Civil Proceedings, First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal and Employment Tribunals Fees (Amendment) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws
Wednesday 20th July 2016

(8 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

I do not believe that that difficulty arises. I emphasise the point that I made earlier: if you look, for example, at the fees in respect of the employment tribunal, the gross figure is £12 million-plus; the sum remitted for those who could not afford the fees is £3.9 million. In other words, something of the order of 30% of employment tribunal fees came under the remittance scheme. It is working. It is effective. It is allowing access to those tribunals for those people who could not otherwise afford it.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the three questions which he posed in the context of the Justice Committee’s June report. We welcome the report from the Justice Committee. We will consider it in detail. We will consider its conclusions. We will respond to it as it requested, and we anticipate responding by September this year in accordance with the Justice Committee’s wishes. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate that response at this time.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, observed, there are instances in which some of our greatest advocates will take on the most hopeless of cases, and I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for stepping forward to take into court the issue of Article 50 and its exercise in the context of our exit from the European Union. I look forward with interest to the outcome of his efforts in such hopeless endeavours.

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Are the Government going to look at whether there are particular impacts that these changes are having on women? The Minister has not responded to that question.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

That matter is the subject of comment in the Justice Committee’s report, and we will respond to it. I again emphasise that from the figures we have it is clear that a large proportion of women qualify under the fees remittance scheme and to that extent have that relief.

National Identity Cards

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws
Tuesday 5th July 2016

(8 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

It is tragic to hear of victims of such intimidation and control, but I would observe that those who are the subject of such control are not likely to have access to their identity card any more than they do to their passport.

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have heard in the course of today’s debate about the rise in attacks against minorities. One thing that concerned minorities was that if you introduced an identity card it would open the door to harassment of people who speak a foreign tongue or with an accent, or you might have victimisation of people with a different colour of skin. There was a sense in which ID cards would create those sorts of problems for people from minorities. Does my noble friend agree that the answer to the issue she raised is to have better facilities for people who experience domestic violence and oppression within their communities and from their partners? That is the answer, not identity cards.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

The Government certainly agree that the answer is not the introduction of identity cards.

Immigration: Detention of Pregnant Women

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws
Wednesday 25th May 2016

(8 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

We have made it perfectly clear that detention in all cases is the exception and not the rule. In the cases of vulnerable adults, including pregnant women, it will be wholly exceptional for them to be detained. In general it is anticipated that detention will be required only in circumstances where someone arrives at the border without any right to be in the United Kingdom and can be more or less immediately returned to their country of origin.

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say that, as a matter of principle, pregnant women should not be held in detention? That should be the starting point. It is what this House wants to hear and what this House voted for.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

There is a clear and unambiguous presumption against the detention of pregnant women.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Keen of Elie and Baroness Kennedy of Shaws
Monday 21st March 2016

(8 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Yazidi are in a different position, which is why I raised them particularly. They are perceived by ISIL as not being one of the Abrahamic religions. Their religion predates even Judaism. As a result, ISIL sees it as something totally inimical to being human and as something other. That is why it feels quite at liberty to diminish this people to nothing. That is why it thinks that that is permissible, and that is why it is genocide.

Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie
- Hansard - -

I am obliged to the noble Baroness, but the reality is that under the refugee convention and the European convention we could not in legislation discriminate between particular communities, such as the Yazidis, the Christians or the Shia Muslims. It goes further than that because we know that at present there are something like 4.8 million Syrians displaced in the Middle East, in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. It goes even further than that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, observed much earlier in the debate on this Bill, according to the United Nations there are something like 19.5 million refugees in the world at present, whether they be in Darfur, Burma, the Middle East or elsewhere. The figure I had was 20 million, but in the context of such a catastrophe, perhaps 500,000 does not make an enormous difference. The reality is that this amendment would, on the face of it, open the United Kingdom to immigration by all 19.5 million people who could claim to be in that position. Noble Lords may scoff, but that is why it is so important that we examine the implications of the legislation proposed. Indeed, I have only to cite the example of Germany to point out the consequences of unintended action.