Child Refugee Resettlement

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the Commons earlier today. We appreciate and welcome the steps that the Government are taking. In the Commons yesterday, the Government confirmed that they were accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs which was passed in this House. They also said that they would urgently consult others prior to bringing forward more detailed proposals and that a meeting of the Local Government Association was scheduled for later this week.

It appears that 10 Downing Street has now told the Daily Telegraph that the first children will be arriving by the end of the year, which is a totally different tenor of response to that given in the Commons, which was all about urgency and getting on with it as quickly as possible. Will the Government tell us the estimated timetable for implementing my noble friend’s amendment, which the Government have accepted? Will the Minister also say whether it will be an objective to take in at least the first 300 children before the start of the school year in September, since it will not assist the position of such children if they have to join a school well into the start of the school year?

Finally, 157 children have been identified by Citizens UK as being in Calais and having family connections here. I appreciate that earlier a Minister said he could not comment on the figure of 157, but will the Government give an assurance that they will take prompt action to ensure that those children in Calais with a valid legal claim for reunification are reunited as a matter of urgency with their families here under the Dublin arrangements?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked a number of questions. The Daily Telegraph picked up the No. 10 statement and misconstrued it. No. 10 said that we would proceed with this programme as quickly as possible and that by the end of the year we will have seen children arriving in this country. That does not mean to say that it will be 31 December before any child arrives.

It is difficult for me to define the estimated timetable because of the need, as specified by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to consult local authorities before we are in a position to say how many children can be accommodated. I can only assure the noble Lord that we need to take necessary but not undue time to do that, that we are already engaged with the French authorities to ensure that the vulnerable children who I know the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, wants us to prioritise are identified as quickly as possible, and that we will do the same in Greece and Italy.

I cannot, as the noble Lord will therefore surmise, be specific about whether we will admit 300 children before the start of the school year. The very nature of this announcement means that we must take the necessary time to consult others before bringing forward final proposals on how to implement. All I can say is that we will not only implement the letter of this amendment but its spirit, and we will do so enthusiastically and as speedily as we can. Naturally, as I have already emphasised, those children in Calais are likely to be the first candidates.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, today is a day for pithy comments rather than rehearsing arguments that I have already made on this subject, which are on the record. Amendment 59B is different from the previous amendment in that an olive branch has been offered in the shape of nine months rather than six months. We have been told that the delays in the system are historic and that the system is now under control, so it seems that there should not be a problem with six months —but there we are.

I support in particular the noble Lord’s comments about the shortage occupation list. It would be inappropriate to go through all the jobs on that list but without wanting to be too frivolous, I noticed that, for instance, string players are on the list but there is no mention of players of wind or brass instruments. That is the sort of detail and the sort of thing that really makes you wonder about the policy.

The nine months proposal would be in line with almost all other countries in the EU, so there would be no pull factor. Having spoken up and given my support to the noble Lord, I will sit down.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The amendment your Lordships sent to the Commons on allowing asylum seekers the right to work after six months, like the other amendments carried in this House against the Government’s wishes, did not find favour with the Government or indeed receive any indication of movement by them on the issue.

As has been said, at present in most cases asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK unless they have waited over 12 months for an initial or subsequent decision, and are not considered responsible for any delay. Those who do qualify for the right to work under these restrictions are then able to apply only for jobs on the shortage occupation list. However, we are currently reviewing this issue as part of a wider policy review and consequently we will not be supporting the Motion sending the matter back again to the Commons—albeit now saying nine months rather than six months.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendment 59B, proposed in lieu of Amendment 59, while slightly less radical than the earlier amendment, would still mean fundamental changes to the government policy of restricting permission to work to those who have been awaiting a decision, through no fault of their own, for 12 months. As the noble Lord reminded us, those allowed to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list introduced in the last Parliament. As I indicated earlier, the Government believe that this is a fair and reasonable policy, and we believe that because of the need to ensure that access to jobs is prioritised for British citizens and those with leave to remain here—including, importantly, refugees.

The new amendment would not only allow asylum seekers to work after only nine months; it would also remove the important caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making. This would benefit those who are responsible for delaying a decision on their claim and purposely frustrate the asylum process simply to gain permission to work or to avoid removal. It would also benefit individuals whose cases were complex for perfectly good reasons, such as those accused of serious criminal acts, including war crimes, where there is an inescapable imperative to investigate the facts before reaching a decision. It would also allow unrestricted access to the labour market—that is to say, not just to jobs on the shortage occupation list—regardless of the interests of British jobseekers. It is a recipe for a free pass into the UK employment pool and that really is not fair to British people competing for the same jobs. In making policy in this area, we have a duty to consider how such policy impacts on society as a whole, not just on asylum seekers.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, rather dismissed the arguments rehearsed by my noble friends Lord Ashton and Lord Bates in earlier stages of the Bill. But there is a danger that the noble Lord’s amendment would serve to encourage unfounded claims from those who do not need protection at all but are simply seeking employment opportunities, knowing that if they play their cards right they can achieve that objective within nine months. These are opportunities for which they would not otherwise be eligible. That cannot be right or acceptable. The shorter the period allowed for in this context, the more we encourage spurious asylum claims of this kind.

Currently, the Immigration Rules allow non-EEA nationals to work here if there is no suitable resident worker available. This gives priority to those filling roles on the shortage occupation list and is subject to numerical limits. If non-EEA nationals could bypass these restrictions by lodging an unfounded asylum claim, this approach would be completely undermined. It could encourage illegal migrants to come here and make an unfounded asylum claim, which would prejudice the position of British people and recognised refugees in our labour market. I say that because if we were to experience an increase in unfounded claims, the knock-on effect would be to delay claims from genuine refugees and undermine our progress towards a fair and efficient asylum system.

There has been much debate about delays in decision-making in the Home Office, but this is no longer an issue. Delays have been brought under control and, in the great majority of cases, asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. Many of those who do not are the complex cases that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord’s amendment carries an increased risk that we will be obliged to give a free pass to people with a criminal record—or, shall I say, with a criminal past. The majority of refugees are granted asylum within six months and once that happens, they have unrestricted access to the labour market.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that his amendment was a route out of poverty but this suggests that asylum seekers are penniless. While awaiting a decision, they receive free accommodation and a cash allowance to cover essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. While their claim is outstanding they can undertake volunteering activities that can benefit a community, giving them a sense of purpose, and we are exploring ways to support this.

The amendment proposed is unnecessary and I really do not think that the noble Lord has made his case. Asylum seekers do not need to work and what he proposes carries the risk of serious abuse. I firmly believe that the current policy strikes the right balance. As I said earlier, it is fair and reasonable towards genuine asylum seekers; it is consistent with our international obligations; and it takes into account the rights and needs of our society as a whole. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to resist Amendment 59B in lieu.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I do not doubt for a moment the good intentions of those who have put forward this amendment. The Government have moved a very long way to make sure, as much as they can, that overseas domestic workers are not exploited. Everyone is bound to concur with that.

The difficulty I have is that this amendment is not confined to domestic workers who are actually subject to abuse: all would be entitled to leave their employer, for any reason. Well, that is a considerable concession. However, if I have read the amendment correctly, they can stay here for not less than two and a half years. That creates a gaping hole in the immigration system. We are talking here about 17,000 people a year. Of course, word will spread very quickly that you can get to the UK on a domestic workers visa, walk out on your employer, stay here for two and a half years and then almost certainly go into the black economy and not go home. That will lead to a huge gap in our system, and I have to say that I think it is very unwise.

[Lord Rosser]

We continue to support the Ewins recommendations on overseas domestic workers, as well as the amendment that your Lordships sent to the Commons, which it has not accepted. We note that there has been some movement on this issue by the Government, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. I hope that in his response the Minister will be able to reply in detail to the questions that have been raised in this short debate, and I hope that the answers will be found satisfactory by those who asked the questions.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My noble friend Lord Green said that the Government have moved a very long way but I cannot agree with him. The Government have moved a short way. We heard previously, at earlier stages of the Bill, about the national referral mechanism being the fulcrum of the Government’s argument. I acknowledge that they have moved, but anyone who has sat and listened to 50 domestic workers, as I did with my noble friend Lord Hylton, will know that there is an atmosphere of fear, which is very hard to convey, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already pointed that out. Even applying to the national referral mechanism, reporting very dangerous circumstances and forms of abuse, carries its risks for these people. Therefore, I urge noble Lords to think very hard about this amendment and I support my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I find this much more difficult than some noble Lords. Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would limit immigration detention to 28 days, save in exceptional circumstances. I cannot support that.

