Immigration Bill
Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Asylum seekers: permission to work after nine months
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(11) Permission to work for persons seeking asylum must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within nine months of the date on which it was recorded, or
(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that new claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a new claim has not been taken within nine months of the date on which the submissions were recorded.
(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Earl just told the House that he believes the Government’s position strikes the right balance. I hope that, in some fairly brief remarks, I can convince the House that that really is not so.
Unfortunately, because of the procedural timetable used in another place yesterday, it is impossible to find in Hansard any reference whatever to the extensive Committee and Report stage debates we had in your Lordships’ House, and the arguments made in favour of the six-month provision incorporated in the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. It is therefore very difficult to know on what basis the Government have rejected both the six-month amendment and the amendment tabled today, which is an attempt to move a little further in the Government’s direction.
I am, therefore, disappointed that that truncated debate in another place led to the rejection of this proposal. To ask the other place to give further consideration, I have modified the amendment by inserting nine months instead of six. Before turning to its rationale, I declare my non-financial interest as a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside.
The amendment would grant asylum seekers permission to work if their claim has not been determined within the Home Office’s target time of nine months. I will briefly address the arguments made by the Government against the amendment. They have said that the policy will lead to an increase in unfounded applications. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, who is in his place, in responding for the Government repeated their long-held position:
“Earlier access to employment risks making asylum more attractive for those who are otherwise not eligible to work in the UK”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 851.]
However, the Government themselves have conceded that it “may be broadly true” that,
“there is little hard evidence that the change you propose (to allow asylum seekers to work after six months) would result in more asylum applications”.
So nine months would have even less impact on applications, if that is so. In fact, all the available evidence suggests that permission to work does not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. That is reflected in the Home Office’s own research, and was confirmed by a review of the 19 main recipient countries for asylum applications in the OECD in 2011, which concluded that policies which relate the welfare of asylum seekers—for example, permission to work, support levels and access to healthcare—did not have any significant impact on the number of applications made in destination countries.
A total of 24 European Union countries allow asylum seekers to work after nine months or less if a decision has not been made on their asylum application, so what I am proposing is hardly revolutionary or without precedent. Twelve of these countries allow asylum seekers access to the labour market after six months or less of waiting for a decision on their claims. Those countries are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. The vast majority of these countries have had these policies in place for many years and none of them has had to change the policy because of any abuse of the asylum route by economic migrants.
In reality, those motivated to come to the United Kingdom for economic reasons are unlikely to make an asylum application and bring themselves to the attention of the authorities on the basis that they might be able to apply for permission to work after nine months. It does not make any sense, if you think about it. Even if this were the case, they would never have an opportunity to do so as the Home Office decides all straightforward claims within six months. Anyone making an unfounded claim for asylum would probably have this dealt with in a matter of weeks rather than months. It should be stressed that applicants cannot manufacture delays by—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. In response to a Written Question that I tabled in March, I was told that in 2015 of a total of 10,199 asylum claims concluded after six months, fewer than half were well founded. Therefore, the majority of those who are seeking asylum and would therefore be eligible for work after six months on the original amendment would not have made well-founded claims, and so would not have had a reason legitimately to be in this country in the first place.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, if they do not have legitimate reasons to be here, they will be deported in the normal course of events, so that argument does not stack up against the amendment, which encourages people to work rather than rely on state benefits. In other words, it encourages them to do what the noble Lord and Members on his Benches urge people to do—namely, to use their own efforts and resources to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to play their part in society. The figures that the Government gave me in reply to the earlier debates was that at the end of 2015 more than 3,600 asylum seekers were still waiting for more than six months for an initial decision on their claim, and that was despite the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, gave that delays that have happened before have been brought under control.
Returning to my remarks before the intervention, it should be stressed that applicants cannot manufacture delays by not engaging with the process, as they will have their claims refused for non-compliance.
The Government have defended their current policy, which effectively prohibits asylum seekers from working on the basis that asylum seekers are,
“provided with support and accommodation while we determine whether they need our protection and until they have exhausted the right of appeal”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 843.]
