Protest Measures

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already largely answered that question on face masks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say it again: we are creating a new criminal offence of wearing a face covering for the purpose of concealing identity when the police place a particular authorisation on a protest. The particular authorisation point is surely the key.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister says that live facial recognition is irrelevant to this. I see a very clear intersection with these issues. I agree with him that there are philosophical aspects—I would say ethical aspects—but there are practical ones as well. The public looks at it in both those contexts. I was until recently chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, and the Minister may have seen a letter that we wrote to the Home Secretary very recently on the subject of live facial recognition. I base my questions on that. First, on the issue of how live facial recognition is applied, one police force said to us—we have not been able to obtain any backing from that force for this comment—that the watchlist is made up of people known to have committed offences, or wanted for offences, who may have an intent to commit an offence. So how will a watchlist be made up for the use of live facial recognition of a protest? In particular, will images obtained during a protest or previous protests be used to make up a watchlist for a subsequent protest?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I did not say that it was irrelevant. I said that this is a very specific set of circumstances and I accept that there is a whole separate debate about facial recognition that we need to have in the near future—I accept that it is a matter of urgency. I cannot honestly recall seeing the noble Baroness’s letter to the Home Secretary. I will track it down and, if I may, I will come back in writing on that question because I genuinely do not know the answer.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot comment on specific numbers of refugees from that particular incident. However, I can reassure the noble Viscount about the safety of the Republic of Rwanda. Clause 4 of the Bill allows that

“Decisions based on particular individual circumstances”


can be specifically exempted from some other aspects of the Bill. I will not read them, as he can read them himself.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, many of the problems that we have discussed over the months and years come from the backlog of applications to the Home Office. What does having two Ministers—one for legal migration and one for what the Government badge as illegal migration—do to address this? Also, the previous Home Secretary made it very clear that the Government’s proposals “will not work”, in her words. Is that because of her views about the European convention or does it come from some other inspiration about how to make the system work? If so, has she shared that with colleagues in the Home Office?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

She is not a colleague so, no, she has not shared it. I am not going to second-guess what she was trying to say this morning; that would be foolish. As regards having two Ministers for Immigration, this is a big subject so, clearly, it deserves two. I suppose I could give a flippant answer: at least they will be able to process these claims twice as fast.

Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

Every single medical intervention, even taking blood, carries a risk which can, on rare occasions, be very serious for the person who is having it. Informed consent means that if we must take X-rays or do MRIs, or any other kind of investigation, we must make sure that we have explained that risk to the patient or to the person. Unless it is a medical procedure, we have to accept that this is not acceptable. I would therefore certainly go through the Lobby if the noble Baroness decides to have a Division on this matter.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I follow all the previous speakers, including that consummate professional, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I have some similar questions for the Minister. I will try to edit as I go so as not to be too repetitive.

I started by wondering whether the Home Office could possibly be in a position to bring forward and implement these instruments. The GOV.UK website shows the Home Office as still seeking to recruit members to the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee: a behavioural scientist with expertise in interview techniques and someone with expertise in children’s social services. Is that recruitment still going on? The website shows the closing date as having been December 2022. These areas of expertise are surely crucial.

In this contentious area, does bringing forward instruments fall within the “doing everything it takes” message? How far have the Government got in preparing for these biological techniques? A few days before Prorogation, I asked a Written Question about the estimated cost of using X-rays, MRI and any other scientific methods provided by the legislation. The Written Answer, which I was told was a holding answer—because we were of course running out of Session—was:

“The Home Office does not yet hold this information. Work is ongoing to determine the level and type of capacity required to support the imaging service”.


Then on 24 November, a few days ago, I received what was described as “a full response”. I was surprised that it was followed up by letter but here it is. I will not repeat the two sentences I have just quoted, because they are exactly the same. The letter goes on:

“It is anticipated that the service will then”—


that is, after the ongoing work—

“be subject to a competitive procurement process, which will provide final clarity on costs”.

No wonder there is no impact assessment giving costs.

On Report on the Illegal Migration Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, as my noble friend said, talked about the regulation-making power not being exercised

“until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the science and analysis are sufficient to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood”.

He also said that the Government will

“continue to seek scientific advice”

to ensure the regulations

“are based on a firm evidential basis”.—[Official Report, 5/7/23; col. 1239.]

