School Trips: Passport and Visa Requirements

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Some ID cards are among the least secure documents seen at the border, as they were before we left the EU. As a rule, they are not as secure as corresponding national passports.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare a family interest in that my younger daughter is a schoolteacher at a rural lycée in the centre of France in the Sarthe region. Every two years, until recently, she would bring a party of up to 40 of her 16 to 18 year- old students to London for a week’s cultural visit, which gave them an amazing experience and a lifelong love of England and English people. These have all now stopped because very few of the students have a passport; as a result, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, they are now looking at destinations such as Ireland. Will she take on board the comments of President Kennedy about the value of international exchange students, when he said of foreign students studying in the US:

“I think they teach more than they learn”?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not disagree with the noble Lord about the value of foreign travel for students at any age. It absolutely enriches their experience. However, we expect tourists who visit the UK from outside the EU to hold a passport and we will now be expecting those from EU and EEA countries and Switzerland to do the same.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

This amendment gives the Government and the Minister the opportunity to deliver on the Prime Minister’s own promise that there would be no ifs, buts, exemptions or excuses when bringing forward football banning orders which focus on online racist abuse of footballers. This evening is the Government’s opportunity to deliver on that promise.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Coaker, I was a little surprised to find my amendment grouped with two very different amendments, both of which I am happy to support. If I were not such a collegiate person, I would probably have asked for my amendment to be degrouped and debated separately, but I suspect that the Government Front Bench and your Lordships would not have regarded that as a particularly friendly gesture at this time of night and at this late stage in the Bill.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend Lord Bassam’s amendment. He will recall that I was a very new Member of this House in 2000, and, having previously been involved in tackling football violence, I was very pleased to give him every possible support in the measure that he took. His description of the difference it made was absolutely correct.

My amendment is something completely different. It introduces an offence of receiving cash for scrap metal by amending Section 12 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 and would effectively close a loophole in that Act. Noble Lords with longer memories will recall that cash was removed as a means of payment with the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Its provisions created a criminal offence which prohibited all scrap metal dealers from paying for scrap metal in cash. This was reinforced in 2013, with the introduction of the SMDA—the Scrap Metal Dealers Act—and that was a significant step forward in tackling the scourge of metal crime, which was having a devastating effect on our national infrastructure, heritage, transport operators, public undertakings and communities across the country.

That legislation made it more difficult for criminals to convert stolen metal into cash and removed the opportunity for sections of the scrap metal industry to avoid taxation and launder money. Serious attention was paid to enforcement by the metal theft task force and Operation Tornado, led by the British Transport Police, and in the face of falling commodity prices, levels of offending fell and generally remained fairly low until about 2019. But then values of commodities increased significantly, and enforcement was switched to other priorities.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council metal crime lead is Assistant Chief Constable Charlie Doyle of the BTP. He requested a review of the 2013 SMDA to see how it could be improved to meet the new challenges that did not exist when the Act was written. He set up a group of representatives from all the sectors hit by metal theft and drew up a priority list for updating the legislation. The one suggestion that was universally supported was the introduction of an offence of receiving cash for stolen metal. The introduction of an offence of receiving cash would discourage those who would not normally be involved in any form of criminality, and make it more challenging for those who are.

I am afraid that metal crime is now on the rise again. It is being fuelled by ever increasing commodity prices: copper is at an all-time high, and the projections are that it will continue to rise over the coming years as demand increases. Catalytic converter theft has also emerged as a growing problem, with rhodium rising sixfold in value during the last couple of years. We know that cash continues to be used within sections of the industry and, because of reduced enforcement activity, its use has increased in line with these rises in commodity prices.

As with football violence, referred to by my noble friend Lord Bassam, the emergence of social media marketplaces and online platforms has given rise to an explosion of criminal activity linked to metal crime. A quick search on these platforms reveals page after page of adverts offering to purchase metal, catalytic converters and other items linked to metal crime for cash, with effectively no questions asked.

This amendment would allow a greater degree of leverage with the online platforms to have listings and accounts removed because they would be operating in contravention of the law. The money launderers would find it much more difficult to convert their cash into legitimate assets and it would add an additional layer of difficulty for those who continue to deal in cash.

The Minister, who I am pleased to see back in her place on the Front Bench, will recall that I raised the issue of metal theft in an Oral Question which she answered on 14 October. She was good enough to follow that up with a meeting on 9 November, also attended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who I am also delighted to see in his place. I thank him for signing my amendment this evening.

Last Thursday, I attended a demonstration in Worcestershire, by the West Mercia Police, of a number of sophisticated initiatives to track stolen items as varied as farm trailers, four-wheel drive tractors and bicycles. I discussed this amendment with the new chief constable, Pippa Mills, who wishes me to tell your Lordships that she supports a change in legislation that acts as a further deterrent to metal thieves or dealers in stolen metal and enables the prosecution of those involved in metal theft.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, despite being an anti-racist—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

I have not quite finished.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do apologise.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

In view of the very positive nature of the Minister’s comments at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, I hope her noble friend can give some hope that the law will be changed in line with the terms of my amendment.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. He and I sit together on the APPG. This is a highly organised crime committed by gangs and it has a devastating impact not only on our national infrastructure but on many—primarily rural—communities. In the year to March 2020, 36,000 metal thefts were recorded by the police. Just last week the Countryside Alliance, as a result of FoI requests from police forces, identified that 1,500 lead and metal thefts since 2017 were from churches. Theft of lead from church roofs can have a devastating impact on local communities. I have had direct experience of that, which is why I joined the noble Lord’s group.

As the noble Lord said, adverts offering “cash for scrap” are now widespread. The 2013 Act made it illegal to pay cash for scrap metal but not to receive it. This amendment closes that glaring loophole. I very much hope that the Government will support it.

Metal Theft

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what additional funding they will provide to the National Infrastructure Crime Reduction Partnership to combat the incidence of metal theft.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office provided £177,000 of seed-corn funding in the last financial year to establish the National Infrastructure Crime Reduction Partnership. The partnership is going strong in its second year and is seeking funding from several sources. Ultimately, it intends to become self-funding through subscriptions from member organisations. Home Office officials continue to work closely with the partnership to tackle metal theft and other crimes that affect infrastructure companies.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the incidence of this crime can be reduced only by effective enforcement action? That worked really well when we had a dedicated metal theft task force and the British Transport Police-led Operation Tornado, supported by excellent police forces around the country, including West Mercia Police. Now the numbers are shooting up again and the national police database shows that the number of thefts rose from under 21,000 in 2019 to 36,000 in 2020. Unlicensed operators are no longer being prosecuted and we are again seeing loads of advertisements illegally offering cash for scrap. Can she assure me that there will be a new and determined effort to stamp out this wholly undesirable and anti-social crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is right in one sense: metal theft overall has decreased by 74%, but the amount of infrastructure-related metal theft has increased by 21% in the year ending March 2020. The National Infrastructure Crime Reduction Partnership is extremely effective, in that it brings together agencies that can both share intelligence methodologies and help to drive down types of metal theft, which change over time, depending on the market in question. This is a very good thing.

Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If the noble Lord is amenable, I will ask the FCDO to outline precisely the details of that because it is slightly beyond my purview today.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

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

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other noble Lords have, through these amendments, drawn attention to a very important issue in the arena of domestic abuse. I thank all noble Lords for raising it in this debate. I hope I have been able to persuade the noble Baroness of the existing provisions and ongoing work in healthcare, and that the Bill already provides the means for the domestic abuse commissioner and tier 1 local authorities, in the context of the new duty in Part 4, to address the links between substance misuse, mental health and domestic abuse. On that basis, I hope she will be happy to withdraw her amendment.

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

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, the Committee has every reason to be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because these are all very important announcements; I thank everyone involved, and it is very good to be speaking to this group. This subject is not just close to my heart but has been part of my life. I was very pleased to hear in the Minister’s response how many things are going to be in place to deal with alcoholism, in particular. I very much look forward to Dame Carol Black’s review—I know how brilliant she is—and I also welcome the news about sobriety tags. I just want to make a few points, some of them personal.

The link between alcohol and domestic abuse is well known, and yet, strangely, it is often not at the forefront of the debate. Some 55% of domestic abuse cases involve alcohol or some kind of substance, and women who drink themselves are 15 times more likely to be abused than women who do not. I am not going to repeat the stats; one only has to read the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on Monday night to get a good picture of how solid the evidence is. Drunk people, both men and women, are more likely to abuse or be abused than those who are not. Alcohol itself is not the culprit, and it should never be an excuse for behaviour. However, I believe that it is so tightly woven into the problem that it must be treated as part of the recovery process.

I am very glad that, as a result of the Bill, the crime of domestic abuse will be better dealt with and we will have more refuges. I also welcome the commissioner. But if we do not study, understand and treat alcoholism, then we are not doing our job.