Immigration detention is confined to cases where there is a realistic possibility of removing the person concerned from this country within a reasonable time. The fact is that that often takes more than 28 days, because of the need to liaise with the country to which the person is being removed and because, very often, the individual concerned does not co-operate with the process.

Furthermore, the law requires that immigration tribunals refuse bail only in circumstances where there is a risk of the person absconding or some other substantive reason for keeping them in detention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said a few moments ago. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, that many of the persons detained have mental problems and many of them do not speak English, but it is also true that many expert bodies provide much-needed advice and assistance—and properly so—to those who are detained. I cannot support a 28-day absolute limit, saving in exceptional circumstances, because the circumstances that I have outlined are far from exceptional; they are quite standard.

Motion C2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require a bail hearing every 56 days. This is more difficult. I think the Government’s position, approved in the other place yesterday, of a bail hearing every six months, is adequate. The reason is that it is a default provision. It is additional to the right of the individual, advised by all those expert groups, to apply for bail at any time, and to argue at any time that there is now no reasonable possibility of being removed, or that there is no good reason—for example, a fear of absconding—for detention.

I also mention Motions D1 and D2. Motion D1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would prevent the detention of a pregnant woman, save in the most exceptional circumstances. The problem with that is that it would prevent the detention for removal of a woman who arrives at Heathrow Airport with no basis for entry and who can, if she is detained, be removed from this country, and rightly so, within a short period—for example if she is not making an asylum claim. That is not “the most exceptional circumstances”; it is a fairly standard case. Motion D1 would also, as I understand it, prevent in any circumstances the detention of a pregnant woman who is the subject of a deportation order but who refuses to go voluntarily, who can be removed within a very short period. I cannot support that.

Motion D2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is again more difficult, but I am satisfied on balance that government Motion D is a very substantial change which will protect pregnant women, made in response to the amendment approved by this House.

We ought to bear in mind that what the Government have agreed under subsection (2) of the new provision is that a pregnant woman may not be detained under a relevant deportation power for more than 72 hours or for more than seven days where, and only where, such detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown. The Minister in the other place, Mr James Brokenshire, has responded to the concerns expressed by this House and I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that this amendment, which was approved in the other place, should be approved.

[Lord Rosser]

While it is welcome that the Government now acknowledge that long-term detention without judicial oversight is unacceptable in relation to considering bail, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, relates to required judicial oversight of whether a person should continue to be detained at all beyond 28 days, related to whether the exceptional circumstances of the case require extended detention.

We have a commitment to end indefinite detention in the immigration system. The independent Shaw review into the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention also called for action to end excessive detention. This amendment provides for a presumptive limit on immigration detention of 28 days and requires the Secretary of State to gain judicial approval for any extension beyond that period, which would be permitted only if exceptional circumstances had been shown. I certainly do not wish to reiterate all the arguments that have been made, and I take on board the points made in earlier interventions about keeping it brief, so I shall just say that we shall be voting for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

On Motion D1, as the Minister said, last week the Government announced plans to introduce a 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women, extendable to one week with ministerial approval, and a government amendment to provide for this was agreed in the Commons yesterday. That amendment was not in line with the findings of the Government’s independent review by Stephen Shaw into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, which found that the presumptive exclusion of pregnant women from detention should be replaced with absolute exclusion. Shaw concluded that immigration detention poses clear health risks to pregnant women and their unborn children and that it is being used more widely than in the “exceptional circumstances” outlined in Home Office guidance.

The amendment moved by my noble friend in the light of the Government’s resistance to an absolute ban has the support of various interested groups on the basis that it is the best that might currently be achievable. However, an absolute ban on the detention of pregnant women remains our objective, and we will seek to deliver it at the first available opportunity, a stance that has the full backing and support of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify for my benefit a matter which concerns me? Does he agree that the writ of habeas corpus referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would not be of any use in the circumstances that we are discussing because the return to the writ would simply show that there was lawful authority for the detention? If that is right, does he agree that the right to liberty could be relied upon only by reference to the Human Rights Act and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which would mean that any statutory provision that we approve would have to be read and given effect in accordance with the convention right to liberty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, like others I recognise the contribution that the Government are making in money and personnel, so far as those are being sent. But I regard the dangers of which we have heard—the situation in which unimaginable numbers of children have been caught up—and our moral responsibility as outweighing everything. The dangers include the risks of trafficking and exploitation. Was that not precisely what the previous Government set out to counter in their flagship legislation? Prevention is the best response so relocating, supporting and welcoming children would contribute to that objective. The Minister says that this amendment is not the best or the most effective way but it is not an either/or. Whatever other countries do or do not do, the UK must not do just what is better than others but what it knows is right. This amendment is in the best interests of the children who are the subject of it.

[Lord Rosser]

I will be brief, since the arguments for this amendment have already been powerfully made. I also endorse the comments made by my noble friend Lord Dubs and other noble Lords about the measures that the Government have already taken. But while on the one hand the Government say, rightly, that we need to play a role at the heart of Europe, on the other they decline to assist over taking in unaccompanied refugee children in Europe who have fled from war, conflict and persecution and are already alone and at risk, simply because they are already in Europe.

Europol estimates that 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children went missing in Europe last year and we know that children are being exploited. The Government maintain that taking in any unaccompanied refugee children from among those already in Europe would increase the so-called pull factor—an argument for which there is no firm, hard evidence one way or the other. But at the heart of the unproven pull factor claim is a policy stance that we should leave all unaccompanied refugee children already in Europe to their fate. That is an unacceptable stance and if my noble friend decides to put his amendment to a vote, we will support him in the Division Lobby.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, appeared to be so dismissive of the many measures that I set out in my opening remarks. I emphasise that those measures include both children in conflict zones and those who have reached the shores of Europe. We want to ensure that those children already in Europe are able to access the help and protection that they need; we simply disagree on the method outlined in the amendment in lieu.

I will emphasise something that I should have highlighted earlier: our position is firmly based on the evidence and advice of the expert organisation in this field, namely the UNHCR. Our approach focuses on family reunification and the wider risk categories of children at risk, rather than just unaccompanied children. The UNHCR has commended this approach, and I ask noble Lords not to dismiss that point. As the world expert in this field, it has cautioned against creating additional routes and benefits that target unaccompanied children, because of the risk of encouraging families to send children ahead alone—in other words, causing children to become unaccompanied, with all the risks that go with it. That would be a terrible thing to do or to encourage. We surely must do nothing that puts more children’s lives at risk. Our new children at risk scheme, which I referred to earlier, is designed specifically to avoid creating perverse incentives like that.

We agree that we have a duty to help vulnerable children across the globe, whether in conflict regions, in European member states or in the UK, to access the help and protection they need. But it is our belief that simply physically transporting some unaccompanied children from one part of the EU to another is not the best or most effective way to fulfil our duty. That is why we are providing the significant support I have already outlined to build capacity in European asylum systems and ensure children are able to access that support.

We also believe it is best to support family reunification —bringing families together—rather than creating perverse incentives for children to be separated from their family, which I fear is what the noble Lord’s amendment would do. We already have several routes for families to be reunited safely. Our refugee family reunion policy allows immediate family members of a person in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection—that is to say, a spouse or partner and children under the age of 18, who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin—to reunite with them in the UK.

That is the answer to my Commons colleague Stephen Phillips: under that policy, we have reunited many refugees with their immediate family and continue to do so. We have granted more than 21,000 family reunion visas over the past five years. Even where an application fails under the Immigration Rules, our policy requires us to consider exceptional or compassionate reasons for granting a visa outside the rules.

Immigration Bill

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendment on behalf of us both. I was alerted to this issue by briefings at an earlier stage of the Bill from the JCWI and ILPA. As the noble Baroness said, the late and much missed Lord Avebury tried to resolve this issue during the passage of what became the 2014 Act, but to no avail. It falls to us to try to resolve it now.

