Unaccompanied Migrant Children

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Currently, in the event of unaccompanied children arriving at a port of entry in the United Kingdom, the first port of call is to provide support via local authorities, which give proper safeguarding opportunities and responsibilities for those individual under-18s. Again, my objective overall and that of the Government in having the border control system is to ensure that we help to reduce the number of children coming here, exploited by gangmasters and by others, and that we deal with those who come here in a humane and effective way.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, last week a teenager who arrived in the UK on a small boat in July was charged with the murder of a woman working at an asylum hotel. Rhiannon Skye Whyte, who was 27, died after she was stabbed in the neck with a screwdriver. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that this is appalling and send our sincere condolences to Rhiannon’s friends and family. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all staff at asylum accommodation are kept safe?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I was aware of that incident last week. The noble Lord will know that I do not wish to comment on its details because it is sub judice. There will be a trial and an individual will face charges; I do not wish to prejudice any trial. In light of that incident, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made inquiries of the operator of the hotel in which it occurred and other hotels to ensure that women, in particular, and lone workers have support and a review of their safety. The family of the individual who died as a result of that incident are being kept informed and have our great sympathy.

Police Accountability

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement and I join my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in welcoming its contents. It is true that, for the British consent-based policing model to work, the trust must be mutual. The people must trust the police and the police must trust the system in order to perform their duties effectively. But too often lately both sides have been let down.

I therefore welcome that this Government are continuing the work of the previous Government on accountability. I particularly welcome the work of Dame Elish Angiolini on police culture; having worked with her, I have no doubt at all that her final report will make very sensible recommendations. I am also pleased that previously agreed measures to ensure that officers convicted of certain criminal offences are automatically found to have committed gross misconduct, and the empowering of chief constables to dismiss them, will be beefed up and taken forward. On these Benches we welcome these moves.

However, we are here because of the acquittal of Sergeant Martyn Blake in his trial for the murder of Chris Kaba. This raises several questions, which I would like to put to the Minister. First, I welcome that in future there will be a presumption of anonymity for accused officers. I can only imagine the struggles that Sergeant Blake and his family have been through, and they are still probably living in fear. It was appalling to read that Mr Kaba’s alleged gang associates had put a bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head. Could the Minister update the House on whether there are police investigations to find those responsible for this threat to Sergeant Blake’s life?

I also welcome that reviews will be held of the thresholds for criminal misconduct and inquest investigations, which, as the Statement notes, add

“complexity, confusion and delay to the system”.

But I would go further. Since 2010, British police have shot dead 30 people, an average of 2.1 per year. In the past decade, there have been only 66 incidents where the police have discharged a weapon at all, even though armed police are deployed to around 18,000 incidents every year. In terms of police killings per 10 million people, the only countries with a lower death rate than the UK are Japan and Iceland. Britain does not have a police brutality problem. The stats prove this and campaigners need to acknowledge it. The armed police show great restraint in the face of danger and should be commended as such. Does the Minister agree?

As my right honourable friend James Cleverly noted, training for these roles should form a legitimate part of the defence when criminal prosecutions are brought forward. This is not to argue that officers are above the law. If there are any doubts, they must of course be investigated, but we owe it to them not to create a situation in which, as James Cleverly stated, they are disincentivised from acting decisively. That puts us all at risk. Does the Minister agree?

This is a difficult and sensitive subject. Community cohesion and tensions will inevitably be mentioned in this and subsequent debates, which is right and proper. We have had a summer in which the fabric of our society has been stretched to breaking point in many cases. We in these Houses must therefore be very careful what we say to avoid stoking tensions and exacerbating problems. So I ask the Minister to condemn the comments of his honourable friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who said that the media were using racist tropes to justify Chris Kaba’s killing. They are not.

Any death at the hands of the police is a tragedy, but in this case an officer doing his duty has also had his life ruined. Of course, my thoughts are with the relatives of Chris Kaba, but also with Sergeant Blake’s family. I again place on record my thanks to all the police, armed and unarmed, who put themselves in harm’s way. They are heroes who would rather walk towards dangerous criminals than run away from them. As I said in my opening remarks, I welcome this Statement, but we need answers to the more difficult questions if we are truly to learn anything at all from this tragic case.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on speeding up proceedings in cases involving police using lethal force. Protracted investigations cause additional trauma to bereaved families, prolong the stress for officers involved and damage wider police morale. We also welcome the equalisation of thresholds for criminal charges to ensure that the police and public are held to the same standards.