Alcoholics, when they are drinking and when they are addicted to alcohol, are really difficult to deal with. Alcohol, as people say, is both cunning, baffling and powerful. I know that, in my life, I have drunk to excess. I do not drink now and I have not done for many years, but alcoholism will be with me for the rest of my life. It is very hard to break that cycle without help, and there are far too few treatment centres in this country. I know—again, from my own experience and that of people I know—that doctors and general hospitals do not like disruptive alcoholics, who are really hard to treat and who take up beds. They sober up and are then sent back into the world, where they start drinking again. People, especially women, keep alcoholism a secret. It is seen still as an issue of shame in this country, which is one reason I have always spoken publicly about it, throughout my life.

If we do not stop the cycle, the same thing happens again. Abuse is a spiral, in much the same way as addiction, and a drunk abuser will seek a victim. A woman who drinks herself and who has, probably as a consequence, the lower self-esteem that goes along with it, will almost inevitably partner up with the kind of bloke who will, ultimately, abuse her. That is what you do when you think you are not worth anything, because you are the person in our society who cannot handle alcohol like everybody else does.

Personally, I cannot think of a more difficult thing—it is almost impossible—than to be a woman with kids who is the victim of domestic abuse and a drinker herself. Yes, the council may find you a refuge, but, when that is over and you have to go back to the world, if you do not have some solid help to get through that addiction, you are going to end up back where you were, and the saga goes on and on.

The need to break this cycle must be a fundamental, core part of the commissioner’s remit. She needs all the expertise to support her and she needs money to enable her to make the right decisions. No one in their wildest miseries or nightmares would want to be addicted to any substance, from a bottle, a needle or a pill—it is a misery you would not wish on anyone. But once there, it takes some time and patience. I have been lucky; I have been able to afford the help I needed, but this should not be an issue of money.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said earlier in this debate, deep cuts have been made to addiction services in this country since 2013-14. It means that the 8.4 million potentially high-risk drinkers—that is an awful lot—and the hundreds with opiate addictions, are not getting the right help. It is an insane situation, because for every addict or alcoholic, it is reckoned that at least five people are swept into the madness and distress. It costs money: to the NHS, to the criminal justice system and to society.

WHO figures suggest that 50% of men who kill their wives are drunk or addicted. Helping people who drink or abuse substances through to the other side—through to a chance, literally, to rejoin the world as a useful member of society—would bring so many great benefits. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke so wonderfully about on Monday night, so many children would have their lives transformed. As she said, the Commission on Alcohol Harm heard from children who were terrified to go home for fear of what their parent or parents might do. The Children’s Commissioner estimates that there are more than half a million children living in households where domestic abuse, along with drink and substance abuse, is prevalent.

The alcohol lobby is big and powerful. It has successfully fought demands for minimum pricing in England—though it lost in Scotland—a measure that is known to reduce harmful consumption. This stuff is everywhere. Adverts are well targeted, promising thrills and excitement, and they all too often use sexualised images of women to encourage purchase. This ought to stop. I am the last person who wants to see alcohol sales restricted in any way, but I am convinced that we cannot keep shoving this big problem to one side. Domestic abuse and alcohol are linked, and unless we break the addiction cycle, we will not break the other. We can no longer condemn both the victims and the abusers—who are, in my mind, sometimes also victims—to the shadows.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 22

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I do not want any other body to follow the poor example set by your Lordships’ House. These amendments would help to ensure that that does not happen. That is another reason they are so important to the victims of domestic abuse who have, like me, speech, language and communication needs, and why they deserve a substantive and considered response from the Government.

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

My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab) (V)]

My Lords, I speak in support of this whole group. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, a patron of the British Stammering Association and, indeed, as a stammerer myself. Stammering is often not recognised as a disability, but depending on its intensity, it has profound effects, particularly on children’s ability to cope with stress and to develop, and it is exacerbated by domestic violence. I am indebted to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for its research.

I will only add to the comprehensive and persuasive speeches by those noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments that in connection with support for communication needs generally in good practice, stammerers have difficulty in reporting traumatic events and in accessing services at the first contact when this is often by telephone. Inclusion of speech and language therapists on domestic abuse partnership boards and in local authority responses in their strategy is of particular benefit to victims who stammer, especially if the role of the therapist is to consider initial access to services.

In respect of guidance on the psychological impact of domestic abuse, in particular on children’s speech and communication, there is evidence that children who are exposed to domestic violence have a greater propensity to develop speech and language difficulties, thus harming their life chances thereafter. For instance, court proceedings can add intimidation and stress, which make these amendments of great importance in alleviating the damage caused by domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

All noble Lords who have contributed to this debate have drawn attention to an important issue. I hope I have been able to reassure them that the Bill already provides a framework to ensure that the speech, language and communication needs of victims are addressed. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

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

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have spoken so movingly in support of the amendments. The importance of communication for victims of domestic abuse and their children cannot be overemphasised. The Minister for Safeguarding having emphasised the importance that the Government attach to improving speech and language outcomes, I had hoped that the Government would consider including some of the contents of these amendments in the Bill. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 22 withdrawn.

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

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 23

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in fact the Minister answered my question in almost her final sentence. It was about the status of callouts when considering this data. Police callouts are available to family courts and to sentencing criminal courts in domestic abuse cases. My question was going to be about the availability of that information to DAPOs, but I think that the Minister answered it in the affirmative.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 23 withdrawn.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 24. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 24

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in the interests of making progress, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Baroness has just said.

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

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot repeat my noble friend Lord Rooker’s admirable brevity, but I welcome this group of amendments. I particularly support Amendment 24, which seeks to add a list of things that the commissioner may do in pursuance of a general duty.

The noble Baroness is right that provisions around monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviour are very important. Clause 7(2) already sets out:

“The things that the Commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty under subsection (1) include … assessing, monitoring, and publishing information about, the provision of services to people affected by domestic abuse … making recommendations to any public authority about the exercise of its functions … undertaking or supporting … the carrying out of research … providing information, education or training … taking other steps to increase public awareness of domestic abuse … consulting public authorities”


and others; and co-operate, or work jointly with, public authorities. Reading the list, it does not seem to include monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviour. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt, have illustrated, this seems to be a gap, particularly as the Bill specifies in Clause 7(1):

“The Commissioner must encourage good practice in … the prevention, detection … and prosecution of offences involving domestic abuse.”


I would have thought that monitoring and assessing perpetrator behaviours would be an important part of that responsibility.

This is an important but neglected issue. A piece for Community Care by Ruth Hardy in 2017 that analysed serious case reviews found that domestic abuse was a feature of more than half the reviews carried out between 2011 and 2014, but that while much practice and research is focused on working with victims and survivors of domestic abuse, the same cannot be said of perpetrators. A report some years ago by inspectorates, including Ofsted, found that social services and partner agencies are not focusing enough on perpetrators. Last April, an article by Amanda L Robinson and Anna Clancy for the British Society of Criminology identified that a focus on developing and implementing effective interventions for victims had dominated the policy and practice agenda for nearly two decades. They commented that, in contrast, there has been relatively less success in establishing effective interventions for perpetrators. A systematic review of European evidence concluded:

“We do not yet know what works best, for whom, and under what circumstances.”


I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to say that legislation covers this, but it is important that we make the point that it would have been helpful to have been more explicit that perpetrator behaviour is a relevant part of the responsibilities of the commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 27

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 41 and 103 in my name, all of which focus on early intervention and the prevention of domestic abuse. They seek to avoid the need for ultimate criminal justice interventions. I should like to put on record that the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, has had to withdraw because she has to contribute in Grand Committee.

I fully support the Bill’s objectives as far as they go, but we must consider the consequences of domestic abuse for children and the need to intervene as soon as possible to prevent lifelong damage. As the Minister acknowledged in her summing up at Second Reading, we must prevent child victims of domestic abuse becoming the perpetrators of the next generation. One-third of them will become perpetrators unless we provide them with the help they need.

It is also important that the Bill promotes early intervention with couples who are experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse. As it stands, the Bill will not achieve these vital objectives, but it would not be difficult to include a framework for effective prevention so that the Bill can achieve its full potential—and it really has a lot of potential.

Amendment 27 seeks to ensure that the commissioner focuses on her responsibility to encourage good practice in the prevention of domestic abuse—which of course is her first function. The amendment includes explicit reference to the need to ensure that psychological therapy services are available nationwide to couples experiencing conflict and potential domestic abuse.

Amendment 41 seeks to ensure that the commissioner’s advisory board includes at least one person who understands the importance of psychological therapy services to such high-risk couples and, most importantly, to their children. Amendment 103 seeks to ensure similar representation on local partnership boards.

The Law Society agrees with me that the Bill has

“excessive focus on criminal responses to domestic abuse.”

It goes on to say:

“It is crucial that victims of domestic abuse are able to access long-term support that aims to build resilience and confidence, rather than short-term protection by the courts and police.”


This is fundamentally important.

We know that large numbers of children across the UK are affected by domestic abuse. Estimates vary, but one suggests that the figure is just under one million. This is an awful lot of children. A group of children’s charities, including Hestia, has made the point that these children suffer severe mental health problems, often exhibited through aggressive and destructive behaviour. Pro Bono Economics estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of not providing this help is between £480 million and £1.4 billion.

