Asylum Claims

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that his question is best directed to the MoD, but he will know that it is also an ongoing discussion we are still having in the context of the Bill.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on returns agreements with safe countries? In particular, I am thinking of Egypt, as well as other safe Middle Eastern countries.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I am afraid that is rather outside this department’s remit, but I will endeavour to find out the current status and come back to the noble Lord.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I speak on this minimum service level agreement from a unique position: I spent 25 years working for British Gas and was a GMB union negotiator for 35,000 gas workers. Roll on to when I was in local government; I was on the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service for 15 years and on the NJC that dealt with the FBU on national pay negotiations. In both those exercises, as poacher and gamekeeper, even in the bitterest disputes, one thing was certain: public safety was the primary concern of the gas industry and the Fire Brigades Union.

Introducing minimum strike levels is a sign of desperation from the Government. I have seen minimum strike levels—I think they are in the railways now, are they not? The difference between railwaymen and fire- fighters is that firefighters, as has been said, are vocational; they do this from the heart, as well as doing it as a job. I have been at Euston station, where there are supposed to be minimum service levels for trains and train drivers, and seen hundreds of people trying to get home to Cardiff, Manchester and Glasgow while there are picket lines outside. With the FBU, whenever there is a fire, the fire brigade turns out and puts it out whether it be Grenfell, the Woolworth fire or Kings Cross.

As a party, the Liberal Democrats take the view that fire safety is extremely serious. We continually emphasise the ongoing importance of the victims of disasters and want to ensure the safety of the public against the risk of fire. However, the main threat to the fire and rescue service comes not from this agreement but from central government’s cuts to the fire service. It is being expected to do more and more with less and less. Having had 20% cuts in real terms since 2013 means that all fire authorities are struggling to meet their budgets. If you talk to people from Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Tyneside, Yorkshire and the West Midlands, along with London, Cleveland and Humberside, they will all say that they will receive slightly more this year but that inflation has removed all the benefits. So fire brigades are trying to do more with less, and the Government want more from that.

The Minister—he is the messenger in this place so this is nothing personal—would do well to go back to the other place and say to the Minister there, “Instead of looking at minimum strike levels, why don’t you look at rethinking some of your recent decisions like changing the legislation that says that all new schools will have sprinkler systems installed, which you have now reversed?” Think of the damage that could do when schools begin to burn down, whether people are on strike or not. What about revisiting the issue around tower blocks and the need for second staircases to ensure that people who live in those properties can get in and out safely?

Why do the Government not reconsider those sorts of legislative things, which will really save lives? No, they take the big sledgehammer to crack a small nut. That is all the Government are trying to do here. I know Matt Wrack and the unions. I have found that they always say, “At the end of the day, if we’re needed, we will turn out”. Sometimes, the Government have to step up, acknowledge that, stop messing about with these minimum levels and go to the heart of the problem with a number of industries in this country: the funding for and protection of firefighters.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and join him in paying tribute to all those who work in this area.

As the Minister said, on 8 February this year, the Government published their minimum service levels for fire and rescue services in England. These new laws will restrict the ability of firefighters and emergency control staff to take lawful strike action. We believe that the new laws are unnecessary. The FBU has always negotiated a major incidents agreement with fire employers before national strikes. Last year, collective bargaining between the FBU and fire employers meant that there were no fire strikes. An acceptable pay agreement was reached and endorsed by the firefighters.

The minimum service level regulations state that fire and rescue control rooms must function during industrial action as if it were a non-strike day. All calls have to be answered, assessed and a response mobilised. Requiring the same standards as a non-strike day is in effect a ban on control staff taking industrial action, despite repeated assurances that it is not a strike ban.

The regulations for minimum service levels of firefighting functions dictate that 73% of appliances usually deployable on a non-strike day must be deployable on days when industrial action is taking place. My noble friend Lord Hendy gave the example of his local fire station, which has three appliances, so it is in effect a strike ban on that station. How many firefighters will be forced to work if a work notice is issued? What is to stop chief fire officers abusing the work notice and forcing all firefighters to work? Ministers have failed to explain how work notices will affect retained firefighters since retained firefighters cannot be compelled to work on strike days; I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

The minimum service level regulations state that national resilience assets, such as high-volume pumps, must be capable of being deployed as if the strike were not taking place that day. This is in effect a strike ban for firefighters deployed on national resilience assets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

Ministers claim that these laws are needed because the Army no longer provides cover. The last time the Army was deployed during fire strikes was in 2003. After the coalition Government attacked firefighters’ pensions between 2010 and 2015, the FBU organised 50 separate firefighter strikes in England. The FBU has always signed a major incident agreement with fire employers before national strikes, with provisions to recall firefighters in the event of a major emergency.

Government guidance makes it clear that the liability for work notices lies with fire authorities. Fire employers in England are rightly unhappy with these regulations. Many will not impose work notices because of the impact on industrial relations. Fire Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland have refused to implement these laws. It is unclear how these regulations can or will be applied in operation. It is a risk, both legal and reputational, on fire service employers who choose to issue work notices.

