Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I declare my interests, first in my work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which has already been referred to today, secondly as chair of the Wythenshawe Community Housing Group, and lastly as deputy chair of the Church Commissioners for England, one of the largest owners of farmland in the country. I think I have almost as wide a range of interests as has this extraordinarily diverse and far-reaching Bill.

I am grateful to those noble Lords from across the House who have proposed and supported the amendments in this group and spoken to them so powerfully in this debate. Like others, I am also grateful to the Minister for generously taking time to engage with us last week.

In my short time so far as a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have become accustomed to Ministers telling us that they have sympathy for our position but that the present Bill is not the way to address the matters that concern us—for example, when we tried to look at safety in high buildings on the then Fire Safety Bill. I do not see why we cannot play the same card. We need a separate Bill, one that deals comprehensively with the needs as well as the obligations of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people—not simply legislation that offers fresh and very serious penalties for what may be rather minor infractions. The matters addressed in these clauses would surely be better dealt with in that more balanced context. That would allow Her Majesty’s Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment.

If that is asking too much, the penalties exacted for matters treated in this part of the Bill should at least be proportionate to the offences committed and not excessive. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the principle of lex talionis, set out in the Hebrew scriptures and most commonly referred to as “an eye for an eye”. This was intended never as an endorsement of physical mutilation but as a limit to how severe a sanction should be. It sets a maximum, not a minimum. Put bluntly, no penalty should exceed the seriousness of the offence.

I know from my housing association experience that there are many cases in which someone may inhabit their dwelling in ways that cause nuisance to their neighbours —the way they dispose or do not dispose of rubbish; playing loud music late at night; abusive language; sometimes even damage to neighbours’ properties—but I also know that there are many checks and balances before anyone can be removed from their home. Yet these clauses could allow for confiscation of somebody’s primary or only dwelling on the basis of a very low level of nuisance caused. Unless Amendment 55ZB in my name and those of other noble Lords is accepted, there will be no need to ensure that any alternative accommodation or site is, or rapidly can be made, available. There is some irony that we are debating powers to render families with no place to lay their heads, not even a stable, this close to Christmas. Surely we need to balance these provisions by a limitation on using them in such circumstances.

I know it is not the Minister’s intention to enact disproportionate penalties for minor infringements, so finally I ask her, as well as accepting our Amendment 57, to put on record in this debate that, before the Bill becomes law, suitable statutory guidance will be published to limit the exercise of these powers to that small minority of cases in which a very high threshold of wrongful behaviour has been reached; and, further, that reports on the exercise of these powers will be compiled and made available to your Lordships’ House at least annually, so that we can detect any tendency to abuse the powers that the Bill would enact.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and to support the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Whitaker, on Amendments 57 and 55ZB, to which I am happy to be a signatory along with noble Lords drawn from right across the House.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set out the arguments for Amendment 57 with her usual clarity. At the heart of her remarks is the compelling case for social justice and the upholding of human rights. Suffice it to say that when it comes to inequalities, this group of people—Gypsies, Roma and Travellers—are in a league of their own. That was the conclusion of the March 2019 report of the Women and Equalities Select Committee. I know the Minister has given a great deal of personal attention to this issue; like others, I put on record my gratitude to her. When she comes to reply, I wonder whether she can tell us what account was taken of that report in framing this legislation and what action was taken to develop the cross-departmental strategy it called for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted the absence of any detail still. I simply reinforce her message that the Government should publish and allow a debate on the strategy before implementing Part 4, or at least give a clear commitment as to when the strategy will be published. No doubt Covid will be prayed in aid to justify the delay but, even allowing for Covid, more than two years is simply too long. After all, those same constraints did not prevent the department coming forward with this change of law—or, for that matter, this entirely new Act of Parliament.

I will say a few words in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who in her admirable way has pursued this issue over so long and has encouraged so many of us to join the all-party parliamentary group in which she plays such a leading role. She has rightly pointed to the absence of sites—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. How we respond to that is surely about whether to criminalise or incentivise local authorities to do something about it.

The greatly missed Lord Avebury promoted the Caravan Sites Act 1968. As a young city councillor in Liverpool in 1973, I, along with others—some of whom are in the Chamber this evening—pressed for the city council to do something about that Act. We pushed for the opening of a permanent site for Travellers. It is situated in Oil Street, in Tara Park. The Act led to many new sites, but its repeal in 1994 disincentivised provision, and there are now some 1,696 households on the waiting list for permanent pitches in England, while the last funding round secured resources for just two transit sites.

The civilised answer is to make provision, not to introduce draconian, criminalising legislation based on some very dubious legal principles, which seem to me to run contrary to human rights obligations and our duties to contest bigotry and prejudice with solutions—points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s barometer of prejudice, 44% of those surveyed expressed hostile and openly negative feelings towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. We should beware of doing anything to reinforce such prejudice and the old tropes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, reminded us of where prejudice can lead. On 2 August each year, the day on which we recall the Roma genocide, I am always struck that on that very day in 1944 the Gypsy family camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the German Nazi concentration camps in the then occupied Poland, was liquidated. It is sometimes suggested that, during the Holocaust, half a million Roma and Sinti perished. At the time of the liberation of Auschwitz, just four Roma remained alive.

In our generation, it is down to us to guard against prejudice, which—I know the Minister would agree—can so easily morph into something worse. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is right to draw attention to the obvious and inevitable violation of human rights that will occur if this clause remains unamended. As the Bill stands, it both criminalises people and deprives them of their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires respect for their homes—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—and their private and family life, which by law includes respect for their traditional ways of life. As long ago as 2001, the ECHR ruled that there was

“a positive obligation on Contracting States by virtue of Article 8 to facilitate the Gypsy way of life.”

I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how this provision achieves that objective.

Since 1995 the UK has been a signatory to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Article 5 of which says:

“The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture”.


It is impossible to see how this legislation honours that obligation.

Before Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, along with myself, published an article in the House magazine pointing out that the way of life lived by the Roma, the Gypsies and the Travellers stretches back half a millennium, long before the enactment of the Enclosure Acts and the agricultural revolution. In this Bill, we intend to overturn the practice of centuries and criminalise trespass and enable the police to seize vehicles, as we have heard, and homes. Imagine the impact on the children of these families as they watch their parents’ possessions sequestrated and their families evicted—and this could be in the very depths of winter.