I will not repeat the case in support of the amendment that has already been made so clearly by the noble Baroness. Instead, I draw your Lordships’ attention to a singular aspect of the permission-to-rent scheme that the amendment is designed to remedy. The UK has a strong tradition of upholding the rule of law. All of us can be sure in our interactions with the state that officials who make decisions that affect us are accountable to the law. Whether it is the person next door applying for planning permission, the imposition of a fine for speeding, the grant of a licence to serve alcoholic beverages or a local decision to cut council services, in every case the people affected are either directly notified of the decision or are able to access information about it that is available in the public domain. By informing people of the decisions that affect them, we ensure that government operates reasonably transparently. We ensure that power is exercised in a reasonably accountable way, and that any arbitrary or unlawful use of power is communicated directly to those that it affects. The system helps to ensure that Ministers and other public servants wield their considerable power within the law.

Here, though, we have a scheme under which the Home Secretary can decide whether or not a person—and, potentially, their entire family—is made homeless. I emphasise to noble Lords that this is no exaggeration. To take the example that the noble Baroness referred to, we have been made aware of the case of a man with a wife and two young children who have every right to be in this country and possess the right to rent but, because he does not have the paperwork to evidence that, he is unable to find housing for his family. They have come to the end of a tenancy and have now been forced, as a family of four, to live with relatives while the Home Office processes his paperwork.

The right-to-rent scheme has a huge impact on individuals who are caught up in it. But, despite the importance that the Home Secretary’s decision makes to an individual’s life in future, there is no right to be informed of that decision and of the grounds on which the decision was made.

The Government will tell my landlord whether or not I have permission to rent and therefore whether or not I might have a home to go to come tomorrow, but they will not tell me. This cannot be tenable in a country that operates under the transparent rule of law. People have a right to know whether they will be entitled to rent accommodation. Moreover, as the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe stated in his recent memorandum on the human rights of asylum seekers and immigrants in the UK, the right to adequate housing applies to everyone. Ensuring that right is essential to the inherent dignity of every person, irrespective of their legal or immigration status.

A simple administrative reform can resolve this issue, which, as I have said, has important human rights implications. I urge the Minister either to accept the recommendation or to make a clear commitment to sort this out once and for all.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I, too, have received a briefing on the issue that has been raised, and I certainly do not wish to reiterate the points that have been so ably put. There seems to be a strong argument for at least clarifying the situation—I think that that is what is being asked for—and ensuring that we do not end up with people being made homeless as a result. I very much hope that in his response the Minister will be able to provide that clarification—and an acceptable clarification as well.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would, as she explained, provide that a person disqualified by virtue of their immigration status may apply to the Secretary of State for written confirmation that permission to rent has been or will be granted to them. The amendment would amend the Immigration Act 2014, which introduced the right-to-rent scheme. It would work in conjunction with the existing provision, which states that a person who is otherwise disqualified from renting premises as a result of their immigration status is to be treated as having a right to rent where the Secretary of State has granted them permission to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement.

I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially even a step backwards. The Secretary of State is already able to grant permission to rent to people who are otherwise disqualified from renting. This may include migrants without leave who have sought asylum, families with minor children who are in the family returns process or those who face a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. A migrant may obtain confirmation that they will be afforded such permission by contacting the Home Office, and all a landlord need do then is to contact the Home Office landlords’ checking service with the migrant’s Home Office reference number to confirm that they may rent to that migrant. Following that process will give the landlord a statutory excuse from any civil penalty under the right-to-rent scheme.

Very importantly, this system allows for a swift process, without the need to require a migrant to make a formal application or for them to await written confirmation through the post that they may rent. Our experience since the right-to-rent scheme was introduced on 1 December 2014 is that this process works well. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Incidentally, there is no inconsistency between the FoI response and the letter from my noble friend Lord Bates. As I explained, a migrant may already contact the Home Office in order to establish whether they will be granted permission to rent. Existing arrangements are straightforward and work well. I should also mention that the Home Office is in the process of revising its published guidance in response to concerns raised during previous debates. I have no doubt that it will factor in the points made in this debate as well. Once that is done, the guidance will set out even more clearly how a migrant may contact the Home Office. But I suggest that requiring that they make a formal application and then have to await written confirmation may lead to unnecessary delays and in fact would serve no useful purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, from these Benches I support this amendment very warmly. In the previous stage of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, we had an amendment dealing with vulnerable people but it was debated alongside and really overshadowed by the amendment on a time limit to detention. The amendment provided that detention should take place only in exceptional circumstances determined by the First-tier Tribunal.

After the amendment was tabled, I was quite embarrassed by the opposition to or considerable doubts about it expressed by a number of organisations for which I have the greatest respect. They told me that we had got it wrong and that we should not provide for any exceptional circumstances in the case of pregnant women. I explained to them that the amendment was expressed as it was because we were trying to approach the Government with an offer of compromise. We hoped that the Government would meet us halfway by agreeing to not a complete exception but the one we expressed in that amendment. The list of vulnerable people was taken from Stephen Shaw’s report, in which—no ifs, no buts—pregnancy means vulnerability. As the noble Baroness said, and I will see if I can get it out without tripping over the word, he spoke of the,

“incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.

His Recommendation 10 was that they should be excluded.

The Government have added what is now Clause 62 to the Bill and there will be guidance; I acknowledge that that will come to Parliament. However, it will be through the negative procedure, and this is another of those examples where we can talk to our hearts’ content but will not be able to alter what is proposed. I was worried when I saw that new clause in the last stage and I worry now about the expression “particularly vulnerable”. I say again: there should be no ifs, no buts.

The Government proposed the adults-at-risk approach that has been referred to. I thank the Minister for his letter, in which he describes the Government’s concern about allowing all pregnant women access to the UK regardless of their immigration status, and therefore access to maternity services. The noble Earl will recall the debates that led up to the health charge being imposed—I suppose it is two years ago now—and that was one of the concerns which was expressed. We now have the health charge.

The letter from the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, explained:

“The higher the level of risk (and pregnant women will be regarded as being at the highest level of risk), the less likely it is that an individual will be detained”.

He added that the Government’s view,

“is that the best approach is a considered, case by case one which is represented by the adults at risk policy”.

I find it difficult to reconcile the two parts of that—that this is the “highest level of risk” but that there will be a “considered, case by case” approach. I do not think that the Minister can be surprised at the anxiety expressed by the very considerable number of well-respected organisations which are anxious about the policy given their experience of the current policy.

The noble Baroness referred to the all-party group inquiry, of which she and I were members. I turned it up this morning to find the comments that we made then about pregnant women. They included the evidence of Hindpal Singh Bhui, a team inspector at HM Prisons Inspectorate, who said that,

“pregnant women are only meant to be detained in the most exceptional circumstances. And again, we look for evidence of this”.

Of course, I am talking about the historical position. The inspector continued:

“And on the last couple of occasions that we’ve looked, we haven’t found those exceptional circumstances in the paperwork to justify their detention in the first place”.

Our report went on to say:

“We were also told of pregnant women being forced to travel long distances, sometimes over several days, when initially being detained, and failures in receiving test results and obstetric records. In one case, we were told that an immigration interview was prioritised over a 20-week … scan”.

The report continued:

“We are disappointed that the Home Office does not appear to be complying with its own policy of only detaining pregnant women in exceptional circumstances. We recommend that pregnant women are never detained for immigration purposes”.

I see no reason to depart from that but every reason to support it and the amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I apologise in advance for the fact that my contribution will contain a fair element of repetition of what has already been said but it will be relatively brief.

In his review for the Home Office into the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention, Stephen Shaw recommended that it amend its guidance so that the presumptive exclusion from detention for pregnant women was replaced with an absolute exclusion. Stephen Shaw said in his report that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons had told him that in its view there was little to suggest that pregnant women were being detained only in exceptional circumstances. He also said that the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees had pointed out that an inspection of Yarl’s Wood had found pregnant women being detained without evidence of the exceptional circumstances required to justify this, with one of the women being hospitalised twice because of pregnancy-related complications. In the light of the evidence presented to him, which he set out in his report, Mr Shaw said that he had not sought further evidence that detention had an adverse effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children, since he took this to be a statement of the obvious.

Stephen Shaw also said in his report that he believed that the Home Office should acknowledge the fact that in the vast majority of cases the detention of pregnant women does not result in their removal, and that in practice pregnant women are very rarely removed from this country except voluntarily. Concluding, he said that he was strongly of the view that presumptive exclusion from detention should be replaced with an absolute exclusion.

