Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this part of the Bill has a very simple purpose: it is designed by the Government to make life harder for refugees. The two-tier refugee system is designed to give the illusion of there being a proper way of being a refugee, but it will inflict huge suffering and injustice on desperate people.

It is probably not the normal tactic to plan what we are going to do next in front of the Government Front Bench, but although I applaud the intentions of noble Lords who tabled the 16 amendments to the clause, the only way is to take it out of the Bill. It is so vile, so obnoxious, that it really should not be in here.

This has not been mentioned very much but we must remember that, to some extent, we have a moral duty to take refugees. A lot of these refugees are coming from countries we have invaded, or where we have interfered or done all sorts of things, whether it is burning too much fossil fuel, causing climate change, or destabilising their Governments. Please can we remember that there is a moral duty? It is all very well referring to population density and so on, but we owe these people and we should never forget that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to offer a view on what public opinion is. What I do remember is that a lot of people expressed a view on what public opinion was over climate protesters and people who threw statues into the water at Bristol, but when cases came up before a jury, they reached some very interesting decisions on guilt or otherwise. That suggests that some of those who profess to know what public opinion is may not necessarily be right when the public have a chance to hear the arguments presented to them and are then asked to make a decision.

Clause 11 is about differential treatment of recognised refugees and its impact and implications. We believe that it contravenes the 1951 refugee convention. It sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system for refugees, and it is also inhumane. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will be given sweeping powers to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim—contrary to the 1951 refugee convention, of which Britain was a founding member.

Under the clause, only those refugees who meet specific additional requirements will be considered group 1 refugees and benefit from the rights currently granted to all refugees by the refugee convention. Other refugees who are not deemed to meet those criteria will be designated as group 2 refugees, and the Secretary of State will be empowered to draft rules discriminating against group 2 refugees with regard to the rights to which they are entitled under the refugee convention, as well as their fundamental right to family unity. The different ways in which those two groups could be treated is not limited in any way by the Bill. Clause 11 does, however, provide examples of ways in which the two groups might be treated differently, even though they are nearly all recognised as genuine refugees. Those who travel via a third country, who do not have documents or who did not claim asylum immediately will routinely be designated as group 2 refugees. The clause goes on to set out how the length of limited leave, access to indefinite leave, family reunion —that is, whether family members, mainly women and children, are entitled to join them—and access to public funds are likely to become areas for discrimination against group 2 refugees.

The government policy paper, the New Plan for Immigration, proposed that instead of fully fledged refugee status, group 2 refugees will be granted “temporary protection” for a period of no longer than 30 months,

“after which individuals will be reassessed for return to their country of origin or removal to”

a safe third country. Temporary protection status

“will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution”—

in other words, a state, deliberately created, of complete uncertainty over their future for group 2 refugees.

Clause 11 would therefore make a significant and unprecedented change in the law, resulting in the UK treating accepted refugees less generously, based on the journey they have taken to reach the UK and the timeliness of their asylum claim. This attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugee is surely inconsistent with the refugee convention and has no basis in international law. The refugee convention, which was enshrined in UK law in 1954, contains a single unitary definition of “refugee”. It defines a refugee solely according to their need for international protection because of feared persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Anyone who meets that definition and is not excluded is a refugee and entitled to the protection of the refugee convention.

The Commons committee considering the Bill heard in evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ representative to the UK that this clause and the Bill were inconsistent with the UN convention and international law. If the Government disagree with that—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Lister —no doubt they will spell out in some detail in their reply their legal argument for saying that the clause does comply with the convention and international law.

This is, however, not just a matter of law but of fairness and humanity. By penalising refugees for how they were able to get to the UK, the Bill builds walls against people in need of protection and shuts the door on many seeking a safe haven. Most refugees have absolutely no choice about how they travel. Is it really this Government’s intention and desire to penalise refugees who may, for example, as a matter of urgency, have had to find an irregular route out of Afghanistan? Are the Government saying that people are less deserving if they have had to take a dangerous route to our shores? Is an interpreter from Afghanistan who took a dangerous journey to our shores less deserving than a refugee who was lucky enough to make it here on one of the flights out of the country?

The Government acknowledge that such journeys are very dangerous and sometimes fatal, yet they do not seem to appreciate the compulsion—that the alternative of not doing so is even worse—which drives people to make such journeys. If people truly had a reason to believe that they would be safe where they are, they would not make the journey. Simply making the journey more dangerous or the asylum system more unwelcoming will not change that. Of the first 5,000 people who came in 2020 by boat, well over 90% were deemed by the Home Office to be eligible to apply for asylum: they were genuine asylum seekers. They were not here illegally—but they will become illegal if the Bill is enacted.

Penalising people for how they arrived in the UK has particular implications for already vulnerable groups of refugees such as women and those from LGBT communities. Women are often compelled to take irregular routes to reach safety, as we see only too clearly in Afghanistan. There are simply no safe and legal routes. Under the proposed changes, however, women who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, will be penalised and could be prosecuted, criminalised and imprisoned. The same obstacles will apply to those from LGBT communities.

Unless the Government can provide safe routes, penalising people for making unsafe journeys is simply inhumane, although, even then, not everyone would have the time or ability to access a safe route, even if one existed. By not providing safe routes, the Government are also fuelling the business model of the people smugglers they claim their proposals will destroy, and then penalising the victims they have had a responsibility for creating. The Conservative-led Foreign Affairs Committee, of which the Home Secretary was then a member, warned in 2019:

“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups”.


The Government’s impact assessment warns that increased deterrence in this manner

“could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”

As has been said, Clause 11 also says that group 1 refugees must have

“come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.

In other words, the Government are setting an expectation that, to be recognised as a refugee supposedly deserving of the support usually afforded, the UK must be the first safe country in which they have sought asylum. Commenting on the Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:

“Requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian, and cooperative principles on which the refugee system is founded.”


It was pointed out in oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it was unlikely that

“any country close to the main countries of origin of refugees would have ever considered signing a convention if that meant that they would assume total and entire responsibility for all the refugees.”

In addition, when the refugee convention came into being in the early 1950s, there was little or no commercial air travel, so any refugee reaching this country would have to have crossed land borders from safe states. Yet there was no view then that such a refugee should be seen—as under this Bill and the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention in international law—as a criminal liable to up to four years in prison and to being sent back to France, and with any claim for asylum being regarded as inadmissible.

Even within Europe, most of the countries that refugees pass through on their way to the UK already host significantly more refugees and asylum seekers per population than the UK does. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, the UK is 17th in terms of the numbers it takes, measured per head of population. Unless safe routes are developed, all that will happen is that there will be an increase in dangerous crossings, because that will be the only way in which people can reach the United Kingdom.

As it is, France takes three times more asylum seekers than the UK, as does Germany. Global provision for refugees could not function if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country they came to. As my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and Lord Coaker have pointed out, most refugees are hosted in developing countries and the UK receives fewer asylum applications than most other European countries. Under international law, the primary responsibility for identifying refugees and affording international protection rests with the state in which an asylum seeker arrives and seeks that protection.

Clause 11 sets out a non-exhaustive list of the ways in which refugees who arrive irregularly and become group 2 refugees may be treated differently. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the purpose of this is

“to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK”,

and to encourage

“individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach after fleeing persecution.”

It is not clear, since the Government have provided no explanation, how the stated aim will result from the policy; perhaps the Government in their response will provide that explanation.

Evidence from many refugee organisations suggests that refugees seek asylum in the UK for a range of reasons, such as proficiency in English, family links or a common heritage based on past colonial histories. In addition, refugees do not cite the level of leave granted or other elements of the asylum system as decisive factors. The Home Office’s own study from 2002—I do not think there has been one since then—noted that there was little evidence that respondents seeking to come to the UK had a detailed knowledge of UK asylum procedures, benefit entitlements or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these conditions varied between different European destination countries.

Given that individuals have little knowledge of the asylum systems of the countries they end up in, it is not clear that differential treatment will dissuade individuals from coming to the UK via safe countries. However, what the Government are proposing will certainly result in a refugee population that is less secure, and it will punish those who have been recognised through the legal system as needing international protection, such as women and girls fleeing the Taliban or Uighurs fleeing genocide in China.

The Explanatory Notes also state that 62% of asylum claims in the UK up to September 2019 were from people who entered irregularly. This means that the policy intention is to impose strictures on the rights and entitlements of the majority of refugees coming to the UK, even though we take fewer than comparable countries. Those penalties would target not just those who have entered the UK irregularly or have made dangerous journeys but all those who have not come directly to the UK, regularly or irregularly, from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened, those who have delayed claiming asylum or overstayed, and even those who arrive in the UK without entry clearance and who claim asylum immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords have repeatedly talked about undermining family reunion. I confirm to the noble Baroness, and for Hansard, so that noble Lords do not come back at me again and again to make this point, that group 2 refugees will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion, compatible with the ECHR. Most importantly, they will be provided with protection against refoulement. I make that point again: group 2 refugees will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion. I hope noble Lords will not come back to that point—well, they will do so, but I have made my point, I hope.

If I can, I will continue on the generosity of the great British public and this Government. Over 88,000 BNO status holders and their family members—almost 90,000, as my noble friend said—have chosen to apply for the BNO route, with over 76,000 granted it so far. Meanwhile, we led Europe in airlifting some 15,000 people out of Afghanistan to the UK from mid-August under Operation Pitting. If any noble Lord wants to stand up and say we were not generous in that situation, I beg them to do that now. That is over and above the earlier transfers of around 2,000 locally employed staff and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Our new Afghan citizens resettlement scheme also aims to welcome a total of 20,000 people. These people, who noble Lords were talking about earlier, are the most vulnerable people in the world today and our generosity has been exemplary.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Can I just clarify a point? The Minister has said it is not true that family reunion rights are going to be restricted. But as I understand it, the Government’s New Plan for Immigration did give a detailed indication of what different treatment might look like for group 2 refugees. I am perfectly willing to stand corrected if what I am saying is wrong, but as I understand it, the New Plan for Immigration said, in relation to group 2 refugees who will be granted temporary protection:

“Temporary protection status will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution.”


Is that quote from the Government’s new plan wrong? In other words, is it not correct that family reunion rights will be restricted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is not correct to say that family reunion rights will be restricted for group 2 refugees. They will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion. If someone, be they a group 1 or group 2 refugee, is deemed a refugee, they will be afforded family reunion rights compatible with the ECHR.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Can I just carry on? I will then of course allow an intervention from the noble Lord; he is always courteous to me.

I want to further reassure the noble Baroness that, even where a refugee or a family member is a group 2 refugee, “reasonable discretion” will be exercised with respect to the determination of differentiated entitlements. We have built this notion into current drafting by ensuring that the determination of whether a refugee is in group 1 or group 2 will depend on whether they could have been reasonably expected to claim asylum in another safe country, and their asylum claim in the UK was made as soon as is reasonably practicable. Our view is that these standards provide adequate discretion to take into account particular facts of an individual case when determining tiering and therefore whether they are granted differentiated entitlements. Would the noble Lord like to intervene now?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I would because I am getting thoroughly confused, which is something I perhaps do quite frequently, I accept. I will read out again from the JCHR report. It says:

“The policy paper that preceded the Bill, the Government’s ‘New Plan for Immigration’, gave a more detailed indication of what different treatment may look like, as it proposed that instead of fully fledged refugee status, Group 2 refugees would be granted ‘temporary protection’ for a period of no longer than 30 months ‘after which individuals [would] be reassessed for return to their country of origin or removal to a safe third country.’ Temporary protection status ‘will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution.’”


Those are quotations from the Government’s New Plan for Immigration policy statement. In relation to group 2 refugees, who are being created by Clause 11 —that is the new bit and what the Bill is doing—it quite clearly states:

“family reunion rights will be restricted”.