The guidance is clear that it is not statutory and that, ultimately, the courts will interpret the law. This places a risk on employers that is compounded by the additional difficulties that are unique to the fire and rescue service. Failure to comply with these unworkable measures exposes individual firefighters to the risk of the sack, while the FBU could also face financial penalties.

The regulations before us today are an example of the Government’s failed approach to industrial relations. No one wishes to see the public disrupted by industrial action. We all wish to see minimum standards of service in our public services but these regulations will not achieve what the Government want them to. They will poison relations when what is needed is a constructive working agreement between management and unions. The Labour Party opposes attacks on working people’s freedoms. That is why we would repeal the 2023 Act and why we oppose the regulations before us today.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this relatively short debate. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Government believe that these regulations are vital to ensure that there is sufficient cover to respond to fire and rescue-related emergencies on strike days. They will help protect the public and provide people who call 999 with reassurance that firefighters will be able to respond quickly to reduce the risk to life and property. Fires can spread quickly and present a serious threat to life and limb; it is vital that such services are available to the public during strike action. Demand for fire and rescue services fluctuates depending on the season, weather patterns and the time of day. As we saw in the tragic fire at Grenfell, without warning, fire can quickly spread, develop into a major incident and cause an unspeakable tragedy that will devastate a community.

I want to be clear that fire and rescue services perform a critical role in our society. It is only right that they respond to incidents that could pose an immediate risk to the public. I say to all noble Lords that we of course recognise the importance of the ability to strike, which is protected by law. We are striving to maintain a balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public to access the emergency services when they need them.

The noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, emphasised that we are challenging the right to strike. I stress again that we are not banning the ability to strike. These regulations focus on maintaining fire and rescue services’ capacity to respond to emergency incidents that posed an immediate risk to the public. Fire and rescue services will be able temporarily to suspend more routine duties that they would normally carry out if such action were not taking place.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I wish to protest that the Home Office is, again, living in the world of fantasy and fiction when it comes to safe countries. We have had the charade over the Rwanda Bill, which is going through ping-pong at the moment, and we are here again.

The Minister says from the Dispatch Box very passionately that the Government have taken a number of sources into consideration when determining whether Georgia or India are safe countries. I have done quite a bit of research myself over the last few days; I have looked at reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Home Office’s own country report and the US’s country report, and the reports of Freedom House, the UN and the EU on both countries. All those sources raise considerations and concerns—in some cases significant—about the human rights position in both countries.

Can the Minister tell the House what sources the Home Office has looked at, other than the ones that I just read out? Would he lay before the House as a matter of urgency the content of those sources? I cannot find sources which state that both India and Georgia generally are countries that have and uphold international standards of human rights for the vast majority of their citizens.

For example, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, mentioned specific groups in India. There are 172 million Muslims in India—14.2% of the population—that are having constitutional rights significantly taken away from them. Is it generally safe for the 172 million Muslim citizens of India? Would the Minister like to comment on whether it is seen as generally safe?

I believe that the Home Office has, again, gone down the rabbit hole of believing the fantasy and fiction, rather than giving us specific facts and sources. As I say, I have looked, and I cannot find sources which would determine that these countries are generally seen as safe for human rights. It is particularly galling when the Home Office’s own country report talks about “widespread” abuses in India. Could the Minister explain the difference between general and widespread, and how the mention of widespread abuses in the Home Office’s own country notice brings it to then say that generally India is safe? It is preposterous that this has happened.

It seems to suggest that the numbers of claims determine whether the Government now look at whether a country is safe. Surely the fact that cases are rising may determine that conditions are actually getting worse, and more people are seeking asylum based on genuine issues and genuine fear for their own safety back in the countries where they lived. I am not clear what the correlation is. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister said that the numbers seem to determine whether countries are looked at by the Home Office and decided to be safe or not. If I got that wrong then I apologise to the House, but numbers have absolutely nothing to do with determining whether a country is safe, and the reverse of what the Government seem to be suggesting is that conditions could be getting worse.

I look forward to the Minister giving us the sources that the Home Office has looked at, and the evidence of those sources, to determine that India and Georgia are generally safe countries.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations mark a step towards the implementation of the few parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that have come into force since it received Royal Assent. The key sections on the duty to detain and remove asylum seekers arriving by small boat, among other provisions, have apparently been accepted as unworkable by the Government, at least for the time being.

The current list of safe countries of origin from which it is expected that, in general, people will not have grounds for asylum in the UK is set out in Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, as amended by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, as was explained by the Minister. Historically, during the time in which the UK was part of the EU, the designation of safe countries of origin applied mostly to other EU and European Economic Area member states. Those countries remain on the list, with the more recent addition of Albania, and with Georgia and India now marking the first significant expansion of that list beyond the EU and the EEA.

We support these changes in principle, notwithstanding a few important questions. It is right that the Government go into some detail about how these changes would work in practice and how Indian and Georgian nationals, who under exceptional circumstances face harm or death, can still seek refuge in our country. The grant rate for Indian asylum seekers has stayed at under 10% in recent years, but for Georgia it has swayed between 15% and 30%. I understand that there are fewer applications from Georgia in numerical terms, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister how those successful applications translate into appropriate cases of exceptional circumstances in the future.