I hope that the Government will reflect on their apparent decision not to accept Stephen Shaw’s strong recommendation in respect of the detention of pregnant women. It is my party’s policy that pregnant women should not be detained in these circumstances, a view also expressed by Mr Shaw in his independent report to the Home Office. If my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett decides, at the end of the debate—and, most importantly, after the Government’s response—to test the opinion of the House, we shall support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I support the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the first amendment and retrospection, which was addressed by the Constitution Committee, and to the other two amendments and the extent to which they do or do not mean that the Secretary of State could dictate to a criminal court, including a court of criminal appeal. I am afraid I did not see the Minister shake his head when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made that comment, but I hope that, if that is the position as far as the Government are concerned, it does not mean that the Secretary of State will in any way be able to dictate to a criminal court and that the Minister will set out very clearly in his response why it is incorrect to draw that inference or assumption from these amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I shall begin with the observations made with regard to alleged retrospective effect in the provisions in Clause 63. Reference was made to a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of B v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Before that decision, which is subject to an appeal that I will come back to in a moment, it was widely—indeed, universally—understood that individuals could be released on immigration bail in circumstances where their detention was no longer lawful under the Hardial Singh principles; that is, there was no reasonable prospect of their deportation and they therefore had to be released. That understanding was shared by the relevant tribunals: the First-tier Tribunal and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. Indeed, it was the decision of the president of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which was overturned in the recent decision of the Court of Appeal, that determined that if detention was no longer lawful under the Hardial Singh principles, it would follow that bail could not be granted and, in particular, that bail could not be granted subject to conditions. As one might imagine, that had wide-ranging implications for the purposes of security, particularly in the case of B, who appeared to be an established Algerian terrorist who was at risk of carrying out terrorist activities to assist others in Algeria and elsewhere. The decision of the Court of Appeal has been suspended pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is set down to take place in December. However the Government’s position is that the position prior to the decision of the Court of Appeal was correct and it should be reinforced by statutory provision. It is for that reason that Clause 63 is in its present form. I understand that the appeal to the Supreme Court will proceed in any event, but it is essential, particularly in a matter that impacts on our security, that there should be no doubt or difficulty and no gap in our legislation so far as that is concerned.

Turning to Amendments 10 and 11, the test of practicability is for the Secretary of State, not the court, but there is no question of the Secretary of State usurping the functions of the court. It may be recollected that for that reason an amendment was made to Schedule 10 at an earlier stage to make clear that the Secretary of State could not usurp or overturn any decision-making power of the court or tribunal in these circumstances. That remains our position with respect to Schedule 10, as amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the principle of the immigration skills charge is not in dispute. It is absolutely vital that the skills of our own workforce should be improved if we are to achieve the major reduction in immigration which the public so anxiously wish to see. The main issue is one of timing as to when it should come into effect.

The Migration Advisory Committee, to whose work I pay a warm tribute, gave three reasons for its strong support for this scheme. First, to raise the cost of immigrant labour so as to reduce the numbers; secondly, to contribute to the extra cost involved for public services; and, thirdly, to compensate for what it described as the,

“rather modest efforts to upskill UK workers”,

by those firms employing Indian IT workers. All those matters need tackling as soon as possible.

I certainly accept that there may be some loose ends in respect of some of the public services, but we need to get on with this. The Government have announced that they will bring the measure into force in April 2017. That seems a reasonable way to get this moving in a vital area.

[Lord Rosser]

The Government have said that the £1,000 per year immigration skills charge will be paid by employers who sponsor tier 2 migrants, with a reduced rate of £364 per annum applying to small businesses and charities as set out in the Immigration Rules. There will be an exemption in respect of migrants undertaking occupations skilled to PhD level, primarily science and research roles. An exemption will also be applied for graduates who switch from tier 4 to tier 2 for the purpose of taking up a position in the UK. As far as other areas, organisations and categories are concerned, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is apparently continuing to consult, including with devolved Administrations and other government departments.

In their letter of 7 April, on Ministry of Defence headed paper, the Government said that they intend to introduce the charge from April 2017 rather than from a somewhat earlier date provided for in the Bill. As they have also said that they are looking at phasing in the charge, can the Minister say what the intention to introduce the charge from April 2017 means as far as timescales are concerned?

The Government have confirmed that secondary legislation will be needed before the charge can be introduced. They expect to lay regulations in the autumn and to publish a draft before they are laid, with interested parties being given an opportunity to comment. There are difficulties with potentially significant issues being dealt with by secondary legislation because such proposed legislation cannot be amended, only accepted or rejected in its entirety.

There appears to have been little analysis provided on the impact of the immigration skills charge. Can the Minister say how much money will be raised by the charge; what percentage of existing training budgets that will represent; and for how many will this additional money provide the training envisaged? What analysis have the Government undertaken to show that the introduction of the charge will achieve the stated objective, as set out in the letter of 7 April, of encouraging employers to think differently about their recruitment so that, where possible, they recruit and train up resident workers and reduce the need to recruit skilled labour from outside the European Economic Area? Has an impact assessment been undertaken and, if so, what did it indicate? By how many is it expected that the charge will reduce the need to recruit skilled labour from outside the European Economic Area?

The Government also ought at least to give a commitment that they will listen to and take into account the views of interested parties when the draft regulations are published prior to being laid; and that interested parties will be given sufficient time to respond, bearing in mind that the draft could be published in the middle of the holiday season.

In looking at where, to whom and from when the charge will apply, what are the criteria against which the Government are determining and making their proposals? Against what criteria, for example, will proposals on the extent to which the charge should or should not apply in the National Health Service be formulated? While the decision not to apply the immigration skills charge to those switching from a tier 4 student visa to a tier 2 visa is a positive move for the health service, it will not as I understand it exempt overseas doctors recruited by the NHS on tier 2 visas to fill medical vacancies in hard-to-recruit medical specialties and areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am a little reassured but I have to say that I am still left in much confusion as to how the Government intend to get from here to where we all wish to be. The ability of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to raise a very large number of fair questions about what is intended by all this simply demonstrates how unclear many of us in this House and outside are about how the Government will ensure that the extra skills are provided from within this country. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, that there is a long-term problem of companies in Britain finding it cheaper and easier to recruit direct from abroad rather than spending money on training their own employees. That applies not just to the Indian IT sector but also to long-distance truck drivers and all sorts of occupations in the private sector.

However, in the public sector the Government are responsible for training. As regards when we introduce this charge, I simply point out that it takes two or three years to train a nurse and longer to train a doctor, let alone a good maths teacher. Therefore, a year is not enough. We will find in the interim period that schools and hospitals will pay sums out of their flat budgets, out of which they are already paying for additional pension increases—so budgets are being squeezed—before any new training schemes have provided the additional skilled recruits from within the United Kingdom. That is part of the argument we are making about phasing in for the public sector.

I very much hope that we will have Labour support on this occasion. As I understand it, the Labour Party supports the public sector. I have heard reports that the Labour Party in the Commons has instructed the Labour Party in the Lords not to support this measure because it is a Liberal Democrat amendment and it is a bit queer about supporting Liberal Democrat amendments. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will be able to bring his party along. However, I appreciate that sometimes in the Lords the Labour Party Front Benchers have to defend positions they are not entirely happy about, as, indeed, do the Conservative Party Front Benchers.

[Lord Rosser]

I reassure the noble Lord, who is clearly very concerned about my present state and what I have had to say on this amendment, that I fully support an agreement—obviously, to his surprise—regarding what I said from this Dispatch Box. Interestingly enough, the noble Lord has not responded to the objections that I raised on his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will briefly answer the noble Lord’s questions. First, as he is aware, we regularly consult external partners and experts including the Red Cross and Save the Children. We will continue to do that. Secondly, we are revising our guidance on family reunion, which provides specific guidance for those already in the UK on how to apply for family reunion and instructions for caseworkers on how to consider such applications. We intend to publish this in April and we will communicate it to all relevant officials. Details of how to apply are already available on GOV.UK and refugees granted international protection are advised about their entitlement to family reunion when they receive their asylum decision.