I ask again: is that correct or incorrect? If it is not, why is it written in the JCHR report? If the Minister is going to tell me that the JCHR has got it wrong, please say so clearly now.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Before the noble Baroness responds, I add that I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is confused: I fear that the Minister is being mildly disingenuous with us. Can she confirm that there is a difference in the intended treatment of group 1 and group 2 refugees as concerns family reunion? Otherwise, what is the point of Clause 11(6):

“The Secretary of State or an immigration officer may … treat the family members of Group 1 and Group 2 refugees differently, for example in respect of … whether to give the person leave to enter or remain”


et cetera? What is the point of this being in the Bill if there is no intention to treat group 2 refugees differently? The Minister told us about how this will not breach the refugee convention and so on. I asked specifically about the comments on Article 8, and I look forward to her replying specifically on that. But can she confirm whether their intention is to treat group 1 and group 2 refugees differently in terms of rights to family reunion?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for putting my mind at rest. I initially hesitated to support Amendment 40 as it highlights particularly vulnerable asylum seekers, potentially giving the false impression that we do not believe that all asylum seekers are vulnerable, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee just said. Nor do we want to give the false impression that we on these Benches support in any way, shape or form what we believe to be the illegal practice of differentiating asylum seekers, as Clause 11 attempts to do, for any reason. This amendment only probes the requirement of Clause 11(2)(b) that asylum seekers must

“have presented themselves without delay to the authorities”,

which might be an issue whether Clause 11 remains part of the Bill or not.

Amendment 40 lists examples of those who may have suffered particular trauma that may cause them to hesitate in claiming asylum. I can talk only about my personal experience as a gay man, trying to conceal my sexuality for fear of being found out for the first 40 years of my life, even in a country that decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting men aged 21 and over when I was nine. The point is this: just because it is legally safe to be gay in this country does not mean that it feels safe to be gay in this country. Even Dame Cressida Dick—the person of the moment—did not feel able to be publicly open about her sexuality until she became Commissioner of the Met, and it has never been illegal to express your sexuality as a lesbian in the UK. I can only imagine what it might be like, coming from a country where you can still be executed if you express your sexuality, to come here and then be expected to claim asylum “without delay” because of your sexuality. It is so clearly and obviously unreasonable.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, it is also less likely that those fleeing persecution will be able to produce evidence of their sexuality, be open about it or overcome the fear of being open about it because of concerns about family members who remain in their home country. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, spoke compellingly, from personal experience of helping particularly vulnerable refugees, of how long it takes asylum seekers to recover, as my noble friend has just highlighted. There is compelling evidence of the need for this amendment and we support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said in moving this amendment, Clause 11 provides that to be a group 1 refugee you must have presented yourself to the authorities “without delay”. This amendment would provide that vulnerable groups are not subject to this time constraint. As one sees from reading the amendment, this would include, though not exclusively, children, survivors of torture, sexual violence and gender-based violence, LGBT refugees, victims of modern slavery and disabled refugees. This is a probing amendment to find out more about how the “without delay” provision will work in practice. As has been said, traumatised people, for example survivors of sexual or gender-based violence, who are largely, but certainly not exclusively, women, do not always feel —to put it mildly—in a position to unburden themselves to the first complete stranger or border, immigration or other government official that they meet on arrival.

The position of single men and sexual orientation has also been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to the article in the Times about single men who arrive from across the channel being detained and locked up. In a previous debate, I asked whether the Minister could say whether that Times article was true. I ask again: is that article true or false? It is important that we get an answer because it relates to this amendment as well.

As well as answering that question, I hope the Minister will give some indication of how the “without delay” provision will work in relation to the vulnerable groups covered by the amendment, what kind of leeway or otherwise the Government intend there to be and what exactly “without delay” means in this context.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for what have been very thoughtful contributions. I will directly address the question that the noble Lord asked me in the previous group about locking single males up. I have not seen the Times article. If he will allow me, I will look at it and respond in due course.

Although the policy is intended to deter dangerous journeys and encourage people to claim asylum in the first safe country, I assure noble Lords that we have been very careful to strike the right balance between how the policy achieves its aim and protecting the most vulnerable, which is what noble Lords have spoken about this evening. Before I explain why I think statutory exemptions are probably not needed, I will offer a few thoughts in relation to how the “without delay” element of Clause 11 is anticipated to operate.

There are two broad categories under which I envisage the exercise of discretion is most likely to be appropriate. The first is where a person finds themselves unable or unwilling to present themselves to the authorities for any reason that pertains to their proposed asylum claim. In such instances, there will need to be very careful consideration of whether it was reasonably practicable for that person to have claimed without delay. For example, if they had been tortured—noble Lords have given this sort of example—suffered sexual violence at the hands of state authorities or, indeed, feared admitting their sexual orientation due to state persecution on those grounds, this sort of situation would trigger very careful consideration.

The second category is where a person was simply not in control of their actions. In such circumstances, we would also be very careful to consider the facts of that case when determining whether it was reasonably practicable for that person to have claimed without delay. I think primarily of victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied children, and those suffering serious physical or mental disabilities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about statistics. I do not have them to hand, but I will try to get them.

On the guidance and training, one of the things that I looked into in great detail way back, when we talked about LGBT people in the detention estate, was how practitioners went about establishing claims made on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation. It is fair to say that, back in the day, “clunking” would probably have been a charitable word to use—some of the ways people were questioned were on the verge of being inhumane. We really went to extraordinary lengths to try to change that and make it a much more humane process. It is now about establishing the reasons why someone is making a claim, not proving it, so our policies and training are now designed to support claimants in being able to explain their claim in a very sensitive and safe environment. Our approach, I can confirm, is trauma informed.

Our guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity, as I said previously, was developed to take these issues into account—UNHCR, Stonewall and Rainbow Migration contributed to its development—and we will review and update our training and guidance where necessary to support people who are LGBT+. I confirm again that this will take people’s experiences into account, including the trauma that they have suffered. I thank those organisations, particularly Stonewall, Rainbow Migration and UNHCR, that have helped to make the process far more humane so that people’s very difficult journeys and experiences are eased somewhat by our attitude and approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, after the emotionally draining Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I told myself not to get so involved with this one, but how can noble Lords not get so involved when we are dealing with measures such as this? I cannot believe that it is not also taking a toll on the Minister, who, at all times and in every circumstance, tries everything she can personally to meet and persuade noble Lords. I wanted to put that on the record in case there was any misunderstanding of my remarks on the other Bill.

Again, we reiterate that we believe that the sole determinant of how an asylum seeker should be treated by the UK are the circumstances that forced them to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom. If they genuinely have fled war or persecution, they should be treated as refugees, with all the rights associated with that status, regardless of how they arrived in the UK. These amendments seek to clarify in what circumstances a second-class refugee, as defined by Clause 11, would have no recourse to public funds, and what would happen to those individuals in such circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, explained. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, articulated the consequences of having no recourse to public funds. In short, do the Government intend to make group 2 refugees—a dreadful and, we believe, illegal term—destitute and homeless, or just for them to suffer grinding poverty?

I assume these measures are supposed to be a deterrent, but I ask noble Lords to put themselves in the position of a genuine asylum seeker in a migrant camp in northern France, considering what their next move should be. Would they feel that they would be better off destitute and homeless in France, or destitute and homeless in the United Kingdom, where they speak the same language, for example, or have friends or relatives? Would they believe, despite the Government’s best efforts, that they would still be better off in the United Kingdom than in France, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, listed so clearly?

Can the Minister answer this question? Are the Government really on a race to the bottom with other countries, such as France, to see who can make life more intolerable for genuine asylum seekers? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised the issue of France. I agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford: my understanding was that the French were complaining that it was easier to work illegally in the UK than in France, which was why people were coming to the UK. My understanding is also that the benefits given to refugees in France are higher than in the UK, but I stand to be corrected. Having asked the Minister that question, with some trepidation I await the Government’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the ways that the Government can differentiate under the Bill between group 1 and group 2 refugees is to apply “no recourse to public funds”. The two probing amendments in this group would remove that provision. I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, had to say, as I did to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in moving the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, asked what the policy intent of NRPF is—I think she asked that twice during her contribution. Having heard the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the policy intent behind no recourse to public funds being applied to group 2 refugees.

We fully agree with these amendments, which are probing. A question was put to the Minister, and I simply want to support that ask of the Minister to set out in detail when the Government would consider this an appropriate differentiation to use, and in what cases. To whom within group 2 refugees do the Government expect this differentiation on no recourse to public funds to be applied, and in what circumstances? Against what criteria will that decision be made?

We are not talking about applying no recourse to public funds to persons without a valid refugee claim or economic migrants. Clause 11 applies solely to people the Government recognise as refugees with a valid right to be here and to seek safety. Bearing that in mind, it would be interesting to find out in what circumstances they think it appropriate to apply no recourse to public funds to people in the group 2 category.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for explaining their Amendments 46 and 54. As I have said elsewhere, I hope I can reassure the Committee that the powers under Clause 11 are both broad and flexible.

To come first to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, there is no obligation to exercise the provisions and, where they are exercised, there is no requirement to do so in any particular way. We will of course produce guidance and rules in this respect in due course, but those products will reflect the flexibility in the clause by providing appropriate discretion to take into account people’s individual circumstances.

The same therefore applies to no recourse to public funds. Details will be set out in due course, but I reassure noble Lords that we will take particular care to take into account relevant factors when considering the imposition of the condition, if it is imposed at all, including the impact on families, children and other vulnerabilities that have been raised elsewhere. In addition, we are mindful of potential impacts on local authorities and wider civil society. The policies in the Bill are of course subject to an impact assessment in any event. I stress that no one will be NRPF if they would otherwise be at risk of destitution. If they are, they can apply for a change of conditions to remove the condition.

I shall pick up on a few points. The first was about the policy intent, which is to disincentivise dangerous journeys. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral is right: we have to disincentivise people from risking their lives.

My noble friend Lady Stroud talked about safe and legal routes. She was probably not in the Chamber when I laid out absolutely all of them. I refer her to the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, setting all of them out, including several routes for family reunion; I hope she will take a look at that. I commend her on coming up with the solution, yet again, of working with the French. I agree that we need to work not only with the French but with other countries because this is a global problem that now requires a global solution from each and every state on the globe.

I turn to push factors versus pull factors. Push factors do not explain secondary movement, there is no doubt about that. If push factors were all, people would stop in the first safe country that they reached—that is an absolute fact. We must keep all options on the table to stop illegal migration. I hope, but doubt, that I have reassured the noble Baroness that I appreciate and understand her concerns, and the requisite levels of discretion and sensitivity will be exercised with respect to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, but I disagree.

To answer my noble friend’s intervention about who decides, it is caseworkers.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I may have misunderstood the thrust of what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government, but it came over to me that the reason why we have no recourse to public funds is to disincentivise dangerous journeys—that is, people will know that there is no recourse to public funds, and if they know that it may make stop them making those journeys.

If that is the case, why cannot the Government tell us the circumstances in which no recourse to public funds will apply? Their response has been, in effect: “Someone will draw up guidelines later on, but we do not know at the moment what they will say or the circumstances in which there would be no recourse to public funds.” In that situation, it just is not credible to say that something where the Government do not know how it will be applied would act as a disincentive on dangerous journeys.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

It removes the guarantee.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is not unusual for guidelines to be drawn up after legislation has been brought in.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

It is true that it is not unusual for guidelines to be drawn up subsequently but, presumably, in including the provision in the Bill, the Government had at least some idea of the circumstances in which it would be applied. The answer I am getting now is that they cannot tell us any circumstances in which it will definitely apply.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I outlined situations in which it might be applied, as opposed to putting them in the Bill. I am very happy to go away and look at that and write to him with some examples of where it might be applied—I get his point on that.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Ludford, the Chagos Islanders were evicted by the UK Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for a US naval base, and they are still exiled from their homeland. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, there are two separate and very distinct issues here. The first, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, is giving the Chagos Islands back to the islanders, which is very much an issue for the Foreign Office. This amendment is about giving Chagos Islanders nationality, and that is very much the responsibility of the Home Office, not the Foreign Office. I would also say, in response to the last speaker and to the noble Lord, that century-long precedents are not necessarily good precedents.

One impact of the eviction has been to deprive descendants of their citizenship rights. The Chagos Islands remain a British Overseas Territory and, as we have heard, were it not for the eviction, they would have passed British Overseas Territories citizenship from generation to generation. In certain circumstances, they could have acquired entitlement to be registered as British citizens and, since 2002, they could have benefited from a general discretion from the Home Secretary to register as British citizens.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the Government’s objection in the other place does not hold water. The situation of the Chagos Islanders is unique and, while the other measures in this part of the Bill to address historic injustices are welcome, they are incomplete without the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, which we wholeheartedly support. As the noble Baroness explained, it is narrow in scope, focused exclusively on the Chagos Islanders’ direct descendants and limited to a five-year window, either from the date the amendment comes into force or five years from when the eligible person turns 18. The Minister will have to do more than simply repeat the words of her colleague in the other place to convince noble Lords not to pursue this matter further on Report.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I would like to express our support for this new clause. I wish to be clear about its objectives and will read from the Member’s explanatory statement:

“This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.”