I listened to the excellent debate on the parental alienation amendments. A number of noble Lords said that it is up to the courts to decide who is lying, and whether there is any foundation to an allegation of parental alienation. In my experience, by the time these cases reach the courts it can be almost impossible to determine where the lies began and where culpability lies—and by then the damage to the children will be extreme. Again, this is an argument in favour of early intervention with expert therapy—ideally family therapy. When the whole family sits together with a therapist, in a safe place, discussing things, the dynamics in a dysfunctional family become very clear and can be resolved. I was involved in this work many years ago. Family therapy can be extraordinarily powerful in resolving family problems.

I propose that therapy services for child victims of domestic abuse should continue to be provided by the NHS, rather than through local authorities. Following Jeremy Hunt’s excellent White Paper on child mental health, CCGs are currently funding mental health support teams in one-third of the country, providing NICE-recommended therapy to children and young people who need it, including victims of domestic abuse. These therapists work in schools, which is of course crucial. Children’s mental health problems are most likely to be identified in school. There should be a statutory obligation to provide these services across the country. I would be really interested to know whether the Minister agrees.

Section 55 places a duty on local authorities to provide support for victims of domestic abuse and their children who reside in “relevant accommodation”—which I take to mean a refuge. It is not clear that local authorities will have a statutory duty to ensure that psychological therapy is available, even to support adults or children in refuges. Of course, the situation is a good deal worse for the much greater number of domestic abuse victims, including children, who are not in refuges.

Amendment 176, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, shows a strong commitment to support services for the victims of domestic abuse, which I applaud. Again, however, it gives no assurance that victims, including children, will be guaranteed an offer of professional therapy help.

The aim of these amendments is to ensure that the domestic abuse system is set up to take care of the mental health needs of all victims. This is important not just for individuals but for society as a whole, both now and in the future. I beg to move.

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

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

[Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses who have spoken to this group of amendments are hugely qualified to speak on the issues of psychotherapy, and none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I have no such credentials, beyond being an observer of the human condition coming from an entirely different field altogether.

My interest in supporting this group of amendments comes from a profound belief that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said—rather than picking up the pieces after the event, early intervention before the damage in abusive relationships has reached its most pernicious stages must be an object of policy. Before we get to the stage of cranking into place all legal, prosecutorial, judicial and costly protective paraphernalia, the need to pay attention to psychological problems at a much earlier stage, or indeed as a preliminary step in later stages, seems an unavoidable conclusion. In support of that assertion, I need not go further than the domestic homicide reviews, cataloguing as they do the tragic endpoint of failure to intervene in time, but which consistently refer to much earlier and identifiable opportunities in the downward slope, at which points the problems could and should have been consciously noted and acted upon. Even if they do not end in homicide, I believe that similar trajectories occur in domestic abuse generally from childhood onwards.

To tackle this, we need an understanding of the psychology of victims, perpetrators and children in what is a hugely complex area of motivations, drivers, preconceptions and circumstances, right across gender and age divides, social and economic environments, matters of nature and nurture, and much else. This suggests to me that the discipline of psychology is a golden thread in terms of identifying traits informing decisions, facilitating early-stage support and intervention, and, as the noble Baronesses have said, breaking this terrible cycle of behaviour that the Bill seeks to address.

I recognise that psychological skills are, in any event, far from plentiful, and involve not only time but expense. But I do not believe that it is an argument to discard the appropriate tool on grounds of timing, complexity or cost; nor should we be deflected because, as has been explained to me by others, dealing with substance abuse in parallel with psychological issues—as is so often a combination—requires considerable skills and powers of leadership.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned cost-benefit. It may sound like monetising private misery, but I am absolutely convinced that she is right about the social cost and why these amendments are necessary.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support these amendments, although, like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I lack the knowledge, skills and experience of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Stroud. I therefore add our support for this suite of amendments, focusing as they do on the prevention of domestic abuse by making it a top priority for the commissioner, the advisory board and the local partnership boards. I also strongly support the emphasis on children and the need for therapy services all over the country, as elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

As we know, abuse is a cycle. The abused child all too frequently turns into the abuser, and generation begets generation of misery and pain. Unless there is an intervention to break this cycle, we will still be wrestling with this subject for years and, indeed, generations to come. There are other excellent amendments to come tackling this issue, so I will leave my comments there for now.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 7 agreed.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 8: Reports

Amendment 30

Moved by

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

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

I have received a request to speak from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and appreciate that she has to stick to her script, but it gives the impression on occasion that there is no point in making contributions to debate because what I have said appears, from what she has said, to have been completely ignored. I will repeat exactly what I said. I said that of course the Government may say that in addition to being necessary the granting of a CCA must be proportionate—the issue that she mentioned—and it would not be proportionate to deploy a CHIS if the criminal activity was minor. That is almost word for word what she said. However, I went on to say that the same argument applies to the interception of communications in RIPA, where necessity is limited to serious crime, as defined in our Amendment 31. That second point seems to have been completely ignored by the Minister. I accept that that is probably because she has, understandably, just stuck to her script. It comes back to the point that I made, which is: what is the point of making speeches in debates if what noble Lords say is ignored by the Minister?

The Minister said that these amendments would limit how CHIS could lawfully be deployed and seek to restrict their deployment, and authorities would be less able to investigate crime. This Bill is about criminal conduct by CHIS, not their deployment. It is about giving authority to agents and informants to commit crime, and grant complete legal immunity to CHIS in those circumstances. There is a world of difference between deploying a CHIS and authorising them to commit crime, and then granting them immunity from prosecution. Yet the whole basis of her argument, from what I understood her to say, is that there is no difference between the two. In which case, what is the purpose of the Bill?

I say again: why is the interception of communications limited to serious crime if there is no need to limit the deployment of CHIS, who are going to be authorised to commit crime? Why should they not be limited to serious crime? That is a question that the Minister has failed to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 23 to 26 not moved.

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

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 27

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will start with the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Chakrabarti, and the point about listening to what each other is saying. I have never tried to skirt around the issue of the disgusting behaviour of some 30 years ago. I do not know whether police officers were not told that it was illegal and the inquiry is clearly establishing the ins and outs of that. But it was not acceptable and it was never lawful, and it cannot be authorised under this Bill. I hope that I have made that very clear. I do not dismiss what those women went through—including, indeed, what the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, went through—and I hope that the inquiry will vindicate an awful lot of the people who suffered, complained and were simply ignored in the past. The inquiry will get to the bottom of something that was never lawful in the first place. I digress, but I must add that operational partners are very clear that that sort of behaviour could not be authorised under this Bill.

I shall move on to the substance of Amendment 27. I will not repeat the points I made in response to the last set of amendments, but I will emphasise that economic well-being is one of the established statutory purposes for which covert human investigatory powers may be deployed by public authorities. We recognise that threats to the economic well-being of the UK could be immensely damaging and fundamental in their effect. That might include, for example, the possibility of a hostile cyberattack against our critical infrastructure, as I said earlier, attacks on financial institutions or on the Government themselves. I gave examples in my previous speech of the victims of CSA, cash and drugs activity, so they may not be solely related to issues of national security.

We have agencies such as HMRC, the NCA and the Serious Fraud Office whose mandate includes mitigating broader threats to the UK’s economic well-being. These threats are real, emerging and go beyond the remit of national security. We cannot tie our hands in response to such threats by limiting the statutory purposes available to tackle these issues. Of course, there are also examples of where economic well-being is not restricted to national security, as set out in other parts of the Investigatory Powers Act and the Security Service Act.

I hope that I have given a full explanation of why Amendment 27 should be withdrawn.

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

My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. My noble friend Lord Beith posed a number of new scenarios and he is right to prompt us to be thoughtful about these issues.

I have to say that I find it difficult to envisage what economic interests there might be which would justify a criminal conduct authorisation that do not fall within national security interests or the prevention or detection of what we think should be limited to serious crime. I do not want to repeat the arguments that I and others made in the previous debate or indeed in this one, but I will say in response to the Minister that she has introduced an element that perhaps we have not dealt with before: the need to anticipate what might happen. I may have got her words wrong, but that is the meaning I took from them. I would point to the word “preventing” crime as set out in subsection (5)(b).

I am sorry that we have not been able to progress this any further, but clearly at this moment I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 27 withdrawn.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 28. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 28

Moved by

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Bill before your Lordships today has a great many flaws. A case could be made that the Government should simply look at it again and think again. It has been said that the Bill is merely, but importantly, to put on a statutory footing practice which has hitherto operated in the shadows. Alas, as currently framed, the Bill does not fulfil that function, as the Minister himself said. Rather, it seeks to confer immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct. Other noble Lords have argued this point with distinction, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.

I preface my remarks today by stating that I do, of course, wish to live in a well-regulated society. I therefore accept the need for elements of covert activity in some well-defined circumstances. However, I also want to live in a society in which a high priority is placed on concern for people who are vulnerable, possibly due to a range of circumstances, one of which is the simple fact of being a child.