These measures are long overdue, because we have now reached a point where police officers feel deeply undervalued, both by the public at large and by many politicians. Low public confidence has led police to believe that the work they do is not always appreciated. Assaults and attacks on police are now a daily occurrence. A recent review found that more than half had been physically attacked in the previous year, with a significant number requiring medical attention.

A police officer’s every move is now captured both on their bodycam and, increasingly, by members of the public, ensuring that their every action and split-second decision is recorded, criticised and documented for posterity on social media. Trial by media raises the real risk that, when things go wrong, the focus is on blaming individual officers, even when the reality points to wider systemic failings. I hope that these measures around the presumption of anonymity and the need to take account of officers’ training and guidance will help alleviate some of these problems.

I admit that I am slightly uneasy about the timing of this announcement, given the danger that it could be taken by some to signal the lowering of police accountability. I am therefore relieved to hear that the Government have made an urgent commitment to toughen up procedures around police misconduct and vetting. By putting national vetting standards on a statutory footing, we can make concrete progress in restoring public confidence. We particularly want to see the rules around officers accused of domestic abuse or sexual offences tightened significantly.

We must remember that the Kaba case is not taking place in a vacuum. Last year, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, highlighted the continuing presence of racism within policing almost 25 years after a similar conclusion was reached by Macpherson. Data from the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that black people are five times more likely than white people to have force used against them. It is therefore critical that this accountability review strikes the right balance. It must be accompanied by a clear timetable to implement the existing Angiolini and Casey review recommendations. The public need to be assured that bad officers will always be held to account, that guilty officers will always be punished and that this will be done fairly and transparently. But, at the same time, it is imperative that our police are reassured that if they do the right thing and follow their training, the system will protect them and not be stacked against them.

I ask the Minister whether this review will be open to contributions from all sides. We know that the police have already made submissions, but what opportunity will there be for representatives of, for example, the black community, who are of course particularly invested in the outcome, to contribute?

I have two final points. Polls suggest that more than a third of the public lack confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct—IOPC—while barely one in five black people think that it is impartial. This is not good enough, nor is the fact that IOPC recommendations are almost always out of date by the time they are published because it can take years for individual case proceedings to conclude. The proposal for a lessons-learned database is extremely welcome in this context. Nevertheless, a recent independent review made 93 recommendations to improve the IOPC. What steps are the Government taking to implement these recommendations?

Finally, reports as far back as Scarman in 1981 point to the need to urgently address the lack of diversity in policing, to better reflect the communities the police serve. The Home Secretary said in her Statement that she wants to introduce neighbourhood policing, so will the Government commit to ensuring that such reform is used as a platform to address this lack of diversity, so that people in all communities believe that the police are on their side?

Police: Firearms Officers

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine what charges are processed. In this case, under current regulations, it determined to make those charges at this time. It is also for the jury to consider the evidence put before it, which it did in this case, and reached a verdict of acquittal within a short space of time. It is also for the Home Office to ensure that we support our police officers in doing a dangerous job upholding the law and protecting our society. All those aspects and the outcome of this trial will be assessed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As I have indicated to the House, and to the noble Lord, I will report back when we make the Home Office Statement in the House of Commons and, in due course, this noble House also.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank all the armed police officers who serve, particularly those who protect us in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, this is indeed a tragic situation. But yesterday Sergeant Martyn Blake was exonerated fully. As another accused and exonerated officer, Tony Long, writes today in the Telegraph:

“The public is only now finding out the whole truth about Chris Kaba”.


He says of Mr Kaba’s fellow gang members that

“they should have all benefited from anonymity, granted by the courts, while Martyn Blake was denied the same privilege, isn’t just ironic, it’s a national disgrace.

I agree. What steps will the Minister take to reassure current firearms officers so that they have the confidence that they can carry out their duties with the support and backing they deserve?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. He will know that the jury in this case made its assessment and gave its verdict on the evidence presented before it. Other matters on which he has commented were not presented to the jury and, therefore, the acquittal in this case was determined by the information presented by the prosecution and the defence.