There is little detail on how exceptional circumstances would apply. The example tests for exceptional circumstances set out in the 2002 Act will not apply to India and only one—the ECHR test—will apply to Georgia. The Government have stated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that guidance will be published to caseworkers in due course. Do the Government mean to say that the guidance does not currently exist? How are decisions made now, before that guidance is in place?

As others, including the noble Lord, Lord German, have pointed out, given that the Home Office’s own policy notes on India speak of the existence of serious human rights abuses, including rape, torture and death—and, for Georgia, they note politically motivated prosecutions —it is vital that discretion can be exercised for individuals in those countries in appropriate circumstances.

I hope that the Minister can outline today how this guidance will work, whether it will be in place when these regulations come into force and whether it will be published. Can he also outline what is being done to improve returns rates for both Indian and Georgian nationals? The UK has migration returns agreements with both countries, but the current returns rate of Indian nationals seeking asylum stood at less than 7% in the year to September 2022. Can he outline what the returns rate is so far for Georgia, given that it has been a year since the bilateral returns agreement was signed? Depending on his answer to that question, and given the low rate of Indian national returns, can he outline what the Government are doing to improve returns rates for both countries? Finally, can he say how the introduction of this list impacts outstanding claims? Will it apply simply to new claims, or will it be retrospective? I look forward to his replies.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. These regulations, by themselves, do not introduce a new process or policy. It is not for us to debate today the safe country of origin inadmissibility provisions; those provisions have been a long-standing part of our asylum laws and have been expanded via the Illegal Migration Act 2023. These regulations seek to expand this list further to incorporate Georgia and India as generally safe. I acknowledge that, in considering whether it is appropriate to do so, questions have been asked today about how the list will be used.

The inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from nationals of safe countries aims to deter abuse of our asylum system from those who would seek to abuse it and do not need to seek protection in the UK. It will reduce pressure on the asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of protection. Treating asylum claims from EU nationals in this way is not new: it has been a long-standing process in the UK asylum system that is also employed by EU states. But EU states are not the only countries that are safe countries; therefore, it is right that these provisions have been expanded through the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Once commenced, Section 59 of the 2023 Act introduces the new Section 80AA(1) safe countries of origin list, so that these provisions would apply not only to EU nationals but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, to those from the other EEA states of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland and Albania.

For a country to be added to the list of safe countries of origin, it must be assessed as safe as per the criteria set out in the new Section 80AA(3) of the 2002 Act, as inserted by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. The test sets out that a country may be added to the list if

“(a) there is in general … no serious risk of persecution”

there for nationals of that country,

“and (b) removal … of nationals of that”

country

“will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the”

European Convention on Human Rights.

We do not draw conclusions on the general safety of a country based on information from single sources or isolated examples. Whether a country is safe for the purposes of inclusion in Section 80AA(1) is an assessment of whether the country in general is considered safe. Our assessments of the situation in the respective countries are set out in the relevant country policy and information notes, which I will come back to in more detail. Those are available on the GOV.UK website and are kept under constant review and updated periodically.

West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side of the House consistently support directly elected mayors. We also support them having police and crime powers when boundaries make this appropriate. However, it is not a remarkable point to make that we also believe that, first, the Government should act within the rules set out for them and by them; secondly, that local leaders should be brought along with any proposed changes; and, thirdly, that due and democratic processes should be respected and that consultations should be entered into in good faith, with the intention of listening and reporting back to Parliament in a transparent manner.

It is right that the Government explain not only the initial oversight in terms of the statutory duty but the manner in which the consultation took place. I request that the Government outline how they plan to make this right with local leaders in the region to make it clear to everyone where they now stand, and what will happen to regain the confidence of the people of the West Midlands. Will the Minister commit to further consultation? More widely, and with more regulations to come, I ask the Minister to outline how he will ensure that this approach will not be repeated.

Proper devolution demands that the Government work with local communities and bring on widespread support to produce outcomes that are right for their areas. It also demands that government acts effectively across departments when issues cross Whitehall boundaries. How will the Government ensure that this is done in future?

Of course, we will support my noble friend. He gave a devastating speech when he introduced his amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will do my best to address as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

It is worth recognising the support from the Government and the Opposition in the other place for the policy of enabling more directly elected mayors to exercise PCC functions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just noted. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands will be a significant step forward to realising the Government’s ambitions, as set out in the levelling up White Paper, for more combined authority mayors to take on PCC functions, as is already the case in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and will be the case in York and North Yorkshire from this May. We have also introduced a draft order to achieve this outcome in South Yorkshire.

It is the Government’s view that bringing public safety functions under the leadership of a combined authority mayor, where it is possible to do so, has the potential to offer wider levers and a more joined-up approach to preventing crime. It places the PCC model and functions at the heart of a wider set of responsibilities for improving public services, exercised by an individual who will be directly answerable to the community that will elect them. It not only preserves the democratic accountability that underpins the PCC model but with an expanded role for the mayor comes a higher public profile, increased visibility and a greater ability to bring about local change.