[Lord Rosser]

I take this opportunity—I believe I am doing it at the right place—to express our thanks to all those who have participated in the debates on the Bill, which I believe is now a better Bill than the one that was sent to us from the House of Commons. We are grateful for the amount of information provided by Ministers and the Bill team, for the numerous meetings that have taken place and for the willingness of Ministers to listen to concerns about the Bill and, in some instances, the willingness of the Government themselves to bring forward amendments or place statements on the record to address those concerns. I particularly express appreciation of the work undertaken during the passage of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose approach, as with that of his Front-Bench colleagues, has I think been appreciated on all sides of the House.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, from these Benches I add our thanks, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who has started on a rather long walk, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said. It is one of a series of admirable walks but the noble Lord’s colleagues have been walking well alongside him, and after him, during the course of the Bill. It feels a little odd to agree that the Bill do now pass, because we are by no means clear what it will provide by the time that it has endured—a word that the noble Lord the Chief Whip might use—ping-pong. We are by no means finished with these issues or with the Bill itself.

The Role and Capabilities of the UK Armed Forces, in the Light of Global and Domestic Threats to Stability and Security

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate, which has been initiated by the Minister, is most appropriate, coming as it does shortly before the Government finalise their pending 2015 strategic defence and security review. Presumably it is designed to achieve the aims of the national security strategy. I hope that in his response the Minister will be saying rather more than he has so far about the national security strategy and the Government’s current thinking on the SDSR, and the extent to which it will or will not either repeat or add to what his party said in its recent election manifesto. I will also wait to see if the Minister takes up the challenge posed by my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford over the alleged black hole, assuming of course he survives the ministerial cull advocated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I also await with interest his responses to the powerful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, on the case of Sergeant Blackman, as well as the points about the intended increase in our reserves and what will happen if that increase is not achieved.

One important point for a coherent strategic defence and security review is that it should set out both the thinking and the actual and anticipated developments which have led to the conclusions reached and decisions made. Without that, there will inevitably be doubts and uncertainty over the factors or pressures which have driven whatever proves to be the content and conclusions of the review. The SDSR, as has been said on more than one occasion in the debate, must be strategically driven. While there may be considerations or developments both actual and anticipated of a highly sensitive security nature which it may not be possible to disclose, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a commitment that the SDSR will be as open and transparent as it possibly can be in setting out the thinking and considerations which will have driven the conclusions and decisions reached, including the nature, length and extent of operations which our Armed Forces can be expected to undertake—including at any one point in time—in the light of the resources allocated.

The House of Commons Defence Committee published a report, I think last March, outlining a number of developments spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that it considered meant that the national security strategy was no longer adequate, along with the Future Force 2020 structure. The committee also felt that there was a need for a rebuilt conventional military deterrent against states such as Russia and for continuing investment in what it described as next-generation warfare, including strategic communications, cyber warfare capabilities and intelligence.

The Royal United Services Institute, in drawing attention to the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 and the distribution of the Libyan Government’s stock of arms across North Africa and the Middle East, has referred to concerns about the security implications of the proliferation of advanced military capabilities in the hands of non-state actors. Others, including noble Lords in this debate, have raised concerns about the loss for an island nation such as ours of a maritime patrol aircraft capability and about our ability in the future to defend the Falkland Islands. Can the Minister say whether these issues are among those being considered as part of the SDSR and the national security strategy? It would be helpful if he could also say something more about the Government’s thinking on the way in which the nature of military involvement, not least our military involvement, may be changing. Considerable publicity was given to the announcement by the Prime Minister last week that two British jihadis fighting in Syria had been killed by an RAF drone strike, which was long-distance military involvement conducted, as I understand it, by Armed Forces personnel within our own country. Technology can and does change the nature of military involvement and action, but so too does political decision-making. The Government have been very specific recently that we are not going to be involved in the latest actual or likely areas of military involvement through putting boots on the ground. Does that continue to reflect the Government’s approach and is that approach—which we saw in relation to Libya and which now applies in relation to Iraq—likely to be reflected in the SDSR?

Is there a Government view that we should be less actively involved militarily in future in what some might describe as other people’s conflicts, or is it the Government’s view that that should not be our stance but instead that where there is British military involvement in other countries, it should not be by having British troops on the ground engaged directly in military action? If the latter approach is the Government’s position, does that in their view mean a change in the relationship within our Armed Forces of the roles of the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force, a change sufficient to have a significant impact on how total available resources should be allocated in future between the three services?

I believe the Minister said that our forces were involved in 21 joint operations in 19 nations. It would be helpful if, following this debate, the noble Earl could provide more information on where our Armed Forces are currently involved in joint operations, and the nature and objectives of that involvement.

One issue which has been the subject of discussion and debate in the Chamber on a number of occasions and again today is cyber security and the threat of cyber attacks. I remember going to one discussion on cyber security outside this House at which one of the experts said, in essence, that it was effectively impossible to guarantee yourself protection from such attacks. The maximum that you could and should do was to make it as difficult as possible for those seeking to make such attacks, so that they were much more likely to turn their attention away from you and towards potentially weaker targets. The extent to which that factor might come into play may be more questionable in the defence field, where cyber attacks are more likely to be state-organised and state-run or financed. There ought to be a requirement on every company working with the Ministry of Defence, regardless of its size or the scale of its work, to meet the terms of a cyber security charter in order to seek to reduce the risk of hackers using small suppliers to break into the systems of major defence companies or the department itself. There also needs to be a requirement for all private companies to report serious cyber attacks threatening our national infrastructure, and that obviously applies to defence as well.

I do not of course expect the Minister to start going into detail about our own capabilities, either offensive or defensive, in the field of cyber security and cyber attacks, but I hope that he will be able to say something in general terms on this issue when he responds, including on how the additional resources which the Government have previously said are being put into cyber security have been and are being used. One would like to think that those who seek to attack us in this way are as wary of what we can do to them as we may be of what they might be able to do to us.

The need for defence, security, foreign affairs and international development strategies to be co-ordinated and developed together rather than in separate silos has never been greater. We are faced with a Middle East where conflict increasingly seems to be the norm rather than the exception. With that comes the consequence of large and increasing numbers of refugees within the Middle East itself and those seeking to reach Europe in the quest for the basic human desire of safety and security, and a chance to lead lives free of fear. In the Middle East and beyond, we face the impact of extremist terror and intra-Islamist conflict. In Ukraine, we have the instability and uncertainty created by hostile military intervention from Russia, while in the Far East we see China flexing its military muscles and desire for domination and control, which will probably only intensify as it faces economic difficulties within its own boundaries. In some other countries we see the emergence of nationalist movements and populist parties with their associated calls for a more introverted approach rather than the internationalist approach which must surely continue to be the way forward. The emergence of such movements and parties is usually driven by domestic issues, whether economic or political, which are portrayed as putting at risk prosperity, stability and identity.

The wide interest in the forthcoming SDSR and national security strategy will be shared by our defence industry and all those whose jobs, either directly or indirectly, depend on that industry. What are the Government’s objectives under the forthcoming SDSR for maintaining or increasing levels of employment in this area and the need, if that is to be achieved and the skills base protected and developed, of providing a regular and steady workflow?

It is usual in debates such as these to take the opportunity to express gratitude and thanks to our Armed Forces for the vital work they do and the commitment they show and give, and this debate should be no exception; indeed, it has been no exception in that regard. In the last few years in particular, the commitment shown in protecting, defending and furthering the interests of our nation both at home and overseas has led on more than just a few occasions to loss of life, or life-changing or serious injuries, physical and mental, to members of our Armed Forces. The potential sacrifice they know they may have to make is not some remote possibility. It is real, and they deserve our respect and admiration for being prepared to accept that burden on our behalf. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, spoke forcefully on the need to support and help both those who make that sacrifice and their families.

The forthcoming SDSR and the national security review should set out what we require of our Armed Forces in the years immediately ahead. We need to be sure that they have the resources, including personnel, to meet those objectives. If we do that, we know that our Armed Forces will deliver in full.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2015

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of the order that we are considering today is to continue in force legislation governing the Armed Forces—the Armed Forces Act 2006—for a further period of one year, until November 2016. This reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that the Armed Forces may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.

The legislation which makes the provision necessary for the Armed Forces to exist as disciplined forces is renewed every year. There is five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament. That is the primary purpose of Armed Forces Acts. Between Acts, there must be an annual Order in Council. That is the purpose of the draft order that we are considering today.

