Home Office Removal Targets

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is concerning that the Home Secretary had no idea that immigration targets were being used in the Home Office’s “hostile environment” and then discovered that they were being used after all. It is not acceptable to suggest that this was just done locally. Who is setting the targets and how have they been set? Who is collating the information and where has it been reported to? How has it been used to direct policy, and why did the Home Secretary and other Ministers not know about this policy? This is another shocking example of the Home Secretary and her Ministers having created a culture and then lost control. The consequences are serious for innocent people who are lawfully here and who have been caught up in this scandal. For that reason, the Home Secretary should accept responsibility and resign.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Ministers have set out their ambition for increasing returns, but have not set the Home Office specific numerical targets. The idea of government setting removal targets goes back a number of decades. For example, in 2003 Tony Blair set a target of halving the number of asylum seekers within a year, while in 2007 Jacqui Smith made a commitment to remove 4,000 FNOs within a year. Senior managers in the Home Office have set targets in the past to drive performance locally, including last year, but have now moved away from doing so for this reporting year.

Windrush Generation

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the other place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As the noble Baroness said, from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, many people came to this country from around the Commonwealth to make lives here and help rebuild Britain after the war. Before that, many of them fought in the British Armed Forces to defeat both Nazi Germany and Japan—people such as my friend Sam King, who served in the RAF during the Second World War. Sam came back to Britain in 1948 on the “Empire Windrush”, served his local community as a postman, was the first black mayor of the London Borough of Southwark and was awarded the MBE for his services to the community. Sam loved this country very much. He sadly passed away at the age of 90 in 2016. It is people such as Sam King who have been treated in such a shameful way.

Despite the apology from the Government and their admission that a terrible wrong has been done to the Windrush generation, no Minister is taking any responsibility whatever for these gross abuses of the Windrush generation’s rights—their rights denied, their rights taken away and people who are in the UK legally being treated appallingly by the country they call home. So my first question to the Minister is: when is a Minister of the Crown going to accept responsibility for this scandal and resign? The noble Lord, Lord Bates, offered his resignation because he turned up late for Questions earlier this year—quite rightly, it was not accepted by the Prime Minister. This is a monumental scandal and what is offered here does not go far enough. A Minister or Ministers have to accept responsibility.

The Government’s hostile environment for illegal immigrants was badly designed and put together, with no thought given to how to ensure that people who are here legally would be protected and not caught up in that environment. People here legally should not be at risk of losing their jobs, driving licences or homes or be threatened with deportation. Does the Minister accept that some of the people who are here legally will actually be scared to come forward to the Home Office, having heard the terrible reports of abuses and denial of rights? What is she going to do to gain the confidence of these individuals, who need help and support but will be worried about coming forward?

At the bottom of my copy of page 2 of the Statement, the last sentence reads:

“Instead, the caseworker will make a judgment based on all the circumstances of the case and on the balance of probabilities”.


Can the Minister be crystal clear about exactly what she means here? That statement does not appear to be an unequivocal guarantee that people who came here as part of the Windrush generation will not have their rights taken away or be denied justice. They are still at risk of deportation from the country that has been their home for decades. Who is bearing the civil standard of proof? Is it the person or is it the Home Office? At the top of my copy of page 3 of the Statement, it says that, for some of the Windrush generation, the burden of proof,

“to evidence their legal rights was too much on the individual”.

Other than saying that,

“we are working with this group in a much more proactive and personal way”,—[Official Report, Commons, 23/4/18; col. 620.]

which I hope we would expect to be the norm, what has actually changed here? How are other people being treated when they enter the system? This is not shining a very good light on how Ministers run the Home Office.

In paragraph 6 on page 3, it says that a new customer contact centre will be “staffed by experienced caseworkers”. In paragraph 7 on the same page we are told that 50 senior caseworkers will be put in place to help junior members of staff who are unsure about a decision. Surely we should ensure that these matters are dealt with by experienced staff in the first place. Will the Minister comment on that and tell the House how the experienced staff at the contact centre relate to the junior members of staff mentioned in paragraph 7, who are making the decisions, and how the 50 senior caseworkers fit above that? That part of the Statement seems very confused.