Can the Minister say whether the chief scientific adviser to the Home Office and AESAC have provided that basis? One must assume that the Secretary of State—either the Secretary of State in office when the SIs were published or the current one—was appropriately satisfied.

The interim committee in October 2022, which is where the website took me, dealt with proposing an age range and assessing whether the claimed age was possible. I am repeating what my noble friend has said because it is a really important point. The committee also recommended that

“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”

to procedures—if that is the right term, because it is certainly not “treatment”. Then, of course, legislation we passed through Parliament allowed for both.

During the passage of the same Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, in response to my noble friend Lord Paddick, that refusal to consent can be treated in a variety of ways,

“which will be described in the regulations”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1817.]

Where can we find those ways? They are not in the version of the regulations I have been reading. He also said that it is

“crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1812.]

I note the word “disincentivise”; we have heard a lot about deterring immigrants. However, he then said:

“I certainly would not compel any child to participate in age assessment”.—[ Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1815.]


The problem is that the consequences of refusal are very close to compulsion.

During the passage of the then Nationality and Borders Bill, some of us had a very helpful briefing on age assessment arranged by the Home Office and chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, who was then, as she described herself, the interim chair of the interim committee. We were given assurances that all information would be triangulated, so I ask for an assurance that the introduction of these techniques does not give them any particular status compared with—to quote an email from the Home Office I received following the briefing—

“views from a psychologist, or any other person with a role in the age-disputed person’s life”.

That speaks for itself.

During the passage of the two Bills the House discussed—not always at a user-friendly hour—the issue of consent linked with capacity and ethical considerations. By definition, the techniques do not benefit the child so it will be interesting to hear how they can be ethical. The House also discussed the culture, background and ethnicity of the young people seeking asylum in the UK who may be subjected to these techniques. I was glad to see that the interim committee report made it clear that socioeconomic factors and ethnicity affect the timing of development.

Home Office guidance acknowledges that

“physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age” .

The committee report said that “any methodology should” minimise

“any health risk, whether physical or psychological”,

and that there are many reasons

“not to give consent for biological age assessment … not linked to concealment”.

Is the Home Office guidance being changed to fit the current policy? I doubt that many adults, were they in the same situation, could give informed consent. They could well be too traumatised to do so. We should also be aware that a good many asylum seekers come from countries where “medical procedures” are an instrument of torture.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, of course in restrained language, was pretty damning. It pointed to the absence of the impact assessment, which has been referred to. The Explanatory Note to the instrument says that

“no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”

as the reason for not producing an assessment. Surely impacts are foreseen; they must be foreseen, including impacts on resources, with staffing and equipment diverted from the NHS for one. If the Minister cannot give a cost or range per person examined, can he give a unit cost for each application of each technique? Can he help the House on whether the health staff are available and whether they are willing to implement these techniques?

The scrutiny committee said that it is “vital”—not a term I can recall seeing before in such a report—

“that the Government closely monitor and review the policy and adapt it as necessary”.

The committee is quite right in saying that

“The House may wish to question the Minister”


on monitoring and evaluation. We do. When can we expect this and what can we expect by way of keeping Parliament updated?

The committee badges the regulations as “politically or legally important”. They are politically and legally contentious too. The techniques are “fraught with difficulty”, to use the words of the Advocate-General for Scotland during debate on the first of the two Bills. The difficulties are not solved by these regulations, which is why we cannot support them.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I promise that I will be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving this regret amendment and thank all those who have spoken so far and so well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for pointing out that this is not science; it is the use of scientific instruments. My two concerns relate to consent, as many have spoken about, and to the workforce.

We have spent a long time in the health service over the last couple of decades to improve the way we consent and how people are able to give informed consent. Most of us going for tests and operations will have pages of documents that we will be taken through and then sign. I have concerns around whether people will truly consent. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said that

“informed consent is fundamental to all medical practice, and by definition must be free from duress … This directly opposes both the principles of informed consent and the recommendations set out by the independent body commissioned to look at the policy—the Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee”.

Questions of capacity have also been raised here. Who will make the decision on behalf of a child if they have no legal guardian present? I am concerned about not only the issue of the X-rays but the impact of being asked to do this psychologically, emotionally and mentally. Could the Minister tell us what consideration has been given to safeguarding and support during and after medical examinations, especially in relation to consent and capacity?

