Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Meacher

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.

The one real argument put by Ministers to support the restriction of identification to photo ID was that it is the most secure form of ID. However, we never got an explanation of how it was decided that, in the necessary balancing of the two, security trumped accessibility to the point that only the most secure forms of ID were permissible, despite the lack of evidence of fraud, as we have heard. In reaching that position, it was not clear why the Government rejected what we might call the “Pickles principle”—that perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution. Amendment 8 and some of the other amendments offer such a practical solution, but the Government’s response hitherto has been disappointing.

Ministers have also frequently cited the finding of the Electoral Commission tracker that 66% of the public say that the requirement to show identification at polling stations would increase their confidence in security. But I note that the word “photo” is never mentioned, so I can only assume that the question did not specify photo ID. Also, we do not know how members of the public would weigh up that balance between security and accessibility. It would appear from the latest election tracker—a point made by the noble Lord—that a much larger majority, eight in 10, are confident that elections are well run, and that nearly nine in 10 think that voting at polling stations is safe. But there is a real danger, as has been said, that perceptions will be tainted by the Government’s narrative of voting fraud, which risks reducing trust in the system, as has been pointed out by a number of bodies. According to the Electoral Reform Society, recent US studies have found that talking up voter fraud reduces confidence in electoral integrity and has indeed corroded trust in the system.

As I made clear in Committee, I am particularly concerned about the impact on people in poverty or on a low income, who are not necessarily caught in the Government’s focus on groups with protected characteristics. Of course, I am concerned about them too; I particularly noted the position of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities in Committee. The Government have chosen not to enact the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act, which might have encouraged them to focus on people in poverty. As it is, the more I have read, the more convinced I am that they have in effect been ignored in consultations with stakeholders and in the pilots.

According to 2019 data from the British Election Study, provided to me by the Library, there was a clear income gradient in turnout in the 2019 election, with half—or slightly more than half—of those in households with an income of £15,599 or less not having voted. If the JRF is correct that, as it stands, Clause 1 and Schedule 1 risk disenfranchising as many as 1.7 million low-income members of the electorate, these worrying figures can only get worse.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, promised that she would get me

“a list of the consultees that we worked with because that is important.”

This was in response to my questions as to

“what engagement there has been with organisations speaking on behalf of people in poverty, or in which people in poverty are themselves involved, so that they can bring the expertise born of experience to these policy discussions”.—[Official Report, 17/3/22; cols. 562, 567.]

I repeated the question when we returned to the issue on day three of Committee, but there was still no sign of that list. Instead, in his letter to Peers, the Minister assured us that there has been a comprehensive programme of engagement with civil society organisations, with a heavy emphasis once again on those with protected characteristics. However, once again, the implication of the letter is that the impact of poverty has been ignored, and that there has been no engagement with organisations working with people in poverty or with those who can bring the expertise of experience of poverty to bear on the matter. Yet, their perspectives could be particularly valuable when considering appropriate voter ID and the process of applying for a voter card. I ask yet again whether there has been such consultation and, if not, will the Government now prioritise it?

As it happens, I was at an event this morning organised by Poverty2Solutions, an award-winning coalition of grassroots organisations led by people with direct experience of poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage and supported by the JRF. The key message was the need to put lived experience at the heart of policy-making, complementing other forms of expertise. I asked whether Poverty2Solutions would be willing to engage with the Government on the development of voter ID policy, and the response was an enthusiastic yes. The door is open.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support—I could say all the amendments in this group, but that is slightly inconsistent. There is absolutely no evidence at all to support the need for any voter ID in British elections in person, as highlighted by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government’s plans are unnecessary, discriminatory, expensive and a regressive step.

There is also no public support for these changes at all. The latest edition of the Electoral Commission’s public opinion tracker, which measures public views on the electoral process, showed that 90% of voters say that voting at a polling station is safe from fraud and abuse. That is an exceptionally high percentage in any poll. Overall, public confidence in elections is apparently at its highest level since data collection began.

We know that the idea of voter ID arose from the allegations of election fraud in Tower Hamlets. However, as noble Lords know, the Tower Hamlets allegations had nothing to do with personation at polling stations. It is interesting that the judge in the Tower Hamlets case told the Bill Committee:

“Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed.”—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 15/9/21; col. 15.]


This is basically the view of most noble Lords in this House.