These amendments point to rank discrimination and are an attack on a way of life. Adequate accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers is a better, more civilised and more humane way to proceed, rather than locking people into endless cycles of criminalisation and evictions. If this amendment is taken to a vote by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, I for one will certainly go into the Division Lobby to support her.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, I first of all apologise that I was unable to be here for the Committee on this Bill because of the difficulties of the rail link from Salisbury, which Members will recall. I thank the Minister for making time available to discuss these amendments and this general area. I wish to speak specifically to Amendment 55ZB, which was so well proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has done great work in this area, and Amendment 57, where, similarly, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, proposed it so effectively.

I oppose the provisions on the criminalisation of trespass and Part 4 in general. I do so for several very practical reasons, which I will deal with. First and foremost, it does not deal with the root of the problem: the massive undersupply of sites for Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. I recall this from when I was a Minister; one has only to see around the country the lack of supply of places to know that this is true. I anticipate that the Minister will probably say—because it will be in the brief—that there is a great supply of private places. That is true, but that is a bit like arguing that families on moderate income should be reassured by hotel places in London because there is always a suite available in the Ritz or the Savoy. It does not answer the basic point about the lack of local authority sites. Were they available, this problem would melt away like snow in springtime. That is my first basic point. I do not understand why an attempt has not been made first—before bringing this legislation forward—to deal with that planning aspect and bring legislation forward on that point, as other noble Lords have said.

The second basic point I want to come to is whether this will make any difference. We have heard from many noble Lords that the police are against this provision—they know very well that it will make no difference. People—victims, I would say—will be moved from site A to site B, then from site B to site C and so on, all the way through to site Z and then back again. It is pointless; it is fruitless; it is costly; it is divisive; it is draconian. We should drop it. It does not help the situation, and it will lead to the police being put in a difficult position in relation to legislation that they do not want. I join other Members in saying that there are many local authorities from across the political spectrum that have come forward with proposals. We have heard about Leeds, but it is true also of Fenland, in Cambridgeshire, which has come up with imaginative proposals for dealing with the shortage of sites. Local authorities should be incentivised across the country to deal with this deep-seated problem.

My third reason for opposing this legislation is perhaps at the root of my real objection, and that is that there is something dreadfully un-British about this. It seems to home in on a community that is, in many ways, the lost minority and lost in plain sight. We have heard reference to the committee on equalities, which presented a report, and what it said was reinforced by the race disparity audit, which was a great initiative undertaken by Theresa May and which led to the talk of this strategy. Indeed, there were meetings: taking it forward for education was Nadhim Zahawi, as a junior Minister, and for health, Jackie Doyle-Price; there were representatives from the Home Office, such as, if I am not mistaken, the then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, and representatives from justice, pensions and so on. All committees were represented in taking this strategy for legislation forward. I wonder what has happened to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I thank the Minister. I hope she will read Hansard carefully in the morning. She will see that I did not equate this Bill with what happened in that period. I said that, when prejudice is inflamed, it can morph into terrible things; historically, we know that to be true. That is all that I said—I did not say that that is what the Government are doing. I do not like what the Government are doing in Part 4. I support the amendment, and I gave very good reasons for that.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord thinks that I was referring to him. I said that the comments of noble Lords who equated this with the atrocities of Nazi Germany were, quite frankly, disgraceful. I did not name him. It is interesting that he thinks it might have been him to whom I was referring.

We have brought forward the measures in Part 4 because we understand the challenges that many locations across the country face when individuals cause significant damage, disruption or distress to communities, businesses and landowners. It is important to remember why we are introducing a new offence: to tackle individuals who cause significant harm. This could include unauthorised encampments within urban areas set up in local parks, car parks or on local sports fields. It could include fly-camping which is a huge problem within national parks and our natural beauty spots, where people park cars, campervans or motorhomes on land without permission and damage the land.

Refugees: Status

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I certainly concur with my noble friend that not only are migration patterns changing because of the nature of access to travel but that the figures all over the world are massively increasing from what they were. Renegotiation of the 1951 convention is a bit above my pay grade, but I certainly say that this country has always tried to give refuge to those most in need. To that end, we have been extremely generous.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, given that geography alone means that the UK will rarely be the first safe country an asylum seeker has reached, could we not at least designate especially vulnerable groups of people, such as Yazidis subject to genocide, or Afghan women judges, 60 of whom have been given temporary refuge in Europe, to have their asylum applications processed at our embassies and, in addition, ensure that Afghans with UK evacuation letters, including five women judges who are now in Greece and have been waiting for weeks, are now transferred to the United Kingdom without any further delays?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will work backwards through that question. The noble Lord mentioned Afghan judges. They are among those who have been granted leave to come to this country The UK Government—the MoD, the Home Office and the Foreign Office—are doing all they can to enable people who need our refuge to come here. The noble Lord also mentioned some very vulnerable groups, including the Yazidis. Of course, our immigration system is based on need. I will certainly take back his point about the embassies. He and I have discussed this in the past.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

This unhappy episode certainly does not build trust. It compounds the sense that, going forward, we need answers—and quickly. But there is a way forward. In order for me not to push my amendment, I ask the Minister, for whom I have great respect, to make two central commitments to doing what I strongly believe the Government need to do. First, I ask that the provision in the online harms Bill for addressing commercial pornographic websites be as robust as those in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. These provisions must fully engage pornographic websites showing both non-user-generated and user-generated pornography, and provide enforcement mechanisms through IP blocking that are as robust and accessible as those in Part 3. Secondly, given that the online harms Bill still has not been published and there is very little chance that it will protect children from exposure to online pornography —including pornography depicting rough sex acts—for at least another two years and probably more, I ask the Government now to implement Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act as an interim measure to protect our children in the long term. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in returning to an issue that I raised at Second Reading, it is a particular pleasure to support Amendment 177A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I support what she said about the protection of children and young people and the harmful effects on their formative influences to which they are exposed. She said it so eloquently and powerfully; I think the whole House will be deeply appreciative of that.

In 1994, while a Member of another place, I tabled an amendment to the then criminal justice Bill. It set out to make it an offence to show gratuitously violent videos to children. At the time, against the opposition of the Home Office, it was supported by 80 Conservative Members of Parliament—including Sir Ivan Lawrence, then chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs—along with colleagues from all sides of the House and the Labour Front Bench; the shadow Home Secretary at the time was Tony Blair MP. After facing the prospect of defeat, the Government agreed to introduce an amendment in your Lordships’ House and the law was changed.

One of the things that united left, right and centre was the publication of a report by a group of 25 leading child psychologists who said that they had been, in their words, “naive” in denying a link between violent videos and violence by youngsters. The report was led by Professor Elizabeth Newson, an eminent psychologist and head of Nottingham University’s child development research unit, and was drawn up in the aftermath of James Bulger’s murder by two 10 year-old boys. At the boys’ trial, the judge said that their actions might have been encouraged by scenes in the horror film “Child’s Play 3”.