The noble Lord will also know that it is important to thank the officers, who are voluntarily doing the task of being armed officers. This Government are certainly aware that we need to examine the regime and discussions around it in the light of this case and others that he has mentioned. Police officers are accountable to the law for their use of force and it is right that their powers are scrutinised robustly. It is also important that we commit to working with the police to strengthen officers’ confidence that they have the support of the Home Office in undertaking their task.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we accept the recommendation of the advisory council and support the tightening of these regulations. I shall add a couple of comments. In relation to synthetic opioids, given the continual emergence of new individual nitazenes, we are in favour of introducing a generic control for these substances. They can be much more potent than heroin, leaving users at a particularly high risk of accidental overdose. Nitazenes have already cost lives in the UK, and although there is little local evidence of the impact of the other six synthetic opioids named in the order, the potential harm they could wreak is abundantly clear, given the high risk posed for addiction and fatality, as outlined by the Minister.

The need to keep up with organised crime’s ability to synthetise new varieties of opioid is crucial at a time when the UK and European markets are especially vulnerable to their influx, given the noted drop in the supply of heroin and fentanyl. The market is shifting as people seek alternatives, so it is highly likely that the substances named will become much more prevalent. The advisory council’s report calls the individual controlling of these six named synthetic opioids “a short-term approach”. Will the Government consult on the introduction of a generic definition for these substances similar to that for nitazenes?

I also have real concern about the UK’s ability to detect these new substances in a timely fashion. I note that screening and chemical testing for them is extremely limited, that many laboratories do not have the resources routinely to check for them and that they are often not incorporated into police drug tests. Given the damage that we have seen synthetic opioid addiction wreak on parts of the USA, it is of the utmost importance that we have all the warnings we can get of what is emerging on the UK market and where.

The importance of this is underlined by another of the substances we are dealing with today, xylazine. The first UK death in which it was implicated came to light only thanks to the vigilance of a toxicologist who detected it at postmortem because they decided to investigate what they thought were strange results. Internationally, heroin and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl are increasingly being cut with xylazine, and we know it is increasingly present in fatal overdoses in the US where in some states it is present in more than one-quarter of all drug deaths, yet because xylazine is not included in standard UK drug testing we do not know how widespread its use is here. It is a not a nice drug. It leaves people like zombies and its continued use rots their skin from the inside. Back in 2022, there was also apparently no way of recording it in the UK drug deaths database. Is this still the case? Will the Minister address my wider concerns around testing?

The Liberal Democrats do not believe that criminalising individuals for drug possession is the answer, and we will continue to call for a better public health response to tackling the drugs crisis. Will the Government make any additional funding available to enable the consistent national implementation of pre-arrest and pre-prosecution police drug diversion schemes?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Party welcomes this order. It controls six substances, introduces a generic definition for nitazenes as class A drugs and controls 16 substances as class C drugs. These Benches believe deeply in the principles of law and order, personal responsibility and the protection of our communities. This amendment embodies those very principles by addressing the evolving nature of the drugs trade and reinforcing our nation’s commitment to keeping our streets safe.

In May, the previous Conservative Government accepted all five recommendations set out in the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ March 2024 report. I welcome the new Government’s continuation of our excellent work. These regulations will build on the previous Government’s work to mitigate the real threat of synthetic opioids across the UK by banning 15 new synthetic opioid drugs.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

On first sight, this would appear to be straightforward legislation and would obviously merit support. But, on closer reading and on listening to the Minister, there are three areas of interest that I would like to question him about. One of them has come about as a result of his introduction, so we can clarify that in a moment.

My first set of questions surround the issue of juxtaposition in Calais. We as a country are going to introduce our own entry system. I hesitate to ask when it is likely to be brought in but, in a similar manner that the one for the Schengen area has been slightly delayed, I suspect that we may not be very far apart in what the two countries are doing. The first question is: is an equal juxtaposition going to occur in Calais and will that be only at the ferry terminal? The other question is: is there anywhere else in the United Kingdom where there is a juxtaposition? There are clear examples of working at both ends of a ferry terminal. I can tell noble Lords of my personal experience of Ouistreham. The French inspected all the vehicles, including my own, and then, when we got to Portsmouth, the British inspected the same vehicles for the same purpose. There was obviously wasted energy there because one inspection would have done on behalf of both within the secure zones. Is the ferry terminal the only place where there is juxtaposition? If there are others, will there be an equivalent need for this legislation? Perhaps in answering that query, the noble Lord may say when the British are going to have their own scheme and whether they are likely to happen fairly close together in time for their introduction? We will need a similar facility at Calais.

