Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord has an amendment and he wishes to speak to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

Strictly speaking, the legal position is that there is no basis for individuals to enforce the convention, but it is enforceable by other member states, which can complain that this country is not complying with its obligations. I would expect that that may well happen. So far as coming here illegally is concerned, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown referred to the Adimi case, which was about whether there was an illegal entry. He held that there was not, because although these refugees passed through intermediate states, they did in fact come directly. So, the individual is placed in a not very satisfactory situation, but the state can certainly be held accountable in the International Court of Justice, and that may well happen.

If I may now descend from the wider view to the narrower, I want to deal with a point I have raised in relation to Clause 11(3) and other similar clauses which impose a requirement on a refugee. The requirement, as it were, or even a breach of it can be overcome if

“they can show good cause for their unlawful entry or presence”,

and there are other provisions saying that this can happen where there is a “reasonable” expectation of something happening or where something is “reasonably practicable”. In all those cases, I have sought to table an amendment which says that, in deciding what is good cause, practicable or reasonable, the immigration officer should take into account any protected characteristic of the refugee within the meaning of the Equality Act which is innate or immutable. I do not want to get too involved in the legality of those terms; basically, that is relevant under decisions in our law to people who claim to be a member of a particular social group. Being a member of particular social group that is being persecuted is one of the categories of refugee in Article 1 of the convention, so I do not want to spend too much time on that. There are nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act, but only some of those will be innate or immutable.

That expression, “innate”, is used in the Bill itself in describing the meaning of a particular social group. Your Lordships will find it in Clause 32, which also expressly states that a

“social group may include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation”.

I want to take up that point to explain why I suggest it is necessary that wherever there is a reference to reasonable cause, reasonable expectation or what is practicable—as I have said—there is an express statement in the Bill that the fact that the refugee has a protected characteristic which is innate or immutable should be taken into account.

I want to take the case of LGBTQI+ people to illustrate the reasons why. First, experience has shown that, all too often, difficulties arising from a characteristic such as that have not been taken sufficiently into account. The approach to LGBTQI+ refugees has often been woefully inadequate and misguided. It was not until the 2010 decision of the Appellate Committee of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) that it was established that the Home Office could not refuse an asylum claim from a gay man or lesbian simply on the basis that if they could reasonably be expected to act discreetly in their home country, rather than live openly with their sexuality, they would not suffer persecution. Therefore, it was only some 12 years ago that the Home Office, which fought HJ (Iran) right up to the highest court in the land, was obliged to accept that its approach to LGBTQI+ refugees, in the words of then Supreme Court Justice Sir John Dyson—later Lord Dyson and Master of the Rolls—frustrated

“the humanitarian objective of the Convention and”

denied LGBTQI+ people

“the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination.”

Secondly, it is well known that LGBTQI+ refugees face a large number of practical difficulties in claiming asylum. I will address these in due course, when we come to the relevant clauses in the Bill, to show why there has been a failure to satisfy a particular requirement. In the case of Clause 11(2)(b), the issue is whether they presented themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their unlawful entry. This is the question of clandestine exit. As I have said, it applies also to abused women in abusive relationships coming from a conservative religious community. They cannot go and buy a plane ticket. They cannot indicate in any way in these countries what the reason for their seeking asylum is. The result could be honour killings, stoning or being thrown off a wall, so they keep their characteristics as far as possible to themselves. It is not surprising that they are slow to report themselves or that their routes here are clandestine.

Finally, on this point, the Home Office’s own statistics show the extent to which claims by LGBTQ+ asylum seekers have been wrongly rejected by immigration officers. Experimental statistics published by the Government in August 2019 on lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum claims show there was an initial decision grant rate of 29% in 2018. However, 38% of appeals relating to LGBT asylum applications were allowed in respect of applications made in 2015-18. These published statistics are qualified in some respects but, in broad terms, they reflect the reality of a substantial proportion of successful appeals. That is why, in my suggestion, wherever we see in this Bill as currently framed any reference to good cause, those with protected characteristics that are innate or immutable must be protected by an express reference on the face of the Bill.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the House would be grateful if somebody, in one sentence, expressed appreciation for the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. No one doubts that, over the past 50 years or so, he has been a beacon of liberalism within his party. The point he made in this connection is that there is a great dilemma facing us all. Apart from climate change, the dilemma is that, for governance systems in parts of the world—Africa is the continent that springs to mind—we will have to have a new arrangement for crossing the Mediterranean whereby we do not get into all these problems, which are getting worse. That speech is not easy to make, but I just want to say that the honesty and the examination of the dilemmas we all face has been a credit to this House.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I remind everyone that Clause 11 is not only not about immigration, let alone illegal immigration; it is not even about asylum seekers. It is titled “Differential treatment of refugees”—people who have been recognised and accepted as entitled to asylum in this country. What Clause 11 means is that the Government want to penalise a certain category of people who have been accepted as refugees. On the one hand, we accept them as refugees, but then we are going to turn round and penalise them in various ways for how they arrived. I have agreed with all the critics of Clause 11, and I agree that Clause 11 as a whole needs to get the chop.