As we have heard, the proposed new clause is intended to rectify a long-standing injustice which impacts descendants of the Chagos Islanders who were forcibly removed from British Indian Ocean territory in the 1960s. I too wish to express my appreciation and admiration of all those who have been raising and pursuing this issue over a number of years, not least my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—although I know they are not the only ones who have been working on behalf of the Chagos Islanders.

The issue has significant cross-party support, and the case for this change was powerfully made by a Member of the Minister’s own party in the Commons, Henry Smith MP, who was supported by Members across that House. The clause, as I have indicated, would extend the right to register for citizenship to the grandchildren and other descendants of this population, and it would, as has been pointed out, apply to only a small number of people.

In the Commons, the Minister’s response was not too encouraging, suggesting that this would be too significant a departure from existing law. However, he did say that the Government had heard the strong points made and would

“continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]

What consideration of this issue has since occurred across Government? What have Ministers settled on as to

“what more we could do”?

In recent years, we have raised significant concerns about this Government’s ongoing foreign and defence policy as regards the Chagos Islands. The Bill provides an opportunity for a distinct and limited change to our own law—one which would have a significant impact for those affected by half a century of injustice. This is surely a unique case. Frankly, we are not setting a precedent, which is what the Government seem to have been arguing to date.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will, ideally, accept the amendment, but, if that is not possible today, that she will take on board the response of the practitioners, who in my experience always know what they are talking about and can express it better than through an interpreter like me. They make the point very clearly. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I would like in particular to add our support for Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is feeling a lot better very soon.

Labour’s shadow Minister raised this issue in the Commons and received disappointing answers. As we have heard, the amendment would put right a discrepancy in our nationality law and adoption law. Currently, an adoption order can be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19, but the same adoption order can confer British citizenship only where the child is under 18. In the same order, our law provides that a person is a full member of their adopted family but also that they are not, because they cannot share citizenship with them.

The answers given by the Minister in the Commons were that 18 year-olds are

“capable of making their own life choices”,

that they can

“purchase alcohol, accrue debt, join the Army, or vote in an election”,

and so they are

“fully fledged and can theoretically live independently of other family members”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 190.]

On that basis, is the Government’s argument that at 18 someone is young enough to be adopted and provided for in our adoption law, but at the same time too old to really be an adopted child and be recognised in our nationality law?

The Minister in the Commons also argued that this change would be “out of step” with existing nationality law. One can only comment that this amendment is not seeking to make a general change to our law. By its nature, it is a completely limited, clearly defined provision for a small number of children who are going through our adoption system. It is difficult to see why this would be controversial rather than a common-sense change.

I also welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her questions to the Government. We await the response with interest. We welcome Clause 7 and recognise that its aim is to provide a means to correct further injustices, but our concerns are, first, to make sure that the clause is used and is not just a token power which the Secretary of State “may” choose to action. That is probed by Amendments 16 and 20. Will the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the Secretary of State may choose not to allow for a person to be registered as a citizen in a case where they have been subject to a historical injustice?

Secondly, we wish to be sure that this clause is rightly a reactive and fleet-of-foot mechanism to respond to newly identified problems but that it is not an excuse to avoid making further changes in the law where these are necessary. Where a further injustice or any flaw in our nationality law is identified, the Government must amend the law to rectify that. No doubt, the Government could say in their response whether that is their intention.

On the question of the inclusion of British overseas citizens in the provisions of Clause 7, addressed by Amendment 24, the ministerial response in the Commons was unclear. At the same time, the Minister seemed to claim that the clause needed to be as flexible and unfettered as possible but also that it was right to put limits on it; to not include cases which may arise on British overseas citizenship. That would appear somewhat contradictory.

We support the amendments and await answers to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope the Minister will also respond to my questions on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments to Clause 7, which will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to those who would have been, or been able to become, a British citizen, but for historical legislative unfairness, either an act or omission of a public authority or their exceptional circumstances. It also creates a similar route for governors in overseas territories to grant British Overseas Territories citizenship on the same basis.

--- Later in debate ---

The second thing I ask the Committee to consider is not just citizenship here but the UK’s place in the world, as a responsible citizen on the world stage. If every grown-up, mature and responsible democracy in the world chooses to deal with threats to its security by depriving bad people of their citizenship, and other countries follow our lead, what will the consequences be for global security? If every mature democracy gets to just take citizenship away from bad people, whoever they are—terrorists, murderers or paedophiles—where will we be then? We will be dumping our citizens like toxic waste in international waters. How will that make Britain or the world a safer place?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers of 25 January. If I understood correctly what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said, I rather gather that it did not make a great impact on her. I am probably in the same category. Nevertheless, I appreciated receiving the letter.

I have added my name in relation to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill, which was spoken to with such clarity and authority by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and will speak to that. No doubt there will be a need for some reflection on all the amendments in this group, as well as the stand part debate, as to what may or may not happen on Report.

Frankly, through Clause 9, the Government—metaphorically speaking, I stress—take no prisoners. They seek to amend the long-standing position, under the British Nationality Act 1981, that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality. That requirement of prior notice is removed by Clause 9

“if it appears to the Secretary of State that … the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice … it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to give notice … or … notice … should not be given … in the interests of national security … in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or … otherwise in the public interest.”

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made particular reference to that last part on the basis that it is so broad and wide-ranging.

Yet, as we know, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out—this was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the Government said that there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice stopped a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. Of course, that begs the question: why do we have Clause 9 at all? I do not think that we got an answer to that in the letter from the Minister of 25 January 2022.

The number of people deprived of their citizenship, which the Government can now do on the basis that it would be

“conducive to the public good”,

has risen over the past 12 years. We have heard a variety of figures during this debate as to the extent of that deprivation and the numbers involved. I have a figure, too. It does not tally with some of the figures that have been given but the figure that I have is that, between 2010 and 2018, around 175 people were deprived of their citizenship on the grounds that it was conducive to the public good. A significant number happened in 2017, as has been said; the figures certainly seem to be on an upward trend.

In that context, information on the Court of Appeal decision that has been referred to that upheld a High Court ruling—the D4 case—says that the Home Secretary

“argued that notification had been given to D4, who has been detained in the … camp in Syria since January 2019, by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”

Under Clause 9, we are faced with even wider powers being given to the Home Secretary. In the light of a note simply being placed on a Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval, how are we expected to have any confidence in the provisions of Clause 9 being applied fairly and objectively when this kind of thing is going on and has been brought to our attention? In how many cases has this been done, with a note simply being placed on the Home Office file? It certainly does not inspire confidence in giving the Home Office the kind of powers that are provided for in Clause 9. I know that the Minister will tell me that these powers relate only to the notification of a decision to deprive, but it is the criteria against which the conclusion can be reached to give notification of a decision without notice that are of concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 10 talks about, to quote the Explanatory Notes,

“cases where parents have chosen not to register their child’s birth, which would have acquired their own nationality for their child, which means that the child can register as a British citizen under the statelessness provisions.”

I seriously question how many parents have such a detailed understanding of nationality law that they choose not to register their child’s birth in order to register their child later under statelessness provisions to give them British citizenship. That is just not credible. How many cases can the Minister cite where parents have deliberately not registered the nationality of their child in order for that child to get British citizenship under the statelessness provisions?

This strikes me as a cynical attempt to tighten the law, in a similar way to that in which the Bill tightens the provisions around modern slavery, to give the impression of being tough—bordering on xenophobic —on immigration, when there really is not a problem. It should not be part of the Bill. The power in this clause given to the Secretary of State to deny British citizenship to a child, unless she is satisfied that the child cannot reasonably acquire the nationality of its parents, needs to be qualified at the very least.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

“to ensure that British citizenship is only withheld”

from a stateless child born in the UK

“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately”,

without any legal or administrative hurdles. We will support this amendment if this clause stands part of the Bill.

These are decisions being taken by parents and the Secretary of State about an innocent child who has no influence over what is being decided about their future—decisions about something as fundamental as citizenship. For that reason alone, we strongly support Amendment 31: that the best interests of the stateless child born in the UK must be central to any decision whether to grant or refuse British citizenship.

This is what we have come to: seeking to deny stateless children born in the UK British citizenship. As I said on a previous group, British citizenship has benefits to society as well as to the individual concerned. This is not just about the best interests of the child, although it should be; it is about what is in the best interests of society. Keeping children stateless as they grow into adults surely increases their chance of being radicalised and becoming a threat to society. On the last group, the Minister kept talking about high-harm individuals. All the evidence points to one of the most important factors in radicalisation being people not feeling part of society or of this country. Keeping a child stateless surely will increase the danger of that person growing into a terrorist.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my name has been added to the proposal to oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. It proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here.

Through Clause 10, the Government now propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens, which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.

Rather than helping such children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. They seem to want to try to deny citizenship, particularly citizenship of the place where the child was born and lives—in fact, the only place they know. No doubt the Government will explain what substantial wrong they consider this clause addresses and what hard evidence there is that that wrong is actually significant, as opposed to it being claimed as such.

Clause 10 can only be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, with this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the serious implications that can have. There has been no assessment made by the Government of the impact this proposal will have on those children affected, which suggests that this issue does not trouble the Government. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, how can this be in the best interests of the child? This issue is addressed in Amendment 31, reflecting a JCHR recommendation.

In the Commons, we supported an amendment to Clause 10 which sought to ensure that the Government act in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government having failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill. The amendment altered Clause 10, so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. That is as per Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which also reflects a JCHR recommendation.

I am probably being overoptimistic in hoping that there will be a positive government reply to this stand part debate. At the very least, if my fears are justified and we do not get a positive reply from our point of view, I hope that we will be told what the hard evidence is that Clause 10 actually addresses a significant wrong, rather than one being claimed as such.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendments 30 and 31 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. I also note the opposition to and concerns about this clause of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, should they not be satisfied by my response. In an ideal world, we would not need to include this clause, but current trends mean that we feel we must.

That goes to the question that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked about the figures. In 2017, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, even though the applicant was eligible for the grant of British citizenship under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the BNA 1981, and despite the fact that they could acquire the nationality of their parents, the judge recognised that his conclusion

“opens an obvious route to abuse”.

The figures bear that out. In 2010 there were five cases; in 2018 they peaked at 1,775. There is obvious evidence that this is happening. I rest my case there.

Clause 10 has been developed in response to concerns that a number of non-settled parents, many of whom did not have permission to be in the UK at the time of their child’s birth, have chosen not to register their child’s birth with their own authorities in order to qualify under the current child statelessness provisions. This in turn can impact on the parents’ immigration status.

Amendment 30 would add a new condition to Clause 10, so that a child is defined as being able to acquire a nationality from birth only if there were no legal or administrative barriers to them doing so. That would mean that the parents I have talked about could, in theory, benefit from the stateless child provisions by not registering their child’s birth. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, it is very easy to register a child’s birth. The parents simply need to complete a form and provide supporting information about their identity, status and residence and the child’s birth. I do not think that is difficult.

I appreciate that the noble Lord’s use of the term “barriers” might have been intended to suggest something more significant and assure him that the clause already reflects our expectation that children who cannot reasonably acquire another nationality should not be excluded. The UNHCR’s document Guidelines on Statelessness no. 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness recognises that the responsibility to grant nationality to children who would otherwise be stateless is not engaged where a child could acquire the nationality of a parent through registration or a simple procedure. The genuinely stateless child will not be affected. This is about those who can reasonably acquire another nationality. It is not about the Windrush generation—they are entitled to be British.

We do not think it is fair that parents can effectively secure a quicker route to British citizenship by choosing not to register their child’s birth. In doing so, they are depriving their child of a nationality, which is not only about identity and belonging, as I heard one noble Lord say, but can allow them to acquire a passport or identity document and the ability to travel overseas to see family, for example.