My final point relates to capacity. The House does not need to be reminded that the health service at present—both the estate and workforce—is under pressure. The question is: who will take the X-rays? Will it be radiographers or other trained professionals? Where will the kit be that will be used? I also have a concern around those professionals undertaking this. Has the department consulted with professional bodies, such as those for radiographers? Has the Home Office developed plans for capacity? If so, has this been done in partnership with the NHS and professional bodies?

Illegal Immigration

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I agree with the noble Lord about the International Agreements Committee and the previous comments made there. The fact is that the International Agreements Committee is now getting its wish. Legally enforceable treaties should be the vehicle of choice; obviously, it will be scrutinised in both Houses of Parliament. As regards the apparent anomaly between what the Home Secretary has said and what the noble Lord has just pointed out, to respond to that would be to speculate as to what will be in the forthcoming legislation when I simply do not know. I will make sure that point is well made, and I hope to come back to the noble Lord with a strong answer very soon.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Supreme Court quite rightly emphasised the importance of the experience of the UNHCR, which had been disregarded. Are the Government now consulting with it and with other relevant NGOs?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the UNHCR was not disregarded by the Court of Appeal; that was really the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision. It very much took the court at its word. As I already said, the Government have made a lot of effort to pre-empt the Supreme Court’s decision by doing some of the things that were suggested by the Court of Appeal. Having said all that, we of course maintain close co-operation with all our international partners whether they be states, NGOs or whatever.

Migrants: Barges

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The health measures were in place, and it was only at a very late stage that the Home Office was made aware of the findings of Dorset Council. At that time, as I say, the Home Office decided to go beyond the recommended position from the UKHSA, which was not to put any more migrants on the barge, and instead to evacuate it, which was surely the responsible thing to do.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister take on board—no pun intended—the concern for not only the asylum seekers who were subjected to this but Home Office officials, and presumably contractors, who must also have been exposed to the legionella?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said in my initial Answer, one of our paramount concerns is the health and welfare of migrants and our staff. I can reassure the House that no one has contracted legionnaires’ disease as a result of the finding of this presence in the water supply.

Family Migration (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee All families matter: An inquiry into family migration (1st Report, HL Paper 144).

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to have driven so many Members away. I should declare my interests: I have introduced Bills on family reunion; I chaired an APPG inquiry that reported in 2013 on the then new rules; and I am a trustee of a charity that assists asylum seekers into university education.

We had a choice of quotes to introduce this report, many of them from senior politicians stressing that family is the bedrock of society. We chose this article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”


We found that many families are not protected. This begs the question, what is “family” in the 2020s? We were clear that it is more than the traditional nuclear family of two adults plus two children. Blended families, for instance, may include children from previous relationships. In many cultures, the concept of “family” is very wide, with corresponding responsibilities to family members. The world has shrunk in terms of accessibility and experience, and relationships reflect that.

The principle of the importance of family has fallen foul of current political narratives. The Home Office takes the view that it is a matter of choice if a family cannot be together because of the rules or, as it puts it, whether a family decide to separate. In 2013, I heard a British citizen be told on a radio call-in to go and live in his wife’s country. As he said, “There’s not much call for mortgage broking in Nigeria”.

There is no consistent definition of “family” or “relative” across the immigration pathways. The Government have created bespoke pathways in response to different situations rather than applying one set of principles. Naturally, this causes confusion and resentment. Where there is an apparently family-friendly policy, it is often undermined or negatived by practice and by practical realities, especially the costs—in particular, fees and the health surcharge, which are now rising to considerably more than when they were mentioned in our evidence, as they were frequently.

Of course, the rules barely touch the sides in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. Ministers respond to criticisms of their being too restrictive by saying that, where there are compelling and compassionate factors, we can exercise discretion to grant leave outside the rules. That means uncertainty and unfairness; it also infringes on one of Lord Bingham’s tenets of the rule of law. It is hard not to regard the evidence that the committee received as compelling and requiring a compassionate response.

That is certainly the case where children are concerned. The “best interests of the child” are not just a matter of compassion; they are part of our law. A child’s interests are not paramount, but no other consideration can be treated as inherently more significant. I suggest that the Home Office forgets this last bit; they are not systematically integrated into immigration law. Family law and the family courts deal with these things much better, as they do in recognising the range of people—step-parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts—who are important to a child.