Clause 11 wants to penalise people with a much-reduced permission to stay; by requiring several frequent applications for further permission to stay; by keeping them in uncertainty for many years; by excluding them from public funds; and by delaying or denying altogether a visa for family reunion. I suggest that this is not only pernicious, as everyone has said, but costly. It is costly to that individual and it is costly to society, because it is not good for society when you have people who are unable to integrate and living with instability, isolation, possible destitution, homelessness and separation from family. They have been recognised as refugees, which means that we expect these people to be part of our society. I cannot see that it is good for society.

I had the opportunity, when the Minister was kind enough to meet me, to receive the great news on CSI. I come at this with an approach of both principle and practicality. As I say, I cannot see that it is in the interests of either society or the Home Office to have people living in this constant fear of what their futures are going to hold. We are told that the asylum system is broken. We know about the 125,000 unresolved applications. We know about the time and delays; on average, it now takes a year to decide a case. When I was an MEP, I had people who had been waiting three and a half years for an initial application, with the harm it did to them physically and mentally and to their status within their family as well. How is it going to help the Home Office to have more administration in constantly having to review these applications to decide whether it is going to deny public funds or renew the permission to stay?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

A three-pronged approach to the problem of assault in retail is needed. The first prong is investment by retailers in safety and prevention. This has already happened—£1.2 billion according to the BRC—and will continue. The second is stronger legislative backing, which both amendments would provide. The third is close working with the police. If we can create a more serious offence that is appropriate to the harm done, more detail specific to retail would be collected and the police would do more: respond more often and collaborate better with this vital, if unfashionable, sector. We would be levelling up.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the general thrust of what has been said. We have heard from a remarkable coalition that includes trade unionists and a former chief executive—I think that is the correct appellation—of Tesco. In one sense, it does not matter exactly how the amendment is worded; the important thing at the moment, speaking as a former trade union official, as noble Lords may know, is that something should be committed in principle by the Government. It should be left to Ministers, ultimately, to choose the exact wording, but we should make sure that this hugely important principle, backed up by a lot of day-to-day evidence—most notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—is brought forward in some way. It should be acknowledged by the Minister, who has a good idea of the mood of the House on this.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 263, to which I was pleased to attach my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling it and providing a very clear introduction. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the amendment as well. I should declare, since we are doing lots of declarations, that I am a supporter of the Institute of Customer Service “Service with Respect” campaign, to add to our collection of organisations involved in this process.

We have already covered this in some detail, so I want to add just a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the fact that legislation is being introduced in Scotland already, and it is important to stress that part of that is an aggravating offence—if people have been trying to enforce the law, for example on the purchase of alcohol, et cetera. That makes the very important point that we are asking retail workers, who are often very low-paid and may not have much in the way of protection, to enforce the law for us, and that needs to be acknowledged in the law.

A lot of this discussion has focused on how difficult things have been during the Covid pandemic, and that is obviously true, but there is a really important figure from the British Retail Consortium in 2019, so it is pre-pandemic. There were 455 incidents a day, up 7% on the previous year, so this is not just some Covid situation that might disappear should the pandemic disappear; this is a long-term trend. A recent survey, also by the British Retail Consortium, of 2,000 workers over 12 months showed that 92% had experienced verbal abuse, 70% had been threatened and 14% had been assaulted. This really has to be described as an epidemic—it is a word we hear a lot, but this is definitely very much the case.

I also stress—here I may depart from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—that changing the law, which has been called for on all sides of the Committee, does not excuse employers from doing more, particularly large employers who have the resources to provide security. By the nature of my job, I very often travel late at night, having been speaking at a public meeting and catching the train home. I go into chain stores on those occasions and I often see very young workers, sometimes on their own, looking and clearly feeling very exposed and very much in danger. I think that often they do not have adequate security.

