Mental Health Units: Police Response
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the use of force by police officers when responding to emergency calls from mental health units.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, there is ongoing work to ensure that any operational police decisions on the use of force in a mental health setting are necessary and proportionate. This includes the development of a new protocol on police attendance, national collection from 2017 to 2018 of police data on any force used and a request to local areas to scrutinise the use of any Taser in a mental health setting.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. However, she will know that a recent Independent Police Complaints Commission report stated that people suffering from a mental illness are four times more likely to die after police use of force against them than other individuals. Will the Government look at the possibility that better training for police officers in how to deal with people suffering from a mental health illness might alleviate the need for them ever to use Tasers because they might understand better how to deal with the situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Seven people with mental health concerns died in police custody in 2015-16 out of 14 deaths in total. That of course is still too many. The number of people with mental health problems in police custody has significantly come down since the Government decreed that nobody with a mental health problem should be held in a police cell but should be taken to a place of safety in every situation where that is possible, and never for children. On the second part of her question, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: training is essential for police officers, not just in combating crime but in knowing the symptoms of somebody with mental health problems.
Banks: Fraud
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle banking fraud, including internet and telephone scams.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have set up the Joint Fraud Taskforce, bringing together banks, law enforcement and government to create a strong collective response to fraud. They have also committed to spending £1.9 billion on cybersecurity over the next five years, which includes tackling cybercrime, and have published a guide for consumers on how they can protect themselves from fraud online.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, a report published by Which? yesterday showed that one in three victims of banking fraud have to wait four weeks for the banks to take action. If banks were forced to compensate customers when their security systems fail, perhaps they would take this problem a bit more seriously. Can the Minister say whether the Joint Fraud Taskforce will take this crucial principle as its guide?
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot say that any one principle will be taken as the guide to the work of the Joint Fraud Taskforce, which embraces a partnership between banks, law enforcement and government. What I can say is that there is a provision whereby, under regulation, if there is a fraud against someone’s credit card the banks can leave that in the hands of the consumer only where there has been gross negligence. The onus lies very much on the banks to deal with these claims and they are doing that. Indeed, the joint taskforce is taking forward further measures to ensure a reduction in fraud.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That is not so. As has been made clear, the Government are committed to reviewing the transparency and supply chain regulations over a five-year period and have already established a two-year internal research programme to look at the effectiveness of the provisions, which will be monitored and considered. They have to be given an opportunity to work. We are in the vanguard of these developments: they were proposed in California, and we were the first country to follow suit with similar provisions, wider in their terms even than California’s. Other countries are looking with interest at the direction in which we have taken this matter.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
What steps are the Government taking to eradicate modern slavery from supply chains, following the recent report by the British Medical Association which uncovered evidence of endemic abuses of labour rights in the medical gloves sector, which is within the Government’s own supply chain?
Lord Keen of Elie
The United Kingdom Government successfully campaigned to establish the first ever UN target for ending modern slavery: sustainable development goal 8.7, which was adopted in 2015 and requires Governments to take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour and end modern slavery and human trafficking. In 2015, the United Kingdom also became the third country in the world to ratify the International Labour Organization’s forced labour protocol, which commits to ending forced labour. Steps are being taken by the Home Office and other government departments to ensure the clarity of their supply chain.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
“Ability to pay the immigration health surcharge incrementally
In section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 (immigration health charge), in subsection (3)(c), after “State” insert “, including allowing the surcharge to be paid in multiple payments”.”
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 80 in my name. Amendment 79 provides for health surcharges levied on non-European Economic Area migrants to be payable in instalments. The annual £200 charge for every adult and child came into effect last April and is payable upfront for the whole period of a visa whenever one is renewed. Since leave to remain, if granted, is normally for two and a half years, the upfront fee payable is £500 per person. The health surcharge comes on top of breath-taking application fees that will rise this Friday from £649 to £811 per person—a huge increase of 25%. To illustrate this, a mother of three will need to find £3,244 for the application fee plus a further £2,000 for the upfront health charge for the period of the visa. Families unable to pay these eye-watering sums cannot renew their visa and are faced with a stark, heartbreaking choice: find the money or face destitution or deportation. That is some choice.