The fundamental aim of the order is to incorporate the PCC model within the role of the mayor, maintaining the core principles of governance and accountability. The Government want to seize the opportunity to bring together in one elected role the responsibility for public safety and local regeneration for the people of the West Midlands.

In areas where there is a PCC and a mayor, both elected separately by the same constituency, it can confuse democratic mandates and create barriers to joined-up delivery across a range of public services for those communities. The statistics the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cited do not take into account local circumstances and, therefore, comparisons have limited utility. None of this means that the West Midlands could not still be safer and have less crime under the new proposed system. Incorporating the PCC functions in the office of mayor creates an opportunity to clarify and enhance the mandate of that elected individual to make a greater impact across a range of public services.

As I set out in my introductory speech, the Home Office ran a public consultation on the proposal to transfer the PCC functions. The purpose of the consultation was to provide the Home Secretary with information to help his decision on whether to proceed with the legislation before us now. While the numbers for and against the transfer were taken into account by the Home Secretary, the most helpful aspect of the consultation, for the purposes of making the decision, was the information provided in the responses. The Home Secretary’s decision was informed, but not bound by, the responses to the consultation. In making his decision, the Home Secretary also had regard to information concerning the statutory tests and duties relevant to his decision. Ultimately, the Home Secretary is satisfied that the making of this order meets the statutory tests required of him. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this was not a referendum. He took note of all the information and made his decision; the information is not binding.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, specifically Section 62, has come up. That amended the consent requirements for the transfer of PCC functions to existing combined authority mayors and, instead of the previously required consent of the mayor, the constituent authorities and the combined authority, only the consent of the existing mayor is required to make an order enabling the transfer of the functions. This was decided by Parliament.

The Government have been clear that the PCC functions may transfer to a mayor only at the point of a mayoral election; this ensures that mayors are elected on the basis that they will be exercising PCC functions, maintaining the democratic principles of the PCC model. If this legislation is approved by both Houses, both the incumbent mayor and the PCC would complete their existing terms of office, and on 2 May the West Midlands electorate will select a mayor on the basis of them exercising PCC functions, providing them with a democratic mandate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asserted that Mr Street will be the PCC, and I sincerely hope the noble Lord is right, but he will have to make his case to the electorate and they will determine “who is mates with who”, to quote—I forget who.

It may already be known to this House—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it—that the judicial review launched by the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner on the public consultation and subsequent decision to transfer the PCC functions to the mayor was heard by the courts yesterday. Judgment will be reserved until next week, so I cannot prejudice those ongoing proceedings, but the Government strongly defended the claim made by the PCC. We are confident that the public consultation was robust and the Home Secretary’s decision to enable the transfer was lawful.

Regarding the extent to which this transfer upholds democracy, the Government have always been clear that PCC functions can transfer to a mayor only at the point of the mayoral elections, as I have just said. The way this order enables the transfer is no different; the first mayor to exercise the functions will not do so until the May 2024 elections have taken place and they have taken office—I believe on 7 May. The West Midlands electorate still has the ability to decide who they wish to see exercise these PCC functions. The Mayor of the West Midlands will be elected in May on the basis of exercising those.

A number of noble Lords raised concerns that a mayor may—I use the word “may” carefully—appoint a deputy mayor to support them in the exercise of the PCC functions. It was argued that this might be a dilution of the mandate and accountability of the role. At this point, I note that the current PCC has appointed two assistant PCCs. Mayors who exercise PCC functions can appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime, but this is something that PCCs may also do, as I have just said. The ability to appoint a deputy does not shield mayors from scrutiny at the ballot box; the mayor will be held to account for the performance of a deputy they may appoint to support them. Also, not all PCC functions can be delegated to the deputy PCC; by statute, certain key strategic functions, such as the issuing of the police and crime plan, the appointment and suspension of a chief constable, and calculation of a budget requirement, may exercised only by the mayor themself.

All noble Lords noted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report on this order, and the concerns raised in that report. I know the committee has written to the Policing Minister and the Permanent Secretary to express its concerns. I understand that both the Minister and Permanent Secretary have responded to those letters. The committee raised concerns about what it considered to be the “selective reporting” within the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies this order, and I know that the Policing Minister has responded to address these concerns directly. But I would like to make it clear that the Explanatory Memorandum did not deliberately withhold information in any sort of attempt to selectively report the responses to the consultation and the views of stakeholders. As is best practice, the documents clearly outline the views raised as part of the consultation process, both in support of the transfer and those that raised concerns. The document also signposts readers to the Government’s response to the consultation, which has been published on GOV.UK. It goes into further detail on the concerns raised by respondents to the consultation and the Government’s response to those concerns.

As regards to the timing of the order, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Sahota, I would like to address those points, particularly in relation to the Gould principle of electoral management, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota. Where possible, government aims to ensure that any legislative changes to elections are introduced at least six months in advance of those elections, to give all those involved appropriate notice. In the case of the West Midlands, government was not able to lay the order six months in advance of the May 2024 elections. Every step has been taken to lay as early as possible, and I know officials have been closely engaged with partners in the West Midlands Combined Authority and the office of the PCC throughout the process, to keep them informed as much as possible. I hope noble Lords will support the order, so we can get one step closer to providing clarity to the local area, and enable it to deliver orderly elections in May. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted, as long as that is done by 21 March, all is in order.