They are also taking advantage of a provision intended to protect those who are genuinely stateless. We want them still to be able to benefit, but we want to change the registration provisions so that parents cannot effectively choose statelessness for their children and then benefit from the provisions. We think it is appropriate that families should take reasonable steps to acquire a nationality for their child. We will set out in guidance the sort of steps that we think are reasonable, and applications will be considered on their individual basis.

Amendment 31 would mean that we could not regard a child as being able to acquire another nationality, and so decline their British citizenship application, if it would not be in the best interests of the child to gain that nationality. Noble Lords have pointed out the value they see in a child being able to secure and acquire a nationality, and it is difficult to see why parents might argue that it is not in their child’s best interests to share their status. We have already taken into account that some countries’ nationalities may be problematic for a child to acquire. The proposed clause reflects our expectation that a parent should not need to try to acquire a nationality for their child if it is not reasonable for them to do so.

Enforcement of Lockdown Regulations

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord asks a perfectly legitimate question. To that I would say that the police are operationally independent of government, but the review and the investigation will take their course.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Do the Government currently believe that there has been equality of treatment between different groups in respect of the enforcement of lockdown regulations by the police since spring 2020? If the Government do not believe that that has been the case, what action are they taking now to address that point?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to noble Lords, there clearly has been a disparity, with BAME people more likely to have fixed penalty notices issued to them. As I said, the NPCC is going to analyse that in more depth, and will report in due course.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

114C: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Accountability of public authorities: duties on police workforce
(1) Members of the police workforce have a duty at all times to act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) Members of the police workforce have a duty to assist court proceedings, official inquiries and investigations—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions are or may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), members of the police workforce must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), members of the police workforce must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation, but are not limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) are subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) are enforceable—(a) by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or(b) by the court or inquiry of its own motion, or(c) where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would establish a duty of candour on members of the police workforce.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 114C would place a statutory duty of candour on members of the police workforce. It would create a duty on law enforcement to act at all times in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness, and to assist in court proceedings, official inquiries and investigations where the activities of members of the police workforce, including omissions, may be relevant. The issue was discussed at some length in Committee and I certainly do not intend to repeat all that was said then.

In his 2017 report on the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families, Bishop James Jones proposed a duty of candour to address

“the unacceptable behaviour of police officers—serving or retired—who fail to cooperate fully with investigations into alleged criminal offences or misconduct.”

In June 2021, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I believe took eight years to report, found:

“There was not insignificant obstruction to the Panel’s work … the Metropolitan Police did not approach the Panel’s scrutiny with candour, in an open, honest and transparent way”.


The panel recommended

“the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve”.

The chair of the panel, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said in this House that

“the creation of the duty of candour in matters such as this is vital for the integrity and effectiveness of policing”.—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 134.]

Last June, the Government told us in this House that they were still considering the duty of candour in response to Bishop James Jones’s report four years earlier. We now have before us a flagship home affairs and justice Bill from this Government, which prioritises new offences against those who protest but is silent on the failures of justice highlighted in the Bishop Jones report and by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and the resulting call, both in the report and by the panel, for the statutory duty of candour provided for in this amendment. It is time for action and a decision, and an end to this seemingly never-ending continuing government consideration of this issue. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I have added my name to this amendment for four reasons. First, the need is clear: we need complete protection of victims and the public interest, and to make certain that recalcitrant are no longer able to delay. Secondly, the duty of candour is clear: there is no doubt about what it entails. Thirdly, the remedies provided in the proposed new clause are extensive and proportionate. Finally, there can be no reason for delay. Why does it need consultation? It does not. The proposed new clause and the need are clear; we should pass this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to the amendment. I also thank the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, for the Government’s response.

The fact that we are now four years on from Bishop James Jones’s report and the Government are still considering their response to the call for a duty of candour simply indicates what a relatively low priority this issue must be for the Government. The Government said in Committee, and indeed the Minister repeated it today, that:

“The Government have already made significant changes to ensure that officers can be disciplined if they mislead the public, and we are committed to properly consider and respond to the recommendations for a duty of candour, as highlighted in Bishop James Jones’s report.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1255.]


In the light of what the Government have just had to say, which appears to be that they think that the steps they have taken are more significant than a duty of candour, there must surely now be a real likelihood that the Government will eventually decide against a statutory duty of candour, deciding that internal disciplinary codes and practices are sufficient, when, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others have said, they clearly are not. We now have a statutory duty of candour in the National Health Service.

I conclude by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee, on 3 November 2021, which can be read in Hansard:

“The statutory duty of candour is vital not just to affect the culture of the police and enhance public confidence in policing but to give confidence to those police officers who face enormous internal pressures from their colleagues not to be candid. They need support; they need a statutory regime they can point to in order to justify to their colleagues what is required.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1253.]


I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on his excellent introduction. This is the first time I have spoken this evening but my remarks apply to many other aspects of this Bill and many of the other areas that we are voting on.

There are some excellent and important measures in this Bill. I agree that banning dangerous or violent protestors is important; I am pleased that my noble friend the Minister said in an earlier debate that the law must protect the public and prevent extremist protests such as those by Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain. However, I respectfully suggest that the measures in Clause 59 are like using not a hammer but dynamite to crack a nut.

The Conservative Party has always championed law and order but also freedom of speech and expression, most importantly around Parliament Square—the very heart of our democracy. Amendments 133A and 133B would protect the public’s right to demonstrate and express views in Parliament Square, which is so important. I hope that colleagues on these Benches will consider supporting these important changes to the Bill.

I do not believe that the Government really intend to ban peaceful protest. My noble friend the Minister will assure the House that such protests can still proceed, and I have no doubt that she is sincere in that assurance. But I respectfully point out that, without these amendments, this legislation could prove a Trojan horse, allowing future Governments to introduce the shadow of repression into our country, and could represent a potential attack on the most fundamental freedoms of our democracy. We could allow this and any future Government to ban large demonstrations around Parliament Square on the basis of a ministerial diktat and police connivance. Indeed, the grounds on which such protests can be criminalised are quite flimsy. One example, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentioned, is proposed new subsection (4A)—to be inserted by Clause 59(3)(c)—which states that

“obstructing the passage of a vehicle includes making the passage of a vehicle more difficult.”

What does that mean? Is it a 30-second delay? Every large protest would be banned, which would effectively change the way our democracy has worked for centuries.

This country has a proud record of standing up to despots, authoritarian rulers and corrupt dictatorships. We have offered sanctuary to those fleeing repression, for which I will be eternally grateful. The most recent example is of Hong Kong residents fleeing Chinese repression, who witnessed their Government recently tearing down the statue memorialising the Tiananmen Square massacre. When those Hong Kong exiles arrive here and learn that this mother of all parliaments no longer allows large protests outside its door, at any time, what will they think?

Democratic Governments must not surround themselves only with yea-sayers, hearing only what they want or choose to hear and squashing dissent. I believe it is important for noble Lords to stand up for our cherished freedoms, prevent any descent into authoritarian rule and support these wholly reasonable amendments to this Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my name is also added to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which he moved so eloquently and comprehensively. I really do not want to take up any more of the House’s time, but simply say that we support this amendment and what was said by him, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. If the noble Viscount is not happy with the response he gets and decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him in the vote.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Clauses 59 and 60, which ensure—as was originally proposed by the right honourable Harriet Harman, as chair of the JCHR, to whom we send our deepest sympathies—that vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate is not prevented by protests or other activity; and Clause 61, which restates the common-law offence of public nuisance in statute.

I begin with Amendments 133A and 133B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which I was able to discuss with him and Dominic Grieve last week. They seek to avoid a perceived outcome of Clause 59 that the Greater London Authority will no longer authorise large-scale assemblies on Parliament Square, due to the risk that such assemblies could obstruct vehicles entering or exiting the controlled area around Parliament.

I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for meeting me last week to raise his concerns about Clause 59. I understand that he is concerned that this clause may have the unintended consequences that the Greater London Authority, which is responsible for Parliament Square Garden, would no longer be able to authorise assemblies in the garden if they risk blocking vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate. I reassure him tonight, as I did the other day, that this is not the case.

The GLA’s by-laws for Parliament Square Garden require that written permission is granted for certain acts to be conducted in the garden; organising or taking part in an assembly is one of those acts. It is important to note that this by-law applies to the garden itself and does not extend to Carriage Gates, nor the road around the garden. The by-laws state that permission will not be given in respect of any matter defined as a “prohibited activity” under Section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Clause 59 amends this section to include obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of an entrance or exit to the Parliamentary Estate as a prohibited activity.

In practice, this means that the GLA could not permit an assembly in Parliament Square Garden if its stated and primary aim is to obstruct vehicular passage in and out of Parliament. However, nothing in Clause 59 means that permission could not still be granted for any other assembly, even if that risks some individuals in attendance obstructing vehicles entering and exiting Parliament. This is the point I was trying to impress the other day.

--- Later in debate ---

All these measures are vital to protecting the country from the highly disruptive tactics employed by a small number of people. The rights to freedom of speech and assembly are, as we have all said, a cornerstone of our democracy, and the Government will not shrink from defending them. But a responsible Government, who stand up for the rule of law, must also defend the rights and freedoms of the law-abiding majority. Their rights cannot and must not be trampled on by a small minority of protesters, who believe they should not be answerable to the law and should be given carte blanche to cause any amount of disruption at any cost. As a Government and as legislators, we have a duty to protect and defend the rights of our citizens. These amendments are a necessary and proportionate means for achieving that balance of rights and responsibilities. I have no hesitation in commending the government amendments to the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We have amendments in this group, and I will refer also to the new government amendments. I will try to be brief since I do not wish to test the patience of the House, but I have a bit to get through. In that context, I congratulate the Minister on the quite enormous stamina which she has shown so far. I have to admit that it is way in excess of my stamina for this kind of thing.

We oppose the group of new government clauses on protest. In our view, they should not be added to the Bill, which already contains government proposals in relation to protests. The Bill has been in Parliament for some 11 months. However, these sweeping, significant and further controversial powers from the Government have not been looked at for a single minute by the elected House, which is normal practice in relation to controversial measures. In this House they have had just over one hour’s consideration, after midnight at the end of Committee, which meant, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of noble Lords were denied the opportunity to participate. We have now started to debate them here on Report at 9.50 pm and have been told that Report has to be completed tonight, whether before or after midnight. This is, frankly, an outrageous way to legislate. Sometimes a Bill needs late additions to respond to events that have to be addressed immediately. However, the Government did not apply this approach to abusive and intimidating protests outside schools and vaccine centres. Instead, this House compelled them to do so last week.

We support increasing sentences for those who protest dangerously by blocking motorways. This is also likely to cause a clear risk to life, and we were all aware of ambulances being impeded last year when motorways were obstructed and of members of the public being unable to complete time-critical journeys in the timescale required. Our Amendment 150A to government Amendment 150 would apply these increased sentences where they should actually be targeted: not at every road and highway across the board but at wilful obstruction of the motorways and major roads in the 4,300-mile strategic road network—SRN—at the core of our national transport system. Instruction of the SRN results in the most disruption due to volume of traffic, a lack of alternative routes and the difficulty of getting off such a major route because of infrequent junctions, for the large amounts of traffic obstructed. Our amendment would also largely prevent the higher penalties applying to obstruction of a grass verge or pavement, which may be interpreted as part of a highway.

The Government’s proposed locking-on amendment provides an exceptionally low threshold for a broad offence. It can be triggered by an act that is capable of causing disruption to two people. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is not convinced of the need for this power. Its report on balancing protest powers states that

“most interviewees did not wish to criminalise protest actions through the creation of a specific offence concerning locking-on.”

The reality is that powers already exist for dealing with lock-ons. What we should be looking at is proper guidance, training and, as the inspectorate raised, improving our use of existing resources and specialist officers.

Our Amendments 160A to 160C are based on recommendations of HMICFRS, including consolidating police guidance on public order in one place and keeping track of national and local needs for specialist officers. These are examples of what could have been debated and worked on, if these proposals had been given proper scrutiny time, to find the best way through, but this House has not had that opportunity. I will make a reference to suffragettes: since locking on was used by the suffragettes, I hope that the Government are not going to tell us that it emerged as a tactic for the first time between Second Reading and Report, and that they had no opportunity to bring forward carefully drafted legislation instead of the rushed, broadly drafted power now in front of us.