In two days’ time, on 12 February, it will be 28 years since the tragic death of James Bulger. Although I had raised the issue of the link between gratuitously violent material and behaviour prior to James’s death, what happened there in Liverpool, the city which included my parliamentary constituency when I served in another place, no doubt caused a proper, detailed examination of the factors which led to his appalling murder.

I last referred to those events in your Lordships’ House four years ago next month, on 20 March 2017, when I spoke in the debate on age verification of pornographic websites. It is with some sadness that, in intervening to support the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I still feel it necessary to argue the case for mitigating the effects and impact of graphic imagery on children and young people. I said:

“The evidence of the damage being done to children and young people through easy access to pornography is deeply disturbing and should give us all pause.”—[Official Report, 20/3/17; col. 21.]


More importantly, I quoted the then Justice Minister, who said that the internet was,

“driving greater access to more worrying imagery online. In the extreme, the sexualisation of youth is manifesting itself in younger conviction ages for rape”.

Given that statement, and the comments of the Joint Select Committee which considered the draft Domestic Abuse Bill about the distortion of relationships engendered by violent imagery—to which I referred at Second Reading —the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, should be accepted by the Government and the House. It is long overdue.

The Government argue for an evidence-based approach to making policy. Four years ago, the Government and Parliament were of the view that children and young people needed to be protected from graphic and distorting images. The links between such imagery and domestic violence were raised in the debate on 20 March 2017 by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Paddick. Yet the seminal legislation that we debated and passed then has not been implemented. As we have heard, during the past four years, notwithstanding the will of Parliament expressed in the Digital Economy Act 2017, a whole cohort of teenagers has been growing up without any requirement for the relevant websites to reduce access to those under 18.

In an article published online on 21 January 2021, the magazine Teen Vogue implied that:

“Porn that portrays nonconsensual sex, for instance, isn’t necessarily misogynist if it centers all characters’ pleasure and agency.”


I hope your Lordships will allow what is being said there to sink in. There was an outcry and the article now refers instead to:

“Porn that portrays fantasies about nonconsensual sex”.


We are having this debate just a few days after last week’s UK Sexual Abuse & Sexual Violence Awareness Week. I am not convinced that women who have suffered rape or other sexual violence will agree that changing the wording to refer to fantasies is sufficient to reduce the harm that those messages give.

Noble Lords will remember that at Second Reading, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, I asked the Government about research that they had commissioned on

“exploring legal pornography use and its influence on harmful behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls”.

It was due to have been published in autumn 2019, but was actually published on 15 January—last month. Of course I welcome this, but find myself extremely disappointed in three ways. First, when Mrs Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, raised the publication of this research last summer, the Minister in the other place reassured her that the publication would be “soon”. In reality, it took another six months. Secondly, the published reports make it plain that the research was concluded in February 2020. It should have shed light on the Bill before us today, both when it was being debated in another place and during our own Second Reading. Thirdly, although I asked the Government Front Bench specifically about this research on Second Reading, the subsequent letter to Peers, dated 11 days after the publication of the research, did not mention it.

The truth is that the reports were published very quietly. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I know of them only by chance; in my case, a friend accidentally stumbled on them and sent them to me. Perhaps I can be forgiven for thinking that the Government, while recognising that they had to publish these taxpayer-funded reports, rather hoped that no one would notice them. There has certainly been zero media pick-up, although I hope that will change thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

After our next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, I will be calling the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for raising this crucial issue. There are four amendments in this group, and I would like to speak to Amendments 15 and 172.

Amendment 15 underlines the importance that the noble Baroness has rightly attached to recognising in the Bill the developing child in the womb. Amendment 172 seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to make provisions for publicly funded trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work to be made available to all parents of children aged under two years old, where those children are victims of or otherwise affected by domestic abuse.

In parentheses, I also support Amendments 20 and 179 relating to the functions and powers of the domestic abuse commissioner and the Secretary of State.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, reminded us, at Second Reading the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said—and I wholeheartedly agree with her—

“No age group has been left out of the debate, including the unborn child and the foetus”.—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 124.]


She went on, though, to say that noble Lords

“rightly drew attention to the devastating impact that domestic abuse can have on children and young people. I talked about the foetus earlier—those adverse impacts start when that child is in the womb. Growing up in a household of fear and intimidation can impact children’s health, well-being and development, with lasting effects into adulthood—in fact, all their lives.”—[Official Report, 5/1/21; col. 129.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is undoubtedly right. Her words reinforce the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, about the importance of naming the unborn in the Bill, which is what Amendment 15 seeks to do.

As it stands, the Bill’s definition of children does not adequately capture the child in the womb or acknowledge that they too can be victims of domestic abuse. As Amendment 15 recognises, and as other noble Lords have said, there are currently significant baby blind spots in the legislation; “a child”, as a catch-all term, does not adequately encapsulate the unborn’s unique experience of abuse in utero.

As the Bill stands, there is no requirement on the commissioner to encourage best practice in the identification of domestic abuse affecting the unborn, and likewise no requirement on the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how domestic abuse affects the unborn. This lacuna leaves a large gap in our approach to domestic abuse policy. The unborn experience of domestic abuse in utero can live with a person for the rest of their life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, it has been suggested that 30% of domestic abuse begins during pregnancy.

We can come to a fuller understanding of the issue by looking at it from a positive, rather than negative, perspective. I once participated in an inquiry chaired by the late Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, a celebrated Queen’s Counsel and former Attorney-General. The inquiry examined sentience in the womb. It concluded that, rather than being born as a blank slate or the first page of a new book, at birth a newborn baby already has surprisingly extensive experiences of the surrounding world. It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, recount his own personal experience of the impact of an experience he had while in the womb.

Yehudi Menuhin, the renowned violinist who became a Member of your Lordships’ House, once said he first learned his love of music in his mother’s womb. Indeed, his mother was once told, “Madam, your womb is a veritable conservatoire.” Significant research has shown that listening to and experiencing music stimulates the brain of a baby in the womb and assists the growth of brain structures. Some studies suggest that babies remember music they listened to in the womb for months after being born. Music during pregnancy can have a soothing and uplifting effect on the pregnant woman, but also a positive influence on her unborn child. The womb can be a child’s first concert hall.