The UK Government signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in April 1990, and it came into force in January 1992. In 2010, the then Government published a report on how legislation underpins the implementation of the UN convention, given that all policy and practice must comply with it.

Children are not the only vulnerable people who may become CHIS, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. However, I propose to confine myself simply to remarks about children. Such children as are recruited will have engaged in risky and quite possibly illegal behaviours, and will therefore be in need of help, support and protection. On this, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I am aware that the High Court has determined that it may be appropriate to use children where the welfare of the child could be protected, though it is hard for me to see how putting children in harm’s way could be considered to comply with Article 3 of the UNCRC, which provides that

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private … welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”


It is indeed extremely difficult to see how authorities as listed would be able to fulfil the obvious duty of care owed to children if authorities themselves are authorising, or perhaps thereby encouraging, children to commit criminal offences, notwithstanding the reference by the Minister to the safeguards in the uprated guidance. I concur entirely with the briefing from Justice in the view that CCAs for children should be explicitly and expressly excluded. Unless such exclusions are in place, there is the risk of violating both domestic and international law.

CHIS will continue to be necessary in well-defined circumstances. However, this Bill does not put on a statutory footing existing practice, and it does allow for the continuing use of children. The Bill is in serious need of amendment. It should also be the opportunity to put beyond doubt that children should not be used as CHIS, and in this I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the terms of my amendment are that this House regrets that citizens’ rights applications in the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 do not provide clear statutory protection during the grace period for all EEA, Swiss nationals and their family members who are eligible for the EU settlement scheme. Unless the Government persuade me otherwise in their response, I will seek the opinion of the House on my amendment.

We will not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, because it is well established that this unelected House, except in the most exceptional circumstances, does not vote down statutory instruments. This instrument has already been through the elected House of Commons, where it was passed following a Division in which we voted against it. It is also the case that voting down this SI would mean that the unelected House had voted down a measure passed by the elected House and as a result, the rights and protections applicable very shortly, which this SI guarantees to a significant number of people, would no longer be there.

We are considering three draft regulations. In respect of the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, we do not have any specific concerns. The regulations fulfil our obligations under agreements to allow those who are employed or self-employed in the UK but living elsewhere to continue to do so as long as they remain a frontier worker. This group of people will be required to obtain a permit as evidence of their right to enter the UK after 1 July 2021.

The Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 deliver our obligations under the withdrawal agreement to consider the conduct of a person before the end of the transition period in accordance with the current EU thresholds when relating to deportation decisions. These decisions will continue to be appealable.

I have a couple of questions. As with the grace period SI, which I will come on to, are there any EU citizens who are currently living in the UK to whom the current thresholds will not continue to apply for conduct committed before the end of the transition period and who will have the UK thresholds after 1 January 2021 retrospectively applied to them?

Crucially, there have been reports this morning that the Government intend to make homelessness grounds for deportation. The shadow Home Secretary has raised his concerns over these immoral plans, which are particularly shocking in the midst of a pandemic and a jobs crisis. This issue is not covered by the SI before us today, but it would be good to have further clarity on the changes we are paving the way for. Can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s view that a person falling into homelessness is grounds for deportation?

Our main concern today is with the draft regulation usually referred to as the grace period SI, to which our amendment to the Motion relates. The3million, representing EU nationals in the UK, and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association are concerned that the way in which this regulation is drafted could technically mean that a large number of people would have a question mark over their rights during the grace period and while their application under the settlement scheme was pending. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association did suggest that changing the text from “lawfully resident” to “resident or present” would align much more closely with the spirit of the EU settlement scheme and our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Currently there is no provision in relation to the resident’s status during the grace period for EEA and Swiss citizens, or their family members, who are not granted leave under the scheme by the implementation period completion date in some 10 weeks’ time and are not lawfully resident as defined by the SI. Such persons could therefore face difficulty in accessing services, such as healthcare or employment, during the grace period or during the time that an in-time application is decided or an appeal is pending.

Can the Minister confirm that the individuals not covered by this SI would include a person who is dependent on their spouse, so is self-sufficient but does not have comprehensive sickness insurance, and a person who is unable to enter the labour market due to a disability, and so is not working? If no further provision is made for these people, it would seem to diminish the meaning of the grace period and contradict the mechanisms made in what I understand to be other related regulations which do provide for protection for persons who are eligible under the EU settlement scheme but not lawfully resident under the EEA regulations.

As we understand it, the protected cohort under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 should include all those who are eligible for status via the settlement scheme, not just those exercising their rights within the EEA regulations. In Committee on the immigration Bill in the Commons, assurances were sought from the Government on this point. The Government gave an unequivocal assurance in Committee when the Minister said, during the sixth sitting, that

“section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act provides powers to make regulations to provide temporary protection for this cohort during the grace period. That means that if someone has not applied under the EU settlement scheme by the end of the transition period, they will be able to continue to work and live their lives in the UK as they do now, provided that they apply by 30 June 2021 and are then granted status.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; col. 195.]

The draft regulation ought to reflect that position and protect the entire cohort of those who are eligible to apply for settled status. As it stands, the consequences of the wording of the draft regulation are potentially severe for those affected, who are eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme but will be left in legal limbo, entirely of the Government’s own making, if this is not resolved.

In addition, anyone who has submitted an application to the EU settlement scheme before the end of the transition period and is pending a decision after the transition period ends will have to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the draft regulations to have the benefit of their protection. The Government’s answer so far on this issue appears to be that no one will be challenged on their rights during the grace period, but that is no way to make law. If the Government knew this was to be their position—if they planned this carefully—what extra work has gone into ensuring that those who will not be covered by this SI have been supported to apply for the EU settlement scheme before 31 December this year?

What statutory provision do those EU citizens not protected by the regulations but eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme rely on in relation to their rights to work or to rent, and rights to protection from removal from the UK during the grace period? What statutory provision do those EU citizens not protected by the regulations, who have an application pending with the EU settlement scheme past the grace period deadline, rely on in relation to their rights to work or to rent, and rights to protection from removal from the UK?

The terms of the regulations ought to make it clear beyond any doubt, but fail to do so, that they are giving statutory protection during the grace period for all EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are eligible for the EU settlement scheme—as the Minister said in the Commons was the Government’s position. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

For the convenience of the House, I remind your Lordships that the Question before it is the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will have the opportunity to move his amendment if her amendment is defeated at the end of the debate.

[Lord Bowness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her introduction and the clarity that she has brought to these issues. That said, I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I cannot support a fatal amendment. I will listen to what my noble friend says in answer to the points raised by the noble Lord.

My attention was brought to these instruments by virtue of their title on engaging citizens’ rights. We need to take the greatest care with the rights of those who, until now, have enjoyed with us not only national but European citizenship.

My first observation about all three instruments is that they are extremely difficult to follow. It may be that I am no good at following these matters but, given the many cross-references to other pieces of primary, European and secondary legislation, we are trying to uncover very tangled documents. While that might not matter for us, and I understand that these issues are complex and must be legally correct and certain, the rules set out in the instruments engage and affect citizens, some of whom will not have English as a first language. There is reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to publication of guidance, which might be fine, but not all official guidance, in my experience, is easy to comprehend, and posting these texts or the guidance on a website will not be sufficient. What efforts will we therefore make to reduce these measures into plain language for citizens to understand without the need for a lawyer, and how will we publicise them? We hear a great deal from Ministers telling us to get prepared for Brexit, but we do not know quite what we are preparing for and we need some clarity.

My second general point relates to the statement in each Explanatory Memorandum that no consolidation version is planned. Surely, with as many pieces of legislation from disparate sources such as these, that should be considered.

Regarding the instrument on frontier workers, I am surprised that there has been no consultation on implementation, even if the Government are bound to produce the regulations. Nor do I understand the statement that the instrument does not affect small businesses, even if they employ frontier workers. The Minister has confirmed that that the application for frontier workers will be free of charge. Can she confirm that the certificate will be free of charge? Further, while the Explanatory Memorandum states that the permit

“can be issued in a digital form”,

does that mean that a hard copy will be available? If so, why are we making a distinction between this permit and the confirmation of settled status?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile debates in this House with the reality of the world outside, particularly in relation to whether and how the Government are adhering to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement.

As others have done, I want to deal particularly with the application deadline and temporary protection regulations, which we in Labour opposed in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, and were debated here during Report on the Bill. Incidentally, I do not understand why the extent of the regulations is described as

“England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”,

while in the other two instruments it is “the United Kingdom”. What is the difference? Perhaps the Minister can explain. But that is just incidental.

The real concern with this instrument is that there is no provision in relation to residence status during the so-called “grace period”—which I must say is an unfortunate term; it sounds like grace and favour, and it may be that people on the other side of the House think of it in those terms—for EEA and Swiss citizens and their families, who are now “lawfully resident”, as they are defined in the statutory instrument. We sought to change that term in the Commons to something like “resident and present”—not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, “resident or present”. Otherwise, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, they are likely to face difficulties accessing services such as healthcare and employment during this period.

