Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Hylton

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I notice that my noble friend Lady Hollins cannot be in her place today, but I urge the Minister to consider her wealth of medical, psychological and therapeutic experience, as she has her name to Amendment 154. That will strengthen the case for him taking back this group.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, wrote to the Home Secretary about this Bill on 7 September last year. I should declare an interest: I know Sara Thornton very well. We were police officers together and spent six months together on a residential course. She is extremely able and fiercely independent, and, in my opinion, the best commissioner the Metropolitan Police never had.

In relation to trafficking information notices, Sara said in her letter that trauma suffered by victims of modern slavery can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She went on to say that evidence from the Salvation Army pointed to the fact that many victims initially recall their experiences with contradictions and inconsistencies, and it can often take a considerable time before they feel comfortable to disclose fully what has happened to them, as many other noble Lords have said. Her conclusion was that to place a deadline on when they can submit evidence and to interpret late compliance as damaging to credibility fails to take account of the severe trauma suffered by victims. For those reasons alone, Clauses 57 and 58 should not stand part of the Bill.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Hylton

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, at least in principle. There is clearly a conundrum here. You have people potentially being detained and questioned at ports, for up to a maximum of six hours. They may be in possession of documents that are genuinely confidential journalistic material—for example, information about journalistic sources—or they may be legal documents, subject to legal privilege. As this amendment suggests, however, to allow someone to refuse to hand over the documents or information on the basis that this is what they contain, would be open to abuse by foreign spies, or people who have adverse intentions towards the United Kingdom. There is a dilemma between protecting legally privileged material and confidential journalistic material, but at the same time—and within the timescales and practicalities of a Schedule 3 or Schedule 7 stop—finding some mechanism that protects those fundamental human rights and enables the Border Force to carry out its job in protecting the United Kingdom.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, these two amendments raise genuine points of concern. As the Bill is written, border guards and other officials are being put in a more privileged position than police forces. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the police have to apply to a court for judicial approval of such actions, so I am supportive.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Hylton

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order and I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that this House should not approve it, for the three reasons he set out. The first is that, taken together with other excessive charges made by the Home Office on those seeking to come to or remain in the UK, the increase in the immigration health charge provided by this order makes it unaffordable for many to come to or remain in the UK, even though they have a legal right to do so. Secondly, while the immigration health charge is intended for those seeking to stay temporarily in the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said, many people whose applications for permanent leave to remain are being considered will also be unfairly caught by this charge. The final issue is that, in addition to paying the immigration health charge, many of those affected will be working in the UK, paying income tax and national insurance. They will effectively be paying twice for any treatment they receive from the National Health Service.

We have discussed before the level of charges levied by the Home Office for such things as visa applications. These are way above the cost of processing such applications. When this 100% increase in the immigration health charge is added to these already excessive costs, it becomes unaffordable for many even to contemplate coming to the UK, even though they are perfectly entitled to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, children seeking permanent leave to remain are now granted only a maximum of two and a half years’ leave at a time. They would have to make four applications before they reach the required 10 years’ residency, costing £6,521 per child at current prices. They are now going to have to add another £4,000 in immigration health charges, bringing the total for one child to £10,521 just to remain in the UK.

There are exemptions from the health charge and other immigration charges, yet the process is so complicated and ineffective that, as the noble Lord said, only 8% of children are granted fee waivers. Many families are having to make the choice between being plunged into poverty and being forced to leave the UK—which is, of course, exactly what this Government are trying to do, whether or not they have changed the packaging from “hostile environment” to “compliant environment”.

The Government’s own impact assessment clearly anticipates a reduction in the number of people seeking to enter or remain in the UK, as a result of doubling this charge. The impact assessment also shows that there will be a net cost to the Exchequer in dissuading working migrants from coming to the UK, because immigrants contribute more overall to the public purse than they cost in public expenditure. They do so already, without the immigration health charge increase. There is one clear conclusion from the impact assessment. This is a financially self-harming, ideological and constituent part of the hostile—or compliant—environment, designed to deter those from overseas coming to or remaining in the UK, even if they come here to make a valuable contribution to the UK economy.

The irony of the Government’s whole approach to immigration and the punitive charges levied by the Home Office is encapsulated by the case of nurses from non-EEA countries coming to work in the NHS. First, this Government create a hostile environment for all immigrants by holding a referendum on membership of the European Union where false stories of excessive immigration are deployed by the leave side, resulting in a massive increase in hate crime against those from other countries while making EU migrants in particular feel vulnerable and unwanted. Having caused an exodus from the health service of EU nationals working in it, the NHS is then forced to employ non-EEA nationals to fill the gaps. It has to pay an additional £1,000 per non-EEA national employed per year in immigration skills charges. Meanwhile a qualified nurse from, say, the Philippines—a country that can ill afford to spend money training nurses only to see them leave for the UK once qualified—not only costs the NHS £1,000 a year more than an EEA national employed in the same role but also has to pay £400 a year towards the cost of the NHS, even though she is employed by the NHS. She will effectively pay twice for the NHS by paying tax and national insurance in addition to the immigration health charge.

Of course, revenue from the immigration skills charge is supposed to be put into training UK citizens to reduce the need for skilled immigration. Instead, the Government have abolished student bursaries for nurses, making it less likely that UK citizens will train to become qualified nurses and creating more demand for nurses from overseas. Numbers applying to begin training in September 2018 dropped 12% when compared to the same time last year, resulting in a total decline of 16,580 applications since March 2016—the last year in which students received financial support through the bursary. The fall in mature student numbers has been even more extreme, with a 16% drop by the June application deadline compared to the same point last year and a total decline of 40% since June 2016. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, there are currently estimated to be 40,000 nurse vacancies in England alone.