In Committee, the Minister had three reservations about my simple, humane plan to avoid vulnerable people placing themselves in debt or poverty to pay the Home Office. He said:
“Upfront payment of the full amount … is … far simpler than requiring migrants to make multiple payments”.
Yet the provisions of the amendment need apply to only a small number of cases where the migrant simply does not have the resources to pay upfront. These cases could be the exception rather than the rule. The Minister also said:
“It would be difficult, complex and costly … to enforce payment of the charge once the visa had been issued”.
I simply do not accept that because the Home Office could make the granting of the migrant’s leave to remain subject to and conditional upon the fees for the previous leave to remain having been paid in full according to any agreed payment schedule. The Minister’s third concern was that:
“If you offered interest-free credit in the commercial world … most people would take advantage of it”.—[Official Report, 1/2/16; cols. 1613-14.]
Could the Minister name any other service for which he or anyone else would expect to pay fees two and a half years in advance? He cannot justify driving people into the arms of loan sharks and payday lenders just to make the Government’s life simpler. He must surely see the case for at the very least annualising these payments.
Amendment 80 seeks to extend the categories of migrant exempted from the health charge to include those who have fled domestic violence, and dependent children. The Minister recently visited the Cardinal Hume Centre and saw first-hand the outstanding work it does with migrants with little money who are trying to navigate the law. He heard about one client the centre helped: a mother of four children who works for the NHS. She did not have the £5,700 to pay the admin and health fees for herself, her husband and her four children, so first she got an overdraft and then she borrowed the remainder of the money. She now faces crippling debt and is saddled with not just that debt but also the stress of knowing that in 30 months she must find even more money because the fees will have increased when the family need to reapply for their visas. Her case demonstrates that the fee-waiver system available for migrants unable to pay is simply not working. The Minister saw for himself a number of examples of this on his visit.
Of course, the position of these people who have fled domestic violence is even worse. They face an invidious choice between borrowing the money to pay the fees or returning to their abuser. The existing exemption for victims of domestic abuse is far too narrow as it protects only people with British spouses. I hope that the Government can prove their compassion this afternoon by making a positive response to both these amendments, including giving an assurance that they will at least review the operation of the fee-waiver system. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who introduced Amendments 79 and 80 with her customary conviction and compassion. She made an extremely eloquent case in their favour but also illustrated them with a poignant and vivid example from her visit to the Cardinal Hume Centre. Having spoken in Committee to urge the Minister to visit that centre with the noble Baroness, I pay tribute to him for going there and seeing it first-hand. I know how much the centre appreciated that.
Incremental payments would be a huge step forward for families that find themselves trapped—the sorts of families that the noble Baroness described in her remarks. Migrants such as those at the Cardinal Hume Centre are not trying to cheat the system or avoid paying the fees to remain. They recognise that there are rules they must adhere to and that they must pay the charges. In fact, those who can will indeed save for the visa application fee. However, the burden of having to source the necessary funds to pay upfront the application fee and the health surcharge—which many are still unaware exists—is unsurmountable for many of those involved, especially families.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. Much as I admire and respect the Minister, I certainly do not think that he has moved very far, let alone come some way. However, perhaps I could deal with the various bits in the amendments.
On Amendment 79, I am very disappointed that the Government are unable or unwilling to introduce a system whereby some migrants could be allowed to pay in instalments. I am totally unconvinced by the argument that it would be difficult to set up and monitor a system. Almost every company in every country in the world has such a system. It is simple IT, not rocket science, so I simply do not buy that argument at all.
The Minister’s explanation of why the Government will not extend the exemptions for domestic violence is, to me, probably the most awful thing that I have heard today. I have absolutely no doubt that this provision will force some people either to use loan sharks or back into the arms of their abusers. This is certainly not what either of us wants and it is dreadful.