The Islington Law Centre told us:

“We have observed the incredible transformation that young people go through after being reunited with family”.


They

“experience a dramatic upturn in their mental health”

and

“are finally able to focus on their future”.

According to other evidence from professionals on the impact of separation from parents on children, adolescents and young people who have experienced human rights abuses, they are

“vulnerable to symptoms of complex post traumatic stress disorder and developmental difficulties in addition to centrally difficulties in the process of mourning, separation and loss”.

In theory, adult relatives have a pathway to join family in the UK if they need support, but the eligibility requirements are almost impossibly strict. No wonder they are regarded not as a pathway but as a ban. To fulfil them, it is unlikely you would be fit to travel. Responsibility and love do not feature.

One witness and her husband worked in the NHS:

“Yes I can arrange carers, help at home in India, but ask any elderly who would they like to spend time with—the love and care from one’s own children cannot be replaced with even the finest carers”.


Another witness said:

“Do I continue to let my mother get increasingly frail and isolated … with her only family half a world away? But the only alternative is to uproot my family, depriving my son of his links with cousins and maternal grandparents, forcing my wife not to see her aging parents and to abandon her successful career here (not to mention my own)”.


A requirement for an adult dependent relative visa is that the sponsor in the UK must undertake to provide for the applicant’s maintenance, accommodation and care for five years, and confirm that the applicant will not have recourse to public funds. The catch is that if they can do that, they can afford to pay for “care” abroad, which in many places must go in quotation marks because of poor standards and even abuse. Given the undertaking, why are the Government so unyielding on the cost to the state?

This is one of the rules which keeps families out of the UK and loses us valuable members of society, when middle-aged people decide they must leave to care for parents. Notably, it is why non-British citizens working in healthcare are lost to it. As of last November, non-British citizens made up 16.5% of the NHS workforce and 37% of hospital doctors. Can we afford to lose them? We deter the very people we need as part of our labour force and who would contribute to our society. I am sure others will mention postgraduate students.

The impact of the minimum income requirement for spouses and partners is considerable, and that cohort will increase because EU and EEA citizens who are not settled now fall within the rules. Let us not forget pensioners living abroad with a foreign partner who want to return. I have heard shock, distress, anger and outrage: “Is this how my country treats me?”

Women who would sponsor a partner may be at a particular disadvantage because women tend to earn less. Non-British partners who are high earners outside the UK do not have their earnings taken into account.

A partner may be faced with remaining abroad with a child or leaving the child. In 2015 the Children’s Commissioner estimated that up to 15,000 children were separated from a parent by the income requirement. We heard of a child whose mental health was so affected that she was hospitalised. She recovered when her father was able to join her and her mother in the UK after two years.

We heard a lot about

“overly strict, inflexible and very onerous”

evidential requirements for resources to count. The MIR was introduced to promote social cohesion and protect public finances. It fails—a view that the Migration Advisory Committee has recently indicated it shares.

I remember a gentleman who was living in a low-wage area with a disabled daughter who needed a lot of care, so his ability to work was restricted. He remarried to a teacher who could have shared that care and contributed to the household income. He did not reach the MIR, so they made do with her visiting. She was then refused entry because the immigration officer did not believe she would leave. She was sent to Harmondsworth, where she collapsed. There is a culture of disbelief. We recommend a rebuttable presumption in favour of applications to visit close family and the reintroduction of a right of appeal.

Let it not be said, although the Government say it, that contact online is an adequate substitute. How can it be if a child thinks that daddy has no legs because they are not visible on the screen? We heard that:

“Staying in touch online has been a crutch, a necessary evil that we hold onto, like onto a straw while drowning. It certainly does not allow actual relationship to develop and bloom”.


Child refugees cannot sponsor family members to join them. The UK is one of two outliers in Europe on this. We reject the notion of a pull factor and accept evidence of the huge detrimental impact on children who are refugees. Children need their parents and their siblings, at least. Siblings are very important. We heard distressing evidence, and the obvious point that a child’s family will normally still be in the persecuting state; the child will spend most of their time worrying about their family’s safety.