There is also a question to be asked, particularly of employers, about ensuring that these workers are paid properly, treated with respect and have decent conditions. That will affect the way the whole of society look at these workers, and, I hope, the way they get treated.

Amendment 263 is important. As has been widely said, there is a huge amount of support for it, but it does not excuse employers from doing much more. I also say that while I understand the impulse behind Amendment 264, I do not think that is the way forward. We know that we have a record prison population—it is something we have debated in other parts of the Bill—and that prison is not working, so just to have the knee-jerk reaction of, “Let’s make the sentences longer”, is not the answer. There has to be a recognition of the fact that these crucial workers need protection through some form of Amendment 263.

Operation Midland

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is generally a presumption of anonymity but there may be policing reasons why, in the course of an investigation, police may release names. Quite often, it is the media that releases those names. There has been updated guidance for the media and the police on this.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is enough information in the public sphere about how such inquiries are supposed to be carried out? I took a particular interest in the Edward Heath case when I got a note through my letterbox in Crondall asking me to ring a Wiltshire police station. I did and was asked whether I had known Sir Edward Heath through the TUC and whether I had stayed at Chequers and so on. I was struck by how amateurish it all was. It is all very well our thinking about transparency in retrospect, but is enough known in the public arena about how such inquiries are supposed to be carried out?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that that is what IICSA has spent the last four years trying to establish.

Child Sexual Abuse

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could not agree more with my noble friend.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness take on board the fact that on a recent case to which reference has been made, a Wiltshire village police station seemed to approach it in a most amateurish way? The standards of intelligence and training required for a major question such as this need to be considered.

Criminal Finances Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful for their contributions. As we have already covered, the court may issue a UWO in cases where either there is a link to serious criminality or the respondent is a politically exposed person from outside the European Economic Area. Amendment 11 seeks to add a third limb to those covered by UWOs. This amendment would mean that a UWO could also be served on a person who has a financial interest in land or property which is registered in the name of an overseas company. This would be quite a significant step, and I encourage noble Lords to consider it carefully. The UWO has been specifically designed as a reaction to the real operational difficulties that law enforcement agencies have had in individual cases.

First, there are those who are known to have a link to serious criminality, such as there being known links to organised criminal groups. The senior criminal, if I can call them that, is often able to keep themselves distant from any actual individual instance of criminality. The UWO will force them to explain their wealth. Secondly, there are non-EEA PEPs. PEPs are targeted in this way because they are widely acknowledged to be a high corruption risk. The ability to get evidence from certain countries—

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

I hesitate to intervene, but this is a point of general relevance to the Bill. The Minister referred to us being a member of the European Economic Area. I take it that nothing will happen to this Bill when it goes on to the statute book, but this question is germane and substantive. The Bill refers to the European Economic Area, of which we are a member. Would we require legislation to stop being a member? Does that bear on the substantive issues in the Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not entirely understand what the noble Lord said.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Will the Minister make sure that this question is looked at? Otherwise, we will have on the statute book something that depends upon us being a member of the European Economic Area.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am much clearer about this. Obviously negotiations will be conducted as the Brexit negotiations go on. I did a debate the other week about the co-operation around law enforcement; we are absolutely committed to continue that co-operation—if that gives comfort to the noble Lord—in fighting crime, corruption, fraud, slavery, people trafficking and all that sort of thing. We are a world leader at this point in time.

I did not initially get where the noble Lord was coming from, so I apologise. I was talking about the non-EEA PEPs—those outside the European Economic Area at the moment—who are targeted in this way because they are widely acknowledged to be a high corruption risk. The inability to get evidence from certain countries has rendered action against those persons almost impossible in some cases, even though they have obvious unexplained wealth and there are other suspicions relating to them. In both cases, there are clear reasons to justify the use of this novel investigative power. Based on clear evidence, we judge it to be proportionate in these cases to reverse the burden of proof, which is a major departure from the normal operation of our law, and to put their property at risk of recovery purely on the basis that they do not respond to a UWO.

I fully recognise that those in the third grouping proposed by noble Lords—those with a financial interest in property owned by an overseas company—have given rise to concerns relating to corruption. However, very importantly, it must be remembered that the vast majority of people with a financial interest in an overseas company are law-abiding. Many of them are British citizens, for whom there will, if relevant, be other avenues to progress an investigation. I am not satisfied that the situation relating to this third suggested group of persons is so stark, or that a real operational need has been identified. As I said earlier, there is nothing inherently suspicious about having a financial interest in an overseas company.