Those words, used by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in 2014, were quoted in the Chamber on 20 January. While it is true that asylum seekers are supported, it is highly questionable whether the level of support provided is adequate, as asylum seekers receive just over £5 a day to meet their essential living needs for food, clothing, toiletries and transport to pursue their asylum application. Of course, housing and utility bills are paid for separately for those who need it. An asylum seeker spends an average of around 18 months on Section 95 support. Many asylum seekers who have to survive solely on this level of support for extended periods will suffer a negative impact on their mental and physical health. At the end of 2015, more than 3,500 asylum seekers were still waiting for adjudication and settlement of their cases. In its most recent report on the work of the immigration directorates, the Home Affairs Committee stated that it was,
“concerned that the department may not be able to maintain the service levels that it set itself on initial decisions for new asylum claims within six months. To do so may require further funding and resources”.
Perhaps the noble Earl will comment on that finding in his response.
I have tried to move in the direction of noble Lords who have expressed concern and this is a compromise amendment. It means that the Government would have to significantly miss their target timeframe of six months for making an initial decision on an application before an asylum seeker would be given permission to work. For the small number of people affected, this would be a route out of poverty and an opportunity to restore their dignity by providing for themselves rather than leaving them dependent on handouts from the Government.
Is the current policy fair and proportionate? Is it balanced, in the way that the noble Earl suggested in his preliminary remarks? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said:
“The Government believe that the current policy strikes the right balance. If a claim remains undecided after 12 months for reasons outside their control, the person can apply for permission to work. That is fair and reasonable policy and is consistent with our obligations under EU law. It also assists genuine refugees”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 851.]
The question is: does the Government’s current policy strike the right balance? As matters stand, the UK Government effectively prohibit asylum seekers from ever working, because after 12 months they can apply only for jobs on the shortage occupation list, which are the skilled jobs where there is an identified national shortage. Even if an asylum seeker had the requisite skills for such a job, it is unlikely that they would be able to secure it, as they would have to have their existing qualifications recognised and they may well have become deskilled in the year or more that they have been unemployed. An extended period of exclusion from the labour market can have a long-term impact on a refugee’s ability to find employment. It is no wonder that a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people noted, in January 2013:
“Asylum-seeking parents are prevented from working, leaving families dependent on state support. This means parents are left powerless and lose their skills while children are left without positive role models. The Government’s own research has highlighted that this can lead to high levels of unemployment and under-employment once a family gains refugee status”.
I agree with that.
Early access to employment increases the chances of smooth economic and social integration by allowing refugees to improve their English, to acquire new skills and make new friends and social contacts in the wider community. All of this helps to promote community cohesion. The vast majority of asylum seekers want to work and contribute to society. They are frustrated at being forced to remain idle and dependent on benefits. Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, reducing reliance on the state and reinforcing the principle that we have a duty to work and contribute to society should appeal to all noble Lords, on whatever Benches they sit. The potential financial savings from allowing asylum seekers to work include reduced asylum support costs and increased tax revenue. In addition, asylum seekers will have increased disposable income which they can then spend in the wider economy. There will also be a number of indirect financial savings for statutory and voluntary agencies, including the avoidance of increased physical and mental health problems and the consequential financial cost to the National Health Service.
In conclusion, granting permission to work to asylum seekers who have been waiting for an initial decision for more than nine months will help to avoid the negative impact on asylum seekers of prolonged, forced inactivity and impoverishment and allow them to contribute to the economy. This will deliver financial savings to the Government and taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are working will not need to be supported. Allowing asylum seekers who have been waiting nine months for a decision on their cases to work has all of the benefits that I have been describing. The original amendment, on six months, was supported in your Lordships’ House. In the absence of a debate in another place on that amendment, it is right for this House to press on with this principle today, to give the other place the chance to consider the merits of the argument properly and come to a considered conclusion. I hope those arguments will commend Amendment 59B to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 59B, proposed in lieu of Amendment 59, while slightly less radical than the earlier amendment, would still mean fundamental changes to the government policy of restricting permission to work to those who have been awaiting a decision, through no fault of their own, for 12 months. As the noble Lord reminded us, those allowed to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list introduced in the last Parliament. As I indicated earlier, the Government believe that this is a fair and reasonable policy, and we believe that because of the need to ensure that access to jobs is prioritised for British citizens and those with leave to remain here—including, importantly, refugees.