If the Order in Council is not made by the end of 2 November 2015, the Armed Forces Act 2006 will automatically expire. The effect of this would be to end the powers and provisions necessary to maintain the Armed Forces as disciplined bodies.

The order will continue in force the 2006 Act until the end of 2 November 2016, when a new Act of Parliament will be required to provide for the legislation to continue for the next five years. We expect the next Armed Forces Bill to be introduced into Parliament soon, and I look forward to our debates on the Bill and on matters of great importance to our Armed Forces during its passage in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, before then, I look forward to enjoying a full and interesting debate next week on the role and capabilities of the UK Armed Forces in the light of global and domestic threats to stability and security.

Turning back to the business in hand today, I should say something about why we need to keep the 2006 Act in force. The Armed Forces Act 2006 applies to all service personnel wherever in the world they are operating. It provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system of command, discipline and justice for the Armed Forces, covering such matters as offences, the powers of the service police and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and of service courts, in particular the courts martial. It is the basis of the service justice system that underpins the maintenance of discipline through the chain of command which is so fundamental to the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

The 2006 Act also provides for a number of other important matters for the Armed Forces, such as for their enlistment, pay and redress of complaints. Members of the Armed Forces have no contracts of employment and so no duties as employees. Although members of the Armed Forces owe a duty of allegiance to Her Majesty, their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful orders, but without the 2006 Act, commanding officers and the courts martial would have no powers of punishment for either disciplinary or criminal misconduct. That is why the Armed Forces Act 2006 is so important and why we need to continue it in force. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and need for the order. We have this debate on the Armed Forces continuation order each year, and I must say that I am no clearer at present than I was when I was first involved in these debates what would be the implications if the order was not carried.

I do not intend to speak at any length. We support the order and, as the Minister said, we have a separate defence debate in the Chamber next week. However, bearing in mind the wide-ranging nature of the order and the apparent consequences if it was not agreed, it has always seemed to me—if, apparently, to no one else—that consideration of the order each year could be used as the basis for an annual general defence debate in the Chamber. There is, after all, very little, if anything defence and Armed Forces-wise that it could be argued would not be relevant in a debate on an order which if not agreed calls into question the continuation of our Armed Forces as a disciplined fighting force.

As paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states, the Armed Forces Act 2006, which the order extends for a further year from 2 November 2015,

“provides nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system for the armed forces of command, discipline and justice … It also contains a large number of other important provisions as to the armed forces, such as provision for enlistment, pay and redress of complaints”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for their comments and questions. I shall address them in turn.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, devoted his remarks to questions around the hypothesis that were this order not to be approved, the effect on the Armed Forces would be to render them, in practice, completely ineffective. I can confirm that. The practical effect of not renewing the Act would be that the Armed Forces as we know them would cease to exist because, among the many important provisions in the Act, the key provisions are perhaps the duty to obey lawful commands and the mechanism for enforcing that duty. Without these, the Armed Forces would be unable to continue as disciplined forces. They would continue to owe allegiance to Her Majesty but to deploy the Armed Forces in practice or in theatre would be rendered almost impossible because the system of obeying duties would fall away.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I should clarify. I understand fully the point that the noble Earl has made. Is the Minister saying that it would be impractical to undertake military action because there would be no duty to obey commands, or is it also the case that if this order was not passed it would be illegal for our Armed Forces to undertake any action? Is it an issue about practicality or is it an issue about whether it is legal?

[Earl Howe]

It is both, as I understand it, in that the requirement for annual renewal can be traced back, as noble Lords have pointed out, to the Bill of Rights 1688. It declared that the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law. That means, essentially, that it would be illegal to have a standing Army or, indeed, a standing Royal Navy or Royal Air Force. It has not been a matter for any Government in living memory to contemplate a scenario whereby Parliament might not approve the continuation of the Armed Forces.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I am not advocating that either but I am not entirely clear that the Explanatory Memorandum actually says that about the legality, in words of one syllable.

[Earl Howe]

I shall naturally take advice from those who are expert in this field. If anything that I have said is wrong or requires expansion I will of course write to the noble Lord. I agree that this is a subject of theoretical interest. I am glad to hear that there is no proposal to take the questions to their logical conclusion, but I recognise the importance of the questions that the noble Lord poses and will be happy to clarify, perhaps at greater length in writing, what the legal position amounts to.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, also referred to the Bill of Rights, but focused her remarks on the system of complaints and asked whether the changes that are being introduced are on track. They are. As she knows, the Ministry of Defence worked closely with Dr Susan Atkins, the first Service Complaints Commissioner, to make the service complaints process more efficient and to strengthen the commissioner role. That was the basis of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill that received Royal Assent on 26 March this year. As she is aware, the Act shortens the complaints process and replaces the commissioner with a new Service Complaints Ombudsman. Implementation is expected in January. The ombudsman will have significant new powers, while maintaining the right balance between the authority of the military chain of command, which must be responsible for looking after its own people, and strong independent oversight through the ombudsman.

Nicola Williams, the former ombudsman in the Cayman Islands, with whom I had a useful conversation the other day, took over as the commissioner in January and will become the first ombudsman, subject to approval by Her Majesty the Queen. Nicola Williams’s first annual report on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints process was published on 24 March. The Government’s response was published on 16 July 2015.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked me whether the Explanatory Memorandum reflects the content of Mr Morrison’s letter. I will have to get back to her on the answer to that.

As for the timetable for the Armed Forces Bill, I anticipate that it will be introduced into Parliament shortly. I cannot comment on its content before that happens, but my understanding is that the Bill should be under way in October.

Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement already made in the other place by the Secretary of State updating the position in Iraq and Syria in respect of action against ISIL. The Secretary of State has also issued a Written Statement today on the subject of UK embedded forces in which he confirms that,

“up to 80 UK personnel have been embedded with US, Canadian and French forces”,

since the international coalition commenced military operations against ISIL last year. The Secretary of State went on to say:

“A small number of embedded UK pilots”—

I think it was five—

“have carried out airstrikes in Syria against ISIL targets”,

although,

“none are currently involved in airstrikes”;

and:

“Ministerial approval is required for UK embeds deployed with allied forces on operations”.

The House of Commons voted against military action in Syria in 2013 and parliamentary authority has only been given to UK air strikes against ISIL in Iraq. The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on 26 September 2014:

“I have said that we will come back to the House if, for instance, we make the decision that we should take air action with others in Syria”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/9/14; col. 1266.]

That undertaking has clearly been broken, unless the Minister is going to tell us that neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for Defence knew what was going on with UK pilots carrying out air strikes in Syria. Can the Minister tell us, therefore, if the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence knew? If they did, when did they know, and which Minister gave the required approval, and when, for these UK embeds to be deployed with allied forces on operations? Were they aware that in so doing, they were authorising UK pilots to carry out air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets?

Did the Prime Minister know that embedded UK pilots had carried out, or had been authorised to carry out, air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets when he made his statement on 26 September last year? If the authorisation for UK pilots to carry out air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets was given during the time of the previous coalition Government, can the Minister say if the then Deputy Prime Minister would have been advised of, or his approval sought for, a small number of embedded UK pilots carrying out air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets?

The involvement of members of our Armed Forces in Syria has come to light only as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, and the future of that Act is now under threat from this Government. Without that ability to make a Freedom of Information Act request and secure an answer, the involvement of members of our Armed Forces in Syria would not have come to light since it is clear that neither this Government nor perhaps the previous coalition Government had any intention of telling either Parliament or the British people, even though Parliament had voted against military action in Syria and the Prime Minister had pledged to come back to the House if the decision was made that we should take air action with others in Syria.

In his Statement, the Secretary of State said:

“UK personnel have embedded with other nations’ air forces since the 1950s”;

and in the House of Commons today, the Secretary of State sought to say that the Government had actually been quite open about what had happened because they had responded to a freedom of information request. Can the Minister tell us the last time embedded UK forces have been involved in operations and military action in a country when the House of Commons has voted against our Armed Forces being involved in military action in that country and has not subsequently changed its decision?

On the Secretary of State’s claim of openness by the Government because they had responded to a freedom of information request, the reality is that without that request—and most people would have assumed that, in the light of the Prime Minister’s undertaking last September, there would be no British military personnel involvement in operations in Syria—the first the nation might have known about this activity would have been if something had gone wrong. Can the Minister now give an undertaking that there will be no further use of embedded forces in Syria without parliamentary consent, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s undertaking?