My second concern relates to the circulation area. Having read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum closely, it would appear to me that the circulation area is a link between the facilities at both ends, the western docks and the eastern docks. Anybody who has been to Dover will know that the connection between those docks is either a road, an esplanade with beautiful gardens and a walking facility and bicycle path alongside, or a beach.

I presume that the intention, although it is not mentioned in the information, is that the PAF officers will move between the two by vehicle. If that is not the case—the Minister indicated that there would be a map—I hesitate to think that we would have armed French officials walking along the beach together with tourists who would be using the same facility. I therefore presume it must be by vehicle, but if it is not, I cannot understand how that connection could take place without some other form of assistance. That question has to be answered, because if we are calling it a circulation area, something must be done about the road, the bike path, the esplanade or the beach to designate it. Perhaps the Minister might tell Sue, who has a seafood operation on that esplanade, which is well used.

My third set of questions relates to the separation between the eastern and western docks. As I understand it, the Minister said that all coach transport will first call at the western docks, where people will be asked to get off and go through the required inspection checks, then people will get back on the coach and it will proceed along the esplanade to the eastern docks. Part of the problem is that, as those of us who have used this route know, if you come via Canterbury, the entrance to the eastern docks is via a dual carriageway which comes down into them. That means that coaches using that route would have to travel along the seafront to the western docks, be processed, turn around and come back again. Even without the entry system, much traffic builds up along that route along the seafront in Dover to the eastern docks, so there must be traffic implications somewhere in this.

Nowhere in the documentation before us does it mention that this is for coaches only, so presumably this legislation can be used for any passenger in any vehicle travelling to France on the Dover/Calais route. Since the legislation does not exclude cars, minibuses or foot passengers, there is nothing to say that that cannot be achieved. It would make more sense to use it just for coach travel, even though that will have some implications for local roads. However, since it is not mentioned in the legislation, this legislation could be used for foot and car passengers, which would be a nightmare. Whatever route you are taking into Dover, having to travel back and forth across the area would create an incredible build-up of traffic and passengers on that stretch of road.

Once people have been through the initial Schengen checks, they will carry with them some form of statement, agreement or whatever, or they can simply turn up at the eastern docks and say, “I have already got the biometric Schengen agreement”. That means that some people will be allowed entry into the eastern docks on their own and some people, perhaps even two of them sharing a car, will have to zigzag back and forward if one has and one has not. The legislation is not clear about precisely what will happen when people have the Schengen documentation available and what happens if they are in a mixed vehicle when one might have it and one might not.

This all predisposes that the legislation does not talk just about coaches. If it is to be coaches, I suggest that it should be amended to be clear that this does not apply to every passenger going through Dover.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome this order. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations, which was helpful. Perhaps I can help him by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German, that, when I was in the Home Office, the rollout of the ETAs to which he referred was very much on track and was highly efficient—I am sure it still is.

My party does not have quite the same forensic interest in the geography of Dover as the noble Lord, Lord German, and it is content that the regulations will deliver what is expected of them. But I do have a couple of brief questions. According to the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Is there a particular reason for that, or a perfectly innocent explanation? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in the Room, I should say that I am asking this mostly because he used to ask me for impact assessments regularly when I was standing in his place.

I appreciate the detailed description of the powers of the PAF officers, but I did not hear the circumstances in which the use of firearms would be permitted. What are the restrictions, if any, on those officers? It may be that I just did not hear that.

Are arrangements in place to allow the employees of other foreign agencies to carry firearms when working in the United Kingdom? More generally, is this a reserved or a devolved matter?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for noble Lords’ questions, which I will try to answer to help them understand the legislation and its impact—and hopefully to support it.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that this is being undertaken and framed in this way because Dover carried 68,000 coaches in 2023, and 4,000 in the peak month of July. The noble Lord will know that the Schengen changes have been delayed to a date yet to be determined, and we do not yet know what their impact will be when they come in, but, undoubtedly, unless these measures are put in place, there will be longer delays for coach travel.