We did not call for comments on Home Office procedures, but we got a great many: about the “punitive” costs, described as some of the highest in the world, which mean some having to choose whose visas in the family can be renewed, or falling off the route to settlement because the fees are unaffordable. We heard how poor the Home Office is at communicating. It is nowhere near proactive. It fails to meet its own standards. The descriptions sounded like the worst of call centres; if you email, you get a standard reply, no matter the question. Ask any MP and you hear the same frustrations about failures to respond. The Home Office is its own worst enemy. It could reduce the burden with less frequent requirements for renewal—and I will not start on backlogs.

Even with more time than most speakers have this afternoon, this is inevitably a quick canter around some of our committee’s 61 conclusions and recommendations. We were united in our disappointment at the Government’s uniform—and, frankly, cloth-eared—rejection. I hope the Minister can be less defensive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Are there any other bids? I am grateful to the speakers who have added their voices to that of the committee. I clearly cannot go through every point the Minister made, but I will say that my noble friend Lord Paddick’s point was not about couples who have not gone through a civil partnership but same-sex couples who cannot cohabit in their own country when a requirement for leave is that they should have cohabited.

I sincerely thank members of the committee for their work on the inquiry. The unanimity was notable; there were no fudges. I also thank our clerk David Shiels, our policy analyst Achille Versaevel, our committee assistant Amanda McGrath, our communications officer Aneela Mahmood, our specialist adviser Helena Wray of Exeter University and, of course, the 100-plus witnesses for their compelling and sometimes distressing evidence. They all helped us to stand in the shoes of the people who are affected by the rules—so far as any of us who are not so affected can.

I will have to see whether I can find any nuggets of cause for optimism in the Minister’s response. I commend to him the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: empathy is not weakness. I well remember the occasion when the Secretary of State in oral evidence to the committee prayed in aid, “We can’t welcome everyone”. I was quite taken aback: I simply said, “No one is suggesting that”.

We clearly approached the issues from a completely different point of view from the Government and with completely different attitudes. I cannot help wondering about the reference to the rules being based on what the courts have ruled regarding Article 8. There is a series of successful appeals on the basis of Article 8 where the appellant has won against the Government. Immigration is a political issue; family should not be. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Motion J1. The amendment put forward under Motion J1 aims to ensure that, not only now but in the future, the Government’s policy is examined. As the Minister said, the current Government’s concentration is on international co-operation and working, although with some hesitation at times, with groups such as the UNHCR and others internationally. The amendment would ensure that that strategy—the way the Government are working—and the context in which migration is being considered are brought in front of both Houses, simply for a debate, with an analysis of the situation by the Government.

The Minister has said very clearly that he does not wish this to happen on the grounds that it is being done now, but this Bill is not about today. It will shortly be an Act, and when it is an Act it will last years—it may last many years. Who knows what will happen in elections in the future, whether they are next year, in 10 years or whenever? We cannot guarantee what kind of Government there will be at that time. That is why we have Acts of Parliament and a system of law which requires changes in the case that people wish to change the way in which this country operates.

It seems to me that the problem with the Bill is that it has not started at the right place. Where it needed to start was on a matter such as this—to have a level of national consensus and agreement on what the aim of our migration and immigration policy will be in the long term. We know what our aims are for other matters. For instance, the NHS is care that is free at the point of delivery to all who need it; it is not a political matter—at least not at the moment. That is something that holds us together, and then we argue about how it is done—fair enough.

The Bill, and the failure to pursue this amendment, seems to me to have four very simple failures. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said so eloquently just now. First, it does not give space and time for the Houses of Parliament—for politics—to generate a consensus on what we do about a problem that the Foreign Secretary himself said last week is one that is global, geopolitical and generational. We have to make time to discuss such threats. We put time aside for threats such as climate change. Much of the migration will be generated by climate change and, in being so generated, it will move literally hundreds of millions of people across borders.

We cannot put into the Bill that we should set time aside once a year in both Houses to look at that context and discuss it and try to generate a consensus across our nation, where so many communities, including in my own diocese, which I serve, are divided, depressed and anxious—reasonably, because so much is said to them that does not have a common, united vision for this nation. That is a failure of reconciliation; it is a failure of vision to leave the structures of migration better than they used to be—because heaven alone knows it is more than 25 years since we could last look back and see an immigration policy that was really working. It is not a party-political thing.