We share the Government’s abhorrence of ISIL’s cold-blooded terrorism and we remain ready to work with the Government to defeat ISIL and will carefully consider any proposals that they decide to bring forward. In so doing, we would need to be clear about what difference any action would make to our aim of defeating ISIL, about the nature of any action, its objectives and legal basis. But going behind the back of Parliament and keeping it in the dark, as it is clear the Government have done with the forced disclosure that UK pilots have carried out air strikes in Syria against ISIL targets contrary to Parliament’s decision, does not help.

Somebody in government has tried to be too clever by half by maintaining, as the Secretary of State for Defence has done in his Written Statement, that the Prime Minister’s undertaking excluded UK personnel embedded within other nations’ armed forces operating in Syria, on the basis that it applied only to the deployment of UK forces. The Prime Minister certainly did not make that exemption, and neither did Parliament in its decision. That somebody has done a disservice to the nation, to Parliament and to our Armed Forces—which have served, continue to serve, and will always serve us with great bravery and commitment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am most worried about the statement in this Statement:

“There is a well-planned, integrated strategy to defeat ISIL”.

That is not what it looks like to many on these Benches and elsewhere. We are in an extremely complex situation in the Middle East in which some of our partners are on our side in some respects and on the other side for other purposes. I was being briefed at lunchtime today about the complexities around the Kurdish forces which are involved in the conflict both in Syria and in Iraq, and the deeply ambivalent attitude of the Turks and of the Iraqi Government to their activities. That is merely one of the many complexities that we face.

The coalition, after all, includes Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many others, many of which have reservations about how we see the conflict. For many purposes, Iran is effectively now an additional member of the coalition, and one of the strongest forces opposing ISIS. I wish I could see a well-integrated strategy. I fear that it is not possible to have one, given the complexity of the situation facing us.

We are talking about local forces that are engaging ISIS. Jabhat al-Nusra is one of the forces that engage ISIS but I am not entirely sure that we want to support it or provide it with more assistance. Some of the Shia militias in Iraq are not as easy as we would like, and sadly the Free Syrian Army, which we have been training, is not one of the strongest forces in the land. I was also worried by what the Prime Minister said at the weekend about domestic radicalisation and counterterrorism because we are all clear that there are direct links between domestic radicalisation and the actions of some of our allies and partners in promoting radical and jihadist versions of Islam against moderate Islamic practices.

We recognise that the Government are edging towards asking for British planes to be involved in bombing in Syria. A small number of British planes bombing ISIS in Syria is no more likely to resolve the multiple conflicts across the Middle East than bombing Damascus would have done two years ago. There is no shortage of aircraft in the Gulf states and Turkey that are quite capable of bombing ISIS from the air. It worries me that we are told that 30% of the surveillance activities over Syria are being conducted by British planes. That suggests that not many other planes apart from American ones are flying over Syria.

Sadly, some of the Governments have themselves supported radical Islamic groups and are still ambivalent about attacking Sunni groups, however radical or brutal, such as Jabhat al-Nusra. It is not in Britain’s interests to cling to the hard-line Sunni side of a developing Sunni-Shia conflict. Nor is it in our interests to present ourselves to ISIS as an existential enemy—I note that the Statement downgrades “existential threat” to “direct threat”, which is perhaps a little better—when ISIS is a much more direct threat to moderate Muslims and to regimes across the Middle East. We should be working with others to promote a coherent response from the neighbours of Syria and Iraq, which we can support, not repeating the mistake of the 2003 Iraq war when we followed the Americans into bombing and then occupying an Arab country.

Some of Britain’s allies in the Middle East have actively funded radical Islamic mosques and movements in the UK and elsewhere. The Prime Minister’s commitment to combat radicalisation within Britain would be more persuasive if he spelled out to the Saudi Government, in particular, our condemnation of Saudi money funding radical groups, and that the Saudis must now themselves take responsibility for containing violent jihadism among Sunni Muslims.

The Prime Minister responded positively to a request from our Middle East partners that we should conduct an inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood. It is now time for the Prime Minister to ask them in return to conduct an inquiry into the funding of radical Islamic groups in our territory.

I have some questions, if I may. Which local forces are responding? Do they include Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq? Do they include the Shia militias? What is their attitude to Jabhat al-Nusra? How many of our Middle Eastern partners are currently flying air strikes over Syria? I was told the other day that only one was doing so—Jordan. In terms of embedded personnel, how many RAF pilots are embedded in US drone units, which are flying drones, including armed drones, over the Middle East? How many embedded personnel from other states are currently embedded in British forces? I have been told that French pilots are flying in RAF strike fighters, for example. We, of course, know about the Dutch in the UK/Netherlands Amphibious Force. Are there others? Would it not be proper, either now or later, to give us at least a Written Statement telling us what the position is the other way round as well?

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this debate. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission is funded proportionately in relation to war casualties by its six Commonwealth member states and, on this basis, the British Government currently provide some 78% of the commission’s funding. Can the Minister confirm that the funding formula is related to those who died for whom there is a known grave, and does not include those for whom there is none? Can he also confirm that no Government, including our own, can make a unilateral decision to reduce their funding in actual amount or percentage terms without the agreement of all the other Governments involved?

Graves are maintained in 23,000 locations in just over 150 countries. In the United Kingdom, there are 13,000 different locations of which 10,000 have fewer than 10 burials. Some 4,500 maintenance agreements for the CWGC war graves are in place with local authorities, churches, councils, contractors and individuals. These agreements result in the CWGC graves being properly tended and cared for but unfortunately, given the significant cuts in local authority budgets, the difficult financial situation and limited number of active congregation members in some churches, the rest of the cemetery or churchyard in which the CWGC grave is located is often far from well looked after. That can have an adverse impact on the setting for Commonwealth War Graves Commission graves, however well tended they may be. Is this an issue of concern to the Government, and if so do they intend to pursue it?

Although the Commonwealth War Graves Commission commemorates those who died up to 31 December 1947 and not beyond, its work continues. With the centenary commemoration of the First World War, the number of people visiting the British world war cemeteries in France and Belgium has never been higher. The CWGC website provides information on the burial place or commemoration site of every British or Commonwealth soldier killed in the First and Second World Wars. The number of identification cases sent to the CWGC where someone believes they have worked out who is in an unidentified grave has risen nearly tenfold in the last 10 years. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission was not founded until 1917, and some have estimated that as many as 10,000 names of those killed may still not be included in the records. When such cases are verified, the CWGC adds the name to a memorial, and each year the remains of around 30 British and Commonwealth troops dating back to the world wars are still being discovered. Some can be identified but all are buried with full military honours at a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission has helped us, continues to help us and will help future generations not to forget a vital part of our history. It ensures that the nearly one and three quarter million Commonwealth service men and women who died in both world wars are not forgotten.

Defence: Budget

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The first priority of our Armed Forces is of course to defend and protect our own people. After that, it is a case of the Government deciding what further role they want our nation and require our Armed Forces to play beyond our shores, and having made that decision providing our Armed Forces with the capability to carry out that role. That is what the forthcoming strategic defence and security review and the spending review should be about. The last SDSR did not prove very accurate in forecasting many of the key events of the last five years. It was silent on the upheavals that have occurred in north Africa, the rise of ISIL, and on Russian activity and aggression in the Ukraine. I hope that the forthcoming SDSR will prove to be a rather more reliable document in that regard.

We then have the issue of money; defence is not a protected department, and there will have to be very substantial cuts—18%, say independent sources—in non-protected departments if the Government are to hit their own deficit reduction target. The Government have already committed themselves to no further reductions in the size of our regular Armed Forces, at least a 1% real-terms increase in the defence equipment budget throughout this Parliament, and the renewal of our nuclear deterrent. Can the Minister say what areas, if any, of the defence budget are being considered for cuts in expenditure, and what level of cuts, if any, the Government expect to make in the defence budget in real terms? In the Queen’s Speech the Government stated that they would,

“continue to play a leading role in global affairs, using its presence all over the world to re-engage with and tackle the major international security, economic and humanitarian challenges”.