Government Amendments 151 to 153 on obstruction of major transport works and key infrastructure are overreaching and unnecessary, as there are already existing public order powers that can apply to these situations. Amendment 151 will have an impact particularly on environmental protesters. Frankly, we have reached a sorry state of affairs when we legislate still further specifically against those concerned about the proven threat of climate change and its impact on our way of life and that of our children and grandchildren, and the tardy action on environmental issues. As the Prime Minister himself once committed to lying down in front of the bulldozers in opposition to a third runway, one wonders how much thought he has given to these widely drawn new powers.

We are opposed to the new stop and search on suspicion powers in Amendment 154. We have concerns over their disproportionate use in relation to black and minority ethnic groups and those groups’ level of trust in the police—a problem that we have not faced up to in other uses of stop and search; we also have concerns over how widely the powers are drawn.

It is, though, the final two powers—on suspicionless stop and search and serious disruption prevention orders—that we believe are the most extreme and pernicious. Suspicionless stop and search is a power that, until now, we have used to target serious violent crime and terrorism. These new government clauses would replicate that power to target peaceful protests. Where the power is used, it would permit any member of the public near a protest to be stopped and searched without cause and without suspicion.

The second of the final two powers—serious disruption prevention orders, which can be made without a conviction—are, in effect, essentially protest banning orders. HMICFRS has said that it believed that protest banning orders

“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent.”

Like serious violence prevention orders, serious disruption prevention orders can be made using inadmissible evidence; they can be extended indefinitely; and breaching them is a criminal offence with terms of imprisonment attached.

These final two powers are overreaching, unwarranted powers which affect the rights of the British public. They should most certainly not be included in the Bill. The Government are trying to force them in through the back door, without full and necessary parliamentary scrutiny, including by this House.

The reason cannot be lack of parliamentary time to provide such full scrutiny—the Commons Chamber finished at 3.30 pm last Wednesday, following the Prime Minister’s performance at PMQs. We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers in this group of new government amendments, with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.

The absolute priority for us has to be opposing the Government’s suspicionless stop and search and the serious disruption prevention orders being put into statute. These, however, are down as the last new clauses in this group. Frankly, it is already quite late, and we ought to seek to have these votes as soon as possible, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible can cast a vote.

I conclude by simply referring to what my noble friend Lord Blunkett wrote in April last year:

“Protest might be inconvenient for politicians, but it acts as a pressure valve, allowing citizens to express their views and vent frustrations that could otherwise boil over … If we suppress protest, we could see more anger towards institutions including the police, the judiciary and parliament.”


That is the direction in which we think the Government are heading with these new protest clauses.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I shall speak briefly, because I too want to get to the votes. Despite government claims to the contrary, these are draconian laws that are part of a wider assault on our democracy. We have a Government who are passing rules for us but not acting according to those rules themselves. The police protect the powerful, while getting more oppressive powers to use against the voiceless. This is an autocracy, not a democracy. The Government know that they will face bigger and more vocal protests while they get on with their dog whistle policies, which fail at the moment to distract from the terrible impact of their politics.

There will be a lot of climate change protests in future—I can see myself getting arrested, perhaps more than I have so far. Climate change is the biggest threat to human civilisation. It is an existential threat, and this Government are not acting fast enough.

The Government claim to speak for ordinary people, but it is ordinary people who protest on the streets, and the Government do not speak for them anymore; they do not speak for the great British public, because the great British public find the Bill and these late amendments offensive. The Greens here will be voting against all of these late amendments. We will not support the Labour amendment on the obstruction of the highway, only because it opens the door to the Government bringing back their original amendment. I just hope that the Government listen.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

150A: Leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway which is part of the Strategic Road Network he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine or both.””Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to Government Amendment 150 creating a prison sentence for anyone wilfully obstructing a highway which is part of the Strategic Road Network, removing reference to a general highway.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, on my amendment, I just say that I did not think that the real problem of wilful obstruction was on side roads; there has certainly been a problem of wilful obstruction in relation to motorways and major roads in the strategic road network for the reasons that I mentioned. The fact that there could be an issue of wilful obstruction on other, lesser highways is not, frankly, a justification for including all highways in these powers under government Amendment 150—hence our Amendment 150A, restricting it to the strategic road network. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 150A.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, one of this Government’s favourite slogans has just been repeated, that our asylum system is broken, followed by a claim that a Johnson Government will fix it. Two years ago, the Home Secretary said that her then plan would halve the number of boats crossing the channel in three months and make them infrequent in six months. Needless to say, since then they have increased tenfold. In response, the Home Secretary and the Government have introduced this Bill, which contains no new safe and legal routes, nothing to target ruthless criminal gangs and smugglers, and a number of empty and unworkable solutions.

If we want to know why the asylum system is broken, we need look no further than this Government and the Home Office. The number of initial asylum decisions being made by the Home Office each year has dropped by more than 40% over the last five years. That is why the backlog has increased. Some 67,000—some say it is even more—are still waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim. Relationships, with France in particular, have reached rock bottom, and there appears to be a general lack of trust within the EU. International development aid has been cut back, contrary to an election commitment. Reducing levels of support will do nothing to prevent people having to leave their home to seek asylum.

This Government continue to be a Government of slogans. A Government of workable solutions they certainly are not, as this Bill all too clearly shows. The Government say that they are motivated by a desire to crack down on the criminal smuggler gangs but then produce a Bill with measures directed at the victims of those smugglers rather than at the gangs themselves. Despite promising safe legal routes as an alternative to dangerous journeys, the Government have cut safe legal routes for family reunion, refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, and have included no safe legal routes in this Bill.

The Government claim that the Bill will stop boats arriving and return people who travel in them. The reality though is that this Government have failed to get in place a single returns agreement with EU countries, and nothing in the Bill changes that. Just five people were returned last year. The Government claim that the Bill will mean pushbacks at sea, even though Border Force officials have said it is dangerous and unworkable. France has refused to agree to receive boats safely back, and so these pushbacks simply cannot happen in practice.

The Government claim that the Bill will mean offshore processing, even though no country has agreed and the cost to the taxpayer would be huge. The Government claim the Bill will fix the asylum system, even though it will add even longer delays to asylum cases being assessed.

The Government claim the Bill will stop trafficking gangs, even though they are cutting protection for modern slavery. In pursuit of the Government’s stated aim of preventing people using a defence of being a victim of modern slavery against deportation, the Bill removes a number of key protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, rowing back on crucial protections created under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It will make the identification and protection of modern slavery victims more difficult.

Former top police officer and now anti-slavery commissioner, Sara Thornton, has raised concerns about the potential consequences the Bill may have on the ability to prosecute offenders. She said that watering down protection for modern slavery victims, including UK-resident children caught up in criminal exploitation and county lines, will

“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”

Mistakes are often made when people are ruled not to be victims of human trafficking or modern slavery. The Home Office’s own data shows that four out of five rejected human trafficking claims challenged in the UK last year were overturned. Out of 325 claims in the Home Office-run national referral mechanism scheme that were appealed, 255 were reversed.

The modern slavery provisions are particularly alarming for the impact they will have on children, including significant numbers of British children who are trafficked and exploited in the UK. Despite that, the Bill does not provide safeguards for children, does not recognise that children need different provisions and protections from adults, and does not make policy that acts in the best interests of the child.

Since 2014 the Government have spent more than £200 million on numerous deals with French authorities—equal to around half a million pounds per week of taxpayers’ money—yet the crossings are increasing as the Government proclaim that Brexit has given us control of our borders. The Government’s mood fluctuates between, on the one hand, denouncing the French for not doing enough to stop the crossings and, on the other, telling us how many such crossings have been stopped by the French authorities as a result of the deals we have done with them. What we do know though, is that the Government’s various deals with the French did not prevent the tragic loss of 27 lives when an inflatable dinghy capsized some six weeks ago, in late November last year.

We need new agreements on joint policing and asylum with France and other EU countries to prevent more of these deadly crossings, and covering all aspects of security co-operation, including exchange of information on tackling criminal smuggler gangs and facilitating safe legal routes and safe returns.

If this Government are serious about cracking down on the criminal smuggler gangs that profit from putting desperate people in flimsy dinghies, neither can they ignore the ways that these gangs lure in vulnerable people online. The Government have not put forward anything to address this, even though it is a huge part of the problem. We should criminalise those who advertise and glamourise deadly crossings online. The Government are continually playing catch-up, as organised criminal networks find new ways to exploit vulnerable people online. We also cannot keep waiting for the Government’s long overdue, much delayed online harms legislation to crack down on social media companies that fail to take down the accounts of those who promote these dangerous journeys on their platforms.

What we got, during the passage of this slogan-driven and ill-thought-through Bill, were 80 government amendments tabled three days before Report stage in the Commons, and an admission from the Government that they had managed to produce a Bill that would criminalise RNLI volunteers for their courageous, life-saving work. The effect of that was to increase public support for, and donations to, the RNLI, as a snub to this Government’s original intentions against the RNLI, from which they have now been forced to retreat. However, the Bill still appears to break international maritime law and the duty for a ship to attempt to rescue persons in danger at sea by requiring passing boats or vessels to ignore people in distress or face criminalisation.

The Bill criminalises someone arriving in the UK to claim asylum, changes the immigration offence of how someone enters the UK and specifies the mode of entry as either legal or illegal. The Bill also makes provision for differential treatment of refugees based on how they arrive into the UK and the point at which they present themselves to the authorities, with those who travel via a third country, do not have documents or do not claim asylum immediately being designated “group 2” refugees. Yet the refugee convention contains a single unitary definition of refugee, solely related according to their need for protection.

The Red Cross has said that this differentiated treatment will not deter dangerous journeys. It points out that, even where people have a choice in their mode of travel, it is rare for a person fleeing to have any idea of their rights or the complexities of the asylum law where they arrive. The Red Cross suggests that removing family reunion rights will increase the number of particularly women and children using illegal routes and will actually shore up the business model of the criminal gangs and smugglers.

The Bill enables the prosecution of individuals intercepted in UK territorial seas and brought into this country who arrive in but do not technically “enter” the UK. The new offence will carry a maximum sentence of four years.

There is no visa or entry clearance application for someone to make to come to the UK to claim asylum. Under this Bill, someone with a well-founded fear of persecution arriving in the UK intending to claim asylum will be committing a criminal offence. Article 31 of the refugee convention provides that states

“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … where their life or freedom was threatened … they present themselves without delay … and … show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

The courts have recognised that it would be hollow if asylum seekers could not rely on this international law protection. If all countries were to take this approach of criminalising those who enter illegally for the purposes of claiming asylum, the entire international system for refugee protection would fall apart.

When we left the European Union, we also left the schemes which gave the UK the ability to return those seeking asylum to safe countries via the Dublin III system. This allowed those seeking asylum who entered the UK to be returned if they had first registered in another country in the European Union. At the moment, not one agreement has been struck between this Government and the 27 member states of the EU, therefore restricting the ability to return individuals who registered elsewhere first. Under the Dublin III regulation, the UK safely returned hundreds of asylum seekers to European countries. Since the Dublin regulation stopped applying to the UK at the beginning of last year, the UK has returned, as I said, just five asylum seekers to European countries, at a time when channel crossings have significantly increased.

The Bill provides for asylum seekers to be removed from the UK while their claims are being processed, opening the door to offshore processing. The Government have previously stated that, among other places, they would use such powers to process claims in Africa and Ascension Island, and on disused ferries and abandoned oil rigs. The reality is that such a system would be ineffective, inhumane and very expensive for the taxpayer. Offshore processing in Australia cost an estimated 1 billion Australian dollars a year to deal with 300 migrants.

Last year, some 28,500 people made the dangerous channel crossing. Research by the Refugee Council suggests that around two-thirds who crossed the channel via small boats and claimed asylum were granted humanitarian protection. Over 70% of people arriving via small boats come from just five countries, namely Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, and Afghanistan was seventh, behind Eritrea—hardly countries free from strife and persecution. Neither has the number of asylum applications suddenly reached an all-time peak. In 2002, the number of such applications was over 84,000.

Looking at international comparisons, we do not seem to be faced with more applications than anywhere else. In 2020 there were around six asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU, there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. Compared with EU 27 countries, the UK ranks 17th for asylum applications per head of population.