Secondly, the rejection of this amendment—and much of the Bill, as we have heard earlier this evening—diminishes parliamentary accountability. It does not say that the Government must come to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and give reasons for what they say. It does not say that a Minister of whichever party must stand up and face people such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I apologise for embarrassing him, I am sure, but I would venture to suggest that he is probably the most respected man in this House. His own experience of being an unaccompanied irregular migrant is without parallel, but his approach was casually dismissed. That is not how we should listen to the wisdom of so many years and so much experience.

Accountability is diminished. Parliament exists to hold the Executive to account—not just this Executive but future ones. It diminishes our leadership. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, but he was right in everything he said about the Modern Slavery Act, as was the former Prime Minister today and as she has spoken over the past weeks, publicly and privately. It also diminishes our flexibility. This Bill pins everything down; it does not give grace periods or enable Parliament and the Government to say that the situation had changed dramatically. Who would have said four years ago that we would have 45,000 people coming across the channel in boats? Of course, we must stop that—I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, we must stop it, but I fail to see how this legislation does that, and I have not heard anything to convince me.

But that is the view of the other place and I agree that, in the end, on most things, except the most essential, this House must give way to the other place. Therefore, I shall not be seeking to divide the House on this Motion.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I speak for these Benches, first, on modern slavery and trafficking. The Government characterise victims as fraudulent and frivolous—those are both words that have been used in debate—but you do not get into the national referral mechanism unless you are referred by Home Office-accredited first responders. They are not frivolous and they are not fraudulent.

We are left trying to salvage something from the wreckage that the Government are making of our tackling of slavery and trafficking. The Minister in the Commons today said they would not remove anyone to a country where they are endangered. But we cannot know that traffickers will not be operating in the country to which people are removed. The chances must be very high that they will operate in Rwanda, or wherever, and we will be opening up new markets for the traffickers instead of tackling them as criminals.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Motion P, to which the Minister referred. I should refer to my interest as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Perhaps it should be called not the Human Trafficking Foundation but the “modern slavery foundation”, because there is a difference with human trafficking, which is what I think stop the boats is all about. By dint of modern slavery, everybody who is enslaved and arrives in this country has come in illegally. Nobody comes in legally for modern slavery.

I am very disappointed with this Bill. However, I am a pragmatist. Years in retail taught me that sometimes you cannot have everything you want. So when my right honourable friend Theresa May spoke so eloquently and voted against the Government—and I can say as a former Deputy Chief Whip that that was only the second time she has ever voted against the Conservative Whip, which tells you something; you could not wish for a more loyal person—she did so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said, it is not a great Bill in respect of modern slavery.

However, my noble friend and my right honourable friend down the other end in the other place made some concessions about what they would put in the guidance. My Motion basically asks that those concessions, that guidance, be put in the Bill. I would have preferred my original words—I would have preferred all sorts of things—but in order to make sure that we can get something done for the victims of this horrendous, heinous crime, if the Minister does not have a damascene conversion, when the time comes, I will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I cannot express strongly enough our huge disappointment about what is happening with the Modern Slavery Act. I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. The Minister talked about “opportunities to misuse”, when it is the Home Office which approves the first responders who have to get possible victims of slavery into the NRM in the first place. He talked about enabling co-operation but, with what most of the people in this situation will have gone through, 30 days is simply insufficient for them to be able to bring themselves to co-operate with an authority figure in a foreign country when they are still worried about what their trafficker might do when he finds them and about what they will do if they have to try to get away from the system. It is simply not enough.

To co-operate requires support. That, in turn, requires trust, and that, in turn, requires time. Statutory guidance will of course be welcome. But only today I and other noble Lords received a briefing from the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham on government commitments relating to Part 5 of the 2022 Act—the modern slavery part—analysing whether they had been met, partially met or not met at all. It did not make for very happy reading. It is a shame that one has to say that. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. We wish that there were more coming before the House tonight that we could support too.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for moving his amendments in a concise and informed way and for putting before the House the importance of the Modern Slavery Act and defending its principles.

I draw attention to Motion P1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which is particularly important as it seeks to protect victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK. Although the Minister pointed to the protection the Government may give to British citizens, some of the exploited people the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to would not be British citizens and would therefore be out of scope.