The recent comments by the US Defense Secretary that our reductions in military spending were,

“actions which seem to indicate disengagement”,

suggest that not everybody has been convinced by the Government’s statement about our future global role.

That is a further reason why the Government should be open and promote debate, including in this House, on their view of the threats we face, our global role, and the military capability we need, prior to final decisions being made on the SDSR and the spending review, and not simply say in effect that anybody is welcome to write in with their thoughts. The 2015 SDSR has to be a credible document, with regard first to defence and foreign policy objectives, and secondly to the resources needed by our Armed Forces to deliver those objectives.

Gurkhas: Anniversary

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I, like other noble Lords who have spoken, extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on securing this very timely debate. He spoke with the passion and fervour that we have come to associate with him. I regret that my contribution cannot contain personal experiences and recollections but this debate gives an opportunity to draw attention to the major contribution made by the Gurkhas to the British Army and to talk about some current-day issues relating to the Gurkhas, including Gurkha veterans.

As we all know, this year marks 200 years since Gurkhas were first enlisted into the armies of the British Crown in the wake of the Anglo-Nepalese war at that time. Ever since then, the Gurkhas have made a major and widely admired and respected contribution to the British Army, and many have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives. Thirteen Gurkha soldiers have won the Victoria Cross.

As the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, said, during the First World War more than 90,000 Gurkhas served the British Crown, of whom more than 20,000 were killed, wounded or missing in action. Gurkha regiments earned hundreds of gallantry awards throughout that war. In the Second World War more than 137,000 Gurkhas served the British Crown, with more than 23,000 being killed, wounded or missing in action and more than 2,500 awards for bravery being made.

More recently, the Gurkhas have served in the Falklands, Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Today the Brigade of Gurkhas has spread between the British garrison in Brunei and the UK, and they continue to play a full part in the Army’s operational and peacetime commitments.

The Gurkha soldier, it has been said, defines the close relationship between the Republic of Nepal and the United Kingdom—a relationship that has developed in many different and perhaps surprising ways. Aldershot Town Football Club, whose ground is close to Aldershot Garrison, sent a team to play in Nepal earlier this year and has established a fund to aid the Nepal earthquake relief programme. Last year it was adopted as the official football club of Rushmoor’s Nepalese community, and last month the Nepalese organisation, Sahara UK, purchased £10,000-worth of the football club’s shares. Yesterday evening there was an anniversary pageant for the Gurkhas at the Royal Hospital Chelsea, attended by the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the Royal Family, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.

The wording of our debate makes reference to the recent earthquakes in Nepal, the first of which was on 25 April, when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake struck an area between Kathmandu and Pokhara in Nepal, and right in the centre of one of the Gurkhas’ recruiting areas, in which a not inconsiderable number of retired soldiers would have been living. Some of the villages occupied by the Gurungs, the clan which provides the backbone of the Gurkha regiments, were largely destroyed. Clearly the magnitude of the disaster in Nepal has thrown something of a shadow over the events and activities celebrating the 200th anniversary.

Needless to say, though, the Gurkhas have been playing a significant part in the relief effort, and not least through the work of Army Gurkha engineers. Points have already been made and questions asked in this debate about the Government’s approach and contribution to the relief effort in Nepal, to which no doubt the Minister will be responding. It is of course not only in Nepal that the Gurkhas provide humanitarian relief; they were also sent to Sierra Leone to help contain Ebola.

Competition to become a British Gurkha recruit is strong and the tests involved are very challenging. Typically some 6,000 men, now from across Nepal, will apply to be one of the 200 to 300 recruits chosen each year. Those selected become, after a year’s induction training, soldiers in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which comprises about 3% of the British Army.

An agreement signed between the UK and Nepal in 1947 provided the basis for the service of the Gurkhas in the British Army, who previously had been part of the British Indian Army before Indian independence in 1947. The Gurkha pension scheme had its origins in this 1947 agreement. The agreement committed the British Government to treat Gurkhas fairly but did mean that, before April 2007, Gurkhas served on different terms and conditions of service from those in other parts of the Army. These differences have been the cause of grievances held by members of the Gurkha veterans’ community, mainly but not exclusively in respect of perceived pension inequalities, and were the subject of a recent inquiry by the All-Party Group on Gurkha Welfare.

Many former Gurkhas now work with charities, including the Gurkha Welfare Trust. The Gurkha Welfare Trust was founded in 1969 with the aim of relieving poverty and distress among ex-Gurkha soldiers and their dependants, though today, from a network of centres across the country, it also delivers community aid such as water supply systems, schools, medical camps and welfare, not least to some of the poorest, most inaccessible parts of Nepal. The trust pays pensions from a charitable fund to which the British public contribute generously. Over 6,500 veterans or their widows depend on the welfare pension to enable them to live with dignity.

Modern terms of service for Gurkhas are now identical to British ones. Since April 2007, any Gurkha joining the British Army receives the same pay and pension benefits as their counterparts in the wider British Army. They serve on the same basis as the remainder of the Army, with some limited exceptions designed to meet the wishes of the Government of Nepal. In 2009, retired Gurkhas were given the right to settle in Britain with British citizenship, although I note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on that issue. The Government provide financial support to the Gurkha Welfare Trust through an annual grant in aid. However, welfare payments to needy veterans are funded by public donations.

Following the recent report by the all-party group into grievances held by members of the Gurkha veterans’ community, the Government agreed to set up a fund to compensate those who had had to leave the Gurkhas as a direct result of marrying a non-Nepalese. Over the next five years, £5 million will also be made available from LIBOR fines to support Gurkha Welfare Trust projects in Nepal or the UK, and just under £1 million has been found from the LIBOR-funded veterans’ accommodation fund to provide 32 homes in the UK for up to 64 Gurkha veterans and their spouses or partners. These moves by the Government will not fully address the grievances of members of the Gurkha veterans’ community, which successive Governments have faced, but they do represent further steps following the significant decisions by the then Government in 2007 and 2009 in respect of pay and pension benefits and settling in Britain with British citizenship.

In February this year, I asked the then Government if they agreed that the best way to mark the 200th anniversary would be to ensure a clear and continuing role for the Gurkhas in Army 2020 and inquired whether that was the Government’s objective and what that role might be. Now that we have a new Government, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, ask the question again. I hope that the Minister will provide a clear and positive answer when he responds. In particular, will he confirm that the Prime Minister’s pledge to maintain the current size of the Regular Army applies also to the Gurkhas? It would, after all, seem rather odd for us to be rightly praising the tremendous and courageous contribution of the Gurkhas tonight—I am assuming that the Minister will also be doing just that very shortly—if earlier in the day, metaphorically speaking, Ministers in the Ministry of Defence had been considering making defence cuts at the expense of the Gurkhas, as part of the somewhat secretive current strategic defence and security review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord knows that I cannot separate the Gurkhas out from the SDSR. It would be as impossible to do that for the Gurkhas as for any other part of the British Army. However, I note the strength of feeling that the noble Lord has expressed, and I am sure that that will be conveyed back to those who are in the throes of preparing the initial stages of the SDSR.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I understand that a commitment has been given by the Prime Minister that there will be no further cuts in our Regular Army. Why is there any doubt that there will be any cuts so far as the Gurkhas are concerned? Are they not covered by the pledge that was given by the Prime Minister?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the commitment given by the Prime Minister related to the total number of the Regular British Army so, as much as I would like to, I cannot give a commitment about a specific segment of the Army.

Armed Forces: Airborne Maritime Patrol

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, a range of other military aircraft provide search and rescue radar capability to the Armed Forces. We have the E-3D Sentry system, which admittedly is optimised for the air-to-air role, but its radar has a maritime search mode. C-130 Hercules aircraft are fitted with radar systems that, combined with visual search, provide basic maritime search capabilities. RAF Sea King helicopters, and Royal Navy Merlin and Lynx helicopters all possess short-range surface search radar for use in maritime search operations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his first Defence Question since his appointment. He has moved from the health of the nation to the health of our Armed Forces. He referred to the strategic defence and security review and our maritime patrol capability. Can he confirm that, in pursuit of a bipartisan approach to defence policy, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will also be involved in the consultations on the SDSR, which the Government told us last Thursday in this House are now taking place?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord. We will be looking for opportunities to consult a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, naturally, academics and parliamentarians. The Opposition will be welcome to feed in their ideas in the course of that process.