Conversely, as intimated during our debate, the Rawlinson inquiry also heard evidence of the effect of negative experiences on the development of a child in the womb and the long-term sequelae. Sadly, the unborn can experience any number of physical traumas when a perpetrator targets the baby violently while still in a mother’s womb. The research also indicates that domestic abuse during pregnancy is associated with poor obstetric outcomes, including low birth weight and pre-term birth.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, intimated, a mother’s emotional state has a direct influence on foetal development. As we have heard, stressors can negatively disrupt neurodevelopment in utero, which in turn impacts the cognitive functioning and emotional regulation of the child. This can be a life sentence. For all these reasons, I hope that Amendment 15 will be accepted.

I will also speak briefly about the importance of Amendment 172 about access to support for parents. The whole Bill is for naught if there are no provisions to allow people to get the help they want and so often desperately need. This admirable legislation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop a step change in our response to domestic abuse. The reality is that the vast majority of victims—an estimated 70%--never set foot in a refuge and remain at home or in alternative housing. They must therefore have access to support that can actually change behaviour. We must recognise that these first days and weeks of life are also an effective time for intervention. Surely we want to be pragmatic with this Bill.

Like others, I was struck by an evaluation of the For Baby’s Sake programme, led by King’s College London, which provides trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic support for parents. It found that support at this first moment—to which we can all point and say, “That is when I began to be me”—can harness parents’ motivation and empower them to make changes for their baby and themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, alluded to this in her excellent contribution earlier.

The Committee should note that a SafeLives report highlights that 80% of survivors said they think interventions for perpetrators are a good idea. A main conclusion from Breaking Down the Barriers: Findings of the National Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence and Multiple Disadvantage was the call from survivors for trauma-informed support to break traumatic cycles.

Trauma-informed and attachment-focused therapeutic work is about meeting parents where they are, not where we would want them to be. This therapeutic work should be publicly funded and accessible to all parents in the same way that we offer universal mental health support through the National Health Service. Amendment 172 is therefore about changing the cultural and social landscape around domestic abuse for the next generation. If we only fund refuge and not intervention, we miss a crucial piece of the puzzle in breaking the cycle of domestic abuse.

Amendments 15 and 172 provide the right architecture and structure, a firmer and surer foundation, for making the womb and early days a less dangerous place in which to be, and they help to create an environment in which the baby is loved, cherished, and nurtured. On a personal level, having recently seen the picture of a new, soon to be born, grandchild in the womb—a magical glimpse, now routinely provided by science, of the infinite beauty represented by the delicate formation of a unique, new human being—I am especially pleased to be able to add my voice to those supporting the noble Baroness and her cross-party supporters.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool. In speaking in support of these amendments, I must declare an interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm.

I would like to reinforce the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on foetal abuse by alcohol during pregnancy. The UK is estimated to have the fourth highest rate of alcohol use during pregnancy in the world, with an estimated 41% of women using alcohol during pregnancy. Alcohol exposure in the womb, particularly in early pregnancy, can result in foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, the severe end of which is foetal alcohol syndrome. It is the most common cause of non-genetic learning disability worldwide, and costs the UK around £2 billion a year. Neurological difficulties affect communication, comprehension, attention span, executive function, social skills and decision-making. The huge impact on the child’s wellbeing, from damage that started long before birth, may also be indicative of alcohol-driven domestic abuse later in life.

The Children’s Commissioner’s 2018 report, A Crying Shame, found,

“over 50,000 children aged 0-5 years old – including around 8,300 babies under 1 – living in households where… domestic violence and adult alcohol or drug dependency, and adult severe mental ill-health”

were present. These three factors are often found together.

Shockingly, 26% of 18 to 25 year-olds in the UK are unaware that it is safest not to drink when pregnant. What are we doing to make new mothers aware of the risk of foetal alcohol syndrome and the need to avoid the unintended domestic abuse of unborn children? What are we doing to help these women? The cyclical link is that they might use alcohol to cope with the abuse they experience but, in the process, they inadvertently damage their baby.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, explained, there is also evidence that a high level of fear in pregnant women can result in a high level of anxiety in the born baby. Although the wording of the amendments might not yet be quite right, the intention behind them must not be lost, and I hope that the Government will discuss better wording for them with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, this Bill touches on many sensitive subjects and as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, has just said, the Minister displayed that sensitivity in a well-judged opening speech. I strongly echo what she had to say about the ruined lives that lie at the heart of this Bill. Legislation may not be a cure-all, but it is always indicative of how seriously we treat and take a subject.

Women are certainly the most at risk of domestic abuse, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said: that migrant women are especially vulnerable. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about their plight when she comes to reply.

In advance of today’s debate, we received a great deal of thoughtful briefing material. In particular, I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to look at the Bar Council’s material, which came yesterday, and the concerns it raises about the distorting consequences of not providing legal aid to both parties, which, inter alia, is related to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, brought before us a few moments ago.

Unspeakable violence directed at whatever gender is never acceptable, and the Bill rightly reflects that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, reminded us, 35% of victims are men and boys. Some 75% of suicides are men, and it would be good to hear what work has been done to establish links between coercive acts, self-harm and, ultimately, suicide, which is now the biggest killer of men under the age of 45.

Many factors shape and drive unspeakable acts of violence and coercive control. I want to talk about one of them, which is related to something the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, said. In June 2019, the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, reporting on the earlier draft domestic abuse Bill, said:

“It is clear that there is still a great deal of work to be done in changing perceptions of what is normal and acceptable behaviour … The cost of domestic abuse to the health service is high. We believe that a campaign to raise awareness and challenge behaviour should be undertaken … Such a campaign could be targeted particularly on online pornography sites.”


The 2018 Women and Equalities Committee inquiry in the other place concluded that there is significant research suggesting that

“there is a relationship between the consumption of pornography and sexist attitudes and sexually aggressive behaviours, including violence.”

The committee urged that:

“The Government should take a … evidence-based approach to addressing the harms of pornography.”


Some 18 months ago the Government responded by commissioning a report that, six months back, they said would be published “soon”. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will produce that report before Committee stage.

This is a pressing matter because last month the Government announced their plans for regulating online harms and dropped the bombshell that, having previously made a manifesto promise to protect children from accessing pornographic websites in the round, they would now seek to protect children only from user-generated pornography. Other commercial pornographic websites will be outside the scope of the online harms Bill. This will fail to get to the root of this problem, and to cut off at source the root of a significant source of material that elevates the use of violence against other human beings.

Concerns about the links between domestic violence and pornography were raised when we debated the Digital Economy Bill back in 2017. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss was one of those who spoke in that debate—we will hear from her later—as was the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I commend the debate to the Minister’s attention. Were we to legislate in that area it would be one of the best ways to tackle and take action to challenge and curtail domestic violence, and to combat its malign effects on so many women, men and children.