I agree that it was never the intention that the Windrush generation should be disadvantaged by measures put in place to tackle illegal immigration; but they were, because of poor implementation and development of policy at the Home Office by Ministers. Because of that, people who deserved better have been treated badly by the state. They have been treated appallingly, and someone in the Government should take responsibility for that.

Compensation is referred to on the last page of the Statement. Other than saying that people will be compensated and a scheme will be set up, run by an independent person, there is absolutely nothing about compensation. Will the Minister give the House some more detail on what this will look like? We do not want to read in the media about people who, having been denied their rights, are being made to jump through hoops to get the compensation they deserve for the abuse they have suffered.

This is a shameful episode and it is about time someone in the Government took responsibility for it.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords—

Immigration: Asylum Claims

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the quality of the system was vastly improved after the 2014 report, which I talked about in my first Answer. In addition, the training of people dealing with LGBT asylum claims in detention or seeking their removal has been done in conjunction with both Stonewall and UKLGIG to absolutely ensure humane treatment of LGBT people in asylum.

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

Can I ask the noble Baroness about the Home Office guidance issued in 2017? I have seen reports suggesting that gay asylum seekers could be returned to Afghanistan if they pretended they were straight. Surely this cannot be the case. We must work to a much higher standard, and the question of personal safety should be paramount in decisions given by the authorities.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What the noble Lord says seems to be a contradiction in terms, because an LGBT person would presumably be seeking asylum because they feared persecution on return to a country that persecuted LGBT people. I would largely dispute the point, but I will double check because the noble Lord asked the question.

Manchester Arena Attack Review

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement that was made by my right honourable friend in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“The horrific events that took place at the Manchester Arena on 22 May last year were an attack on the people of Manchester. All terrorist attacks are cowardly but this was an appalling attack which deliberately targeted innocent people, many of them young. Twenty-two people were killed and many more injured. As a north-west MP, I feel the pain personally.

The Mayor of Greater Manchester commissioned this independent review following the attack, focusing on the response to the attack and the nine days that followed it. The report rightly highlights the acts of bravery and compassion on the night of 22 May and the following days. As Lord Kerslake noted yesterday, the response was overwhelmingly positive. He said the investments in planning and exercise were demonstrated to the full. We are indebted to the emergency services. He said we should reflect. We keep our preparedness for terrorist attacks under constant review to ensure that our plans reflect best practice and the current threat. Lessons learned from exercising and attacks are also crucial. It is right that all those involved acknowledge where the report has identified the need for improvement. The review is extensive and makes many recommendations. We, and all other agencies concerned, will consider them carefully.

At the centre of the review Lord Kerslake put the experiences of bereaved families, the injured and others directly affected, as indeed they should be. We will ensure that across government the recommendations concerning victims are fully considered. We continue to stand with the people of Manchester as they recover and rebuild following the horrendous attack last year, and our thoughts remain with those who were injured and with the families and friends of those who lost their lives”.

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

First, we remember all those people who lost their lives in the attack and also those who were injured. I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place earlier today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for his comprehensive report. I too pay tribute to the emergency service workers who acted with courage and skill on that terrible night.

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will be orchestrating a review into national counterterror protocols following the publication of this report? What are the Government going to do about the fact that the national aid mutual telephony system operated by Vodafone failed to cope with the high number of calls on the night in question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the national counterterrorist reaction and response, I think the noble Lord will agree that generally the overall response was excellent. There was an issue with the telephony system. Part of that issue was that there was no backup system. That has been thoroughly reviewed and a backup has been put in place. It was not something we would have wished to have happened on such a terrible night. I hope that that sort of issue will never arise again because of the measures we have put in place.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. I heard from what she said that this anomaly, whereby privately run prisons and custodial premises were not being inspected by national inspectors, was stumbled across when responsibility for Crown inspectors was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. Will she confirm that that is the case, and is it not a little worrying? How long might it have continued if that transfer had not taken place? Clearly, it is very important to have consistency across all privately run prisons and other places of detention, rather than to have the potential for different standards being applied by local fire and rescue services. On that basis, we support the order.

