criteria which apply in terms of the rate at which the ships concerned visit UK ports. Clearly, the lower the figure for the number of visits required, the greater the proportion of seafarers who will have the necessary protection. In simple terms, the proposed amendments bring ships that call weekly in UK ports within scope, in contrast with the Bill, which requires more than twice-weekly visits.

I make no secret of my desire to see as many seafarers covered as possible, and not, in effect, limiting this to those who work on roll-on, roll-off ferries. Most ships that regularly work in UK waters are not that type of vessel. According to DfT statistics, over 160,000 seafarers are employed in the UK shipping industry and where possible, we must use the Bill and future legislation to equalise their employment rights with land-based workers.

The previous Government introduced a threshold of 120 calls per year in Section 3 of the Seafarers Wages Act. When that legislation was going through the Lords, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, responded to an amendment from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this matter, stating that 52 calls per year

“would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement with the international shipping community”.—[Official Report, 12/10/22; col. GC 102.]

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore ask that my noble friend withdraws Amendment 143A.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her amendment. In introducing the group, I should have said that I strongly support what is proposed there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his measured comments and I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to a meeting— I am sure it will be useful. Maybe I am an optimist, but I also thank him for a slight glimmer of hope that there will be some movement in relation to the measures. Some might express doubt, but I am a natural optimist, and I hope that the meeting will be constructive and that we will also be able to address the issue of information, as well as the specifics of the charter. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 143A withdrawn.

Pensioners: Shoplifting

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Under the last Government, the National Police Chiefs’ Council produced a retail crime action plan, which is now around two years old. It includes a range of measures on how we can reduce shop theft across the board, but also looking at specific sectors. We have backed that up with a £7 million fund this year to support action on shop theft in town centres in particular.

I accept that there are a range of reasons why individuals undertake shop theft. Some are in criminal gangs, some are fuelling addiction problems, and some, as my noble friend mentioned, do so for reasons to do with poverty. We need to address all those issues but, ultimately, we should have no tolerance of shop theft as a whole, because it costs society, costs us as individuals, and is a crime that is seen as being victimless when it certainly is not. By all means, let us look at the individual circumstances, but our advice to police forces is to focus on this as a serious issue, for growth in the economy and for the impact on our society as a whole.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I question my noble friend the Minister’s statement that the poorest pensioners have been protected through the winter fuel abolition. The poorest pensioners are the 700,000 entitled to pension credit who do not claim it, and they are not getting the winter fuel payment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend will know that Ministers in the DWP and the Treasury are very cognisant of the need to ensure we have an uptake by people who need and qualify for the winter fuel payment who currently do not have it. My understanding is that the DWP has written to all those pensioners. There have been some difficult decisions; let us not get away from that. I lost my winter fuel payment. Should I, as a Minister of the Crown, have that additional payment? No. Should millionaires have that additional payment? No. But the Government are determined to support poorer members of the community and poorer pensioners. That is what we are trying to do.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 42, 43 and 44, which address a crucial gap in the Employment Rights Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, in its present form, assumes that collective agreements and the important rights that attach to them can be made only through trade unions. The assumption is problematic, as it fails to reflect the diverse and evolving landscape of employee representation in the United Kingdom.

Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trade unions. For example, many large employers across the UK have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice. These bodies operate with transparency and independence; they often work closely with management but are not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors such as retail, hospitality and technology, companies have established these independent bodies to provide workers with a platform to express concerns, suggest improvements and engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies, although not unions, are trusted and valued by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation.

Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies that focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as pay, conditions and workplace policies without the need for union recognition.

The current draft of the Bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks excluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing the protections associated with collective agreements, including important provisions on guaranteed hours. This approach undermines existing employee engagement practices that have proven to be effective in fostering good relations between workers and employers. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bring employment rights into the 21st century. A key part of that modernisation must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only legitimate means through which workers can be represented. Properly constituted employee forums and staff bodies can and do play a vital role in today’s diverse and evolving workplaces. By recognising this, the Government have an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern realities of work and deliver on their commitment to updating our employment framework.

Moreover, the Bill raises serious concerns about freedom of association. The principle of freedom of association is about not just the right to join a union but the right not to be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment at work.

If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure that the Bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constituted employee representative bodies, such as staff forums or associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making. They would ensure that these bodies meet clear governance standards, including transparency, accountability and independence.

The Government’s aim is to promote better workplace relations, and these amendments support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively. By recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust, enhance co-operation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the Government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen the protections available to all workers, regardless of whether they belong to a traditional trade union. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I have spoken in the progress of this Bill. I have amendments coming up later. I think the noble Lord’s amendments illustrate the complete difference in mental framework between those who support and work with the trade union movement and those who do not. I should be clear that, although I do not have any formal interest to declare, I have spent most of my working life working in or for the trade union movement. The trade union movement and what it has achieved is based on 150 years of struggle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, let me just explain that if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone can set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards—many of which have been set by the party opposite—it is not a trade union and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that an organisation that is not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is so, it is very simple: we can all agree to this amendment, with such alterations as are necessary, to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all feel that we have created an answer that suits today. Can we please get out of this yah-booing from both sides—and I mean both sides—about these issues? We have to find a way in which the whole of society can come more effectively together, without constantly determining that we have to do it like we did 100 years ago.

Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the length of time that it has taken to reach this point. Let us not forget that the collapse of BHS and Carillion caused havoc in the country. It was a wake-up call, when 11,000 people lost their jobs in BHS and 30,000 people lost their jobs in Carillion. Improving auditing standards is an important step, not least to better inform lending and investment decisions. I hope my noble friend will take heart from the fact that this was included in our manifesto commitment and in our first King’s Speech. We look forward to the proposals receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in due course.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. I thank my noble friend for his answers to the questions, but my heart sinks when he talks about presenting the Bill “in due course” and when he will not even tell us what is actually going to be in it. One area that may be covered in the Bill is the regulation of the actuarial profession. At the moment, we have planning blight. Will he please expedite the process?

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for the work that she has done in raising this consistently, before I came to this House and beyond. The type of campaigning she has undertaken is one of the reasons why the Labour Government put a pledge in their manifesto to both introduce the Windrush commissioner and put some energy into the system, for the very reasons the noble Baroness has mentioned.

We have put in £1.5 million to support advocacy groups. The noble Baroness mentioned legal aid, and I know she is meeting Minister Malhotra in early January; I hope the matter can be discussed then. I want to reassure her and the House that there is real energy to make sure that Windrush victims get compensation early and speedily, for the very reasons that she has mentioned, and I will take that commitment back to the Home Office today.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister reconsider the decision to exclude loss of pension rights from Windrush compensation? The loss of employment and of employment opportunities means that the people affected by the policy have lost significant amounts of their pension rights. Will the Government reconsider that decision?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the question. We will examine the points that he has made, and I will write to him about the detail of the potential Home Office response on that. He needs to be reassured that the Windrush commissioner proposals that we are bringing forward, the £1.5 million we have put in to help with advocacy—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin—and the commitment to deliver this scheme quickly are for the whole purpose of recognising the hurt and suffering of Windrush victims, and giving them proper redress for that hurt and loss.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. At this stage there is little more to say other than to support the brilliant, excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett. I find that I agree with everything that has been said so far in this discussion. It is not necessary to repeat it.

I would like to make a couple of additional points. First, there is a London dimension to this. I understand that it affects the whole country, but it is notable that the input from local authorities has come from London Councils. Its figures, and just living in London, make it clear that this is a problem that does need to be addressed.

Secondly, I have not heard any discussion, least of all from my Government—so I hope that my noble friend the Minister can help us—on whether there has been any research on what period is needed? It is obvious that 28 days was totally arbitrary. It was not chosen on the basis of deep research about what time is necessary to do all the tasks that are required. All the written evidence we had, as well as the evidence from speakers today, shows that 28 days is not enough. I do not think there is any debate about that. So what time is required? The same thing could be said about the 56 days, to be honest. What time is required? Will the Government undertake research on which a rational decision can be taken to assess how long it is reasonable to expect people in the circumstances that refugees find themselves to introduce themselves to our society and undertake all the tasks that other speakers have identified?

I strongly support the Bill. I welcome the temporary extension of the period. One finds it difficult that, at the end of the period, the Government would be so brutal as to go back to 28 days. This is not really a fudge but a partial acceptance of the point. One does not have to be that paranoid to see the fingerprints of the Treasury on this decision. All those who know the subject and all those who have spoken today are absolutely clear that 28 days is not enough.

Tackling Stalking

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his broad welcome for the Statement on stalking made by my honourable friend Jess Phillips in the House of Commons yesterday. It is important that we get former senior police officers such as him endorsing that approach, so I welcome his endorsement and thank him for it. He will know that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have today reconfirmed the provision of an additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers. That will help at a local level with a range of issues, but I take his point about the need for specialist support.

As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I cannot give a commitment on resources today because December’s police settlement, next year’s settlement and the spending review have not yet been announced. However, the specialism to which the noble Lord refers will form part of the needs and assessment review. The Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing need to look at those issues, and again, that will be part of the mix going forward. I assure the noble Lord and the House as a whole that the Government wish to address this serious issue. They have taken steps to do so in this Statement, and welcome contributions on how that can be built upon.