I know that much reference will be made today to Clause 9, which was added in haste and without proper scrutiny in the Commons. Powers to deprive someone of British citizenship have existed since 1914. This Bill, though, also gives the Home Office sweeping new powers to deprive a person of their British citizenship without any notice. This is not acceptable and is causing intense concern among people with dual nationality. In the shadow of Windrush, warm words from the Government about how fairly and responsibly they will use the power just will not suffice.

Children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, can make up almost 25% of those seeking asylum in the UK. Where is the replacement for the Dubs scheme, which this Government closed before it had reached anywhere near its potential to protect children? Where is the provision for a safe resettlement scheme for Afghanistan, which has been promised but not yet delivered?

The Bill will not solve the problem of dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk. Instead, it proposes unworkable solutions that will cost the taxpayer dear and undermine international humanitarian conventions and agreements at a time when co-operation is needed more than ever. The Bill does not improve security co-operation and will not secure returns agreements or create the safe, legal routes the Government have promised. Instead, it will increase the asylum backlog, keeping more people in limbo in accommodation. The Bill will not stop trafficking gangs, as the Government are cutting protection from modern slavery and thus making it harder to prosecute and convict people traffickers.

At heart, the Bill is about a Government and a Home Secretary who know that their policies to date are failing and who, in a bid to attract more favourable headlines, are concentrating their fire even more on the victims of people traffickers and deadly channel crossings, rather than setting out sensible plans to deal with the criminal gangs involved based on co-operation, not insularity. In short, this Bill is a sham.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on securing this important concession to the Bill.

Last Wednesday, we had a really well-argued and informed debate. It is worth taking a couple of minutes to look at the recent history of this issue. Going back to coalition times, when Theresa May was Home Secretary, she had weekly meetings around a table with women from every department. She challenged them on what they were doing in the department and then asked them the following week what had happened, so she really kept the pot boiling. As a result, the coalition Government published the first call to end violence against women and girls just after they were formed in 2010. Activity carries on: my honourable friend Wera Hobhouse, through a Private Member’s Bill, introduced a new offence for upskirting. However, offences for stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, and so-called revenge porn should also follow.

While I regret that my noble friend Lady Brinton was unable to persuade the Minister to include stalking in the definition of serious violence, we welcome the government amendment before us today on violence, particularly sexual violence. Violence is not acceptable in any circumstances, but violence by men towards women and girls is completely unacceptable. As many noble Lords said during debates on this issue in Committee, it is vital to have a multi-agency public health approach to prevent domestic abuse and sexual violence.

Including domestic abuse and sexual violence in the definition of serious violence will ensure that local areas properly take account of this within their strategies and work in a joined-up way to address and prevent these crimes. The setting up of local integrated care systems as a result of the Health and Care Bill, which is before your Lordships’ House, might be a useful first provider of support for families affected. In the Minister’s response, will she please outline the initiatives that the Government will implement, not only to support the families involved, but also the perpetrators of the crimes?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, government Amendment 15 clarifies that violence for the purposes of Part 2, Chapter 1 includes domestic abuse and sexual offences. We very much welcome these government amendments, the object of which has been a key issue for these Benches. It is a hugely important change to the Bill and an example of what can be achieved by this House, and indeed by Parliament as a whole, through proper scrutiny.

I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and to Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, for the key roles that they played on this issue. I also pay tribute to my honourable friends Sarah Jones MP and Jess Phillips MP who began a campaign for this change when the Bill arrived in the Commons in March. This has been a cross-party, cross-House effort to ensure that these extremely serious, high-harm types of violence are recognised as such and are prioritised.

It has been mentioned that, although these amendments add domestic abuse and sexual violence to the definition, they do not specifically include stalking. Stalking that involves domestic abuse and sexual offences would be covered by the terms of these government amendments, which provide for the inclusion of violence against women and girls in the definition of serious violence. Of course, that does not include all cases of stalking. I hope and expect that we will hear from the Minister at some stage during the remaining stages of this Bill what the Government are doing to change the way we respond to stalking across the board.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for her comments. I share entirely my noble friend’s commitment to ensuring that best practice in this area is properly communicated to duty holders. That is what will make it effective. I look forward to working with the domestic abuse commissioner’s office and wider stakeholders to develop the statutory guidance which will be subject to public consultation following Royal Assent. We intend to develop options and include detail on monitoring progress in our statutory guidance. In addition, specified authorities will be requested to keep their strategy under review. PCCs will also have a discretionary power to monitor performance, and routine inspection programmes undertaken by individual inspectorates in future may also consider the organisational response to local serious violence issues.

As my noble friend and others will know, the statutory guidance under Clause 18 already includes references to sexual offences, domestic abuse and gender-based violence. In updating the guidance ahead of the consultation, we will explore whether we should revise it to make it clear to specified authorities that they should consider violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse and sexual offences, in determining what amounts to serious violence in their areas.

In terms of stalking, we are very clear that the reference to domestic abuse to be added by the government amendments will encompass stalking in so far as it takes place in a domestic abuse context. Noble Lords will know that while many stalking offences take place in a domestic abuse context or involve violent behaviour, it is not the case in all instances. We have not expressly set these out in the Bill because we are seeking to avoid an exhaustive list of crime types, partly to allow local areas to take account of new and emerging forms of serious violence as they develop and are identified, and partly to recognise the geographical difference in the prevalence of these types of serious violent crimes.

As I have said, the draft statutory guidance for the duty sets out that there is flexibility for local areas to take account of their evidence-based strategic needs assessment and include in their strategy actions which focus on other related types of serious violence, including gender-based violence, which includes all forms of stalking as well as many other forms of violence against women and girls. We can look to make that clearer in the next iteration of the guidance, which we will be consulting on, as I have said. This is a view shared by the domestic abuse commissioner, and I put on record—following my noble friend’s thanks—my thanks to her for her continued engagement in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her amendment and on all the work that she and many others have done over a considerable period on the issue we are discussing. I express our support for the amendment, on which her co-signatories have also spoken to great effect. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 laid down a statutory duty to establish authorised sites with funding from central government, but unfortunately the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 repealed this provision, since when there have been fewer than three authorised sites built in England on average every year. We are now faced with a Bill under which people on unauthorised encampments who do not cause damage, disruption or distress can commit the new offence of

“residing on land without consent”.

I say that because the Bill provides that the offence can be triggered when a person is considered “likely” to cause damage, or that significant distress is “likely” to be caused by their being there.

As has been said, it appears that the police do not support these powers: they say that site provision is the issue. My noble friend’s amendment is, in my view, very moderate. It does not remove the powers but adds the importance of site provision and negotiated stopping places into the Bill. Deputy Chief Constable Janette McCormick from the National Police Chiefs’ Council told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that

“the issue of unauthorised encampments is a planning issue and is an accommodation issue … we as the police are not seeking any additional legislation to deal with that”.

She also said of authorised sites that

“where we have an increasing number of sites, we have a direct correlation with a reducing number of unauthorised encampments.”

In the 2018 consultation on these powers, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:

“Trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so ... The NPCC position has been—and remains—that no new criminal trespass offence is required. The co-ordinated use of the powers already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows for a proportionate response to encampments based on the behaviour of the trespassers.”


In evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee, the National Police Chiefs’ Council said that it

“strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 18/5/21; col. 15.]

It also raised concerns about police resources and the police being drawn into this issue. We seem to be in a position with the Bill where the Government are not accepting the advice of the police, but are pulling in extra police resources from overstretched forces and skirting the issue that is really at the heart of this, which is site provision, which our police and local authorities advise is the thing that will actually make the difference.

Let me make it clear, as others have done, that damaging and harmful behaviour is totally unacceptable, and that landlords and local communities need protection and police support where it happens. It is already a criminal offence for a person to fail to leave land where the police direct them to, when their behaviour has caused damage to land or property or been abusive or threatening. Presumably, that is why the police say that they already have the powers that they need, based on behaviour.

As I said at the beginning, my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment is very moderate. It does not oppose the powers and will not remove the powers from the Bill but would simply add a need to look at the issue of site provision and the successful model of negotiated stopping places. Let us be clear that it provides that the powers under this section can be used only where there is a suitable local pitch for people to be moved on to or a negotiated stopping site can be arranged within 48 hours. It defines a negotiated stopping site as a location temporarily agreed on with the local authority where people can stay, subject to conditions including

“behaviour … length of stay and payment for water … and other utilities.”

It thus specifically deals with the issue, raised repeatedly by the Government, where some people may refuse to use sites that are available.

The cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights said that

“the Government should not use the criminal law to address what is essentially a planning issue”.

I am sure all noble Lords are waiting to hear the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to what is “a reasonable excuse”. If the Government were to accept my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment, far from weakening the Bill, it would give this part of the Bill a significantly greater effect in reducing the number and impact of unauthorised encampments. I hope the Government will be prepared to move on this issue.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I waited because I wanted to hear which amendments our Front-Bench speakers were supporting. I made my views clear in our previous debate on this issue. I was a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and I no longer am, because in my view the behaviour of some Travellers—I stress “some Travellers”—was not being publicly condemned. I used the phrase “the 2R formula”: I will absolutely continue to defend the rights of Travellers, but along with those rights, in our society, there also comes the responsibility to behave in a reasonable way.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her amendment, because at least there is an acknowledgement in it that there are problems with behaviour, and we should recognise that. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his contribution about adopting a proportionate response to this. This is not about dehumanising Gypsies, Roma and Travellers; it is not about taking us back to Auschwitz, and I say that as a non-practising Jew, so I hope my contribution will be taken in this light. There are, unfortunately, real examples of some Travellers behaving in ways that are totally unacceptable. Some, unfortunately, have been associated with modern slavery. These are cases that have been proven. Others seem to think that it is perfectly reasonable to go around collecting building waste, or other waste, and saying it will be disposed of properly when it will not—it will be dumped. We had this on our own village green.

When somebody says that people are opposed to Travellers, they mean that they are opposed to the unreasonable behaviour of some Travellers. That is what causes a lot of it. Of course there are examples of people who are prejudiced, but we should not generalise on this issue. I have some sympathy for my noble friend Lady Whitaker’s amendment and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who has genuinely tried to find a way forward on this.

I thank the Minister; we had a useful meeting, and I suggested to her that one thing that could be done is to set up local liaison committees—they may exist already—which would involve representatives of Travellers, residents and local authorities. I have not tried to define specifically what they would be but there certainly needs to be more contact and communication between the groups. It would be useful if the Minister could give some examples of what she considers best practice around the country; I believe some examples have been usefully quoted.

A minority of Travellers behave in ways that are unacceptable to communities. If that behaviour could be stopped or condemned, I think there would be a totally different attitude within communities. It is about proportion, about getting the balance right. Have the Government got it absolutely right? I am not sure—I am waiting to hear the Minister’s response—but polarising the debate in this House as some have done by saying that it is all based on people’s innate prejudice and discrimination against Travellers does not help.

There is a genuine problem, and it may be that the Government’s solution is not absolutely right. I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; I might have known that he would put his legal finger on it when he asked whether, if someone was behaving reasonably and gave an excuse that there was no other stopping place, that would be considered a reasonable response in the circumstances.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I hope my noble friends will recognise that although I have not entered this debate with the most popular view, I have tried to show that I do not discriminate against Gypsies, Roma and Travellers—far from it. I continue to want to support their rights, but on the basis that they recognise that they too have responsibilities.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I most sincerely apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. I strongly support the thrust of the amendment about bridge-bashing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. One day the holes in the cheese will line up and there will be a very serious accident, and the whole world will ask why we did not use technology to avoid such accidents. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about “exceptional hardship”; I would not actually vote against the Government on it, but I strongly support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We welcome the fact that the Government are committing to a call for evidence on road safety issues next year. Like other noble Lords, I should be interested to know how long this exercise is expected to take. Also, is it purely a DfT matter, or a cross-departmental matter—and, if so, which departments are involved? On the general issue of road safety, I comment briefly on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, just said. You could always reduce the number of road accidents fairly dramatically if you reduced the speed limit everywhere to 10 miles an hour, but, as a Government, you might not survive very long politically if you did that.