It is worth spending a minute considering that we as a Parliament are here tonight reflecting on what was one of the finest achievements of the last Conservative Government and one of the proudest achievements of a former Conservative Prime Minister. I stand here as a proud Labour politician saying that. It was one of the reasons why our country was regarded as a world leader by countries across the world, and it was brought about by the actions of a Conservative Government.

When you read the speeches of not only a former leader, Iain Duncan Smith MP, but a former Prime Minister, it is no wonder that the latter is incredulous that her own party and Government would seek, as she says, to undermine completely an Act of which everyone was proud, including most Conservatives. I find it astonishing that the Government Front Benches of this House and the other place should simply sweep her views aside, almost as though they are the rantings of a failed person who is no longer relevant. She deserves greater respect than that, and to be recognised for what she achieved. I think I am right in saying that it was the first such legislation in the world. It was blown away not by a vindictive Labour Government but by her own Conservative Government, who have somehow just brushed it aside.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, does us a huge service in bringing forward an amendment that I hope has the support of many of your Lordships, from all sides, and which tries to protect something of that achievement, that triumph, of a previous Conservative Government. In doing that, he gives us the opportunity to mark with great respect that achievement and work of a previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister.

I hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House and that noble Lords will see fit to support the amendment in very large numbers, so that when it goes back to the other place they will think again about what they have done.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

168C: Clause 67, page 68, line 13, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking) (ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the new clause after Clause 61 proposed in another amendment in the name of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to come into force on the day on which the Act is passed.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, particularly with respect to whether what is included in the Bill is an extension of existing powers, or simply a reiteration of what was in legislation that preceded the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, did us a great favour in bringing forward a whole series of practical questions which the Minister started to answer in Committee. They are quite serious questions about the practicalities and, as the Minister knows, we have been concerned about not only some of our principled objections but also the workability of some of the clauses and powers contained in the Bill. It is worth reiterating, so it is on the record, what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said: the Government require transport workers—whether it be a lorry driver, a train operator, a train guard or a bus conductor—to act in an almost pseudo-police officer role to detain or search people.

If I were in that situation, I would be genuinely concerned about the implications. There are legitimate questions about the powers of detention, how long people would be detained, the use of force, and so on.

Can the Minister clarify one further point? His previous amendments added the words “immigration officer” to make the legislation consistent with later parts of the clause which refer to an

“immigration officer or the Secretary of State”.

Do the Government envisage any difference? Is that wording to cover any eventuality rather than any significant principled thing that the immigration officer could do that the Secretary of State could not, or vice versa? It would be interesting to know, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I am grateful to the Bill team for confirming this, but it would be useful to have it said in the Chamber that “immigration officer” is an immigration officer of any rank at all. There does not have to be any seniority attached to the post when an immigration officer is given powers in these provisions and elsewhere in the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which seeks to protect transport providers. I understand the concern that this is causing.

To answer the points of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, Clauses 7 and 9 simply reflect the current position, corresponding to the long-standing requirement set out in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. As now, risk assessments must be made before directions are given to a carrier, and escorts will be provided where this is assessed to be necessary.

All the practical issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, apply equally under existing powers, and there are established protocols for dealing with them. We are not putting any additional burdens on the transport sector; in fact, we are providing for the costs of complying with directions under the Bill, but they will be paid for by the Secretary of State and will not be at the carrier’s expense. The amendment would therefore put the powers surrounding the giving of removal directions at odds with existing provisions and would effectively turn a requirement to remove people into a request, which would then impact on the number of illegal immigrants being removed.

Government Amendments 46 and 47 are prompted by a question posed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked how transport workers could deal with a non-compliant person. Again, the answer lies in the Immigration Act 1971. It is already an offence under Section 24(1)(f) of that Act for a person subject to removal to disembark, and these amendments simply apply that offence to removals under the Bill. This then engages Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which enables a person to use reasonable force to prevent a crime—a provision that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in particular, will be very familiar with.

Finally, returning to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, Amendment 85 seeks to amend the definition of “vehicle” to limit the power in Schedule 2 to search vehicles to only those hired by the Secretary of State to remove persons pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3. We would not want to limit the power to search vehicles in this way; doing so would prevent immigration officers being able to search small boats, for example.