Given the hostility fostered towards those people by people such as the Home Secretary, I can understand their fear. Remember that many of them are the people whose dedication has kept our NHS and care sector going during the current pandemic. The implications are severe for those who do not have a legal basis to live in the UK, but they are eligible to apply for status under the scheme, and they will be left in legal limbo. Given the record of the Home Office on Windrush and other such issues, I must say that I do not think that any of the verbal assurances are sufficient. We need much greater clarification on this.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled a fatal amendment to the Motion, which I fear is either more of their virtue signalling or, it may be, an exculpation of their dark deeds when they were in coalition with the Tories. Presumably, they will then be on to social media like a measles rash attacking us for not supporting what they know is only a gesture but they pretend has some effect. As my noble friend Lord Rosser said, if we vote down this SI, it would mean not only the unelected House overturning the elected Chamber but losing the other rights and protections included in the regulations. Our amendment is meant to follow up the opposition in the Commons Committee, where Labour and, indeed, the SNP—no Liberal Democrats—voted against the regulations.

If the Government and this Minister had any sense, they would accept the powerful arguments we have made today but, more important, the concerns of the people involved, and the Minister would agree to take this issue away and look at it again. In the letter which she helpfully sent, dated today—and we received it today—the Minister says that, following my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment at Report on the Bill on 5 October, she would be discussing this with the Home Secretary. Surely, this is the opportunity. This is where and when this issue could and should be resolved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

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

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 26 in this group, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee will speak to the other amendments in the group. I too am sceptical about the Government’s ability to enforce immigration law in general and the end of free movement in particular. Indeed, as I have previously argued, there is evidence that, rather than “taking back control”, the Government have made the UK border more porous.

At previous stages of this Bill, I have raised the issue of EEA and Swiss nationals, who will continue to be able to enter the UK using airport e-passport gates and who will benefit from visa-free entry to the UK, officially for six months at the end of the transition period, along with the nationals of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA—the so-called B5JSSK countries.

I am very grateful to the Minister for meeting me face to face—a rare treat—along with several officials, who joined us virtually. The point of raising this issue now is to have on the record the fact that the Government’s approach to immigration contains significant loopholes, which are as follows.

First, there will be no digital record of the immigration status of EEA and Swiss nationals, or those of the other B5JSSK countries that I have listed, visiting the UK under the six-month visa-free arrangements. This can be checked—for example, by landlords, in order to fulfil their right-to-rent obligations to ensure that they do not rent property to those who are in the UK illegally. The Government have no plans to change this situation other than an ambition that this will happen at some time in the future.

Secondly, there will be no way of tracking EEA, Swiss or other B5JSSK nationals once they have arrived in the UK, as no information will be recorded as to where they are going to be staying, there will be no stamp in their passport and there will be no way of establishing whether they have left the UK when or before the six-month limit has been reached.

Thirdly, in order to comply with the law—even though there is no way of enforcing it—all an EEA or Swiss national, or a national of one of the other B5JSSK countries, needs to do is take a day trip on the Eurostar to Lille, for example, in order to be legally eligible to stay for another six months. In their UK Points-Based Immigration System: Further Details Statement, the Government claim that EEA and Swiss nationals should not

“in effect live in the UK by means of repeat or continuous visits.”

However, in reality, there is no way of checking or enforcing this.

Fourthly, with the leeway provided to landlords under the right to rent scheme, landlords can rent a property for up to 12 months to an EEA or Swiss national, or to other B5JSSK nationals—even though they are legally allowed to stay in the country for only six months—without any sanction, civil or criminal. At the end of that period, the landlord can continue to rent the property to the EEA or Swiss national, or to one of these other nationals, provided they produce another ticket, boarding pass, travel booking or

“Any other documentary evidence which establishes the date of arrival in the UK in the last six months.”


Fifthly, the Government cannot provide any details of the electronic travel authorisations, or ETAs, mentioned in the Government’s immigration plans under the heading “The border of the future”, or of how that system will operate. The Government claim that it will

“allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions taken on information obtained at an earlier stage, as to whether individuals should be allowed to travel to the UK.”

In the meantime, and for the foreseeable future, the UK could be vulnerable to such individuals entering the UK—without checks or a visa—through the e-passport gates.

Every national of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea or the USA used to hand in a landing card and be questioned by a Border Force officer at the UK border to establish where they were going to stay, how long they were staying and whether they had the means to sustain themselves without working illegally. I am told that about 3,000 US nationals a year used to be turned away at the border, but these individuals can now use the e-passport gates, almost always unchallenged. I understand that the reason the B5JSSK nationals were added to those who could use the e-passport gates was to better manage the queues at the UK border. Allowing people through the UK border more quickly by not checking whether they are entering the UK legitimately does not seem to be “taking back control” of our borders.

From 1 January, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to enter the UK in the same way, even though free movement is supposed to be at an end. Can the Minister please confirm on the record that these loopholes do indeed exist and that there are no immediate plans to close them? Can she also repudiate the explanation offered by a lawyer friend of mine—who, when I discussed this issue with him, described the B5JSSK countries as “white” countries—by explaining how the B5JSSK countries were chosen?

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who served on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years in another place. The first thing that comes to mind is that the National Audit Office is principally in charge of the investigations there, sometimes prompted by the committee and sometimes by issues that are at the forefront of politicians’ and other parties’ interests. Those reports are always produced when there is a case to be looked at. The reports are taken very seriously and are of great substance. I was particularly pleased—this is the reason I am taking part in the debate on this amendment— to see that there was this PAC report on a subject that is likely to come before your Lordships’ House. That report gives cause for considerable concern—that is probably a huge understatement. I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench, for whom I have a great deal of time, and those who are advising her will look at this very seriously. I think they need to go back also to the National Audit Office and look at some of the data, because it cannot all be reproduced in a report.

A couple of other issues come to my mind. My noble friend mentioned the 5,000 boat people. I sat on the Council of Europe for eight years—it is not just a talking shop; it does some valuable work. This is the sort of issue where two countries are involved in something that is not acceptable to either country but nobody has managed to bang the heads of the head of states together to ensure that a solution is found.

I am a great lover of France; for years, I had a mobile home in the south of France and I love going there. But this is not in the interests of France; I know our Prime Minister is pretty busy, but it is time for someone in a very senior position to talk to the Prime Minister of France, so that we can stop these huge numbers. Maybe we will have to take a share of the very small proportion who are genuine asylum seekers but, for the rest, an answer has to be found.

As the House knows, I also specialise in south Asia. I lived and worked there for a number of years and—dare I mention?—I have written a book about Sri Lanka. There is a problem about asylum seeking from not only Sri Lanka but other parts of south Asia. Self-harming is not something that many people in the Chamber or elsewhere know too much about, but it is not as unusual in south Asia and south-east Asia as it would be in the western world. Self-harming is then transcribed into “torture”, so when the individual presents themselves as an asylum seeker here, with an analysis from a UK doctor who of course has no idea about self-harming, it is pretty strong evidence that there has been torture—but there has not; there has been self-harming. That is something people should be particularly alert about.

We are being prompted daily to have an app on this and an app on that—track and trace is now the issue of the day. I do not know whether this happens, but it occurs to me that, given that the one piece of luggage that most migrants have with them is a mobile phone—or someone within their group has a mobile phone—those going into the reception area should have a track and trace system of their whereabouts, for a limited period, on some sort of app.

I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with particular interest. He has put some genuine questions that I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will take away, if she is not able to answer them today. There is clearly something not right in the areas that he has picked up.

I spent a great many hours recently on the Agriculture Bill, which has a section dealing with temporary agricultural workers. It is a fact that, in the UK at this point in time, there is not enough part-time or spare labour and ability in agricultural matters to bring in the harvest, particularly in Lincolnshire and the surrounding counties. I come from Bedfordshire; we are on the fringe, but there is a great deal of horticulture. We must not have another harvest next spring where we in the UK are short of people to harvest the crops. I just want to put that on the record.

Finally, as some will know, I am a former RAF pilot and still take a great interest in aviation. I unearthed, some years ago now, a manoeuvre that was being done with light aircraft out of small airports; they were basically flying out of the UK and, on the flight plan, there was no requirement to record who the people on the aircraft really were. Even where the people were recorded, there was no checking done on the way back as to whether the number who went out came back, whether they were the same people, or even whether they went back to the original airport they had started from. I still believe that that is a problem and should be looked at.

This is an important amendment. I am sorry to get a little technical, but the amendment says, “within six months”. Having sat in the Chair down the other end, I would have to say that “within six months” suggests less than six months, and what I think my noble friend will be pushing for is that it should be done at six months or immediately after six months. If I am right, I hope that the Minister can ensure that that minor change can be implemented. I wish my noble friend all success with this very important amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser very much for moving this crucial amendment in such a powerful and forceful way. I should declare an interest because my grandson, who is very close to me, took the opportunity of the longer summer break for schools after the public examinations to go and work on the front line in a care home. He is intelligent, perceptive and caring, so I learned a great deal from what he told me.