The Minister made a point on the fee waiver about people needing to be destitute. He will remember that, when we were at the Cardinal Hume Centre, one of the cases mentioned was that of a man who had been homeless for two years, but the Home Office would not accept that somebody who had been homeless for two years and was living on the streets was destitute. If that is not destitution, I do not know what is. As the Minister so rightly said, the Cardinal Hume Centre does not have stars in its eyes when people come in; it makes checks and is very careful to make sure of the facts. I am speaking from memory, but I think that it had letters from two separate charities, confirming that this man was destitute. Yet despite giving that evidence to the Home Office, he was not accepted as destitute.
I am concerned that, although the Minister has seen evidence of the current operational problems with the fee waiver system, he has been disappointingly unclear as to what the Government are going to do to improve that system. I would really like to discuss this further with the Minister between now and Third Reading but, for now, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
“Ability to pay the immigration health surcharge incrementally
In section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014 (immigration health charge), in subsection (3)(c), after “State” insert “, including allowing the Surcharge to be paid in multiple payments”.”
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 176 and 177 seek to address two key issues affecting migrants not covered in the Bill. Amendment 176 deals with the immigration health surcharge, which came into effect last April. This requires migrants from non-European economic areas to pay an upfront health charge of £200 a year for each member of the family, including children, when they apply to have a visa renewed or submit an application for leave to remain in the UK. The charge is designed basically to cover any NHS care that the migrant or their family might need while their application is being processed, but it does not take account of how long each migrant has lived in the UK, their financial situation or whether they have dependent children. The people involved are largely industrious non-EEA citizens who have lived and worked in the UK for many years, but they face unsurmountable bills when they come to renew their visa. This causes major problems because almost half of them are in low-paid employment.
Irrespective of their financial situation, if they apply for leave to remain in the UK—which, if granted, is normally for a period of two and a half years—they must pay the health surcharge of £200 per person, per year, plus an administration charge of £649 per person. So a mother with three children would need to raise £2,000 to pay the health charge and a further £2,500 to pay the administration charge. That is a total of more than £4,500. Families unable to pay cannot renew their visa even in circumstances where an extension would be likely to be granted. So they are faced with a stark choice: they either find the money or they face destitution or deportation.
A simple, practical solution to this problem would be to allow these migrants to pay the health charge in instalments, rather than upfront. This would make a very significant difference. I urge the Government to consider this, not least because it would cost practically nothing to do it.
Amendment 177 seeks to extend the categories of migrant exempted from the health charge to cover people who have fled domestic violence, and dependent children. I recently visited the Cardinal Hume Centre in Westminster, which does outstanding work in this area. I met one of the many people there helping, whom I will refer to as Ruth. Ruth was originally from Kenya and came to the UK with her husband on a two-year spouse visa. But after they had had their two children, her husband became both physically and sexually violent. Like most people in this situation, Ruth was terrified to do anything about it. But she eventually plucked up the courage to flee, and is now living in a domestic violence refuge. Her husband, of course, kept control of all the papers, so she had no idea that her documents had expired. So here we have a woman who has been abused; she has had to flee her home; she has two children to care for; she has got no job; and she has got no money. How on earth can she possibly raise the money in order to pay the health charge and application fee that her family need in order to renew her visa?
Women in these situations are extremely susceptible to exploitation. Their reliance on the charity of others can leave them vulnerable, with nowhere to turn when things go wrong. Enforcing this charge just strengthens the hand of the abusers, because people—women in particular—feel unable to escape their partner or their situation because of fears of deportation or destitution. At the moment, asylum seekers, victims of human trafficking and those under humanitarian protection are already, rightly, exempted from the health surcharge. The amendment would extend that exemption to abused parents and their children.