Despite that, I take on board the points that noble Lords have made and am very grateful for the amendment, which highlights a very important area. My officials will, of course, liaise with law enforcement colleagues to ensure that they have the tools that they need to investigate cases of this type, but I assure noble Lords that they have not indicated a gap in their existing powers that would justify extending UWOs in the way that is proposed.

I will go through some other points that noble Lords have made. My noble friend Lord Faulks—I thought he was noble and learned, and it has quite shattered my illusions to learn that he is not—talked about the “envelope tax”, which he also brought up at Second Reading. I undertake to discuss it with colleagues at the Treasury and come back with a response, either on Report or by letter to him. He also talked about UWOs and the London property market, and what they will do to help with empty properties—which I see every night on my way back to my small flat in north London. In terms of how a UWO will be used against property held by foreign companies, it must be noted that the UWO provisions can be used against legal persons—companies—wherever they are located, subject to international law on service. In addition, it will be possible to focus on the individual if he holds an interest. Our new amendments will mean that foreign-owned property is not excluded from the UWO provisions.

My noble friend also talked about the supervisory regime and the obligations of regulated bodies with respect to the London property market. The Government consulted on reforms to the anti-money laundering supervisory regime in the autumn and have considered the responses. The Treasury published the outcome of that review on 22 March and is currently conducting further consultation on the creation of a new office for professional body anti-money laundering supervision, which will be overseen by the FCA and is expected to be fully operational by the start of 2018.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, asked about the latest available data on prosecutions, convictions and sentencing, broken down by offence from 2015. In 2015, 2,307 defendants were proceeded against for money laundering offences in the magistrates’ court; 1,336 defendants were found guilty at all courts for money laundering offences; and 1,300 were sentenced. Where a bank’s anti-money laundering regime is found to have failed, significant fines can be, and have been, applied. I think that is the chart that he was referring to. Banks are also required to fix their regimes, and banks operating in the UK have been fined for failures in their anti-money laundering regimes.

Airports: Heathrow Third Runway

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

What is important when it comes to the EU referendum is that we deal with the facts, which should be presented by those on both sides of the argument to allow the good people of our country to make that decision. It is not just an important decision for this generation but perhaps one of the most important lifetime decisions that people will make. On the issue of EU skies, and indeed referring back to the initial point made by my noble friend, the UK is an important hub in the international aviation sector and will remain so as we move forward.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister surmise that in the scenario put forward by the noble Lord who asked the Question, all those people flying out of Heathrow would be on a one-way ticket?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I speak as a Minister for Her Majesty’s Government, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Spicer can speak for himself. With regard to the importance of the decision on south-east expansion, I think we all agree that it is important that we move forward on this decision. As I have said before, the Davies commission has made a number of recommendations and the Government are considering the important environmental issues, which I believe are considerations to be taken into account before a final decision is made.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, one has to be selective at this stage in the debate, and I begin with the theme picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. There are two aspects of the north-south question. The first has not been made much of today, but I shall say one word about it—the idea that the Great Wen will draw everything to London and that this scheme will even make it worse. I do not accept that, and it would be useful if the Minister could say a little more than he did in his opening about why it is a fallacy. I would say this, possibly, as a Lancastrian by birth, but I do not think that the civic officials in Lancashire are all mad as a hatter in saying that this proposal will be good for the north, because there will be much more integration of a great regional area, call it what you like—not only in the northern powerhouse or estuary to estuary, Mersey to Humber, but also for Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Birmingham and so on. That idea should really be knocked on the head.

One way in which to help to knock it on the head would be if we gave a bit more priority to getting HS3—an informal term at the moment, I think—into focus and into a timescale as a matter of some urgency. We cannot just do it at the drop of a hat, but it would be essential for the credibility of the northern powerhouse infrastructure body if as much as possible of east-west—HS3—could be integrated into all public policy and speeches about the northern powerhouse and HS2. That would underpin the credibility of the northern powerhouse idea.