What troubles me in our considerations is this: just how many of us would have thought of using some of our available time working in a care home? Would the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for example? We expect all sorts of other people to do it but we are not prepared to commit ourselves. Of course, this is also coupled with the extraordinary way in which we are so sentimental about workers in the care sector. We clap our hands and celebrate—I have done it—but where is the recognisable esteem in which we hold these people? We all know that they are grotesquely underpaid. We talk about them and how we will find sufficient numbers and all the rest of it; perhaps we should have at the top of our list proper remuneration for this highly demanding work.

A lot has been said about workers from outside Britain. It was quite insensitive because some of the most dedicated, loving care for those with serious conditions has come from those workers. Why can we not talk about them as people—fellow members of the human race—rather than as immigrants?

The amendment is important because we all know that the past summer—goodness knows what will happen this winter—has demonstrated an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, dedicated staff, against all the odds, have been doing their best in so many places to help those in great need, while we have failed to accord proper status in our social order to the people doing such work. It is surely because we have become a society in which success is regarded as a matter of how much money you make and how quickly you make it, rather than a society in which care, support and service to the community are regarded as of the highest order and significance. We have had a terrible crisis in the care sector this past year. May it not be repeated. Let us look at some of the underlying issues and put them right at once. The amendment will help us to introduce the necessary disciplines if we are to approach issues of this kind.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has clearly passed on to his grandson the importance of contributing to service in its widest sense. I very much agree with his analysis but then I almost always do.

By definition, members of the largest cohort in the social care sector do not fall within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 but are very much affected. They are certainly part of the social care workforce and are impacted by the availability of social care workers employed in the sector. I mean, of course, the many people who support and care for someone older, disabled or seriously ill at home. According to Carers UK, one in eight adults—6.5 million people—are so engaged. The carer’s allowance is around £67 a week. I could go on but I do not get the impression that noble Lords need to be convinced of the importance of the sector, including those who do not have formal, paid-for care at home or in a care home. The informal carers and those for whom they care are impacted as well as those in public or private employment. The number of those in private employment is considerable. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the NHS.

That is not the only reason we support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Committee, reminded us that there are 115,000 European nationals in the social care workforce, despite high vacancy rates. It is, as other noble Lords, have said, a skilled profession with some skills that cannot be trained into a person and come from one’s personality and often culture, and include physical fitness, as we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. At a previous stage of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said that he would have supported similar amendments but for the absence of a reference to training, which is now included in the amendment—rightly so—because training in practical and technical matters is important. However, that does not detract from my observations about personality.

The need for carers will not diminish. My noble friend Lady Barker reminded us, although I do not need reminding, that many of us are ageing and do not have children to shoulder the work—and it is work —done by families, however lovingly. She gave us the figure of 1 million but one should add families with a disabled child, for instance.

Like my noble friend Lady Smith, I have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30 and many of my comments apply to it. In Committee, the Minister relied on the MAC having licence to consider any aspect of migration policy. However, when prompted by yesterday’s report, I looked at the website—it may have been changed now—which referred only to commissions by the Home Secretary. However, the committee’s pursuit of the matter is welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, will note that in quoting the chair’s reference to the

“struggle to recruit the necessary staff if wages do not increase as a matter of urgency”,

I am relying on a press release, not the 600 pages of the report.

As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, it is right that the assessment should be commissioned by the Home Secretary, because she should own the work. We are not “incurious”, as the right reverend Prelate said, and will support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In that case, I agree with the noble Baroness. However, the main part of my point was related to the issue on which my noble friend Lady McIntosh challenged me. She asked whether, given my background, I could see the problems to which noble Lords are referring. I can absolutely see them. In fact, in 2005, when I was a new leader of a council, and David Cameron a new leader of the Opposition, he asked me what the biggest challenge was for local authorities. Straight off, I said social care, and, 15 years later, that remains the case. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referenced those who care voluntarily. There are so many that they save the state billions of pounds a year for the work that they do without being paid. I therefore join noble Lords in paying tribute to this sector, which has done so much, particularly during the pandemic. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, people in social care have given and lost their lives to the fight against the disease.

I turn next to points about the Migration Advisory Committee. First, I turn to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which he has made before, about the contradictory nature of what we are debating. In one sense, we highly value our social care workers and in another, as someone else said, they earn less, in some cases, than retail workers. That is the challenge at the heart of this: social care needs to be paid decently and seen as a decent career path for people to want to go into it.

I could stand at this Dispatch Box and give my view on the silver bullet that would sort this all out, but I am afraid that I cannot. It is not that it is above my pay grade but, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, this is a challenge for every department and government —and, actually, every one of us. I had a chat with my noble friend Lord Hodgson before this debate; he is probably sitting there very frustrated because he did not put his name down to speak, and I know that he would have wanted to talk about the report that the MAC issued yesterday on the review of the shortage occupation list. One of its key findings is that senior care workers, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants should be added to the UK-wide shortage occupation list. The Government want to take time to consider carefully what the MAC has said—as noble Lords I have said, it is a 650- page document—before we take any final decisions, and we will of course respond in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, challenged me for a timescale, and “in due course” is about as far as I can go at this stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the devolved Administrations’ part in all this. Of course, it is a reserved matter. The new system will work for the whole of the UK and we have a national advisory group, with which we are engaged on the proposals, but it includes the Welsh NHS Confederation, Social Care Wales, NHS Scotland and Scottish social carers.

I turn to the amendments at hand. Amendment 3 returns to issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in Committee, but it also incorporates a requirement to report on immigration routes for social care workers, which was raised during Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and goes to the essence of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Committee, about a specific route for the social care sector. During our debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly highlighted the significant shortages in the social care sector, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, amounting to around 120,000 vacancies. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, also talked about the high turnover, which I think I said was 31%, but he thinks might be even higher.

We must keep it in mind that that is the situation despite the fact that EEA and Swiss citizens have had, and continue to have, free movement rights up to the end of this year. The noble Lord also highlighted the fact that the social care workforce is made up of approximately 83% British citizens, 7% from the EEA countries and about 9% from non-EEA countries. What struck me as interesting about those figures is that a higher percentage of people from non-EEA countries than from EEA countries are working in social care, even though they have no dedicated route to do so. Currently, while social care workers do not meet the skills threshold, a range of other immigration routes are available to them which provide a general right to work, such as dependants, those on family routes or youth mobility.

As part of the UK’s new points-based immigration system, we are expanding the skills threshold, which will bring jobs such as senior care workers within scope of the skilled worker route. Increasingly, people of all nationalities will be able to benefit from this offer providing they meet the other requirements, such as salary threshold. However, I want to be clear that, as my noble friend Lord Horam points out, the Government do not see the immigration system as the solution to all issues in the social care sector. I think there is now general acceptance across your Lordships’ House that that is the case.

With that in mind, we are working alongside the sector to ensure that the workforce has the right number of people to meet increasing demands, with the right skills, knowledge and approach to deliver quality, compassionate care. The Department of Health and Social Care has launched a new national recruitment campaign called Every Day Is Different to run across broadcast, digital and social media. The campaign highlights the vital role that the social care workforce is playing during this pandemic, along with the longer-term opportunities of working in care.

The Government have also commissioned Skills for Care to scale up capacity for digital induction training provided free of charge under DHSC’s workforce development fund. This training is available for redeployees, new starters, existing staff and volunteers through 12 of Skills for Care’s endorsed training providers. The Government are committing record investment to the NHS, including the NHS long-term funding settlement, which has now been enshrined in law. At the Budget, the Chancellor outlined over £6 billion of further new spending in this Parliament to support the NHS. This includes £5.4 billion to meet our manifesto commitments of 50,000 more nurses, 50 million additional appointments in primary care, more funding for hospital car parking and establishing a learning disability and autism community discharge grant to support discharges into the community.

As my noble friend Lord Horam pointed out, we are also investing in social care. DHSC is providing councils with access to an additional £1.5 billion for adult and children’s social care in 2021. We have also announced £2.9 billion to help local authorities in response to the coronavirus crisis. The Department of Health and Social Care is also working closely with Skills for Care to help employers train new recruits and volunteers and to refresh the skills of its current workforce.

In Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham of Ilton, highlighted that working in social care, especially when caring for people who have severe disabilities, requires much more than just technical skills. I totally agree. Social care jobs will not be for everyone. However, it is a sad consequence of the current pandemic that many people have lost their jobs. While not all of them will have the necessary caring skills, I think there are many people in the UK who really do care, and it is vital that we take the opportunity to emphasise the importance of social care work and ensure that it is a rewarding job for people.

The view that migration is not the solution to the challenges faced by the care sector is supported by the Migration Advisory Committee. My noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Lilley referred to that in Committee. We need to make changes to the way we train, recruit , attract and, crucially, retain staff in health and social care, but without making changes, the immigration system will continue to be used as a failsafe to maintain a broken system that relies on bringing people in on minimum wage and holding down wages.

The Government continue to commission and fund a range of training opportunities to help recruit people into the sector and develop leadership within social care. This includes the Think Ahead programme, which has taken on more than 400 applicants since it was launched in 2015. It trains graduates to become mental health social workers. There is also the workforce development fund, which helped nearly 2,800 establishments to support nearly 14,500 learners in 2018-19. This fund will continue to focus on key priorities in future.