A question has been raised about why the Home Secretary took the original decision to proceed with the transfer before the statutory requirements were met. As soon as the Home Secretary became aware of the statutory requirements of the 2023 Act, he launched a public consultation and made it clear that he would retake his decision after he had had due regard to the responses and after he had considered whether the making of the order would meet the statutory tests. The order was therefore not laid before Parliament until the Home Secretary was satisfied that the statutory requirements of the 2023 Act had been met. I hope I have dealt with the key points that have been raised. Again, I thank all those who participated. I beg to move.

Ukrainians: Visas and Further Support

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord raises a very good point. Of course, it is not for this Government to judge the certainty of conflict situations, which are very difficult to manage. However, I have no doubt that the Government will do whatever is necessary to maintain the current sanctuary that this country proudly offers.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to all the families who have taken Ukrainians into their homes. Under the new changes to the Ukraine family scheme, unaccompanied children will no longer be able to join their parents in Britain automatically. Does the Minister think that restricting family rights at a time when Ukrainian troops are under heavy fire in Donetsk sends the right message to the people of Ukraine about our willingness to stand by them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I rather regret the tone of that question if I am honest. Ultimately, of course we would like to see families reunited in a safe Ukraine. The UK’s Ukraine schemes are not family reunification pathways. They are designed to provide temporary sanctuary in the UK for Ukrainians fleeing war. Ukrainian nationals who would have qualified under the Ukraine family scheme will still be able to apply under Homes for Ukraine. The Home Secretary will obviously consider any compelling and compassionate grounds that are presented on a case-by-case basis; for example, where families will be separated from young children. Plenty of routes still exist for family reunification in the UK, even though, as I said earlier, they are not reunification pathways.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I do urge noble Lords to use some common sense. It is inconceivable, if this Bill is enacted, for the first few months—regardless of whether all the conditions of the treaty have been implemented—that Rwanda, under the full spotlight and glare of international publicity and the attention of the press, will not implement carefully and considerately or that it will refoule anyone that we send it.

The reason for having all the things in the treaty is for the period after the initial spotlight has been turned off and attention has waned. Then, it is important to have all those considerations in place; it is not initially. No one could really imagine that we will send someone out and within a few weeks they will be sent by Rwanda to some unsafe country. It will not happen. We know it will not.

But it is very important that we get this happening soon, and that we not only use common sense but are merciful, because the longer we delay, the more people will come across the Channel and the more people will die.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on whether he agrees with the analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, of the status of this Bill we are debating. The noble Lord said it was inconceivable that there would be any refoulement and that it is okay to proceed without the various recommendations in place. In the longer term, they would need to be in place—because it was in the longer term, I think, that he was suggesting that there might be justification in the suspicions that have been raised. I think that was the point the noble Lord was making.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling these amendments and for his constructive communication before doing so. In Committee there was clear interest in developing a mechanism to ensure that the terms of the treaty are and continue to be adhered to. I hope the House will see that there is value in how he has integrated these ideas into these amendments. Amendments 4 and 7 together provide a clear framework for ensuring the ongoing safety of Rwanda, rooted in the terms of the treaty the Government have negotiated. I will not say any more, because the noble and learned Lord set out the terms of his amendments very clearly.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The partnership between the UK and Rwanda is rooted in a shared commitment to develop new ways of managing flows of irregular migration by promoting durable solutions, thereby breaking the existing incentives that result in people embarking on perilous journeys to the UK. We saw again only last week how perilous those journeys are, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson noted. The UK and Rwanda share a vision on the need for the global community to provide better international protection for asylum seekers and refugees, emphasising the importance of effective and functioning systems and safeguards that provide protection to those in most need.

Noble Lords will know that Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees in the region, for example through its work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to host the emergency transit mechanism. It has also been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability, strong governance, low corruption and gender equality. My noble friend Lord Hodgson noted this, and my noble friend Lady Meyer gave her very welcome perspective on her recent visit. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I heard a great deal in her comments about structures and systems.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has explained, these amendments seek to allow Parliament to deem Rwanda to be safe only so long as the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda treaty have been fully implemented and are being adhered to in practice. The UK Government and the Government of Rwanda have agreed and begun to implement assurances and commitments to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. In advance of agreeing the treaty, we worked with the Government of Rwanda to respond to the findings of the courts by evidencing Rwanda’s existing asylum procedures and practice in standard operating procedures relating to and reflecting the current refugee status determination and appeals process.

Amendment 7 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to obtain a statement from the independent monitoring committee confirming that the objectives specified in Article 2 of the treaty have been secured. This is unnecessary; the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures in the treaty will be expedited, and we continue to work with the Rwandans on this. The legislation required for Rwanda to ratify the treaty passed the lower house of the Rwandan Parliament on 28 February and it will now go to the upper house, as my noble friend Lord Murray noted in the debate on the previous group. Once ratified, the treaty will become law in Rwanda. It follows that the Government of Rwanda would then be required to give effect to the terms of the treaty in accordance with its domestic law as well as international law.