Secondly, I would like to say an additional word, if I may put it that way, about capacity. We have 20 extra paths for freight trains that are able to go up the west coast main line, with significant environmental benefits. I must say that I am rather sad that some single-issue environmental pressure groups seem to have very little to say about some of the environmental benefits of HS2. We have heard speeches about forests, tunnels, the Euston area and so on. I suppose there is no perfect answer to building anything. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, apropos his excellent maiden speech, that civil engineers have to be lauded for the contribution that they make. Let us look at the last 200 years. What about the Ribblehead viaduct? Everyone admires it and goes sightseeing to look at it, but would it have been built today? I think not. It would have been thought to have been absurd by all environmentalists. What about Brunel’s bridges? Most of them would not have been built. What about many viaducts, lines skirting beauty spots and so on? They would not have been built. Also, the intermodal benefit of rail as opposed to motorways is hugely positive in terms of noise and air quality, so let us hear that from some of the environmentalists. I do not think they are very courageous in what they say to their own pressure groups. I am not saying they do not have a case; I am saying that they look as if they just want to address their own single-issue pressure groups, not to help to fit into the wider picture.

With regard to the towns and villages going up towards Stratford and Birmingham through the Chilterns and so on, I convened a meeting with the National Association of Local Councils a couple of years ago to introduce it to the villagers of the north Kent HS1 line. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley will agree, they had a very highly successful and productive set of discussions, 15 or 20 years ago now, with the people who were then planning to build HS1. I am sorry to hear that the people in the area do not feel as if they have had a good relationship with HS2. In some respects, HS2 has surely leant over backwards. As I understand it, it has been announced that the amount of tunnelling will double from 10% of the whole line to 20%—20% of the whole line to Birmingham will be in a tunnel.

Everyone in this House and indeed in the country wears different hats; they have different roles on different days of the week. Sometimes we are listening to a train going by the back of our garden—I must say I think trains are easy to get used to, relative to motorways—but the next day we are on a train, and we like to look out of the window at the countryside. I had a day not so long ago on a train in the Upper Rhine Valley, or at least one of the Rhine valleys, going up to Andermatt in Graubünden. It was a joy to look at the views from the train. We cannot have trains in tunnels the whole way—I am making this point semi-seriously—but it is necessary to balance a number of factors when it comes to tunnelling. If I have my arithmetic right, 20% of the distance of HS2 is the best part of 20 miles of tunnel. Is that roughly right? That is a lot of tunnel. It is a distortion for some noble Lords to say that somehow this has all been badly handled.

I turn to the problem of capacity. It has been announced only recently that we cannot have direct train services using the west coast main line from Shrewsbury to London or from Blackpool to London, because of capacity. There is an idea that these problems will be solved in 10 to 20 years’ time and it is all nonsense to talk about capacity, but it is here and now that people are not able to use trains, which are environmentally friendly compared with motor cars. In terms of balance, again, we need to recognise that people use motor cars.

I come to the question of parkway stations versus in-city stations. To slightly pick up a point from my noble friend Lord Berkeley, it all depends on the geography. In the case of Nottingham and Derby, not only is it pretty obvious that you need a parkway station half way between the two but there are some advantages to parkway stations. When you go towards south Wales, there is Bristol Parkway station, where there is very good parking—there is no problem about parking a car—and it has a jolly good service from Paddington. We have got used to what we now call parkway stations. I am not so sure that everyone wants to get to the part of London, Birmingham or Sheffield where the railway station is. They still have to go somewhere when they get to the railway station. That is to do with urban planning, trams and all the rest of it.

Lastly, I want to make a point that has not been made. I am echoing what has been said about one aspect of Euston: as I understand it, the distance between Euston and St Pancras/King’s Cross is the same sort of distance as between terminals 1, 2 and 3 at Heathrow—it is not a lot different. It requires modern travelator arrangements. That is the answer to those people who, rather sadly, have said that they wanted HS1 to be part of the connection with HS2.

I used to work at the TUC, and I am very glad to note—this should be put on the record, and I think the Minister will confirm it—that recently there was an announcement about a framework agreement between the TUC and HS2 on the construction period. I pick up a point from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis: this all has to happen in 16 years, which is pretty challenging. However, the framework agreement is very similar to the one for the construction of the Olympics. It requires a lot of principles of employment, health and safety and so on, but it augurs very well for the progress of the scheme that people are aware of this. I hope that the Minister might say something about the TUC agreement with HS2 covering construction, engineering, transport and so on in the 10 years ahead.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to express my concern and great disappointment that the unanimous conclusions of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House, published just over a year ago, largely remain ignored by this Bill. Some of your Lordships may recall that we entitled the media release:

“The Government has yet to make a convincing case for a £50 billion investment”.

We were not satisfied, as the detail of our report illustrates. I regret that I am the only member of that committee here today, but I remain dissatisfied, not with the objectives of the Bill, which I strongly support, but with the amount of money being spent. It has not been proven to my satisfaction that a case has been made.