This Government are creating not only a hostile environment for immigrants but a hostile environment for common sense and decency. This order is very much to be regretted.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium is deeply concerned about this order, which doubles the health surcharge. These concerns are, I suggest, important because of the interaction with other charges. In the past, people who were here legally but with uncertain future residency could expect to remain after six years, with good behaviour. Now they will be granted only two and a half years in extensions and thus may have to pay over £6,500 just to remain, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out. On top of this, they may have to find £2,000 for an immigration health surcharge, in what one might call a double whammy. This is particularly hard on those on low earnings because of their uncertain status. They are also doubly taxed if they suffer PAYE and national insurance on their wages.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly mentioned the case of nurses from the Philippines. Ill health, or health at all, may thus become a cause of homelessness if rent arrears lead to eviction. The Government may say that there are exemptions for some. However, children in care are exempt, but not children who live with their natural family. A family with four children may have to pay £8,100 on several occasions. The situation may be even worse if the family is also paying fees to register for British citizenship. An impact assessment has been published, but it makes no reference to working parents and their children.

This is an anti-family measure. Her Majesty’s Government should withdraw this order and think again. They must consider its impact on those least able to pay and not just on fat cats and non-doms. Will they please also rethink the exemptions? I support the amendment.

Children and Social Work Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Hylton

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 12D in this group. I apologise to the House for not having spoken at previous stages of the Bill, but this is a new clause that was introduced in the other place. In fact, I blame the Minister for dragging me into this—his officials, having noted my reference to compulsory sex and relationship education in relation to a debate on online pornography in the Digital Economy Bill, kindly invited me to the meeting on this subject with him.

I want to add my personal support for this major step forward in making sex and relationship education compulsory. In particular, with the proliferation of online pornography, teaching young people not to treat each other as portrayed in online pornography, teaching about connection, respect and love, and most of all, teaching about consent when it comes to sex are becoming increasingly important.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, as other noble Lords have said. I have particular concerns about faith schools being able to teach pupils that same-sex relationships are wrong or sinful, or that engaging in a physical relationship with someone of the same sex is wrong or sinful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has just mentioned.

I accept that there are strongly held beliefs in many faiths about sex generally and sex between people of the same sex in particular, and we have to be sensitive to them. But we also have to be aware of the psychological harm that can be done to young people from across the range of gender and sexual diversity. Bullying of any kind is to be condemned, but bullying based on gender or sexual diversity is particularly damaging. Those who wish to engage in such bullying take encouragement from those in authority who teach that same-sex relationships or sex between people of the same sex is wrong.

My specific concern is that we go from a situation where homosexual sex and relationships are not taught at all—Ofsted reported in 2013 that only 5% of pupils were being taught about such things—to a situation where homosexual sex and relationships are being taught in all schools, but in many schools, in accordance with faith traditions, pupils are told that such relationships are wrong or sinful. Research conducted in 2012 showed that 55% of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth had experienced homophobic bullying in school and 41% of those bullied attempted, or thought about, taking their own lives. Separate research in 2014 showed that of more than 7,000 LGBTQ 16 to 25 year-olds, over half reported mental health issues and 44% had considered ending their lives. I know from bitter personal experience as a young gay man who was a devout Christian that devastating consequences can result from the isolation, the guilt, the embarrassment, the shame and the bullying that emanate from intolerance.

This is a probing amendment to seek reassurance from the Minister that schools cannot use compulsory sex and relationship education to teach a one-sided and condemnatory view of same-sex relationships, including the physical aspects of such relationships. To say that same-sex relationships are not wrong in themselves provided there is no physical aspect to them is neither a realistic nor a humane position. What protection does the Equality Act provide, and what will be contained in regulations to prevent an increase in intolerance of sexual and gender diversity as a result of making sex and relationship education compulsory? The campaigning group Stonewall is repeating the 2012 research to which I referred earlier. This will provide a benchmark against which any adverse impact of these provisions can be measured.

As the Minister alluded to earlier, there are already 200 faith schools working with Stonewall to deliver good-quality, LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education without undermining the faith ethos of those schools. How will the Government ensure that all faith schools follow this good practice?

I also support my noble friend Lady Walmsley in her concerns about parents’ ability to withdraw their children from sex and relationship education. I am concerned that in some faith schools, on the advice of the head teacher, all parents could withdraw all their pupils from these lessons, with the teacher facing an empty classroom.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 12, rather than to any of the amendments to it. The Government and the Minister will, I expect, have seen a recent statement by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Liverpool, speaking as chairman of the Catholic Education Service. He emphasised that the aim and ambition of Catholic schools has always been,

“to educate the whole person. Our schools have a long track record of educating young people who are prepared for adult life as informed and engaged members of society, and high quality RSE plays an important part of this. We welcome the Government’s commitment to improving Relationship and Sex Education in all schools. Catholic schools already teach age-appropriate Relationship and Sex Education in both primary and secondary schools”.

I think it is important to emphasise the words, “age-appropriate”.

The statement continues:

“This is supported by a Catholic model RSE curriculum which covers the RSE curriculum from nursery all the way through to sixth form”.


In addition, the statement welcomes,

“the Government’s commitment to protect parental right of withdrawal”.

The statement continues, and I support it:

“It is essential that parents fully support the school’s approach to these sensitive matters. The experience of Catholic schools is that parental involvement is the basis for providing consistent and high quality RSE at home and at school”.


The statement concludes:

“We look forward to working closely with the Government to shape any new guidance to enable Catholic schools to continue to deliver outstanding RSE, in accordance with parents’ wishes and Church teaching”.