The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. These amendments therefore confuse the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill’s provisions to come into force. The Bill builds on the treaty between the UK and the Government of Rwanda signed on 5 December 2023. It reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments given in the treaty to people transferred to Rwanda in accordance with the treaty. Alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since summer 2022, published this January, the treaty will enable Parliament to conclude that Rwanda is safe and the Bill provides Parliament with the opportunity to do so. I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that that is the truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

No, we simply keep the Human Rights Act, which does the job we are seeking here. Naturally, of course, if the Government want to move and create a special group, as here—what they call “illegal migrants”—what about the other groups that might follow from it? It is very clear that there may well be an issue with protesters—groups that are not in vogue with the Government. It is a very dangerous precedent and this is a warning sign. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is a chasing of short-term headlines that will have a significant consequence for people’s rights in this country.

Not content with arguments that they are having with the views of the ECHR and the UNHCR, the Government in the last seven days have now drawn swords with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Published last Friday, the council’s report said:

“Prohibiting courts and tribunals in the UK from applying and interpreting principles of domestic human rights law and international law would undermine the ability of the courts to protect all those under UK jurisdiction from violations of their human rights as provided under international law”.


It goes on to say that the Government should look at this matter again and the United Nations has offered to work with the UK Government on this matter. So, when he responds, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have read the United Nations Human Rights Council’s review and whether they are prepared to meet the council and discuss this matter further?

There is also a logical inconsistency in what the Government are doing; they cannot have it both ways. They want to rely on the international convention and jurisprudence in justifying the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, but they are then seeking to disapply the findings of that same court in relation to the same international convention with respect to the consideration of interim orders. You cannot have it both ways and the Government need to be clear on that matter.

All the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made about Amendment 17 are absolutely accurate, but one thing worries me completely and that is the part of the amendment that basically takes away every law that this country might apply in this direction—domestic law and common law. For goodness’ sake, with common law as interpreted by the courts, I do not know how you find which parts of it you want to disapply. You have to be specific in what you say if you want to disapply anything of this nature. Amendment 17 looks to me like a complete wiping out, blanking out and blindfolding of every single possible piece of legislation that might stand in the way of this Government’s view, and that absolutely must affect the balance of the rule of law in this country.

I look forward to seeing how the Government will deal with that amendment, but I suggest they might need to consider how they move forward with no further disapplication of the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak quite briefly. The amendments in this group again demonstrate the threat to the domestic rule of law posed by this Bill. This is not the first Bill that threatens the Human Rights Act in this way, but the fact that it now seems almost commonplace for the Government to strip back human rights legislation does not mean it should go without objection each and every time.

There is much to object to in this Bill and Clause 4 is no exception. Each cut to the Human Rights Act matters and each piece of domestic law cut away in search of a quick political gain matters as well. I hope the Government listen to the arguments put forward by my noble friends and see sense.

I have to say I found this relatively brief debate quite refreshing. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, was perfectly candid with the House, and for a layman it was much easier to understand the political differences between the view articulated by the noble Lord and the view on the other side of the House. It was much easier to understand that difference than when I try to decipher the words of the Ministers when they respond to these amendments. Nevertheless, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has flung down the gauntlet and, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I am happy to pick it up.

I am grateful to all who participated in this debate and sincerely echo the words of the noble Lord when he said that there was a refreshing quality to this short debate. I think that the House articulated some important points and contrasting positions were properly and clearly laid out for the consideration of the House.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor opened with the support of my noble friend Lord Frost and I begin by saying, as I said at an earlier stage in the handling of this Bill, that it is important to recognise, as my noble friend did, that the levels of illegal migration to this country, perhaps to the whole of western Europe and other comparatively prosperous parts of the world, are not only placing enormous strain on us economically but straining the fabric of society and straining perhaps also public confidence in the ability of our courts and democratic legislatures to address problems.

I am grateful to both my noble friends for their broad support for the aims and objectives of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, put it clearly and accurately in constitutional terms when he repeated that this Parliament may legislate in contravention of international law and that it is a long-standing element of our constitution.

The noble Lord also correctly identified that the high price to be paid for any such step is a matter of reputation. Reputations of countries, as of people, may be easily lost. I echo what he said about how it is difficult to adapt international treaties drawn up at different times and in different circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, intervened on him; it seemed to me that he was not saying that he had had enough of international law but that he wished it to operate in its proper context.

Windrush

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for putting down this debate on what she calls the Home Office scandal. The theme in this debate has been to induce the Government to meet their commitments to the Windrush generation. I thank all noble Lords who, through this debate, have kept up the pressure on the Government to live up to their commitments. I would go so far as to say that this has been potentially an historic debate; it has been a strong debate that will resonate, and I hope it will resonate to make the Government act faster.

My noble friend Lord Rosser put down a Written Question, which was answered in February of this year, comparing the Windrush compensation rollout with the Horizon compensation rollout—a theme that has been picked up by a number of noble Lords. That was not to criticise the Horizon scheme but to highlight the problem of those seeking compensation through the Windrush scheme.