The voter ID system will cost an estimated £120 million over three years—there are various estimates, but that is the median. I must say that I find it quite shocking that any Government would spend that sort of money on a completely unnecessary reform when there is so much need which is unmet all over the country—it is really upsetting. I like the Liberty analogy on the voter ID issue: a householder who has not had a problem with burglary for years and yet decides to spend a fortune on a new lock. In similar ways, his house was perfectly safe and so is our electoral system at polling stations. However, I would not say the same necessarily of postal votes.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Meacher

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 30. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government’s opposition to the right to work was based less on the pull factor argument than on the impact on the integrity of the labour market. That is just as well. As the noble Baroness said, we have yet to see convincing evidence of the pull factor any better than the selective and somewhat misleading quote from a study that the Minister offered in Committee. She mentioned an impact assessment on that, which I believe is yet to materialise. When can we expect it?

If we consider the numbers involved, it is difficult to see how labour market integrity will be compromised. Indeed, the combination of the effects of the Bill and the welcome promised speeding up of applications, to which Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker should add some teeth, should reduce the numbers affected significantly. I imagine that the Migration Advisory Committee will have considered the integrity of the labour market before recommending the right to work after six months and in any occupation. Yet the Minister did not even mention the MAC report raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee.

Neither did she mention the MAC’s argument, and one central to the case I made, concerning the impact of the ban on working on integration, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which supposedly remains a government goal. Nor did she acknowledge the statement I read out from MIN Voices, made up of asylum seekers, who said that not being able to work made them feel less than human and corroded their self-respect and dignity—again, echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. As the chair of Surrey Heath Conservatives pointed out on ConservativeHome —my new favourite reading—this very much chimes with Conservative values, so that in his view the ban is “fundamentally un-Conservative”.

I conclude by repeating the plea of MIN Voices’ plea to

“see us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills”.

I should also mention the article by Sarah O’Connor of the Financial Times, who ended her recent analysis of the labour market implications of the ban by saying that

“if people want to work, we should let them”.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.

In Committee, the Minister referred to the integrity of the labour market as a route being one reason to reject this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, dealt with that very well, so I will not repeat her comments. The only other real argument against reducing the UK’s exceptional period before asylum seekers can apply for permission to work was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the so-called pull factor encouraging asylum seekers to come to this country. I want to say a bit more about that because it really is very difficult to take seriously under the circumstances. When Germany allows asylum seekers to work after three months, Italy after two months, Portugal after just one week, can our Government really justify the current one-year ban and argue that if we changed it, there would be this serious pull factor problem?

If the Minister accepts this amendment, we will have the same employment restriction as France, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece, and we would remain more restrictive than all other western European countries. Ireland was the only other western European outlier until it recently reduced its nine months restriction down to six months in 2021. This amendment would do no more than Ireland did to bring it into line with the list of countries I have already referred to.

The fact is, the UK has a longer employment restriction for asylum seekers than any other comparable country. I just feel ashamed of us, to be honest—I think it is disgraceful. Moreover, it seems the Government have no grounds to argue that enabling asylum seekers to work will, in fact, act as a pull factor. A recent review of 29 academic papers on this subject found that there was no correlation between the right to work and where people seeking asylum chose to seek protection; the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained that perfectly clearly so, again, I do not need to repeat her words.

The other very important reform in this amendment is to end the iniquitous limitation on asylum seekers, even after the 12-month ban, to jobs on an extremely limited shortage occupation list—I seem to remember one of them was a ballerina or something. How many asylum seekers can really take up ballet? This renders employment impossible for the vast majority of asylum seekers until their application is finally approved.

The assumption behind this amendment is that asylum seekers would, after six months, become automatically eligible for a work permit, enabling them to become self-employed or to take up any job, to pay taxes and national insurance, and so on. It will be very difficult to justify not accepting this amendment.

In summary, I do not accept the arguments put by the Minister in Committee. I just hope that she and her colleagues have reconsidered their position. On 8 December 2021, I understand that the Home Office said in a Written Statement that it had concluded its review of the current policy. This is surely a perfect moment to introduce reform.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Baroness Meacher

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 23, to which I have added my name, and the others in the group. Since Committee, the Public Accounts Committee’s report has come out —we have heard about it—and it was highly critical of the lack of evidence informing immigration enforcement policy. That has to raise a big question mark over the Minister’s claim, in her letter to Peers, that:

“Detention plays a key role in maintaining effective immigration controls and securing the UK’s borders”.


We have to ask: what is the evidence supporting that claim?