Turning to the specifics of the amendment, it is of course sensible that policies are kept under review—something the Government stand by in the current system and will ensure continues under new arrangements. We already have the MAC, and its advice has been accepted by all types of Government over many years. I know that some noble Lords do not share my views on the expert advice provided by the MAC, but surely there cannot be disagreement that the MAC has repeatedly considered the needs of the social care sector, as referenced by the report yesterday.

We should not take for granted the Government’s own extensive engagement with stakeholders across the whole of the UK, and indeed the critical role that this House plays in scrutinising policies and intentions. So I do understand the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment to ensure the protection of a vital sector. We already have a world-class independent body with new autonomy to review any part of our immigration system, as referenced today, in the last 24 hours. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel that Amendment 3 is not necessary and will be happy to withdraw it.

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

I have received no requests from noble Lords wishing to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to reply.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I share the views that the Minister expressed about the quality and value of this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank the Minister for her response.

I think that there is a general acceptance that the social care sector is in crisis, with low-paid and undervalued skilled work, a very high staff turnover rate and a very high level of vacancies. On top of that, the crisis could well be exacerbated by abruptly closing down a significant source of labour from abroad in three months’ time. In response to my amendment, the Minister referred to the role of the Migration Advisory Committee. But the MAC is not a specialist committee on the social care sector, as, frankly, was indicated very clearly by its recent 650-page report, Review of the Shortage Occupation List: 2020, which simply indicates that it covers a wide breadth of sectors and occupations within those sectors and is looking at migration issues.

However, it is clear from the MAC’s recent report that it feels that the views it has expressed in the past have not had much impact, because it has made reference to “again” expressing concern about the social care sector, and to issues that it has been pressing “for some years”. I think this means that, while the work that has been done by the MAC over a number of years is to be welcomed, clearly it does not feel that that it has had much impact. Perhaps that is because it is not a specialist committee on the social care sector; it is a committee that looks at migration across the board.

I think that that makes the case that, in view of the crisis in the social care sector, which may well get worse at the end of this year in light of the changes to the immigration system, there is a clear-cut case for a stand -alone, in-depth, specialist report on the social care sector and the impact of the provisions of the Bill, as provided for in the amendment, and that it is needed now if the goals that have been set for the sector—goals relating to better pay, training, professionalism, a reduction in turnover and a reduction in vacancies—are to be achieved. We badly need this in-depth specialist assessment to be made, as called for in the amendment, and I do wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The Question is that Amendment 3 be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start a remote Division.

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

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

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

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Constitution Committee

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

My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.

This is day two in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.

During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.

The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.

Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision

Amendment 14

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have not received any requests to speak after the Minister, so I call—oh, it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, thinks he has given notice.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I did email; I do not know where it has gone. Oh sorry, I did not email Question Diary.

I thank the Minister for explaining how certain words have been used in previous legislation, but it would be helpful if she could write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House with some examples, just so that we are absolutely clear. I know she was able to give an example now, but that would be very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 15 to 19 not moved.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I think there is a technical problem with that which I hope we can resolve in the next few minutes.

Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21.

Amendment 20

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (V)]

My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I also agree with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said. Essentially, as it appears in the Bill, this looks like a power-grab by the Government in a situation that is already iniquitous and utterly unreasonable. The cost of that to the UK —the denial of the skills, knowledge and ability of people who might go somewhere else because our fees are just too high—was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, very clearly. I somewhat disagreed with her, however, when she suggested that it might be reasonable for the Government to cover the actual real cost through fees, and I will particularly focus on children.

In December 2019, the High Court ruled that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in charging £1,012 for children to register their right to British citizenship. This was a judicial claim brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens on behalf of two children known as O, age 3 and A, age 12. They were British but could not access their citizenship because they had been priced out. The court found that the Home Office had taken no account of the best interests of the children in setting the fee. It highlighted a mass of evidence showing that the fee prevented many children from registering for British citizenship, thus leaving them,

“alienated, excluded, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”

We are already in an iniquitous situation. The Government have chosen to appeal that ruling, so it is still before the courts. However, we certainly do not want a situation where the Government are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that such scrutiny will be applied, otherwise an utterly unreasonable situation that is bound to affect many more people will become even worse.

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

I now call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Lord Randall, we can see you, but we cannot hear you.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise—I was waiting for someone to unmute me.

I wanted to speak in this short debate, and I shall not speak for very long, because I want the clarification that noble Lords have already asked for. Presumably, this applies just to the European Union, or EEA and Swiss citizens. I have just discovered that the withdrawal agreement says that no charges will be made. Is it likely that if other countries impose charges on us, we might do it reciprocally? That is all I want to ask, and I await the response with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, we have a technical problem with emailing the Table. I propose that the Committee adjourns for 15 minutes, in the hope that we can sort out the problem. If it is necessary to adjourn again, we will do that. The Committee will resume just after 3.15 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, the email problem has not been resolved entirely, but we do have a short- term solution. Members, whether in the Chamber or participating remotely, who wish to speak after the Minister on this amendment or indeed subsequent ones, can use the alternative email address, relating to the Grand Committee, that is in the guidance notes that govern today’s session. If they send their request to the Grand Committee email address, that will find its way to the Table here and they should be included in the requests to speak after the Minister. Let us hope that works. We were about to hear from the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. If the new email system does not work—although I am not presuming that it will not work— I am very happy, retrospectively, to write to noble Lords who were going to speak, did not manage to, and therefore did not have their supplementary questions or requests for clarification answered.

These amendments obviously concern the use of Clause 4 powers to make changes in relation to fees and charges. Regulations made under this power may modify legislation relating to the imposition of immigration fees and charges only where they relate to a person’s immigration status and where that is as a consequence of, or connected with, the provision in Part 1 of the Bill. That confirms the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It enables the application of fees and charges to EEA citizens, who are currently exempt from them by virtue of free movement law, such as the immigration skills charge paid by employers.

The effect of Amendments 20 and 21 would be to prevent the Government aligning the treatment of EEA citizens with non-EEA citizens from January of next year. It is not our intention to use the power to increase fees. Fee levels will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the existing fees orders and regulations.

To briefly touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we do not make an overall profit on fees. While they may be different in different countries, they go towards the operation of the border.

It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of this Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens as they apply to non-EEA citizens will mean that certain elements of free movement will not have been fully repealed by this Bill and that EEA citizens will still have an advantage in our immigration system. This is not an outcome that the Government can accept. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

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

My Lords, we have not received any requests to speak after the Minister. Therefore, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to reply.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I am sure it has not escaped the Minister’s attention that there is some concern in the House about Clause 4, not only from the Delegated Powers Committee but from every speech we have heard so far, I think, apart from the Minister’s. It will carry on in further criticism that Members will have later. I am sure the Minister understands that and will take it back. I hope that there will be some progress when we get back to these issues contained in Clause 4 on Report. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 21 not moved.

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

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Grand Committee address on the guidance notes during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 22

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, in receiving support from the RAMP project on immigration policy, and as a trustee of Reset.

I shall speak to Amendment 29 and Amendment 31. They are different in substance: Amendment 29 and others in this group relate to asylum seekers, while Amendment 31 relates to refugees currently living elsewhere. However, they both address the question of work.

In the Hebrew Bible, there is a story about a widow named Ruth, who travels with her mother-in-law to a foreign land, the family having been displaced by famine. On arrival, she gets to work, picking grain with the landowners’ permission, and she enjoys his protection and generosity. She receives not a handout but the freedom to work in the fields—her dignity is upheld.

The freedom to work, for those able to do so, is an important part of our humanity. It is how we support ourselves and our families, how we contribute to the common good and how we share, through taxation, the financial burdens of our common life. Yet for those who have come to this country fleeing persecution or conflict and are stuck too long in the administrative purgatory of the Home Office’s processes, the Government deny this freedom.

Many people seeking asylum want to work. They have skills that the UK needs, and are highly motivated to provide for themselves and their families. Instead of allowing them to do so, currently the Government force their reliance on minimal taxpayer-funded benefits.

Employment helps with smooth integration into the UK, allowing people to improve their English, acquire new skills and build relationships in the community. Work restores dignity while reducing reliance on public funds. I endorse all that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said in speaking to Amendment 29.

Amendment 29 does not argue for an immediate right to work, as Canada, for example, allows. Lifting the ban on working after six months—the point at which the Home Office should have determined their case, but too often has not—is a reasonable compromise. I might prefer three months, as proposed in Amendment 22, but I see six months as a reasonable compromise. I am not alone in thinking this: British Future found that 71% of the public support the right to work after six months.

I note that both Amendment 29 and Amendment 31 focus on the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals, because those rights are before us in the Bill. While the Spanish protocol might appear to obviate the need for Amendment 29, we have learned this year that the future is hardly secure and predictable. Moreover, in both cases, the underlying principle demands that we take these steps for the benefit of some now, and to move towards restoring the dignity of all those seeking the UK’s protection by allowing them to contribute through work.