On 7 February 2024, my honourable friend Vicky Foxcroft asked Laura Farris, a Minister at the Home Office, what discussions she had had with the Secretary of State on the time taken to process claims to the Windrush compensation scheme. Responding, Ms Farris stated:

“As of December 2023, 91% of all claims either had received a final decision or were less than six months old. The Windrush scheme has reduced the time taken to allocate a … casework decision from 18 months to less than four months”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/24; col. 233]


I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that those figures are accurate.

Also, in November of last year, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked the Government what the reasons were for the Home Office’s decision to disband the team responsible for the Windrush policy in the department and what assessment they had made of the

“likelihood that this decision will undermine their commitments to the Windrush Generation”.

The Minister, who is again in his place today, responded by saying that, given the “significant progress” that the department had made since 2020, its response to the lessons learned review had been “embedded into everyday activities”. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, described that as “baloney”—that is not a word that I would use myself; nevertheless, it is fair to say that he was sceptical about the response from his noble friend. The Minister also said that the

“embedded approach will better sustain the improvements made so far, and thereby our commitments to the Windrush generation and their descendants”.

Additionally, he noted that the teams working on the Windrush scheme and compensation scheme would “remain in place”, with there being

“no plans to close either scheme”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 1009.]

I look forward to the Minister updating the House on how they are planning to work at pace—a phrase we often hear in this House—to move towards a resolution on more of the cases.

In July 2023, the House debated the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush generation. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, led the debate, and she acknowledged that some progress had been made, but she urged the Government to redouble their efforts to ensure that appropriate funds are distributed.

As noble Lords will know, there is a long history to this scandal Suffice it to say that, on 16 April 2018, the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, apologised to the Windrush generation from the Dispatch Box in the other place. The following day, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, also apologised to Caribbean leaders at a meeting in Downing Street. The then Home Secretary then went on to outline several actions that the Government were taking to address the issues faced by the Windrush generation. The actions included: first, conducting reviews of historical Caribbean cases that the Home Office wrongly actioned for either deportation or removal; secondly, establishing a Windrush scheme to issue confirmation of status documents and, in some cases, the granting of British citizenship free of charge for applicants; thirdly, creating a Windrush task force to assist individuals who may be eligible under the Windrush scheme; and, finally, establishing a Windrush compensation scheme. How is all that going?

I would be grateful if the Minister can correct any of the following figures—various have been cited, but I have some more. First, in 2023, more than 2,000 victims received zero payment, despite the Government accepting that they are victims. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised the issue of the loss of future earnings, and that should be part of the calculation. If it were part of the calculation, would the Government revisit those zero-payment decisions for those 2,000 victims? That happened despite the Government guaranteeing that all those eligible would receive full compensation in 2020. Can the Minister say whether there is any flexibility in revisiting those cases, or do the Government regard them as closed?

Secondly, as of January 2024, 1,932 people have received compensation so far, out of an estimated 15,700 victims. How long do the Government think that it will take to process the remaining claims?

A further point that a number of noble Lords have made is that the application process is still cumbersome and costly. There was talk about a 44-page document and other lengthy documents. There has been expert evidence from accountants and psychologists about what is needed to complete those forms. There is a strong case for some form of legal aid to help people do that. One of the organisations that has put this forward is the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit. My noble friend Lord Davies gave figures for a very high refusal rate, and spoke about pension compensation. Will the Minister comment on the points he raised? In addition to this, Human Rights Watch has recommended that, in the interim, independent oversight of the scheme should be guaranteed, with access to legal aid and the right of appeal to an independent tribunal. In fact, Human Rights Watch also recommended that the whole scheme should be independent and not run by the Home Office itself. Do the Government agree with those recommendations?

Comparisons have been made with the Horizon compensation scheme and the public consciousness of a historic injustice which is acknowledged by the British state. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and other noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate will continue to ensure that the Government follow through on their commitments and that justice is done for the Windrush generation.

I comment on only a couple of many outstanding speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, “Let’s be fixers. Let’s just get it done”. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, spoke about the other scandals dealt with in the Victims and Prisoners Bill: the Horizon scandal, infected blood and Windrush. There is an impatience in all those scandals about how the Government are handling them. I acknowledge that it is complicated, but there is a sense of urgency which the Government need to follow through on. I also want to pay tribute to a particular journalist, Amelia Gentleman, who has done a lot of work exposing this scandal and really followed through on bringing it to public attention.

I want to conclude on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the new generation. I went to a London comprehensive school and so did my children. There is an absolute lack of understanding on behalf of my children and children generally who been brought up in London about the extent of racism that was common in previous generations. I see that as a sign of hope. It is in part because of the ongoing work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and others. While of course we urge the Government to do more, it is right to say that there is hope of an improving situation in racial tolerance in this country, which we should celebrate.

Security of Elected Representatives

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does he agree that there is no place for anti-Semitism on Britain’s streets and that those who perpetrate that poison must face the full force of the law? As well as seeing a rise in hostility and threats towards MPs, we have also seen a rise in intimidation and threats directed at local councillors. Can the Minister set out what action is being taken to ensure that there is robust protection in place for councillors and elected mayors who represent their local communities?