PAC also expressed disappointment that the Home Office is still not sufficiently curious about the impact of its actions, and that little evidence exists that the department actively seeks to identify or evaluate that impact. This is highly pertinent to the impact of segregation and the indefinite detention of detainees, while not knowing how long that detention will last. We have already heard about the lack of hope that means. In both cases, as I documented in Committee and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has done tonight, the impact on mental health is a particular concern. This lack of curiosity around impact might account for the parallel universe that I identified in Committee, in which the Minister’s picture of detention and its effects is light years away from that documented by organisations on the ground.

Another example is the Minister’s claim in Committee —to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has already referred—that

“Removal from association is only ever used as a last resort when other options have been tried … but failed, and only as an effective response to the safety and security risk presented by an individual in detention”.—[Official Report, 14/9/20; col. 1020.]


However, as Medical Justice—which I thank for its support—points out, over 900 incidents of segregation in 2019 alone does not seem indicative of a “last resort”. Medical Justice maintains that it is simply not true that segregation is used only in response to security and safety risks. It has experience of it being used as punishment or to manage detainees with mental health problems, of whom far too many are still being detained. In doing so, segregation is aggravating these mental health problems, which could also have been aggravated by the lack of a time limit, and it is diverting attention and energy from addressing underlying systemic problems that contribute to the behaviour that prompts segregation.

I will ask a couple of data-related questions. I thank the Minister for the management information she gave me on the use of association between January and March 2020. However, I also asked why the Home Office does not routinely publish these data once they can be treated as official. I would be grateful if she could look into this, perhaps, in the interests of transparency. I also thank her for the information on female detainees in her letter to Peers, but those data go up to only 30 June—they are the latest published quarterly statistics—which is three months ago. Is management information available on the current situation; namely, on how many women are currently detained in Dungavel House, Colnbrook, IRCs or prison?

In conclusion, I will argue that nothing in the Minister’s response in Committee or her subsequent letter makes me rethink my support for the amendment, and I hope that others will join me in voting for it in the name of fairness, humanity and the compassion that is supposed to be the future hallmark of Home Office culture.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I add my strong support to this group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, argued cogently—as she always does—in support of these changes to the Bill.

In her helpful letter, the Minister suggests that

“Detention is used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary.”


Detention Action tells a very different story. One of the most important elements of these amendments is that they would end indefinite detention. As someone who worked in mental health services for many years, I am acutely conscious of the appalling consequences of detaining people without any indication of the length of time involved. Many detained indefinitely and for long periods—and, indeed, re-detained—have already suffered severe mental health problems due to their appalling experiences. Even with professional treatment, these problems may take many years to resolve. In my view, it is unforgivable for us, as a nation, to disregard this suffering.

As Detention Action has told us, in a recent case, the High Court found three separate periods of unlawful detention in respect of a vulnerable autistic person, in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. This is a shocking example of what can happen under the current law. The importance of these amendments is that they would prevent that from happening in the future.

I want to put on record that our Minister was wrongly briefed when she suggested that detention of more than 28 days was limited to those who have committed serious offences. In reality, people with no offending history are regularly detained for periods exceeding 28 days—and even re-detained. These amendments would put an end to these unacceptable practices. The right to apply for bail is no solution for these vulnerable people; they do not all have access to professional legal representation, and many do not speak English. Of course, the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems—are the least able to advocate for themselves.

Another crucial element of the amendments is the commitment to ensuring that re-detention cannot happen unless there is a material change in the detained person’s circumstances. The case of Oliver—quoted in Committee —underlines the cruelty of re-detention. Oliver, as noble Lords will remember, suffered with PTSD, having been imprisoned and tortured in his home country and trafficked twice, yet he was re-detained a year after his release from initial detention. How can we do this to such a vulnerable person?

Of course, not all immigrants have a history as bad as Oliver’s but many detainees have experience of torture or ill treatment and have significant and chronic health problems. Noble Lords know that attempted suicides are commonplace in detention centres and actual suicides have been on the increase in recent years. Some 68% of detained immigrants are not removed from the UK. Surely their detention has been pointless and therefore unjustified. As Detention Action argues, the current system is ineffective, inefficient, harmful and costly. We spend £100 million a year on detention. As we emerge from Covid we can ill afford to be throwing money away. This amendment is a gift to the Chancellor. I was pleased to read that the Home Office is considering alternatives to detention. If the Government also want to avoid detention except when it is absolutely necessary, I hope that the Minister will be able to table amendments at Third Reading to achieve the objectives that I believe we all want to achieve.