The noble Lord asked whether that is an issue for vehicles. He asked about cars. I hope I can reassure him by saying that the Port of Dover is looking at significant work, including reclaiming land in the port specifically for EES registration. Therefore, conversations are ongoing on the potential new area being used for car registrations as well as for coaches. The order does not preclude any particular type of vehicle, but the primary purpose at the moment, to ease any pressure in the event of the regulations being introduced by the EU, would be for the 68,000 coaches travelling through the Port of Dover each year.

The noble Lord mentioned the circulation area, which, as I indicated, is a 1.5 mile-long stretch of the A20 linking the French control zone at the western docks with the existing control zone in Dover. I reassure him—I hope this will help—that it will be for use just by vehicles by the French authorities and it is not envisaged or agreed that it will be undertaken by any means other than vehicles.

The noble Lord asked about juxtaposed controls generally. Dover/Calais is a classic example of where we need those controls in place. I hope I can reassure him by saying that we have juxtaposed controls in France, not just at Calais but at Dunkirk for ferry crossings, at Coquelles for the Eurotunnel, and at Paris Gare du Nord and Lille-Europe for the Eurostar. We also have them in Belgium at Brussels-Midi, and in the Netherlands at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, for train services. That is part of the general relationship that we have to have with the European Union in the post-Brexit era. We were never part of Schengen in the first place, so even under a pre-Brexit solution, that would still be a challenge that the Government would have needed to examine. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on those points.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has been a very strong advocate for family reunion over many years and a number of Bills. She will recall that the previous Conservative Government did not support this or other similar Bills, and we still have concerns about the likely impact of this Bill. This is on the grounds that it would potentially jeopardise vulnerable children’s safety, as well as having substantial implications for our already stretched public resources, including legal aid and other budgets.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that families belong together, but our view in government was that this Bill is too wide in scope because it gives the Secretary of State enormous discretionary power to grant people leave to remain in this country. The Bill is not limited to granting leave to enter to family members but also to any

“such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine”.

Clause 1(4) says that

“‘protection status’ has the same meaning as in the immigration rules, meaning a person with … permission to stay as a refugee … humanitarian protection … temporary refugee permission, and … temporary humanitarian protection”.

That is potentially a very large—indeed, an almost impossible to predict—number of people. The Library briefing note has published data released by the Home Office on family reunions. It shows that 16,244 people were granted family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024, which suggests that the system is not as dysfunctional as has been painted.

We are clear that significantly expanding our policy to enable children to sponsor family members goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. It is highly likely that, if passed, the Bill would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their families and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor later relatives. I accept that the committee has said that that is not the case, but it is very interesting that a number of the EU countries that it cited as providing no evidence are, as we speak, busily setting up what they are calling return hubs. Poland has shut its borders, and France, Italy and Germany are all looking at these sorts of things. I suggest that what they are doing and what they are saying are not necessarily entirely the same.

Of course, it is not possible to prove this—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, you cannot prove a negative—but she should be under no illusions that the criminal people smugglers will be watching developments with considerable interest and an eye to profit. I was watching Sky News recently and one Yemeni male said, “The previous Government, they wanted to deport us, but now they are making the process easier”. What happens here is noted and it does change behaviour. As we have seen—including, I believe, overnight—that can have fatal consequences.

As we have seen in a number of EU states, rules such as the one this Bill seeks to implement would open up children to huge exploitation risk. That completely contradicts the hard work and commitment of the previous Conservative Government in protecting children from modern slavery and exploitation. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, illustrated some of the practical difficulties with regard to this work—work that I know the current Government are committed to maintaining and no doubt building upon. We refused to play into the hands of criminal gangs, and therefore we should not extend this policy to allow child refugees to sponsor family members into the UK.

On legal aid, I reassure noble Lords that the Conservative Party fully supports the principle of family unity and shares the concerns for those families who have been separated by conflict or oppression. The Bill proposes reinstating legal aid in family reunion cases, but I remind noble Lords that legal aid for refugee family reunion may already be available under the exceptional case funding scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that that was very difficult to access, but again the statistics surely indicate that it is not that difficult if 16,244 people were able to achieve family reunion visas in the year ending June 2024.