Ultimately, we will be judged by the test of whether we reduce the number of reported incidents, increase the number of incidents that are followed up and increase the number of prosecutions, as well as, in the longer term, taking steps to ensure that young boys, as they grow into young men and adults, have respect and understand their role in society. That is a longer-term issue that we need to be working on. I take the noble Lord’s points and I hope I have answered them as best I can, but they are issues we will return to.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repeat of the Commons Statement. It is right that the Statement should focus on the victims of this horrendous behaviour, and that that is the heart of the response. However, we have to ask ourselves what we are getting wrong as a society that causes people to perpetrate this sort of behaviour. I do not think it is just about evil people; it is learned behaviour, and learning is part of how we raise people in this society.

The Statement touches on that issue, as did my noble friend towards the end of his last reply. It refers to the need to engage with the perpetrators, to consider the root causes of the behaviour and to address it. All of that needs more attention and more resources, particularly but not just in the sphere of mental health. I was particularly struck by the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to someone who had been in prison seven times because of this behaviour. My assumption is that nothing happened in that prison to address those behaviours, and unless we get that right, dealing with the outcomes is the wrong end of the issue.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work in scrutinising the regulations and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling this debate. I have the privilege of being a patron of a charity in Sheffield called ASSIST, which works with people who are seeking sanctuary and who have been refused asylum; it provides accommodation, information, advocacy and other support.

Just last week, I met a man called Victor, a former client of ASSIST. I have his permission to tell his story. Victor is from Zimbabwe. In 1980, he was among those who greeted with joy the nation’s independence and the election of Robert Mugabe as the first democratically elected Prime Minister of that country. That year, Victor embarked on a career in banking of 20-plus years; he became very senior. However, through the 1980s and into the 1990s, he became increasing disenchanted with the Mugabe regime and then opposed to it. Finally, in 2008, after a warrant was issued for his arrest on account of his political dissent, he sought asylum in this country. Victor was eventually granted leave to remain in 2022 and was united with his wife after a 14-year enforced separation. So, in the end, his has been a good news story.

However, in 2019, Victor experienced detention. Reporting in one week as required, he was in effect arrested and assigned for deportation. The decision came out of the blue, with no notice and no explanation. It was apparently arbitrary. In Victor’s case, deportation did not follow. He had by then lived for 10 years in Sheffield, which sets itself out to be a city of sanctuary, and he was known and valued. Within four days, 70,000 people had signed a petition for his release; he was indeed swiftly released and, within another two years, had been granted leave to remain.

I summarise his story because the inhumane way in which the detention and deportation process is operated makes every person subject to it vulnerable. At the time of his detention, Victor was a resourceful and accomplished adult male in good health. He was not vulnerable, according to the definitions in these regulations, but the impact of his detention on his well-being made him vulnerable. It was terrible at the time and remains considerable today. In other words, until the whole process of detention is managed in a way that is humane, consistent, fair, transparent and accountable, every immigrant and asylum seeker detained will be vulnerable.

I am deeply concerned that these regulations expressly remove the intention to reduce the numbers of people in detention who are vulnerable in specifically acute ways. As the Minister will know, the previous Government appear to have accepted just one of the Brook House inquiry’s 33 recommendations. I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, requested, the detention review will revisit that inquiry report to ensure that all the recommendations are given due consideration for implementation.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the need to discuss and debate these regulations. The issues have been laid out more than clearly by my noble friend Lady Lister. This stems from the Shaw review, reinforced by the subsequent Brook House inquiry.

The principle that we work under—I am sure that we all agree with it—is that the detention of people with severe mental health conditions amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment. I hope we can all agree on that. It has been defined as such by the European Court of Human Rights, but the issue runs wider than that. There should be—indeed, there must be—a clear presumption that people at risk because of existing or potential mental health problems should not be detained. “Detained” is a euphemism; they are, in effect, imprisoned. We imprison people as a punishment, so the need to avoid providing these people with punishment is clear.

The statutory guidance was established in 2014 and has been reviewed. One could not object to the review at all; I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept that a full and adequate review is reasonable. The problem with this review is that it is driven— it says as much in paragraph 5.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum—by a wish to avoid “undermining lawful action” to remove people from the UK. That is the most concerning statement in the EM. Such an objective is totally at odds with the general principle that we should not imprison people with severe mental health conditions when they have committed no offence. The story it tells us is one of an attitude in government of wishing to prioritise the need to remove people from the UK rather than protecting people who are vulnerable.

The statutory guidance clearly represents its purpose: a weakening of the guidance originally given. One particular example, which is clearly a major issue here, is the issue of a second opinion. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded, the data

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

We do not really know what the effect of the second opinion policy would be, except that it will result in people remaining in detention for longer; that is the one known effect of having a second opinion policy. Clearly, that in itself suggests that it is something to be done with great care and attention.

Another problem is that there is a general belief among a number of the voluntary organisations most closely involved in these issues that the consultation process on the new statutory guidance was woefully inadequate. It was short, there was a lack of information and there was no equality impact assessment.

The upshot of all of this is that I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept that the statutory guidance requires review and reconsideration, and that it should be driven by the clear presumption that we do not lock up people with severe mental health conditions.