I endorse some of what the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said about the planned sequence, for example, of the construction of HS2 and HS3, which the committee also made reference to. Further, I agree with my noble friend Lord Birt that Liverpool must be included, and a very strong representation was made by the elected mayor of that city to such effect to the committee.

We really must be satisfied that such a capital sum of proposed investment is appropriate and is better value than any modification or alternatives to the route proposed. Your Lordships’ committee commenced deliberations in October 2015—I point this out just so the House knows that time has been spent on this; I know the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had great experience of this with committees in the other place—and spent some six months in the close examination and questioning of both written and oral evidence. We received the Government’s response in July—I assume that the general election intervened—and the report itself was not debated until September, some nine months after we started to take evidence.

In my opinion, nothing in this Bill takes on board or responds to the concerns we raised at that time—or indeed in the subsequent letter from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hollick—with the Government following their response. The noble Lord raised 10 issues, which received no response at all. This suggests to me that, on HS2, the minds of officials and government Ministers have been firmly made up for some time and that they are determined to proceed with this enormous investment in the form this Bill proposes. Sadly, I must repeat what I said in last September’s debate. The attitude is:

“Here is your answer; what is your question?”.—[Official Report, 16/9/15; col. 1876.]

I know from some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that he has experience of such obfuscation.

Let me be clear: I am greatly in favour and supportive of much-needed infrastructure projects and, indeed, the objectives behind this specific project. However, I am not satisfied that a less expensive alternative has been fully examined and quantified.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have in my hand a copy of the Government’s response to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee on the economics of HS2, which I thought was very well analysed indeed. Has the noble Lord in turn studied that response? Can he give chapter and verse as to where he disagrees with or faults the analysis? I have no axe to grind with the Economic Affairs Committee, but it seems to me that the noble Lord ought to acknowledge that it received a very full reply.

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe]

I have the report in my hand and, obviously, I have studied it. I repeat my words: it did not address the recommendations that our committee made.

I was asking whether the alternatives had been fully examined and quantified. I refer to the work, for example, of the organisation High Speed UK. This company believes that it has a credible proposal to achieve connectivity and provide the higher capacity, on a like-for-like basis, at a lower cost of some £20 billion. If that is make-believe, somebody say so; if it is not, should it be looked at? Environmentally, this proposed route entirely avoids the Chilterns—that is quite interesting, and certain Members of your Lordships’ House have talked about that today—and would reach Birmingham by building a 12-kilometre tunnel. Further, it is believed that through comprehensive intercity connectivity and increased capacity, there would be a major change in the road-rail relationship, which could significantly reduce transport CO₂ emissions.

Finally, let me turn to the Euston station rebuild. I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and his expertise in this area. There appears to be no strategy to divert commuter flows away from Euston. This central part of London will be greatly affected by the current plans, which will have an enormously adverse impact on the travelling public and the community during a lengthy period of construction—the demolition of some hundreds of homes; the relocation of thousands of graves, as alluded to by the right reverend Prelate; and the closure and complete disappearance of a street. However, there is no apparent plan to divert commuter flows. Your Lordships’ committee was interested in the Old Oak Common solution, which was referred to again by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. It would connect Crossrail to the west coast main line, thus enabling more commuter services to be moved from Euston, which could enable the current footprint of the station to be maintained while all the work is going on, without the necessity to expand into Camden.

I realise that this Bill was passed without amendment last month in the Public Bill Committee of the other place, and subsequently on the Floor of the House without Division. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that if a cost differential of some £20 billion—remember, these are 2011 prices—can be tested rigorously and verified independently, we should pause for a moment and request the Treasury to so do.

Immigration Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord. Respectfully, it appears to me that the proper course of action in those circumstances, where we are putting to one side an amendment that even my noble friend Lord Forsyth would appear impliedly to accept is not workable, the appropriate way forward would be to consider a Motion of this House, directed to Her Majesty’s Government as to how they should address or not address the issues that pertain here with regard to whether there has been genocide. Noble Lords have heard already what the present government policy is. The Government believe that recognition of genocide should be a matter for international courts and that it should be a legal rather than a political determination. That remains the position.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

Is the Minister saying that such a—

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I have not given way.