The scenes that we saw play out in central London, near the Cenotaph, on Armistice weekend last year were unacceptable and wrong. Yet, instead of working with the police in the run-up to that highly charged weekend, the then Home Secretary chose to attack the police and inflame tensions. Does the Minister agree that that was an irresponsible way for a Home Secretary to behave and that it was right she was sacked?

The Government’s strategy on countering extremism is now eight years out of date and there are reports that work countering extremism has been dropped or fragmented across departments. What urgent action are the Government taking to address that gap, and when will they come forward with an updated strategy?

In June last year, the Home Office downgraded recording requirements for non-crime hate incidents, meaning that the personal details of people who perpetrate anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are currently not recorded by the police. This will limit the police’s ability to monitor and prevent escalation within communities and will potentially leave victims feeling less safe. Will the Government back the Labour Party’s plans to reinstate the full collection of personal data for people who engage in anti-Semitic or Islamophobic hate?

A week ago, a DLUHC Minister in the other place said that the Government are

“not intending to publish a hate crime strategy”.—[Official Report, 21/2/24; col. 599.]

This is despite the last strategy now being four years out of date. In the context of recording high levels of anti-Semitism and Islamophobic attacks, can the Minister explain why this work has been abandoned?

The theme of the Statement is preventive measures. We welcome it as far as it goes, but what about the causes of these increased tensions? As the Minister said when he quoted the Minister in the other place, Britain is a united kingdom, not a divided nation. We enjoy and have vigorous debate on many issues within Parliament as a whole; people look to Parliament to air the most difficult subjects in our country, both on these shores and beyond. What thought have the Government given to addressing the causes of the increased tensions that we are seeing on our streets while maintaining our traditions, democracy and free speech, not only in Parliament but beyond?

In conclusion, although the Statement focuses on elected representatives, we in this House are, of course, not elected. However, quite a number of colleagues in this House are high-profile. They have their own vulnerabilities because of the views that they express in this House and outside it. What can the Minister say about the enhanced protection measures for colleagues in this House?

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House and note that this additional funding will be spent primarily in supporting MPs, councillors, police and crime commissioners, and mayors. I am particularly happy to hear that police forces around the country will be able to draw on a new fund to respond to heightened community tensions. However, we must not forget other front-line services staff who are also experiencing increased levels of violence and intimidation.

I was appalled to hear the Minister in the other place say that Members had told him that

“they feel they have to vote a certain way … because … a violent few … have made them fear for their safety, and the safety of their families”.

That elected MPs can be targeted in this way simply beggars belief. We also know that women, particularly women from ethnic minorities, are disproportionately targeted for abuse and intimidation. This has got to stop.

When I came into politics it was generally accepted that those who stood for election did it to help their communities and/or their country. The public are now much more sceptical about politicians of all parties, and the perception that politicians are “fair game” for abuse on social media has a pernicious and dangerous effect.

That a small but very vocal minority can get away with using online platforms to bully and intimidate is a matter not just for the Government but for the platforms themselves. Too often we hear them say that they will not tolerate this kind of thing, but they do little to stop it because their prime concern is to grow bigger than their rivals. This has a major effect not just on politicians but on their families.

I suspect that the Minister does not spend a lot of his time reading Liberal Democrat policy papers—

Shamima Begum

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful that the noble Baroness brought up SIAC—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It ruled that the legislation should be construed as requiring the Secretary of State to seek prior representations from an individual, but that in Begum’s case the failure to do so did not change the outcome or invalidate the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in fact, the legislation does not require the Secretary of State to seek representations prior to making a deprivation decision. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but SIAC’s ruling was clear.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to ask about the counter-extremism strategy. One in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences are now under 18, up from one in 25 in 2019. That is a worrying trend. The Government have failed to update their counter-extremism strategy for eight years now. Will they now commit to updating that cross-governmental strategy, with particular focus on preventing extremism in young people?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we discussed that subject at some length last week, when talking about anti-Semitism, and of course the situation has evolved somewhat since then. I take the noble Lord’s points, but refer to some of the things that have been done and put in place by the Government on youth engagement and schools and education. For now, I will take his points back to the Home Office, but I cannot update him further.

Knife Crime: Violence Reduction Units

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes, again, the noble Baroness raises a very good point. She is right, of course, that London has particular problems in this area. The activities of certain violence reduction units have absolutely influenced the way that the whole programme has been established across England and Wales—and indeed taking a lot of the lead from Scotland.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, knife crime is up by 70% since 2015 and, according to the YMCA, youth services were cut by 71% in the decade after 2010. Does the noble Lord think these two statistics are linked? Does he also believe that, building on the work of the VRUs, local youth services should be introduced and backed in a way to try to prevent further knife crime?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s latter point, I agree, which is one of the reasons the Home Office has invested £200 million in the youth endowment fund, to which I have already referred. As regards knife crime across the country, the rise is driven largely by the situation in London. For police-recorded offences involving knives or sharp instruments, there was a 5% increase year-on-year nationally, but the increase in London was 22%. If London was taken out of those figures, the natural trend would be a 1% reduction.