The new amendment would not only allow asylum seekers to work after only nine months; it would also remove the important caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making. This would benefit those who are responsible for delaying a decision on their claim and purposely frustrate the asylum process simply to gain permission to work or to avoid removal. It would also benefit individuals whose cases were complex for perfectly good reasons, such as those accused of serious criminal acts, including war crimes, where there is an inescapable imperative to investigate the facts before reaching a decision. It would also allow unrestricted access to the labour market—that is to say, not just to jobs on the shortage occupation list—regardless of the interests of British jobseekers. It is a recipe for a free pass into the UK employment pool and that really is not fair to British people competing for the same jobs. In making policy in this area, we have a duty to consider how such policy impacts on society as a whole, not just on asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, rather dismissed the arguments rehearsed by my noble friends Lord Ashton and Lord Bates in earlier stages of the Bill. But there is a danger that the noble Lord’s amendment would serve to encourage unfounded claims from those who do not need protection at all but are simply seeking employment opportunities, knowing that if they play their cards right they can achieve that objective within nine months. These are opportunities for which they would not otherwise be eligible. That cannot be right or acceptable. The shorter the period allowed for in this context, the more we encourage spurious asylum claims of this kind.
Currently, the Immigration Rules allow non-EEA nationals to work here if there is no suitable resident worker available. This gives priority to those filling roles on the shortage occupation list and is subject to numerical limits. If non-EEA nationals could bypass these restrictions by lodging an unfounded asylum claim, this approach would be completely undermined. It could encourage illegal migrants to come here and make an unfounded asylum claim, which would prejudice the position of British people and recognised refugees in our labour market. I say that because if we were to experience an increase in unfounded claims, the knock-on effect would be to delay claims from genuine refugees and undermine our progress towards a fair and efficient asylum system.
There has been much debate about delays in decision-making in the Home Office, but this is no longer an issue. Delays have been brought under control and, in the great majority of cases, asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. Many of those who do not are the complex cases that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord’s amendment carries an increased risk that we will be obliged to give a free pass to people with a criminal record—or, shall I say, with a criminal past. The majority of refugees are granted asylum within six months and once that happens, they have unrestricted access to the labour market.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested that his amendment was a route out of poverty but this suggests that asylum seekers are penniless. While awaiting a decision, they receive free accommodation and a cash allowance to cover essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. While their claim is outstanding they can undertake volunteering activities that can benefit a community, giving them a sense of purpose, and we are exploring ways to support this.
The amendment proposed is unnecessary and I really do not think that the noble Lord has made his case. Asylum seekers do not need to work and what he proposes carries the risk of serious abuse. I firmly believe that the current policy strikes the right balance. As I said earlier, it is fair and reasonable towards genuine asylum seekers; it is consistent with our international obligations; and it takes into account the rights and needs of our society as a whole. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to resist Amendment 59B in lieu.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. However, I would beg the House to consider whether these are convincing arguments. If there were gangs of marauding criminals—or war criminals—seeking jobs in the 24 countries that use either a six-month or a nine-month limit, I think we would have heard about it by now. It is a slightly bizarre argument. If the Government were really concerned that this might be misused, then surely the answer is to engage with the amendment and for the Government to come forward and include exemptions, so that if someone is being prosecuted, they would not qualify for this entitlement. There are ways of dealing with this, if the noble Earl really is serious about it, rather than saying out of hand, “We are not prepared to do what 24 other countries are doing”.
The noble Earl also said that this will deprive British people of jobs. We are talking about a tiny number of people in reality: the 3,600 people I mentioned in my earlier remarks. If the Government are right and are able to deal with these matters in a six-month period, presumably those numbers will continue to reduce.