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

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 9th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In which case, I shall call the speakers listed, the first of whom is the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. When we travel on the London Tube, there is a warning to “mind the gap”. In their contributions, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have said that there is potentially a gap in provision between Dublin III and whatever is brought forward for January of next year. It is right that we should mind that gap.

On 21 March 2016, by a margin of 306 votes to 204, your Lordships carried an amendment on unaccompanied child refugees. Four years later, the noble lord, Lord Dubs, valiantly keeps us focused on the plight of refugee children. Four years ago, the noble Lord asked me to be a signatory to what in shorthand became known as the Dubs amendment. I readily agreed. I said at that time that the repeated use of the argument about the so-called pull factors—some of which were mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—cannot, in the case of children, outweigh our duty to do all in our power to safeguard and save any child at risk. Not to do so would leave a lasting stain on our reputation.

In the four years since we first considered the Dubs amendment, we have seen shocking reports of children dying, abandoned, disappearing, trafficked or exploited during perilous journeys. The recent death of two little children in the English Channel, after their boat capsized, simply underlines yet again why it is crucial that we find these safe and legal routes, and long-term solutions that hit hard the criminal gangs that profiteer and exploit desperation, while tackling the root causes that create such phenomenal displacement.

In 2015, we were all deeply affected by the harrowing picture of a little Syrian toddler, washed up like so much flotsam and jetsam on a beach near Bodrum. The tragic deaths of a five year-old and an eight year-old in the English Channel starkly remind us that little has changed since then.

The Dubs amendment will not save the life of every child. Family reunions provided for in the Dublin III regulation are, at best, a safety net. But its absence after 31 December—the gap mentioned—could make a bad and tragic situation even worse.

Against this background, the House of Commons has once again returned this amendment to your Lordships House. I know that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, believes that the plight of children should be a top-tier priority for the Government—in her remarks a few moments ago, she used the phrase “a fundamental tenet”. She is justifiably proud of the help we have given. Thanks to parliamentary pressure, the Government have been able to tell a better story today than might otherwise have been the case. Surely that shows the importance of parliamentary debates such as this. However, she must also accept that the talk and rhetoric from others of nets and water canon to disable or push back boats and of the use of oil rigs or remote islands to lock up migrants, and the absence of any international initiative—ideally led by the United Kingdom—to tackle the root causes, are deeply dispiriting.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, of the 79.5 million people around the world who have been forced to flee their homes, nearly 26 million are refugees. The UNHCR estimates that 40% are children and 68% come from just five countries. It cannot be beyond our wit—our collective genius—to drive this issue to the top of Governments’ agendas. Even if they do not accept that there are altruistic and humanitarian reasons to act, there are plenty of self-interested reasons why they should do so.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us, today we commemorate the anniversary of Kristallnacht—the night of broken glass—which included the destruction of 267 synagogues. Eleanor Rathbone MP established the Parliamentary Committee on Refugees. Two years later, on 10 July 1940, in a six-hour debate, she intervened on no fewer than 20 occasions to insist that Britain had a duty of care to the refugees being hunted down by the Nazis. She said that a nation had an obligation to give succour to those fleeing persecution—in her words,

“not only in the interests of humanity and of the refugees, but in the interests of security itself”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/1940; col. 1212.]

She said that discussions about asylum seekers and refugees

“always begin with an acknowledgement of the terrible nature of the problem and expressions of sympathy with the victims. Then comes a tribute to the work of the voluntary organisations. Then some account of the small leisurely steps taken by the Government. Next, a recital of the obstacles—fear of anti-semitism, or the jealousy of the unemployed, or of encouraging other nations to offload their Jews on to us”.

In 2020, nothing much has changed, and it is hard not to see the parallels.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was one of the few rescued by Kindertransport, and his commendable determination for us to remain focused on the needs of refugee children was born in those shocking times.

The clock is ticking towards 31 December. The Government’s amendment legislates for a review on safe and legal routes in the new year, including specifically on family reunion. I welcome that, but, on 1 January, children will potentially have impaired access to family reunion, and many may be left stranded alone in Europe. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, adds a requirement that current family reunion laws are kept until the review and report are complete, so that no child loses out from accessing this vital safe and legal route.

Like the noble Lord, I am pleased by the spirt and tone of everything which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said this afternoon. However, I would prefer to see this written in the Bill, and I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—metaphorically anyway—into the Lobby and vote to send this back to the Commons one final time if he does not believe that the Government’s assurances go far enough.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, safe routes are needed now. We know that people will not and cannot wait. And who can blame them?

I want to question the Minister about the review, particularly to seek an assurance about one aspect. Proposed new subsection (1) in the amendment refers to the review of ways in which protection claimants can enter the UK lawfully. This suggests that the review is to be limited to considering existing ways, when what is needed are proposals to enable safe mechanisms for family reunion without the current hurdles and restrictions. Siblings must be able to reunite and close family members—not only parents—able to sponsor entry without having to find fees or demonstrate that they have the means to look after the child.

I am concerned that there is no stated objective for the review; that seems to be missing. Also missing, as the right reverend Prelate has said, is a timetable for the completion of the review. The three months mentioned is the period within which the Government are to give further details. Can the Minister help us with the wider timetable and consultation, which surely needs to be wider than just unaccompanied children?

Reference has been made to the use of guidance. Can guidance achieve what is proposed? It cannot override the rules. I endorse and support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the importance of seeing drafts both of rules and guidance. Parliamentarians can then have input and amendments can be gently suggested, if not formally proposed. We cannot do this with unamendable rules.

It is beyond me that what is necessary now is to show

“serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”,

in the words of the rules. Putting it that way round, rather than the converse, has always seemed perverse to me. So, too, is the policy that an application under Article 8 of the European convention, on the right to family life, will not succeed unless there are “exceptional circumstances” with refusal resulting in “unjustifiably harsh consequences”.

On the timetable again, one of the government amendments refers to two months from the date of commencement, which is beyond the end of the year. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be no lacuna as a result and that work on plugging the gap, as it were, will start immediately and apply notwithstanding the commencement date? If there needs to be a change, can it be made in the Commons? I appreciate that that would require the Bill to go back to the Commons.

In practice, it is very difficult to show that a child is in an unsafe environment. Other current problems that need to be considered are getting a child to a visa application centre to make an application under the rules, and the fees which, under one of the paragraphs of the rules, are well over £3,000. I make these perhaps slightly random points because, alone, they show the importance of consultation on the whole situation.

The Minister in the Commons referred to

“dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/20; col. 182.]

I stress “unnecessary”. Would the crossings be made if they were? And was it appropriate to refer to lives lost and profit made by criminals as if they were of equal weight?