On “exceptional hardship”—the subject of one of the other amendments—maybe there are cases where courts are a bit too lenient. You have to draw the distinction between hardship and inconvenience, because the two are not the same. You do, however, get cases where there could be exceptional hardship and you have to think long and hard. An example would be a single parent who loses access to a car. That could have quite a profound impact on the children, particularly if they do not realistically have anyone else to help them out. You could also end up with a situation where the disqualification of a carer might involve significant impact—hardship perhaps not so much for the carer but for the person being cared for. When you are faced with some of these situations, it is not quite as straightforward as saying “You’ve broken the law, you’ve reached 12 points and you’re off the road”: you may need to look at the consequences. I note with interest the amendment on exceptional hardship. It may well be taken into account in the review what exceptional hardship means and whether it is being applied too leniently and too frequently.

We support Amendment 58—the minimum driving disqualification periods—as we have the increases in sentences for those offences, including causing death by dangerous or careless driving. We welcome the change that the Government propose.

I think that Amendment 64, relating to hit-and-run, mentions a maximum sentence of 14 years in custody. That seems quite a dramatic increase from the current limit. I am not sure whether it is envisaged that if an accident has caused a serious or fatal injury the maximum of 14 years for not stopping is in addition to what you would get for causing the fatal injury—in which case you could get quite a high sentence. I am just commenting on the fact that it seems to be raising the maximum sentence for failing to stop quite considerably. I do not know what the Minister will say about this on behalf of the Government but again, presumably, there is no reason why that should not be considered as part of the review.

With regard to the new amendment on the hitting of bridges, which my noble friend Lord Berkeley has proposed, I have some sympathy with the view that has been expressed that surely there must be a way that technology can reduce the frequency of these events. Perhaps one is a bit too prone to make speeches saying that technology must be able to resolve these issues for us, but one would have thought that this is one area where technology should play a role, and I hope that the Minister will take this issue away and that the Government will reflect on it as part of their general look at road safety issues. I will leave it at that, without commenting on the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, with regard to Amendment 58, I welcome the fact that the Government are taking to task the causing of death through careless driving or being under the influence of drugs or drink. For many families that have lost loved ones to then sit in court as the perpetrator gets a ludicrous sentence for the taking of life while not having the personal responsibility to control their behaviour, especially in terms of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs—that can only be described as insult added to injury. I therefore very much welcome that amendment.

On Amendment 63, can the Minister find some common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and noble Baroness, Lady Randerson? Both their points seemed to me to carry weight.

Not stopping after a collision can lead to the serious deterioration of an injury where the other party is unable perhaps to summon help. The situation is seriously exacerbated if someone drives away without reporting it.

Finally, I make a small point about e-scooters. This occurred to me only this evening, when driving here, and then listening to the noble Baroness opposite. Somebody pulled out in front of me on an e-scooter, and the real problem was that any light it might have had was below the bonnet or even wheel of the vehicle behind—even if it was there in the first place. There was no lighting or reflective clothing on this person above shoe level, and none on the helmet; it is completely impossible to see somebody like that, and it gave me a terrific start. I could so easily have seriously damaged this person; it would not really have been my fault, but I would have felt profoundly disturbed by it. That is just a small point that the Government might want to look at in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.

In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.

There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.

I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.

So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.

Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.

This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.

The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.

So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.

The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I would have some concerns about Amendment 62 and what that might lead to in terms of random breath testing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would have some thoughts about that.

I will say just one thing on the principal amendment. I thought what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said was very enlightening and I do not think we can totally ignore it. The Government’s slogan, on which they have spent a great deal of money, is “Don’t drink and drive”. It is not “Drink less and drive”. So I would have thought that anything that hammers that home could be only a good thing.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords have already comprehensively covered the ground, and I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and to the Government for listening to that committee, and to the concerns that were expressed in Committee, and by the Constitution Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

We are concerned that simply laying guidance before Parliament is not sufficient. It should be by regulations, as the noble Lord has said. However, we are pleased that the Government have listened to some extent and we support these amendments.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. As has been said, this group includes government amendments relating to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the Government have accepted. It includes the requirement that strategies under the serious violence reduction duty are published, and that guidance on the series violence duty, police powers under Part 4 and serious violence reduction orders must be laid before Parliament. However, the Government have not accepted every recommendation of the DPRRC, and on some they have gone only half way. For example, the DPRRC recommended that guidance on serious violence reduction orders should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the Government have made it subject only to the negative.

Like other noble Lords, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the invaluable work that they do and no doubt will continue to do. We welcome the amendments in this group that go some way towards accepting a number of recommendations from the DPRRC, but it is interesting to note that, in its report on the powers in the Bill to introduce unpublished strategies and guidance without parliamentary scrutiny, the DPRRC said:

“We are disappointed that the inclusion of these types of delegations of power—on flimsy grounds—suggests that the Government have failed when preparing this Bill to give serious consideration to recommendations that we have made in recent reports on other Bills.”


This group of amendments introduces some improvements into the Bill, which we welcome. On that basis, we hope that the Government will be in listening mode over the next few days of debate on Report. Perhaps the next Bill that appears before us will not have such powers in it to begin with.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Blencathra was in his place when I started speaking, but I was praising him and his committee—I also praise him for his stealthy entrance. He asked about statutory guidance. As I said in my brief introduction, all the guidance will now be laid before Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, noted, and the SVRO guidance will be subject to the negative procedure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked the most detailed question, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Lister. She asked specifically about the comments on the gold-plating of human rights. I have a copy here of the letter that was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and it is very clear that this is about balance:

“This language has been used in HM Government guidance on unauthorised encampments since March 2015,”


as the noble Baroness noted, but it was not statutory guidance; the Bill now provides this.

“That guidance made clear that human rights legislation does not prevent action to protect local amenities and the local environment; to maintain public order and safety; and to protect public health - for example, by preventing fly-tipping and criminal damage.


The necessary balancing of interests and rights of both travellers and settled residents reflects the position regarding qualified rights in the Human Rights Act 1998/European Convention on Human Rights … and the need to maintain good community relations under the Equality Act 2010. But operationally in the past, this may have been misunderstood by some public bodies.”


We have published in draft the guidance to be issued under Clause 65, so it is open to anyone who wishes to comment on the document to do so. We will, of course, continue to take any such comments into account before promulgating the final version of the guidance. With that, I hope that I have answered the questions, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am not particularly keen on GDPR legislation as it is, so I do not want to use it to support this group of amendments. I have also been happy to consider extraordinary measures to tackle things such as knife crime and gangs, because I do not want to pretend that this is a new problem. I live in Wood Green and I have seen someone stabbed. There is a horrible atmosphere in which you fear for young people’s lives. Instead, I want to raise my fear that this could have unintended consequences. It is a question of trust. The young people who we would all like to prevent from being involved in serious violence need to turn to someone and build up relationships with people, if they are to get out of situations where they could be involved in violence.

I will give a couple of examples from youth workers who I have spoken to. A young woman who is pregnant wants to extricate herself from the gang culture, but she worries that, if she talks to people such as youth workers, she will be accused of snitching on the father of her unborn child. That might lead them to the police’s arms, and so on. You can understand the situation. The youth worker reassures them that this will not occur but, actually, you cannot reassure them if the law changes as described. Then there is the young man who considers getting or tries to get himself out of a situation in which he is involved in gangs, but he is paranoid about the police. It is understandable that certain groups would think that any approach to anyone in authority would lead them into the police’s clutches. Actually, any attempt by a youth worker to reassure them that they should not be paranoid would be incorrect in this instance—they were right to be paranoid, because they are potentially putting themselves in the police’s clutches.

I ask the Minister how we can avoid the unintended consequences of this. I know that those individual youth workers will not necessarily be affected, but they work for institutions that have to make data available. Those anecdotes will become data points and important information can therefore be shared when it should not be. I note that I have told those stories anonymously and that I was given that information without any personal data being passed on. If you want to develop new strategies to tackle serious violence, it can be done without handing names, addresses and personal details to the police.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief. This group of amendments includes government concessions to include extra protections on doctor-patient confidentiality and healthcare data. They provide that the powers under the serious violence reduction duty do not authorise the disclosure of patient or personal information by a health or social care authority. We support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which, among other things, leave out the uncertain language in brackets in the Bill.

To be a bit clearer about it—although the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, explained it extremely well, as one would expect—the serious violence reduction duty requires data sharing between bodies, and the Bill currently provides that data cannot be shared if it would breach data protection laws. It qualifies that with:

“(but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, any power conferred by the regulations is to be taken into account)”.

An amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others would delete the provision in brackets, so data protection law would apply as normal, as it does to medical professionals. A number of noble Lords have referred to other people or organisations who have contact and involvement with that same degree of confidentiality, and professional judgments on disclosure should apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to a meeting she had with the Minister and a letter she only very recently received. I assume that is the one dated 7 December. I appreciate the letter and thank the Minister for it but, reading the paragraph that relates to the bit in brackets that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seeks to delete, I struggle to understand the argument for having the part in brackets. Why is it necessary?

Why can we not simply leave it, with statements in other parts of the letter that make it clear that data can be shared, where it is lawful to do so, only under the data protection legislation? One would have thought that is surely all we needed to say—not to have something in brackets which I do not fully understand the need for, despite the letter from the Minister. I sense from what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is saying that she too struggles to understand why we need the bit in brackets at all. I have no doubt that the Minister will comment on that in her response.

Having said that, we welcome the concessions made by the Government on medical data and doctor-patient confidentiality. They show that the Government have accepted, up to a point, that the data-sharing powers in this chapter needed qualification. Data sharing, properly and intelligently done, with safeguards, can be absolutely key to tackling serious violence, to prevent silo working and some of the failures we have witnessed too many times. We have some concerns over the proposal to require all data shared under the duty to be anonymised, as there may be rare but crucial cases where information needs to be more specific to protect the vulnerable and pursue the criminal.

I come back to this point: in welcoming the concessions that have been made, we support what the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is seeking to achieve, but we find the language in brackets—to which reference has been made—which appears to qualify the application of data protection law, to be unclear, and we really do not see why those words need to be there at all.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, which concern the data-sharing provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the time she has given me today and the discussion we have managed to have. I actually think we sneakily agree with each other—but not for the same reasons. Before responding to her amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I will deal with the government amendments in this group, which, if I may take the mood of the House this evening, appear to have attracted broad support.

Information sharing between relevant agencies is essential to the effectiveness of the serious violence duty. It is very important to note that it can be shared only in compliance with data protection legislation. Nothing in this Bill either waters down that legislation or breaches it. The duty will permit authorities to share data, intelligence and knowledge to generate an evidence-based analysis of the problems in their local areas. In combining relevant datasets, specified authorities, local policing bodies and educational, prison and youth custody authorities within an area will be able to create a shared evidence base on which they can develop an effective and targeted strategic response with bespoke local solutions. We can see this in other areas where local bodies work together.

Each of the authorities specified in the legislation has a crucial role to play, and it is vital that authorities are able to share their data to determine what is causing serious violence in the local areas. For example, information sharing can contribute to local efforts by allowing authorities to identify patterns and trends, geographical hotspots and the most vulnerable victims, much in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, outlined.

Financial Fraud: Vulnerable People

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this debate. I am afraid I will be repeating some of the figures that have been quoted, but most of my comments will be directed to what has or has not happened as far as the Government are concerned during the period of the pandemic.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Crown Prosecution Service has said that fraud is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales. Using data from the crime survey for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics reported that there were 5 million fraud offences in the year ending June 2021, and that this represented a 32% increase compared with the previous year. There were large rises in consumer and retail fraud, advance fee fraud and fraud that just comes under the category of “other fraud”.

In contrast, the ONS highlighted that crimes such as theft and robbery saw falls during periods of lockdown. It said that the data may show

“fraudsters taking advantage of behaviour changes related to the pandemic”,

such as increased online shopping and increased savings. Some 26% of offences resulted in the loss of money or property with no or only partial reimbursement. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau reported a 36% rise in fraud offences in the year ending June 2021 compared with the previous year, which included a 34% increase in online shopping and auction fraud and a 51% increase in financial investment fraud.