In theory, a fee waiver system is available for migrants unable to pay the visa application fee. However, in practice, it is simply not working. Many migrants are being denied this waiver despite significant evidence to show that they meet all the criteria; I have many examples that I would be happy to share with the Minister. So I hope that the Government will consider extending these exemptions to victims of domestic violence and their dependents. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendments 176 and 177 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. Amendment 176 provides for the ability to pay the immigration health surcharge incrementally, as the noble Baroness explained, and Amendment 177 deals with exemptions from the immigration health surcharge.
As the noble Baroness said, the fee waiver system, which is supposed to protect migrants unable to afford visa application fees, is simply not working in practice. All the evidence suggests that the fee waiver system is currently failing the very families who need it most. By way of illustration I will refer to another case from the Cardinal Hume Centre which is within Division Bell distance of the Palace of Westminster, where we are meeting today. Among its other clients, the centre is working with a lone parent who has four children, all aged under 18. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, will consider the implications therefore of Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that parties who are signatories to that convention, as we are,
“shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her rights of access to such health care services”.
Also, perhaps he will comment on the applicability of this to all children, regardless of their immigration status, which is further emphasised in the Committee on the Rights of the Child’s General Comment No. 6, paragraph 12, which states that,
“the enjoyment of rights stipulated in the Convention are not limited to children who are citizens of a State party and must … be available to all children—including asylum-seeking, refugee and migrant children—irrespective of their nationality, immigration status or statelessness”.
In the case of this lone parent with her four children, the fees to extend her family’s leave to remain, including the health surcharge, will be in excess of £6,000. Due to the threat of destitution, that family is currently supported by a London local authority, but they are still struggling to meet essential living costs, yet the Home Office has refused the fee waiver application, despite significant evidence being provided by the centre and the client. Perhaps the Minister, like the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would like to visit the centre to see that family for himself and talk to them so that the illustrations that the noble Baroness and I have given can be taken into account as he comes to consider these arguments between now and Report.
Sadly, these are just illustrative examples of many cases that could be raised today. If accepted, the admirable amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, would simplify the existing rules and give proper protection to all survivors of domestic violence, not just those who have been granted the destitute domestic violence concession.
The current protections and exemptions are far too narrow in definition. One unacceptable consequence is that professionals in the field report that many women remain deterred from leaving abusive relationships. As the Office for National Statistics points out in its Focus On: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences 2011-12 for England and Wales, published on 7 February 2013, women are “more likely” to be the victims of domestic violence than men and can be left in a precarious and dangerous situation as a consequence of abuse. It is therefore imperative to simplify the rules and exemptions in this regard as much as possible to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, in particular women, are properly supported and protected.
The burden of sourcing the necessary money to pay the health surcharge causes many families and individuals great distress. Granting applicants the option of paying the fee incrementally, as the noble Baroness described, would be a significant step in easing the strain and worry on those affected by the charge. Incremental payments would be a particular benefit to domestic workers, who tend to be on low pay, typically no more than the minimum wage, and who have to save not only for the application fees but also for the health surcharge and other essential living costs. This leaves them in a very precarious and vulnerable financial position and inevitably can make them susceptible to exploitation as they may have little option but to borrow money from people with few scruples to pay the necessary fees upfront.
We should also consider the impact that the burden of sourcing this money has on the cohesion and durability of families. As research from the Tavistock Institute shows, financial stress and being in poverty add to the risk of family breakdown. The introduction of incremental payments would make the charge more manageable as applicants would not face the intense pressure of sourcing large sums upfront. Overall, these amendments represent a sensible, modest solution and a way of mitigating many of the unreasonable challenges that migrants encounter when seeking to extend their leave to remain. I am therefore very happy to support them.
Baroness Doocey
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I really feel saddened that the Government will not even consider something as basic as allowing people to pay a health charge by instalments—certainly that is the message that is coming through loud and clear. We have heard excuses about an IT system that does not work—when has any government IT system ever worked for anything? I am afraid that just does not wash at all.