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee. It is certainly very sensible to have the experts in fire safety and security to be looking after the whole of the estate. I am very happy to support it.

I have one query; it is a little disappointing—I refer to page 5 of the impact assessment at paragraph 1.9. I am surprised that we still have this ridiculous “one in, three out” rule. It does not apply here because the Government have clearly tested it against that ridiculous rule. It is an example of the worst kind of ideological, political dogma. You would have thought, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Grenfell, we would not be using it, but clearly the Government still are. I hope that any regulation is in force at any time because it is necessary and proper. I cannot believe we still have this arbitrary rule. It is a matter of much regret, which I will probably take up elsewhere. Other than that, I am very happy to support the order, but I was surprised to see this when I read through the papers this morning.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I acknowledge the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but first the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that we “stumbled across” this issue. Fire and rescue services were inspecting private prisons during the said period. Responsibility for Crown inspectors transferred from MHCLG in January 2016, but, going back, when the regulatory reform order was implemented in October 2006 the then Government issued statutory guidance to all those bodies that had a duty to enforce its provisions in the range of premises to which it applies. The guidance, to which all enforcing authorities are required to have regard, specifically addressed the issue of enforcement in the custodial estate. As it made clear:

“For the avoidance of doubt all civilian prisons, young offender institutions, immigration detention, holding or removal centres, court custody suites, customs and excise detention areas are the responsibility of the Fire Inspectors of the Crown Premises Inspections Group regardless of whether they are operated by the relevant Government department or contracted out”.


But as we know, what the law actually says does not always align with the policy intent, no matter how sound the principles are on which it is based. The principles are sound, as they were in 2007 when the guidance was issued, and they remain so. I hope that the statutory instrument before the Committee clarifies the situation and I beg to move.

Police Powers of Designated Civilian Staff and Volunteers (Excluded Powers and Duties of Constables) Regulations 2018

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I recommend that it is used by Radio 4 as one of its puzzles of the day because the complexity of the legislation had me going for a little while.

As I understand it, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 allows chief constables to confer powers of a constable to community support officers and community support volunteers unless the power is specifically excluded by its inclusion in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002. I am getting reassuring nods from the Minister’s officials. The Government have woken up to the fact that this would include the power to conduct an intimate search if a police inspector or above—it used to be a superintendent but that was changed in other legislation—considers that an intimate search by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse is not practicable. This would be, presumably, where there was concern that something was concealed that might cause harm to the individual or to other people, or that important evidence might be concealed which could be lost if the search did not take place straightaway.

I was going to ask the Minister to explain how this power was highlighted as not being suitable for PCSOs or volunteers to undertake but she has already explained that it was the Police Federation which raised this as an issue. However, I wonder how many other powers should be included in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 that we are yet to discover. I was also going to ask how many times the power had been used by PCSOs or volunteers but the Minister said that it had been used three times in the past 15 years.

During the passage of the Bill we made quite clear our concerns about powers that should be reserved for police officers potentially being given to police community support officers and police community support volunteers. However this is an important and welcome addition to Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 and therefore we support it.

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am happy to support the regulations before the Grand Committee. It is obviously sensible that civilians are designated as having certain additional police powers as and when an appropriate police officer believes they are needed. Equally, of course, it is important that certain things are prohibited, and certainly an intimate search should not be in the hands of anyone but a warranted police officer. That is why I fully support this order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about how many other powers should be included, he is right that the Government should keep these excluded powers under review. They will give careful consideration to any request to add powers but it should be noted that the regulation-making power within Section 38(6)(c) of the 2002 Act can only be used to add powers to the list—that is, to remove further powers from designated staff and volunteers. The noble Lord probably knows that primary legislation would be required to remove any powers from the list and enable them to be designated to staff or volunteers.