The noble Baroness referred to bilaterals. If she can give us an update, it would be welcome, but I appreciate that it may be difficult to refer to negotiations with the EU at the moment. Bilaterals would have to come after the end of the year, but we should not depend on them being in place for some time yet.

I realise that I am not taking my cue from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as I should, who always succeeds in using the most moderate language. He started by welcoming Amendment 4C, so I will end by confirming that these Benches are pleased that he has again pointed the way forward. We support him. If he decides to divide, we will certainly go with him. In any event, like him, we will continue to seek a much more satisfactory arrangement for asylum seekers, who want the most natural thing in the world: to be with their family.

Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs of their decision to appeal the decision of the High Court on 19 December 2019 in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens versus Home Office.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we do not comment on ongoing litigation. Administrative costs are not recorded against particular legal cases, and as the litigation is ongoing we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of the legal costs at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, is it not passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Immigration Act 2014 allowed for the review of fees. I can give the noble Lord a general figure, which is that just over £2 billion was generated from visa, immigration and nationality income and passport fees in 2019-20. The cost of BICS, the borders, immigration and citizenship system, was £3.18 billion.

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

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the Bill is about ending free movement. From these Benches, we are no more enthusiastic about that than when the Bill started; if anything, perhaps less so, particularly because the debates have vividly demonstrated the impact on UK citizens resident in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.

In our view, it is not surprising that the opportunity has been taken to pursue issues relating to the ending of free movement that have a wider context—a rather softer way of describing the various amendments that all sailed through the Public Bill Office, which is particularly careful in that regard. All the amendments have been very people-focused, which shows that there is a view of a fair and firm asylum system that is very different from the Government’s.

This is not the moment for long speeches, nor to rehearse the arguments on the amendments that were agreed by our House with such notable support. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, bore with good humour all that was thrown at them, although I do not know whether they took it out on the cat when they got home.

I express my thanks to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere in the House; to the Bill team for all their work; and, since the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has paved the way, to Elizabeth Plummer in our whips’ office, whose assistance on the Bill has been magnificent.

We would like to think that we will not be discussing the various amendments again but I realise that we may well do so. In the meantime, with the obvious caveats, we support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to have been asked to make the concluding Cross-Bench speech at the end of our consideration of the immigration Bill. I thank not only the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their unfailing courtesy and diligence but also the unsung heroes, the Bill team.

During one of my interventions I drew the attention of the House to the tragic story of a Ugandan refugee, Mercy Baguma, who in August was found dead in a Glasgow flat while her one year-old son was found crying beside his mother’s body, weakened from several days of starvation. Stories such as hers and of those caught up in the underlying themes of this Bill—from the vast displacement arising from movement of refugees, to the criminal gangs who profiteer from this tide of human misery and the consequences of the so-called hostile environment—have provided the backdrop to our proceedings.

Last week, by a majority of 101, the House supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on human trafficking. The Commons will now have the opportunity to reconsider that issue and other changes, such as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on physical documentation, which we have incorporated into the Bill. Although the primary purpose, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, is to end the exercise of EU rights of free movement in this country, noble Lords have focused again and again on the position of children and young people of European parentage who were born here or who have grown up here.

In conclusion, I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said from the government Benches: that it would be deeply upsetting for any of us to find our children or grandchildren experiencing this exclusion from their rights to British citizenship. Thanks to the amendments we are sending back down the Corridor, the House of Commons now has the opportunity to correct this profound and damaging injustice, but also to improve the legislation. I hope it will seize the opportunity to do so.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the Member who was lucky enough to speak first on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, I thank those involved with its passage through our House. Indeed, I have spoken on nearly all the Bills that have followed from our exit from the EU, in my position as a former Minister and as a current member of the European Union Committee.

I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams on her handling of the Bill. It is possibly the most challenging of the EU exit Bills, involving very divided opinions across the House; yet, thanks to her good humour and diplomacy, shown again on Amendment 1 today, it has been progressed in a timely and very courteous manner. Thanks are also due to another Minister, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, our social security Minister on this Bill; to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; to all those on these Benches who have spoken and to others across the House; and of course to the excellent Bill team.

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

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment 27 addresses the immediate situation after this Bill becomes law for EU nationals who have experienced being trafficked or exploited. I urge noble Lords to support it, but I will continue to advocate for my Bill as the longer-term solution for all victims of modern slavery. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am very happy to be a co-signatory to Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I remind the House of my non-pecuniary interest as a trustee of the anti-trafficking charity, Arise Foundation.

Characteristically, at midnight last night, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who is in his 88th year, was waiting to move this amendment. If he had been required to, he would have stayed all night, such is his commitment to this cause. I admire him greatly for that. Over several decades, I have been truly fortunate to get to know the noble Lord. I have often found myself on the same side of arguments and deeply admire him on many fronts, not least in the use of his skills as a surgeon in life-saving and life-changing work on the Mercy Ships and his indefatigable efforts to raise in the House the plight of victims of modern slavery. It was also good to see the article on PoliticsHome yesterday by the noble Lord and the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP setting out the case for this amendment.

In 2015, I participated along with many other noble Lords throughout the debates on the Modern Slavery Act and warmly congratulated the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, on pioneering with great skill and determination world-class legislation, a rarity in enjoying bipartisan and bicameral support. Following our debate in Committee on 16 September, I sent our debate on the noble Lord’s earlier amendment to Lady May, as she now is, and received a warm response encouraging us all to continue to champion and speak up for victims of modern slavery.

It has been deeply shocking for us all to see the way in which human traffickers have been fuelling the migrant crisis in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge. We have heard in our debates on amendments to this Bill about how young children have been exploited, used as pawns in a lucrative and sometimes deadly trade. The House will recall that it is less than 12 months since the deaths of 39 Vietnamese people trafficked into Tilbury. I was particularly pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said yesterday in your Lordships’ House about what she and the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, are determined to do to end this murderous trade in human misery.

No one can doubt the vulnerability of victims of trafficking and modern slavery by those who manipulate and exploit them. The Government are right to accept that other vulnerable groups such as refugees have conferred upon them an immigration status that recognises their vulnerability. When someone is recognised as a refugee in the UK, they are offered an initial period of five years’ leave to remain. That is not the case for victims of trafficking. Confirmed non-EU victims of modern slavery are able to apply for asylum, but for completely understandable reasons this option has not been open to EU nationals. That is what this amendment addresses.