The Minister said that mothers ought to pay for their children. I do not think anyone would disagree in principle, but in the case that I mentioned of Ruth, who came here and is now destitute, living in a shelter, how on earth could she possibly raise the money to pay £200 for each child and herself to renew her visa? She just cannot. She has no job; she has no home; she has been abused. In those circumstances, surely the Government could think again. There is no way that people in this situation can raise the money. It is not a question of them not wanting to; they are physically unable to do so. I am very disappointed.
The Minister made great play about the cost of changing the systems and collecting money, but what about the costs that are being incurred day after day because the visa waiver system is not being applied properly? I have evidence—which, I repeat, I am very happy to go through with the Minister—of case after case of the applicant being turned down up to four times and then on the fifth occasion being accepted. What about the cost of all the staff involved in that—what about the cost of the lawyers? Why are the Government not concerned with that? If the Government managed to run the fee waiver system properly, they might have sufficient funds to pay the tiny charge that will be necessary in order to let these people pay their health charge by instalments.
I hope that the Minister might come and talk to me and some of these people, and see for himself that these problems are real. I would be very happy to share with him all the issues and all the evidence that has been accumulated. I hope that he might accept that invitation and think again and not just close it off now. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Police: Officer Offences
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(9 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many serving police officers in England and Wales have been convicted of offences of violence or dishonesty in the past 10 years.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office does not currently hold data related to police officers convicted of certain categories of offences centrally. These are held at individual force level.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. I asked all police forces whether any of their officers who carry guns and Tasers have convictions for physical violence. Half the police forces were unable to answer; one police force said that it would require a PNC check on every officer in order to answer the question; and one police force said that the data it could provide may not be accurate because officers may not have reported the fact that they have had a conviction. Does the Minister share my concern that this appalling lack of data could have very serious consequences?
Lord Bates
I certainly do share the noble Baroness’s concern about that. The College of Policing, which was set up to raise standards in this very important area, has said that in all but the most exceptional circumstances it would not expect anybody with any conviction, except the most minor conviction perhaps committed in their youth, to be on the force. Therefore, the type of circumstances that the noble Baroness refers to should not arise. Of course, one issue is that, because of the particular legal entity of a police constable, it is a matter for the local constabulary to act upon that, and we very much hope that they will.
Modern Slavery Act 2015
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
I think that is right. There are two measures involved here. First, the new Immigration Bill will have a big focus on labour market enforcement, which will help in that regard. Also, if a private, family business has a turnover above £36 million, they will have to produce a statement saying what steps they are taking to eradicate modern-day slavery from their supply chain. These are all steps down the line. However, essentially, we need to also encourage more people who are victims to come forward and identify those employers so that they can be prosecuted.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, do the Government share my concern that, despite the Modern Slavery Act, Eurostar has still not put in place a system which ensures that unaccompanied children are escorted to and from their trains and are supervised during the journey? Is not the absence of such basic safeguards putting children at unnecessary risk from child trafficking?
Lord Bates
I am certainly very happy to look into that further, if that is the case. Additional guidance has now been provided to Border Force enforcement officers to spot children coming into the country unaccompanied, or, for that matter, leaving the country. This is something that we need to look at very carefully. I will look into it and get back to her.
Trafficking: Children
Baroness Doocey Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been an increase in the number of cases of child trafficking reported since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was passed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Modern Slavery Act received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015. The first package of measures was implemented on 31 July 2015. The number of children referred into the national referral mechanism has increased year on year, but it is too early to tell whether there has been an increase in the number of child trafficking cases reported to the NRM since the Modern Slavery Act was passed.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. I should like to ask about the Home Office counting rules used by the police to record crime statistics, which has been recently updated to take account of the Modern Slavery Act. Will he please explain why there is no specific category to record child exploitation cases, such as domestic servitude? Instead, these crimes against adults and children are lumped together, which will obscure the recording, investigation and monitoring of these heinous crimes against children. Surely this is not the way the Modern Slavery Act was supposed to work.