Failure to provide legal aid would mean risking a breach in the individual’s human rights, subject to the means and merits test. In 2019, the previous Government amended the scope of legal aid so that separated migrant children are able to receive civil legal aid for applications by their family members and extended family members. This includes entry clearance and leave to enter or to remain in the UK made under the Immigration Rules or outside the rules on the basis of exceptional, compassionate or compelling circumstances. We must remember that legal aid is paid for by taxpayers and resources are not limitless. It is important that it is provided for those most in need, including those who seek protection.

I shall finish here, but on the subject of scarce resources I will stray a little from the brief, if I may. I was reading yesterday that the Development Minister is on record as saying that the Government intend to reverse the previous Government’s policy of using some development aid to pay for migrant and refugee housing. That is allowed under the rules. Nevertheless, the previous Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, provided a top-up to mitigate some of the effects. Will the Minister shed any light on the Government’s intentions in this area? Will development money be used? If yes, will the Treasury provide a top-up, as has reportedly been requested by the Foreign Secretary? I mention this against the backdrop that I was reading that hotels are being reopened and, no doubt, the daily costs are rising.

This country has a proud record of supporting refugees, from the Kindertransport, as has been mentioned, to the Homes for Ukraine scheme and ACRS, but we must ensure that the rules are not abused. We must also ensure that the safeguarding of children is enabled by our legislation and that taxpayers’ interests are paramount. For the reasons I have set out, we on these Benches will be unable to support the Bill.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin, I declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP project. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for raising this important issue, which will set the agenda for the new Government as they move forward. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I say that we support the timely and accurate processing of asylum cases as well as swift and humane removal for those who do not meet the criteria for protection. To do that, we should front-load the asylum application process with decision-making expertise and legal aid provisions so that accurate decisions are made without the need for many appeals.

I will address the issue of legal versus illegal—we have had this discussion in the Chamber already. The thing you have to tell yourself is: you do not know whether people are fleeing persecution, torture or other things in the treaties, whether or not they are legal asylum seekers. That is why any asylum seeker is a legal, not an illegal, person. We do not know how many of the 52 people who have died in the channel in the past year would have made a justifiable claim for protection in this country and, therefore, would have been legal by definition. We must be very careful, when we use these words, that we do not misuse them. Certainly, with the way in which the legislation is being altered, that becomes the case even more.

The key aim of the original 2016 regulations, amendments to which we are discussing today, was to improve protection for particularly vulnerable people in detention. However, the changes that we are debating are of the previous Government. The present Government will make changes to this legislation, I hope, now that they have got control of matters. That is the first and most important thing we need to hear from the Minister today.

This is particularly relevant given that the regulations before us had an inadequate consultation exercise: it lasted only five weeks when, normally, at least 10 would be expected—there was also no equality impact assessment—and this was published before the Government responded to the Brook House inquiry. In the absence of the SLSC’s chair making a contribution, I wonder whether he would mind me quoting one of the conclusions that the committee reached. As I understand it, it said that the Home Office agrees that it will “logically follow” that these changes will mean

“detaining more of those considered vulnerable, despite a ‘presumption against’ such detention”.

The Minister will, I am sure, be able to confirm what the SLSC report states.

The inference from the current regulations is that people who were not really vulnerable were getting released, and that that is the reason why these regulations were put in place. They also bring into force changes to the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, which sets out the process for making decisions on immigration detention where an individual may be vulnerable to harm if detained. So, the question to be addressed today is: will the changes weaken the protective purpose of the “adults at risk” policy and risk exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention? If so, will this Government make the necessary changes in order to decrease the damage being done by these regulations?

The submission that we received from Medical Justice states that the changes weaken:

“the protective purpose of the Adults At Risk policy and risks exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention”.

It quotes, by way of example, the change in the wording from a

“clear presumption … that detention will not be appropriate if a person is considered to be ‘at risk’”

to a “general presumption of liberty” that

“is strengthened for those considered vulnerable under this guidance”.