After 1 January, EU victims who are trafficked into the UK will not have any free movement rights and, unless the rules change, will not be able to apply for asylum. Their immigration options are therefore slim. I am sure that the Minister will respond by confirming that victims of modern slavery are able to apply for discretionary leave to remain. Currently, non-EU nationals are automatically considered for this discretionary option if no other immigration path is available; EU nationals are not.

Looking into the background for discretionary leave to remain, I realised that the facts of who the individuals are who get such leave, and why, are opaque—to put it mildly. The Home Office has published guidance on when a victim of trafficking can be granted leave to remain. The guidance is totally discretionary and sets out three criteria on which leave to remain can be given. A person may get leave to remain, first, if they are seeking compensation for their exploitation or, secondly, if they are assisting police with criminal investigations. The third criterion is defined as “personal circumstances”. The data on how many individuals receive such discretionary leave and under which of those criteria is far from clear.

In 2017, the then Home Office Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Field, when he was Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. What a pleasure it was to be here today when the noble Lord took his seat; I know that he will bring great commitment to the fight against human trafficking during his time in your Lordships’ House. In that letter, the Minister made some clear statements that DLR was the last resort and given only when there are “exceptional or compelling reasons”. Since then, no DLR data has been published in response to multiple Parliamentary Questions. This point is raised in the report of the organisation, After Exploitation, entitled Hidden Futures, published on 27 September. The report demonstrates that the Government have multiple opportunities to provide the data on the immigration outcomes of victims of trafficking. Only last week, on 29 September, the Government responded to a Parliamentary Question in another place by the Member of Parliament for Nottingham North, saying:

“Numbers and reasons for grants of discretionary leave to remain to victims of modern slavery do not currently form part of modern slavery published statistics.”


Less than a week earlier, on 24 September, the Government said that the data was not held in a reportable format. It begs the question: why not? There is considerable confusion about the immigration outcomes for victims of modern slavery and even about whether there is any data that would give such clarity.

Notwithstanding the Government’s failure to be forthcoming and transparent on this issue, in 2019 the British Red Cross was able to get information through freedom of information requests about the grants of discretionary leave to remain and it published in its report, Hope for the Future, some of its findings. These suggest that between just 8% and 9% of all victims of modern slavery were granted leave to remain between 2015 and 2017. Given the small numbers granted DLR, which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to, and the fact that the individuals who are vulnerable enough to be subject to trafficking are unlikely to be those who meet the requirements of the new points-based immigration system, it is clear to me that Parliament should now act.

Without Amendment 27, European Union nationals who are victims of trafficking will find themselves significantly disadvantaged compared to the status quo. Ending free movement must not be associated with an increase in exploitation. Given that, unlike non-EEA nationals, who are considered automatically, EU nationals will have to apply for discretionary leave to remain and given that so few grants are made, EU nationals who are unable to claim residency and the benefits associated with that immigration status are more likely to find themselves destitute and subject to potential retrafficking.

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

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

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

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 16, to which I am a signatory. I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has become the terrier-in-chief on this issue, and I am grateful to the Minister for making time to discuss this issue with me last Thursday in advance of today’s debate.

Amendment 16, as we have just heard in the noble Baroness’s speech, is modest in its aim, merely requiring the Secretary of State to consult and report to the House upon both awareness of British citizenship and the exercise of the rights that such citizenship confers. I said a lot about citizenship in Committee and why it is a completely separate matter from issues such as immigration and naturalisation. I will not rehearse all those arguments all over again today; suffice it to say that the amendment does nothing to affect those contested issues.

This thoughtful, moderate, reasonable new amendment simply tries to take the debate forward in a constructive and helpful way. It is also in sync and compatible with the rights to British citizenship that were enacted in Part 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981. I shall summarise what the amendment does. Its new clause contains six subsections. Subsection (1) requires the Secretary of State to lay a report. The people who report concerns are the people defined as “relevant persons” in subsection (6)—that is, in summary, people with rights to British citizenship who are losing EU free movement rights in the UK.

Subsection (2) sets out what that report must contain. It must contain an assessment by the Secretary of State of two matters: the level of awareness among people of their rights to British citizenship and the level of exercise of these rights. In making those assessments, the Secretary of State must have regard to several factors identified within subsection (2)(c), each of which concerns barriers to people being able to exercise their statutory rights to British citizenship.

Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to pay particular regard to her equalities duties in producing this report and to make some comparison of the situation of two groups of people with rights to British citizenship: the group of people with rights to British citizenship who are losing EU free movement rights in the UK—this group is the focus of the report required by the amendment—and the group of people with rights to British citizenship who do not have EU free movement rights.

Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to undertake consultation in the preparation of her report. Subsection (5) requires the Secretary of State to give particular attention to the situation of various groups of particularly marginalised children and young people, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; Appendix B provides some case studies relating to those groups of children and young people, similar to those outlined by the noble Baroness; and Subsection (6), which contains definitions, defines children and young people as people under the age of 25.

I shall unpack the amendment in a little more detail. Subsection (2)(c)(i) touches on the impact that fees can have on the rights of citizenship. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the court case in which the High Court found against the Home Office. In earlier proceedings, I mentioned that I had given a witness statement. The Royal Courts of Justice will hear the department’s appeal on 5-7 October, and I understand that the case will be livestreamed.

However, what the Minister can comment on is a reply that she gave me to a Written Question on 10 September. I had asked her about the costs of mounting an appeal, and she replied:

“The information that you have requested on legal and administrative costs is not available”,


and added that

“we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of legal costs.”

I will repeat that:

“we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of legal costs.”

This inability to establish what the legal taximeter is clocking up contrasts starkly with the ability of the Home Office to work out how much it costs to operate this system of fee collection, and which, at over £1,000, the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid rightly said is a prohibitively expensive system. Why is it that we are able to work out how much we can generate in fees above the administrative costs, but cannot work out the costs of fighting legal actions which simply compound one mistaken decision with another? What other litigant would embark on a major legal action without any idea of what it could cost? I am sure that the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which keeps a weather eye on how taxpayers’ money is used, will have something to say about that.

Even more serious, however, is the principle of putting a major financial roadblock in the path of those who need to feel that they belong, that they are part of the web and weave of British society, and that they are true citizens of what is a truly great country. The importance of knowing you belong is something that I know is close to the heart of the Minister; we are at one on that. This amendment would seek an examination of such barriers.

Throughout preceding debates, noble Lords have repeatedly pressed the Government about children’s rights, especially those of looked-after children. Surely their vulnerable and special position alone should justify at least an examination of their special circumstances. Let us recall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has done, that the High Court said that fees cause many children caught up in this fee-generating arrangement to feel

“alienated, excluded, isolated, ‘second best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK”.

We have a duty to address the implications of those words.