Some people are of course more at risk of becoming a victim of financial fraud—for example, individuals with a mental health problem or dementia. People who have experienced mental health problems are three times more likely than the rest of the population—23% versus 8%—to have been a victim of an online scam. Age UK has highlighted the impact of fraud on older people in England and Wales and, based on an analysis of Crime Survey for England and Wales data between 2017 and 2019, has said that an older person becomes a victim of fraud every 40 seconds. Age UK has said that alongside financial losses, becoming a victim can also

“seriously affect quality of life and wellbeing”,

with many people experiencing a deep sense of shame, embarrassment, anxiety and loss of independence following a scam—and that of course often leads to non-reporting.

The people engaged in such financial fraud pray on us all, as has been said, but particularly on the vulnerable. It is a premeditated, carefully planned, well-resourced and systematic activity, with those involved knowing precisely what a devastating impact they are having on their victims. They deserve everything they get and more, if and when—and it is not often enough—they are brought to justice.

I have no doubt that in their response the Government will talk about the draft Online Safety Bill, the fraud action plan, the relaunch of the Joint Fraud Taskforce and an apparent government intention to legislate to allow the Payment Systems Regulator to make reimbursement mandatory where a personal or business is tricked into sending money to a fraudster posing as a genuine payee. However, the extent to which proposed legislation, plans and taskforces will address and reduce all the different types of financial fraud and the different ways and channels through which they are perpetrated, as well as providing full financial protection for victims, remains to be seen.

I hope that in their response the Government will set out the specific targets for reducing financial fraud and protecting victims financially, which the various measures that I have no doubt we will hear about in their response are expected to deliver. Certainly to date the Government’s efforts to address rising levels of fraud, not least online fraud, have been woefully inadequate, particularly during the current pandemic. Reductions in police personnel during the last decade have only made matters worse.

I tabled a Written Question in May last year asking the Government

“whether they have broadcast advertisements to warn the public, in particular those who are vulnerable, of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic; if not, why not; and what plans they have to provide advice about how to avoid becoming a victim of such scams.”

The Written Answer—not from the Home Office—said:

“The government has not broadcast advertisements to specifically raise awareness of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic.”


The reply went on to say:

“HMG believes the best way to ensure the public’s safety is to make sure that they know how to protect themselves … so that the public know how to spot a scam and protect themselves from them.”


The reply continued:

“We have recently launched a GOV.UK page on coronavirus related fraud and cybercrime including easy-to-follow steps for people to better protect themselves as well as signposting all relevant advice and tips.”


For this Government, too often a GOV.UK page is the remedy to all problems.

I thought at the time that that reply reflected a fair degree of complacency. Now, though, we can ask the question: has the Government’s strategy for protecting the public, particularly those who are vulnerable, from scams during the pandemic been successful? The figures that I have already quoted suggest otherwise.

In addition, according to UK Finance, the public were conned out of £753.9 million in the first six months of this year alone, up 30% on the same period in 2020. The banks have already warned that the period up to Christmas and new year is likely to be the “busiest ever” for criminals looking to trap unsuspecting victims as the pandemic has pushed shoppers online.

It is of course a matter for the Government what they say in their response. But I hope that, if they are going to tell us what they intend and plan to do, and how much money they have spent and will spend, they will also answer the question: why was more effective action not taken to warn the public and particularly vulnerable people of the increased danger of financial fraud from scams and fraudsters during the Covid-19 pandemic? I do not wish to suggest for a single moment that broadcasting advertisements raising awareness of scams during the pandemic—which is what I asked about in my question—would have been the answer to all the problems that have materialised; clearly, it would not. But the Government’s approach has been very complacent and, frankly, it is many members of the public, including the most vulnerable, who have paid the price during the Covid pandemic, both metaphorically and literally.

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

My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this very important debate and for all the very valuable points he has raised. I of course agree that we should protect people from fraud, particularly vulnerable people who are often targeted by callous and ruthless criminals. As he said, fraud is now the most common crime type in the country, accounting for some 40% of offences in the year ending June 2021, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. It is estimated there were 3.9 million victims of fraud in the same period.

As the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, said, we are all vulnerable to it. I almost became a victim of it a couple of weeks ago. It was not obvious that I was being scammed at first glance, but it nearly happened to me. Of course, the impact extends beyond financial losses. As the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Sharkey, said, the emotional and long-lasting harm that people can suffer is horrendous. Fraudsters can be very sophisticated and will exploit any means they can to trick innocent people out of their hard-earned money.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is absolutely right to point out the vulnerabilities during Covid, with so many people at home online, as opposed to out and about. For those who are very vulnerable, those impacts can be felt all the more, so we are focused on stopping unscrupulous fraudsters in their tracks and supporting victims so they can recover and protect themselves in future.

We are aiming to step up the whole-system response to fraud, which is the right way. While it is vital that we crack down on criminals behind scams, fixing the law enforcement response is just one part of the solution, as noble Lords have pointed out during today’s debate. To disrupt organised criminals and safeguard the most vulnerable, we need to prevent it from happening in the first place, as noble Lords have said. But we cannot, as government, do it alone. That is why the Home Office is working across government, law enforcement and the private sector—the private sector is really important in this—to better protect the public, reduce the impact on victims and ensure fraudsters are brought to justice.

To improve our collective response, we are leading work on the development of a comprehensive fraud action plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, knew I would mention, and we will it publish early next year. This will commit key partners in the public and private sectors to do more to tackle fraud. The plan will focus on public engagement to ensure that everyone, including those most at risk, understands the threat and therefore how best to protect themselves.

We know that those most vulnerable to fraud can become repeat victims—that is the horror of this. Despicably, they are placed on what is called a “suckers list” that is then sold on by ruthless fraudsters. It is essential that we improve victim support and make sure that everyone gets the information and help they need to protect themselves.

That is why we as the Home Office are working with the City of London Police to deliver a nationwide rollout of the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. It provides an important additional layer of support for people who report a fraud or cybercrime to Action Fraud—on which, more later—where their cases are not investigated by local police, and helps prevent repeat victimisation. The unit is currently supporting 20 forces, with a further rollout planned. As of October this year, it has helped support more than 160,000 victims, and since the start of this year has assisted in recovering almost £1.5 million that people had lost.

It is also very important that we bolster the local support available to vulnerable victims. To do that, the Home Office is supporting National Trading Standards in the rollout of fraud multiagency safeguarding hubs in England and Wales. These local hubs will improve the quality of care for fraud victims by bringing together multiple agencies that can work together to support them, making it easier for victims to navigate their way to getting the help they need. The national rollout follows a successful pilot in Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire during which more than £8 million was saved for individuals and society.

We continue to work extensively with the private sector effectively to “design out” fraud and stop vulnerable people being targeted in the first place. In October, we published three voluntary charters with the retail banking, telecommunications and accountancy sectors. These are partnership agreements to find innovative solutions that will drive down the level of fraud. New initiatives include: a pilot dynamic direct debit system that would introduce a banking authorisation step in applications for new telecommunications contracts, including mobile phone contracts, that have been applied for fraudulently or used for fraudulent purposes; a cross-sector plan to protect customers who have been subject to a data breach from becoming victims of fraud; and leveraging new technology to tackle the fraudulent practice of sending fake company text messages, known as “smishing”.

The progress of these charters will be closely monitored by the Joint Fraud Taskforce, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which is chaired by the Security Minister and brings together senior partners from across the public and private sectors. We also intend to develop a suite of charters with other sectors that have a role to play in protecting vulnerable people from fraud, including tech and social media firms.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others talked about the harms of the online world. The online safety Bill will provide further protection against fraud. Companies in scope will be required to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content. We expect this to have a particular impact on frauds such as romance scams, which cause significant psychological harm to victims.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, might stop shaking his head when I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we are also considering whether to impose tougher regulation on online advertising, because that may well be the gap that he talked about. We have heard the strength of feeling in the House and in the public domain. The Joint Committee on the Bill will report shortly, and we will examine its recommendations on this issue extremely carefully. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport—the DCMS—will also consult shortly on a range of proposals to tackle harms associated with advertising. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, or the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who commented on Google versus Facebook/Meta. I commend Google for what it has achieved. As for discussions with Facebook, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had. One thing that we said way back in the day was, “Look, if you don’t sort some of these problems out, we’re going to legislate to sort them out”—and this is where we are now.

On scam calls, as part of our response to fraud the Government are working with the telecommunications industry to tackle telephone-enabled fraud and break the business model of the criminals behind it. Through our joint telecommunications sector charter, providers have agreed a nine-point action plan to tackle fraud through scam calls. This includes commitments to identify and implement techniques to block scam calls and smishing texts. To protect those most vulnerable to telephone scams, DCMS provided £1 million over three years to National Trading Standards to fund the rollout of call-blocking devices to people across the UK. These help those most in need and provide 99% protection from nuisance and scam calls.

On phishing and smishing, we have been working to reduce the threat of phishing emails that can reach the most vulnerable. Last year the National Cyber Security Centre launched its suspicious email reporting service, which of course I encourage the public to use via [e-mail].

The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux, both mentioned APP scams, authorised push-payment fraud, where victims are tricked into handing over their money. This targets the most vulnerable with increasingly sophisticated scams that can have such a devastating impact on their lives. The Government are clear that the public should not be left out of pocket through no fault of their own. We have been working with the financial services industry to help tackle APP fraud, including through the implementation of initiatives such as Confirmation of Payee and the creation of the contingent reimbursement model code. Most high-street banks have now signed up to this voluntary code, which was designed to offer increased protection to the most vulnerable. Victims who use these banks will be entitled to reimbursement when they have taken the required steps to protect themselves, or if it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.

We really welcome the work that the industry has undertaken to date, including through this code, but it has clear limitations, including disparity in how different banks are interpreting their obligations and the fact that it does not cover all providers. As such, the Government are now engaging with the Payment Systems Regulator, the PSR, and industry on what more can be done to better protect customers. We welcome the PSR’s recent consultation on APP scams, which set out potential measures to reduce their impact, including mandatory reimbursement of victims. We now intend to legislate to address any barriers to mandatory reimbursement when parliamentary time allows.

Faster Payments, the UK’s real-time low-value interbank payments system, has been a great UK success story. In 2008 the UK was one of the first countries to launch a 24/7 real-time payments system, which now processes more than 3 billion payments a year. However, despite the speed and resilience it offers, banks already intervene in a variety of ways when they suspect fraud, including delaying the processing of payments and contacting customers. At this point I must give a shout-out to my bank, Lloyds, which has done that to me before.

On law enforcement and action fraud, we continue to work closely with law enforcement in line with recommendations from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. This includes working with City of London Police on a refresh and upgrade of the current action fraud service to improve victim experience and the law enforcement response.

To the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the contract, as I said, we are working on plans to refresh and upgrade the current action fraud service, and the competition to find a new commercial partner to deliver that service was launched in July this year. We expect the service to be improved in both usability and effectiveness, which noble Lords have pointed to. Also since last year, City of London Police have increased the number of staff in their call centre, and recent performance data has been quite encouraging, suggesting that between 94% and 98% of victims were satisfied with their service.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made a point about the FCA. HM Treasury continues to work closely with the FCA to ensure that its duties and powers are sufficient to meet the threats in the financial sector. When I thought about this debate and saw the noble Baroness’s name, I thought, “She’s going to ask about whistleblowing—but in what capacity?” This year, the FCA launched its In Confidence, With Confidence campaign to encourage individuals working in financial services to report potential wrongdoing to the FCA, reminding them of the confidentiality that is in place. I totally agree with her on her point about non-disclosure agreements; that is one that we have discussed before.

Finally, on pension fraud, it is totally unacceptable and devastating that anyone should be cheated out of their savings and their plans for retirement. The Government are absolutely committed to protecting people from pension scams and pursuing those who perpetuate them. In the last two years, we have introduced a ban on pensions cold-calling and changes to the pension scheme registration process to stop fraudsters exploiting pensioners. The inclusion on fraud in the scope of the online safety Bill will also have a strong impact on preventing investment frauds.

I think that I have responded to all the points; if I have not, I shall write to noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, once more for securing this important debate, and thank the not too many noble Lords who have taken part, because I think that has made it an effective discussion.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Minister said that she would respond to any questions that she had not replied to. Will that include my question: do the Government really think that they did enough to protect vulnerable people during the pandemic, bearing in mind the substantial increase in the number of fraud cases?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I most certainly will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on those statistics, and any facts and figures I have for him for during that period, because it must have been a very vulnerable time for an awful lot of people.