Those are two crucial sentences, but clearly one is stronger than the other. The key concern in that submission was whether the overall increase in the number of people detained will also lead to a greater number of vulnerable people being detained, with the possible adverse effects that detention might have on these people.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, both talked about the second opinion issue of getting a second MLR. The Home Office provided data to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is worth looking at that data: over a period of approximately 19 months, 199 MLRs were received for migrants in detention, of which 47 were referred for a second opinion report. Of those, 30 second opinion reports were received. As a result of those 30 reports, 14 cases were released and 16 remained in detention, although all but two of those 16 were later released following a further review. In total, therefore, 28 of the 30 cases with a second opinion still resulted in a release. Do the Government agree with the SLSC report that this data does not provide compelling evidence, as outlined by the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her opening? What steps will the Government take to closely monitor its effects, particularly the number of release and detention decisions that are changed because of the second opinion, and the impact on those whose detention is extended to obtain a second opinion? Crucially, will these results be published?

The Brook House inquiry has already been raised by a number of noble Lords in this debate. That substantial report—three volumes—exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention by the Home Office. It was not a case of a few bad apples but systemic failure. The inquiry made, as we heard, 33 recommendations, of which only one has been taken up in full. Adopting those recommendations is the only meaningful way of ensuring that the mistreatment and abuse, including the breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, do not happen again.

Supplemented by that, we now have the report by the independent monitoring board on the Gatwick PDA. It is worth while reading this into the record here today. That report says, in its recommendations to the Minister, that:

“Given the evident suffering and distress for parents involved and the unknown impact of the experience on their children, the PDA should be closed”.


There are, then, plenty of examples of where everything is not in fact happening in a good state. It is important that the fundamental mistake of reducing detention safeguards without properly considering the implications of a public inquiry is acknowledged, and that the public inquiry is considered as a route to making sure that we change more for the future.

I want to address some questions to the Minister because this is our first opportunity to ask the new Government about these matters. I do not necessarily expect an answer to all of them today, but I ask that the Minister writes to me if this becomes too tricky.

If the aim is to facilitate more removals of people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom, which must be the case from the evidence we have just been talking about from the SLSC and the facts provided to us, what assessment has there been to establish what barriers there are to increasing the numbers of people removed from the UK, who after due process do not qualify for leave to remain? What are the barriers that the Government see are still in place?

What impact have the recommendations and learning from the Brook House inquiry had on the proposed government review? Will those things be part of the terms of reference for that inquiry and review? It would be very helpful to know whether a timescale can be provided for that review so that we can judge the speed with which the Government are going to move on this process.

What progress has been made by the cross-governmental working group that was established to monitor progress against the Brook House inquiry recommendations and to drive forward implementation? Can we have more details about this group and its work?

Given the findings of failings of detention, will the Minister commit to re-engaging with the alternatives to detention that were piloted by the Government between 2019 and 2022? Finally, what evaluation and monitoring report is in place for this policy change that we are seeing before us today? If it is not in place now, when will it be in place?

The standards by which we treat people in our society should be constant; whoever they are, human rights are human rights. However, the processes are set out in guidance by the Home Office, and the evidence is that they are not happening. The Brook House inquiry shows that processes by which vulnerabilities are identified and acted upon are not working. Where we are removing someone’s liberty, protections have to be significant. On current evidence, that balance has not been struck, and the treatment and safeguards for everyone in detention, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, are just not sufficient.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on proceeding with these regulations, although I of course acknowledge that like all regulations, they should be kept under constant review.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen that illegal channel crossings are at their highest level in more than two years. We need to secure our borders, and I once again welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that we protect our national interests on this matter.

I note that during this short debate, there have been some comments about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I commend my noble friend’s report on this subject. I point out that paragraph 12 of that report states that,

“the Home Office reiterated that ‘the right to liberty remains a fundamental principle which underpins all of our detention policy. In all cases the presumption is against detention’. However, the Home Office went on to say that ‘there may be circumstances where it is necessary to detain an individual in order to maintain effective immigration control’”.

Underpinning this debate, we should bear in mind that key line that the presumption is against detention. My remarks, therefore, will be for the benefit of—I hope—reassuring noble Lords who have expressed certain concerns about the regulations.

Moving on to medical second opinions, this statutory instrument will reinstate the ability to seek second medical opinions in relation to the detention of potentially vulnerable migrants. I welcome this and congratulate the Government on putting clinical best practices first. Medical Justice, the organisation that advocates for the legal rights of people in immigration detention, has opposed this in written evidence to the House. It states that a,

“second opinion on professional evidence risks prolonging the detention of vulnerable people and putting them through a potentially re-traumatising process”.