I thank my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Alton for supporting me on Amendment 31. The UN estimates that there are 79.5 million forcibly displaced people globally, who are desperate to rebuild their lives. Refugee resettlement schemes are vital, and ours must restart urgently. However, we must think creatively about ways to help the many forcibly displaced people, in need of international protection, to rebuild their lives somewhere safe.

In places like Lebanon, people fleeing the Syrian conflict are not permitted to work legally. They are dependent on handouts; their lives are on hold. Many of these people have God-given talents which are going to waste. Meanwhile, employers in the UK face critical skills shortages. Ending free movement for EEA and Swiss nationals will only make it more challenging for them to recruit people with the skills they require. Is it beyond our imagination to connect the two, for the benefit of all?

The Home Secretary introduced this Bill to the other place, saying that she wanted a system

“allowing us to attract the very best talent from right around the globe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/20; col. 398.]

Displaced people, including refugees, have skills, talents and motivations, and dream of building a new life in a new land. What if we saw such people as a gift as well as a responsibility? To do that, I urge the Government to look at what this amendment seeks to achieve for skilled forcibly displaced people. I acknowledge and thank the Minister for her help so far, pursuing conversations with her colleagues to that end.

Amendment 31, conforming to the Bill’s scope, addresses the potential situation of displaced people who are EEA or Swiss nationals. Yet, even in doing so, it addresses the need for a displaced talent visa in the new Immigration Rules, to level up access globally to labour market mobility for all those who should be able to apply for skilled jobs at UK companies. It would remove barriers, such as the need for specific documentation or proof of their English language ability which cannot be accessed because of their situation in being displaced from home.

To be clear, this is not a new humanitarian route; instead, it is about enabling fair access to work visas for skilled forcibly displaced people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this is not an alternative to the asylum amendments. This is a completely different point. This approach has been successfully piloted in Australia and Canada, and would complement, not compete with, the vital routes of humanitarian resettlement and community sponsorship.

In his letter to them, St Paul reminded the church in Thessaloniki of a common saying: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Far from undercutting support for providing for the vulnerable and unemployed —as has occasionally been suggested—St Paul was urging that those in the community free and able to work should do so, for the good of all.

I find myself reflecting on this saying as I think about how we might help those fleeing persecution and conflict to access employment, that they might use their God-given talents and skills to support their families and rebuild their lives with dignity for the benefit of all, and that they might be seen as a gift to us. I would like to move Amendment 31.

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

It may be helpful to the Committee if I remind noble Lords that we are debating a group of amendments in which Amendment 22 is the lead. It is of course possible to speak to the other amendments in the group, but at this stage it is not possible to move them individually.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the ban on working before a whole year has passed, and then only in professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist, is bad on all counts. I am aware that we have a trained classical ballet dancer in the Chamber and she is a very valued Member, but she would probably agree that it takes rather a long time to train as such. We are not asking for a radical policy like Sweden’s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us allows asylum seekers to work after one day, or like Portugal’s, where the period is seven days, but, if you like, a middle way of three months or even six months. Six months is, if I recall correctly, the threshold in EU asylum law—I think it is the reception conditions directive—but the UK Government declined to opt into that provision.

It is detrimental to the well-being, dignity and self-respect of those seeking asylum to be refused the opportunity to work and to be kept in poverty on £5.66 a day. The longer that they are out of work, the more that their skills and motivation deteriorate. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I dealt with various individuals whose physical and mental health, sometimes after years of waiting, not just for 12 months but for three, four or five years for determination of their asylum claim—maybe the Government will tell me that the situation is much better now, but I am not sure that it is—had of course deteriorated; they had shrivelled as people and were unable to provide for their families. Their status, whether in their family or in their community, was completely undermined as their skills and motivation deteriorated.

Working boosts the chances of social and economic integration. Being banned from working also feeds into the prejudice that asylum seekers are “scroungers”, which not only is not true but is galling and aggravating when in fact they are prevented from working by government fiat, policy or law, which a lot of the public do not understand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has quoted, they would contribute to the Exchequer. Rather than taking from the taxpayer, they would be able to contribute if they were allowed to.

So, frankly, it is win-win. No wonder two-thirds of businesses support people seeking asylum having permission to work and 71% of the public, in the study by British Future, support the right to work. One would have thought that this was a bit of a no-brainer, and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us why it is impossible for the Government to change their policy.

I believe that there was an announcement in December 2018 by the Home Office that it would be launching a review into the merits of restoring the right to work to people seeking asylum. I do not know whether there is any news on how that review is getting on and when it might come to a conclusion.

Lastly, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about a work visa for displaced people. Refugees, displaced people and people who for humanitarian reasons are unable to stay in their home country have many skills that are going unused. Banning people seeking asylum from working is a moral question as well as an economic and social one. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: the idea that this would operate as a pole of attraction for people is unsubstantiated, and in any case that is hugely outweighed by the benefits of allowing asylum seekers to keep going and keep up their physical and mental health. If they do not succeed in their asylum claim then they have to leave, but in the meantime they will have been able to support themselves, keep up their skills and maybe, wherever they have to go or return to, have a better view of this country than they might otherwise have.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to advise the Committee that we seem to be back to normal with the emailing of the clerk, so Members who wish to speak after the Minister should use what they thought was the correct route at the beginning.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendments 24 and 31. I see these amendments as being not just in the interests of asylum seekers and refugees, although we have already heard strong arguments for why they are so, but also in the country’s economic and social interests and in the interests of overall social integration, which is supposedly a government policy goal.

A recent paper from the Institute of Labor Economics throws some light on the issues raised by Amendment 24 and others, using cross-European data for a period of nearly 30 years. It concluded that

“imposing temporary employment bans on asylum seekers has large negative consequences for their subsequent labour market integration − an effect that may remain sizable for up to 10 years”.

The authors recommend that

“host country governments should carefully weigh the (alleged) benefits of such bans against their longer term costs for both refugees and the host country economy.”

They found the sooner the access to the labour market, the better, and that when access is allowed it is not helpful to restrict it according to job type or employment sector in the way that our ludicrous shortage occupation list, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, does.

The paper also found that the existence of a ban has no impact on the numbers seeking asylum, which is one of the arguments that Ministers have used to justify it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not come out with that argument, because there is no evidence for it. If he is going to do so, could he please tell us what the evidence is?

Nearly a year ago, I had an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the economic benefits of lifting the ban. As well as the survey of business leaders mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a group of business leaders wrote to the Financial Times to make the case, and the FT quoted the CBI chief economist, who said that

“despite being keen to earn a living and participate in the society where they live, many of those displaced are prevented from using their skills to contribute to the economy.”

In a letter to me, the Minister questioned how many asylum seekers would in fact be skilled, and suggested that the priority should be speeding up decision-making and then supporting granted refugees into employment more quickly. No one would dispute the need to speed up decision-making and support refugees into employment but, nearly a year on from that exchange, the Immigration Minister acknowledged to the House of Commons committee that the asylum decision-making timeframe remains a concern. This is not an either/or situation. Worse, at present it seems to be neither: we have neither speeded up decision-making nor do we have the right to work. I accept that the assumptions about the proportion of asylum seekers who are skilled may be optimistic, as the Minister said, but that does not invalidate the case, not least because many of those deemed to be unskilled may in fact have very real skills to contribute, including to the care sector, which we heard about on Monday.

This May, the Lift the Ban campaign carried out a skills audit of people seeking asylum. Nearly half of those audited reported previous occupations that would fall into the Government’s definition of “critical workers”, with one in seven having worked in health or social care. Have the Government carried out such a skills audit on which to base their position?

In Amendment 31, which I was very pleased to be able to support, we are talking about a group of displaced refugees who would be recognised as skilled under any definition. The right reverend Prelate has already made a strong case for what I believe is a very helpful and, as he put it, creative idea that is well worth exploring. I hope the Government will explore it. I understand that there have been pilots to see how it might work. It worked rather well in other countries but unfortunately has floundered in this country because the Immigration Rules have meant that it is not practical or scalable. If nothing else, I hope there might be a way of seeing whether we can have a proper pilot in this country.

All I will add to the case already made so well by the right reverend Prelate is to emphasise a point that has already been made in a sense: we do not see this as a substitute for fulfilling our obligation to provide a safe haven to asylum seekers and refugees or for positive reforms to the asylum system, including the more general right to work after at most six months that we have been talking about.

The Government have dragged their heels over the right to work issue, as we have already heard, for nearly two years, yet suddenly it is all speed ahead with what we are told will be the new asylum Bill, designed not to help asylum seekers, as it would seem from what the media has said about it, but to make it harder for them to come here. Suddenly it has become an urgent matter, whereas there has been no urgency at all to do something for asylum seekers here.

If the Government want to dispel the fears about this forthcoming Bill—that it is all about how we keep asylum seekers out and nothing to do with how we make life better for them when they are here—I hope at the very least they will commit today to finish their review of the right to work and include it in this forthcoming Bill.