Police: Emergency Calls

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I first join the noble Lord in remembering today the sacrifice that Keith Palmer made to protect people in the Palace of Westminster. There will be a memorial in, I think, about 20 minutes’ time in Westminster Hall to remember the attack a year ago. The MPCC and the APCC called for £440 million of extra funding in 2018-19, with additional counterterrorism funding and increases in council tax precepts on top. They wanted this funding for an extra 5,000 front-line officers for proactive policing by 2020. The funding increase for next year is made up of main government grant, protected at flat cash; up to £270 million from increase in council tax precept income; a £15 million increase in counterterrorism police funding; and a £130 million increase in national priorities, mostly special grant, for exceptional costs and technology. On the point about domestic violence, I totally agree with the noble Lord. We have provided £11 million through the police transformation fund to support new police interventions to tackle domestic abuse, with a focus on early intervention and prevention.

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

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer. The crisis in police response times has been made in Downing Street and the Home Office and is putting people’s safety at risk. Does the Minister accept that the Government have, in real terms, cut the funding to police? When she responds, I am sure that she will have in mind the comments of the UK Statistics Authority chair, Sir David Norgrove, who criticised the Government and the Home Office for incorrectly leading the public to assume that the Government were increasing police funding.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, every time I have stood at this Dispatch Box I have tried to explain what the increase will look like. I hope that I have made it quite clear. I have just explained to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the breakdown of the funding. Almost all PCCs in England intend to increase the precept by £12, or very close to that. We expect the funding increase for local force budgets to be very close to the £270 million figure that I have just outlined. Most PCCs have set out plans to use this additional funding to protect or improve front-line policing. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, if all forces delivered the level of productivity benefits of mobile working of the best forces, the average officer could spend an hour a day extra on the front line. This has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers across England and Wales.

Domestic Abuse

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I make my usual declarations as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As other noble Lords have done, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on securing this timely debate on what plans the Government have to support survivors of domestic abuse and to prevent further abuse.

Like my noble friend Lady Lister, I welcome the commitments and the consultation launched by the Government on domestic abuse. To make the domestic violence and abuse Bill a solid and landmark piece of legislation, it is important that, as the consultation exercise works through, we understand the issues in detail. I hope the Government take the same attitude to the Bill that they did to the Modern Slavery Act, which is a landmark piece of legislation, rather than the back-of-a-cigarette-packet approach that they took to the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016.

Domestic violence and domestic abuse are wicked and evil crimes which, as we have heard in this debate, result in two women being killed by their partner or ex-partner in England and Wales every week. As my noble friend Lady Gale said, there were over 93,000 prosecutions for domestic abuse in 2016-17. This is a crime that can mean repeated and prolonged violence and abuse for the victims over many years. The abuse can take many forms: emotional, psychological, sexual and economic. It can involve stalking, intimidation, harassment, degrading treatment, coercive control and threats to harm children.

As I told the House during the Second Reading of the secure tenancies Bill, as part of the police service parliamentary scheme I spent some time with the domestic violence unit at Greenwich police station. What I was told there was harrowing and shocking. However, the dedication of the police officers and the staff from the Royal Borough of Greenwich to tackle this issue was exemplary in bringing perpetrators to justice, saving victims from violence and abuse, protecting children, getting people to a place of safety and saving people’s lives. That deserves the highest commendation. Some of the programme in the Royal Borough of Greenwich is funded by the local authority. I would suggest that, as part of the preparation for the Bill and for the consultation, the Government take a close look at what is going on in Greenwich. It is making a real difference. Rolling this model out nationally could have a transformative effect in dealing with this crime.