In conclusion, this amendment does not even address the objective set out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Although I fully understand his concerns about what is going on, the amendment creates a mirage of false hope. It might salve our conscience, but it will not solve the problem. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

Before the Minister sits down, if such a Motion was put forward, would it have the Government’s support?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, ended on an interesting note, which the noble Lord just questioned him about: if a Motion were placed before your Lordships’ House, which presumably would have to be done by the Government, because such procedures are not open to—

Immigration: Harmondsworth

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

That is something that is under active review at this point in the light of Stephen Shaw’s report. He identified that there had been some improvement in a number of areas since 2013, particularly in the physical infrastructure of the site, but nowhere near enough. There are very strict criteria set out for performance in the contract, and they are being reviewed by the Home Office. We will of course make public what actions will be taken when a decision has been reached.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

No, we have just had a Labour question.

Yesterday I visited some houses in a Home Office scheme in a street in West Drayton, run by an adjoining hotel, Heathrow Lodge, which provides a few days’ initial short-term accommodation for asylum-seeker arrivals before they are dispersed. There are very basic bedrooms, with communal bathrooms and no kitchens. Will the Minister look personally into the numerous problems that I found there? I will send him a briefing, but they included people who seemed to have been effectively abandoned there for up to three months instead of three days; the quality of food provided; a lack of necessary Home Office communication and documents; ridiculous rules; a lack of facilities for a one year-old child who had been there for some time, and much more.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to look at those issues, just as we looked at the issues raised by cases in Cardiff and Middlesbrough recently. If the noble Lord supplies me with information, I am very happy to look at it more closely.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, can the Minister throw a little more light on the remarkable statistic referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that someone has been in there for five years? How can that be?

[Lord Bates]

It is certainly the case that 92% have been there for less than four months, and the time is reducing. Of course, those who have been there for longer than four months—in fact, for longer than 28 days—are often people who are working very hard to avoid their removal. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but they are trying to frustrate the system. We have concerns about public safety. That is the reason why they are there and have not been granted bail.

Immigration Bill

Lord Lea of Crondall Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, earlier today a number of noble Lords referred to their misgivings about the changes being made to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. During the passage of the modern-day slavery and human trafficking legislation, I moved amendments on the GLA and queried its ability to meet its obligations because of the resources made available to it—a point referred to earlier by my noble and learned friend and by other Members of your Lordships’ House during our earlier debates. During the passage of that legislation, I moved amendments to enable the GLA to utilise assets from the proceeds of the crimes that it had investigated. In doing so, I reminded the House of the events which led to the genesis of the GLA, notably the 23 Chinese men and women who drowned in Morecambe bay after their Liverpool gangmasters took them to undertake cockle picking. At the time, a local fisherman, Harold Benson, described the tragedy as not only awful beyond words but absolutely avoidable.

In December 2014, during the passage of the legislation on modern-day slavery, I told the House that the lessons of Morecambe bay had not been fully learned. I described a similar incident in the Ribble estuary in which 17 cockle pickers of eastern European origin had been snatched to safety. In those debates, I cited the small number of personnel employed by the GLA, the cut, which I referred to earlier, of around 17% in the GLA’s budget between 2011 and 2014, the small number of convictions—just seven—and the research by the University of Durham calling for the mandate of the GLA to be extended. Instead of seeing an expansion of the GLA’s remit in order to prevent labour exploitation, there are genuine fears that the Government’s amendments that we are considering represent a severe threat to the GLA, with changes to its role, remit and name resulting in a greatly weakened licensing labour inspection regime. If this comes to pass, it would inevitably allow new labour abuses, such as those I have just described, to abound.

The main issue revolves around the creation of what has been described as flexible licensing standards without a requirement for affirmative procedures. Government Amendment 77 to omit the requirement for the GLA to make rules by statutory instrument in effect means that the GLA has power to amend licensing standards and must—this is changed from “may” in the original GLA Act—seek approval of the Secretary of State, but not Parliament. The Secretary of State still retains the power she always has had under Section 6(2) of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act to remove by negative procedure certain circumstances in which labour providers do not require a licence.

In summary, these amendments, taken with existing powers, mean that the Secretary of State could greatly reduce by negative procedure the number of labour providers licensed in a GLA sector, as suggested by the recent consultation response, and could greatly reduce the licence standards to be applied to those who are licensed with no requirement for any statutory instrument. This appears to be what the Government mean when they talk about flexible licensing, which was put forward in the consultation and supported by just 19%—less than one in five—of the respondents.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published a report on the new government amendments only last Friday and found that these new powers to change rules without parliamentary approval are inappropriate and therefore should be removed from the Bill. Focus on Labour Exploitation states that,

“the GLA is a first line of defence against the labour abuses that develop into severe exploitation and modern slavery. We are extremely concerned that a new ‘flexible’ licensing regime as proposed in these amendments will leave the GLA powerless to prevent widespread abuses and therefore exploitation and instead caught up in police style investigations that absorb a huge amount of time and resources”.