To that group I would add another, which is covered in proposed new subsection 3(a) of the amendment: those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. The House will recall that in Committee I raised the position of the Roma—something to which the noble Baroness also referred in her remarks. I would especially draw the Minister’s attention to the position of Roma children, who have been cited by the European Children’s Rights Unit as being especially disadvantaged and at risk.

I truly hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment. I am sure that even if, in the first instance, it was confined to the most at-risk categories, it would represent a good start. Seeking a consultation and a review is not an unreasonable ask. I commend this amendment to the House.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her persistence and dedication to this issue. Her passionate advocacy, particularly for vulnerable children, has always been impressive. I share her concerns.

I must admit that I truly cannot understand why the Government are resisting this extremely modest amendment. Indeed, the problem has been going on for so long, and this amendment is so reasonable in wanting to encourage the Government to agree at least to look at this issue carefully, seriously and thoroughly, that it would seem almost impossible to reject it. Perhaps we will hear from my noble friend the Minister that the Government are indeed minded to look at this more seriously and accept it after all.

The wording could clearly have been much stronger. The strength of feeling across the House at previous stages of the Bill has been clear. Children who have been born here and have the right to citizenship but then have to register to obtain this right, perhaps having to pay significant amounts that they cannot afford, seems to undermine some of the principles on which we base our country and citizenship.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, have described the details of this lengthy amendment. I will not repeat them, but the principles referred to are so important to many individuals in this country, and to their rights as granted to them by Parliament. I find it puzzling, as well as disappointing, to see the Government so far refusing to agree to this.

Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, in its report laid last month entitled Immigration Enforcement, has criticised the inadequacy of information available to my noble friend’s department and called for an urgent report to be carried out. Accepting this amendment could indeed assist the Government in that regard. For example, in one of its recommendations, the Public Accounts Committee says:

“Building on its response to the Windrush lessons learned review, the department should mobilise its evidence base and evaluations to challenge its own assumptions and beliefs about the user experience within the immigration system.”


That is part of what this amendment is attempting to do.

If my noble friend the Minister could accept the thrust of this amendment, and announce this at Third Reading, I believe that many of us on these Benches would be delighted and that there would be support from every side of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has pointed out, it is discriminatory. Non-EU/EEA immigrants will have physical proof. Why should we discriminate? Why can we not let EU/EEA citizens, if they ask for it, have physical proof too? It is what they want. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has said, the costs would be negligible. It is a very modest measure. As the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, pointed out, we are asking only for physical proof to be available on demand. Some people may not ask for it, but supposing they do. Why must we make so many people so unhappy? Let us go with Mill and with liberty. Let us carry this amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on the manner in which they introduced this important Amendment 18. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, grew up in what was my Liverpool constituency; on a day when Liverpool has been licking its wounds, it is especially good to hear a Liverpool voice speaking such common sense, particularly from the Government Benches.

I spoke in Committee in support of the principles outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which underpin Amendment 18. This evening, he has again eloquently reminded us of some of those who will be disadvantaged and worse—as my noble friend Lady Bull has reminded us—should they not be able to access physical documentation. The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Polak, also reminded us that digital systems are far from being infallible. What of those who simply do not have access to the technology, or have never been given access to the skills required to be able to use it? The noble Lord, Lord McNicol, made some telling points, especially about the reasonableness of this very moderate amendment.

In Committee, I specifically referred to the difficulties being faced by Roma travelling people with the digital requirements to which they will be subjected. I was disappointed at earlier stages that more was not said in response. I once again urge the Minister to address the Equality Act requirements to counter the discriminatory disadvantage that Roma will inevitably experience if this option of physical documentation is not made available. However, it is not only Roma. As other noble Lords have said, all of us have received correspondence from people anxious to retain physical documentation.

That brings to my mind a personal experience. My late mother was from a Gaeltacht area, or Irish-speaking area, in the west of Ireland, where, until their early deaths, her parents had worked a small hill farm. When they died, their children were scattered, and my mother emigrated. Her first language was Irish, she had little schooling and no documentation, and she was doing domestic jobs to make a living. Years later, my late father, a Desert Rat, wanted to take her on her first foreign holiday. Obtaining physical documentation was a challenge, although not insuperable. In the course of it, I was surprised by a revealing comment she made: that despite the specific freedoms enjoyed by the English and the Irish in those days to travel freely between both jurisdictions, she had always been worried about having no physical documentation. Happily, that was resolved, and her documents provided me, my children, and now my grandchildren, with the right to Irish as well as British passports—both of which I am proud to have.

I tell this story to illustrate the importance of physical documents to establish who you are and affirm your identity. The noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Polak, as well as other noble Lords, are right to have persisted with their amendment. I hope that, if we have to divide, we will support this amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government will give it further thought and perhaps come back with their own amendment at Third Reading.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

I support the amendment, which was so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and ably supported by those following him, particularly my noble friend Lord Polak.

I would like to tell the story of somebody who would not be affected by this measure, because she is not an EEA citizen. However, she was a victim of modern slavery and got indefinite leave to remain. She applied for British nationality and sent off her passport. That was two years ago, and the Home Office is still trying to make a decision about her case. I am not sure what the problem is, but she was not told about the need for a biometric card, so she does not have one. She cannot get one at the moment because her passport and all her other details are with the Home Office. Despite her status, she is finding it impossible to get a job because employers want to see that biometric card.

As others have said, we have talked about systems being down and about people not having the technology. The technology could be just an iPhone, but not everybody has a mobile phone—I know that pretty much all of us do but not everybody does. If a number is sent by text to a telephone, there are still far too many places in this country where the signal is not strong enough for the message to come through. As a Member of this House, from time to time when I log in, a number is sent to my phone with which I can verify that I am exactly who I say I am, and I can then get on to the Outlook system. Quite recently, I have been in situations in this country where I cannot do that because the telephone signal is not strong enough. Those are all things that we have to bear in mind.

Of course, the human angle is very important. One thing that has not been mentioned, but which I read about, is that one reason the Government do not want to accede to this modest requirement is that it is not secure. I can understand that there is always concern about counterfeiting and so forth, but there are so many things that we issue with physical proof that it should not be beyond the wit of a Government to produce something that is pretty difficult to counterfeit.

If there are concerns about the cost, although this amendment precludes charging, I suggest that a modest charge of £10 or £20 might go towards that. I think that the people who have contacted us would be happy to pay that sort of amount and maybe even a bit more. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so resolute—I could say “obstinate”—on this point, and I am afraid that I have to say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that if, as I hope, the amendment is taken to a Division, I will support it, and I think that it will pass with a very large majority.