However, a second medical opinion is an entirely standard and well-established practice in the treatment of vulnerable persons. I refer noble Lords to the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:

“An application for admission”


to a mental health facility must,

“be founded on the written recommendations in the prescribed form of two registered medical practitioners”.

Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should be reassured that a second medical opinion is a commonplace, uncontroversial and clinically accepted principle in the medical profession, and not to have it as an option would increase the likelihood of vexatious claims. To put a slightly different spin on the statistics cited by the noble Lord, Lord German, this is just an option; it does not have to be followed in all cases, and nor has it been up to now. These regulations also directly address the High Court’s decision of January 2024. That decision was not about the principle of second opinions but the fact that the previous regulations in effect authorised caseworkers to act contrary to the statutory guidance. These regulations correct that. Does the Minister agree that we should strive for medical best practice in the Home Office and reject this submission on second opinions? Does he agree that we should not in effect have a two-tier system that differentiates between vulnerable citizens and illegal migrants or asylum seekers?

Illegal Migrants

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there are a range of legal migration routes into this country and a range of ways in which individuals can claim asylum in this country. We have a number of schemes to bring to this country people who face terror at home; I note the Ukraine scheme. However, he needs to know that it is the absolute priority of the Government to ensure that we have managed and controlled migration. That involves tackling criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people who potentially have legal routes and, in some cases, those who do not. We need to look at this in the round with our international partners, and that is what this Government will do.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the newly appointed head of border command, Martin Hewitt—we wish him well—said that deterrence is

“always going to be part of the … picture”.

The Irish Government said that the previous Government’s Rwanda plan was an effective deterrent, which, of course, was an aim stated in the Bill. Given this summer’s ongoing arrivals, the apparent lack of any returns or new agreements, the frequent tragic events in the channel, and the obvious lack of any deterrence at all, will the Minister agree that ripping up the Rwanda Act and the treaty was perhaps a tad rash?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, but no, I do not think it was a tad rash. The Rwanda scheme cost £700 million, four people went to Rwanda as a result of it—voluntarily—and boat arrivals increased in the period between January and July this year, when the Rwanda scheme was operating. The noble Lord is wrong. It is smoke and mirrors to think that Rwanda was helpful to this situation: it was not. In his job in the Home Office, he should have secured action on criminal gangs, but his Government failed to do so.

Operation Conifer

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. If he reflects on what I said at the beginning of my Answer, I am approaching this with an open mind, and it takes time to reflect on those issues. The points he has made today are important, and I will reflect on those as part of my consideration of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, before leaving the Home Office and after exhaustive consultation with very helpful officials, I had managed to draft a letter to the chief constable of Wiltshire Police that encouraged the possibility of another look at this while also scrupulously respecting the force’s operational independence. Can the Minister shed any light on whether this letter was ever sent? If not, will he agree to draft his own?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that I do not ruin the noble Lord’s reputation when I say that I agree with him, in the sense that it is appropriate, potentially, for the chief constable of Wiltshire Police to examine the issues in the first instance. I am not aware of what happened in the previous Administration, because I am not party to that, but, equally, it could be a course of action for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to take forward to write to the new chief constable and ask her for her opinion on the issues that have driven the Question today.

Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister commit to working with the police to deliver the specialist training that officers in rural areas need, which has much broader implications for organised crime? For example, there have been two welcome prosecutions for hare coursing—which the right reverend Prelate did so much work on—as a result of the last Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Apparently, the criminals have refined their defences and are carrying on with this deplorable activity, which also facilitates considerable illegal, illicit gambling and, no doubt, many other activities necessary for organised crime, such as money laundering.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Organised crime gangs are muscling in on this in a serious way. It is absolutely vital that the police—through the National Rural Crime Unit, the Home Office generally, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency—look at how organised crime gangs are operating. Last year, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% to £52.8 million, and that quad bike and terrain vehicle crime increased by 9%. These crimes are often led by organised crime groups, who use organised crime to disperse material. They need to face long jail sentences. They need to be caught and put before the courts and action needs to be taken. That needs co-ordination and I assure the noble Lord that we will do that.