In our debate on the Modern Slavery Act, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, answering for the Government said:

“We need to consider this carefully and ensure that in seeking to broaden the GLA’s remit, we do not undermine the good work that is being done already”.—[Official Report, 10/12/14; col. 1879.]

I entirely concur with that sentiment. We must be very careful indeed not to do precisely that.

The noble Baroness also said:

“The GLA is working with the University of Derby to devise training and to develop an anti-slavery training academy for use by supply chain businesses. This will build on the GLA’s excellent existing collaboration with business in its regulated sectors. The GLA is well placed to tackle the serious worker exploitation that lies between the more technical compliance offences that fall to be investigated by HMRC and the serious and organised crimes that are addressed by the National Crime Agency”.—[Official Report, 10/12/14; cols. 1880-81.]

Presuming that this is the aim of today’s amendments, what are the resource implications? This point was made earlier by my noble and learned friend and other Members of your Lordships’ House. Without the necessary resources, how on earth will this agency be able to do these things? Clearly the Government envisage an expanded role. This will include police-style investigations and powers for offences across the labour market. Alongside this is the proposal to have a more flexible approach to licensing.

The Minister needs to be clear about whether the aim of the amendments published on the very day that the consultation concluded—which hardly demonstrates that there was a long period of reflection—is to remove strict compliance obligations from those businesses which have been compliant hitherto or whether it is to give the GLA more teeth. I wonder what the Minister makes of the minimal support which the flexibility proposal received from the respondents—just 19% out of a total of, I think, 93 respondents to the consultation, who came from academia, charities, trades unions and industry.

Existing GLA licence standards are crafted to give strong protection against exploitation. That includes issues such as working hours, pay, accommodation and safe transport. Clearly, flexible licensing should not mean a reduction in licensing. This must not become a sort of trade-off between licensing as a means of raising labour standards and preventing exploitation and a more flexible approach that could divert time and resources to tackling extreme cases instead. That in turn would create a climate in which rogue gangmasters could flourish and undermine the excellent intentions of the legislation we passed on human trafficking and exploitation of people as modern-day slaves.

Furthermore, the amendment removes a requirement for the GLA to make rules by negative procedure—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, when we were dealing with the earlier amendments. In effect this will mean that the GLA would have the power to amend licensing standards and must seek the approval only of the Secretary of State and not of this House or the other place. The Secretary of State still retains, and always has had, the power to remove certain categories of labour providers requiring a licence by negative procedure. These amendments mean that the licence standards to be applied to labour providers in a given sector could be significantly reduced or expanded without parliamentary scrutiny. Unless Parliament is engaged in the shaping of licence standards, changes could be made without a clear evidential basis and without proper and full consultation with all stakeholders with expertise in labour sector licensing requirements. GLA licensing rules should not be changed without detailed impact assessments, including worker consultation, which might assure Parliament that any changes would not negatively impact upon the vulnerable workers whom they are designed to protect.

In conclusion, when the modern-day anti-slavery legislation was enacted, it had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny and of the forensic examination by both Houses. That is not the case with what is before us today. We would be wrong to treat this avalanche of amendments lightly or to be pushed pell-mell into approving them in haste.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

I, too, want more clarity on the same issue that we have been discussing for the past half hour or so. I refer to the new Schedule, on page 32 of the Marshalled List. Why is some of this necessary? At the bottom of that page, the proposed new subsection states:

“The body known as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is to continue to exist”—

that is very nice—

“and is to be known as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.

Given that the word “Licensing” is disappearing, does that arise in respect of the present functions of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority simply because those are being subsumed in the wider exercise that is mentioned at the bottom of the page, where it says,

“the Authority and its officers must carry out those functions in accordance with the strategy”,

which is the wider strategy? The more I think about it, the more I cannot quite believe that this will do anything other than restrict some of the present functions of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Therefore, at the foot of page 32 instead of just saying “continue to exist”, which, as I say, is very nice—a pat on the head, so jolly good—why could we not say “and its functions continue to exist”? Could the Minister clarify why that is not the case?