One measure that I hope the Government will include in the domestic abuse Bill is to stop GPs being able to charge victims for writing the letters that they need to give to authorities in order to access services such as legal aid or to get housing. Victims are being charged up to £100 a letter. It is just wrong. Although it is a small minority of GPs who do this, we here in Parliament have to say that no GP can charge for such letters. If the matter is not resolved or the measure is not included in the Bill, I and other noble Lords from the Labour Benches—supported, I am sure, by every noble Lord in this House—will table amendments and vote on them to stop this unacceptable practice once and for all.

Work on prevention is also important and that is where we are going to get the change in behaviour that needs to come about. Tough laws to deal with perpetrators and protect victims, as well as work to ensure that people can live free from abuse, are important also. That, of course, should start at home as part of growing up, as your parents set out how you should behave and teach you right from wrong. However, as we have heard, not everyone lives in a loving home with a loving family where they are taught right from wrong and how to treat and respect people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, we need schools also to talk about relationships and how to treat people. They should teach that people deserve respect and that, if you love and care for someone, abusing them behind the closed front door is wrong, wicked and evil—you cannot do that: it is totally unacceptable. We need proper sex education, so that young men—these crimes are committed mostly by young men—understand how abhorrent it is to use sex as a means of abuse; it is totally unacceptable.

As my noble friend Lady Lister said, women’s refuges provide a vital service and serious concerns have been expressed about the security of funding for them. The proposed changes in funding risk the loss of hundreds of places in refuges, with some refuges closing completely. I have no doubt that the Government have no intention of closing refuges nor want to lose hundreds of places due to the changes in the funding arrangements. However, Women’s Aid and others working in the sector believe that that is what the proposals will do. Like my noble friend, I hope that the Government will announce at the earliest opportunity that this dangerous, ill thought out proposal will not go ahead and be withdrawn and that the Government will work directly with the sector to find a solution. If the Government announced that, it be warmly welcomed and a solution could be worked through that is acceptable to everyone and protects these vital places in refuges.

I thank my noble friend for securing this important debate and for allowing the House to discuss this matter again.

Police: Undercover Officers

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness says “state-sponsored”. I refer her to the terms of reference of the inquiry, which state that it will,

“ascertain the state of awareness of undercover police operations in Her Majesty’s Government”.

That is precisely what the inquiry was set up to do. As for the walkout today, I have been made aware of that and I am aware that the hearings are still ongoing. I encourage all core participants—indeed, anyone impacted by undercover policing—to participate fully in the inquiry so that we can learn the lessons and get to the truth.

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

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this is a very serious matter? Notwithstanding anything that comes out of the inquiry and the recommendations that follow, can she confirm that she is absolutely confident that robust procedures are now in place and that it can never happen again?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I would love to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that certain things could never happen again, but nobody can legislate for the odd rogue undertaking or the malicious intent of people. Therefore, one cannot be absolutely certain that it could never happen again. What one can do is put measures in place to ensure, as far as possible, that it never happens again.

Gender Equality: Pay

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think what my noble friend refers to with sick pay—I am going slightly beyond my brief here—is the practice whereby people are not employees but freelance, more often than not, for companies. Given the press reporting that there has been on this, I am sure that this issue will be drawn into sharp focus.

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

My Lords, what does the noble Baroness think needs to be done on legislation on other matters to deal with this issue? The Equal Pay Act came on to the statute book 47 years ago. The gender pay gap is 14.1% and there is little evidence to suggest that it will close. I note what she said about shining some light on these issues, but I am conscious that with the statements under the Modern Slavery Act, many companies had a light shone on their activities but have done very little about the issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the full-time gender pay gap is 9.1%; I would like it to be nought. The noble Lord talks about the Equal Pay Act. Yes, it has been on the statute book for decades now— 47 years. I recall as leader of a council that many councils at the time had to sort out the issue of women doing the same jobs for less money than men. I think most local authorities have got to grips with that and, as I say, I look forward to the day when the gender pay gap is nought.