What is the view of the British public? A survey conducted by the IPPR found that 51% of people in the UK thought that asylum seekers should be allowed to work, with 29% saying they should not. It is not right for the Government to imply that there is hostility in the country. If you were to ask people whether it is right to leave people to survive on £5 a day, I have a pretty shrewd idea of how public opinion would react to that question. If you were to ask them whether it is better for people to scrape along in destitution on £5 a day or to be given support through their own efforts and labours, again I know where public opinion would stand. Of course people believe it is better for people to provide for themselves rather than the state making that provision for them. This is not about free passes; this is about human dignity. It really disturbs me that we are adopting a morality that seems closer to the Victorian approach to the workhouse than to one based on the humane and civilised needs of the 21st century.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, feels unable today to come into the Lobby with us. After all, he was a signatory to this very same amendment, when it provided for six months, when it was before your Lordships’ House on a previous occasion. However, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, and others of your Lordships who encouraged me to retable an amendment today. Having done that, I would like to see the opinion of the House. I hope the House will agree that this amendment should find favour here and go back to another place so that they can have a discussion about its merits, or otherwise, which it was unable to do yesterday. That is a reason, surely, for returning it back down the corridor.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
The noble Earl may remember, or may have been briefed on it, that a meeting was convened by his noble friend Lord Bates when he held ministerial responsibility. We were told during that meeting that to deal with the problem of an employer who might repeat the offence of bringing other people into the country in order to engage in the same level of abuse against them that they did with an earlier employee, some kind of register would be drawn up and there would be a licensing system to prevent that taking place in the future. Can the noble Earl say whether any further thought has been given to that? He is quite right that none of us would want to see the repetition of these offences, but surely a licensing system and register would be the way to prevent that occurring.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I said in my earlier remarks, we have accepted in principle the need to bring employers into the net, if I can put it that way. They have to register when they arrive so that we know who they are and who they are employing. I think we have addressed that point. It is necessary, I agree with the noble Lord, to know who is bringing overseas domestic workers into the country. We will be working through the detail of the registration requirement over the coming weeks and will announce more details in due course. The key purpose will be to allow us to monitor those who bring overseas domestic workers into the UK in the first place.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I will speak only to Motion C, which I support, along with Amendment 85A. On Report, when I abstained on the vote, I suggested that there was a problem with the existing scheme in that detainees have to take the initiative and prove their case for release. I suggested that it would be more proper that,
“the burden should shift to the Home Secretary to prove good reason to extend a period”.—[Official Report, 15/3/16; col. 1792.]
However, I could not support 28 days and suggested an initial period of nine months.
I am satisfied, for my part, that that problem is now properly addressed. As the Minister has explained, the proposed automatic referral at six months operates as a safeguard, because the detainee can of course himself apply for bail at any point. I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that some detainees, because of their mental condition, may well not be in a position to do so, but this safeguard has now been introduced. I further recognise that the tribunals to which application for bail is made apply a presumption in favour of liberty, and that of course the well-known common law principles initially established in the Hardial Singh case continue to apply.
Apropos of that, I will just refer to the decision of the Supreme Court as recently as last week, 20 April, in a case called Nouazli v Secretary of State. The court, giving a single judgment, says at paragraph 67:
“The courts have recognised that there are sound policy reasons for a flexible and fact-sensitive approach. I find nothing in the judgments of the ECtHR which undermines the Hardial Singh approach to the duration of detention”.
It then points that out an earlier Supreme Court decision, in another case referred to the court, observed that the Hardial Singh principles are,
“more favourable to detainees than Strasbourg requires”.
With those various safeguards in place, I support this Motion. I could not support the original amendment, Amendment 84, and I cannot, with respect, support the 56 days now proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. As I said, I initially suggested nine months. The Government have done better at six months, and even that will now be the subject of further review in case it can in future be shortened.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, although I support my noble friend’s amendment, others have spoken to it and I do not wish to be repetitious. I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Report: I was a signatory to her amendment then and I am very happy to support her again today, as I hope the House will.
I simply ask whether the noble and learned Lord, when he replies to the points the noble Baroness has set out, will say what his response is to the call by the Royal College of Midwives today for a review of the whole process, as the noble Baroness said. I remind the House of what Stephen Shaw found in his Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons. He said that,
“detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.
The Royal College of Midwives states:
“Even if a pregnancy is completely healthy and uncomplicated; the dignity and care that should be afforded all pregnant women is compromised by detention”.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. My noble friend Lord Hylton and I visited Yarl’s Wood during the Bill’s passage. We raised the question of pregnant women and, although I personally believe that conditions at Yarl’s Wood have been very significantly improved, it cannot be right to keep pregnant women in any detention centre, and there must be alternatives to that. That is why it is so important to support the noble Baroness’s amendment today.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I find this much more difficult than some noble Lords. Motion C1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would limit immigration detention to 28 days, save in exceptional circumstances. I cannot support that.
Immigration detention is confined to cases where there is a realistic possibility of removing the person concerned from this country within a reasonable time. The fact is that that often takes more than 28 days, because of the need to liaise with the country to which the person is being removed and because, very often, the individual concerned does not co-operate with the process.
Furthermore, the law requires that immigration tribunals refuse bail only in circumstances where there is a risk of the person absconding or some other substantive reason for keeping them in detention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said a few moments ago. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, that many of the persons detained have mental problems and many of them do not speak English, but it is also true that many expert bodies provide much-needed advice and assistance—and properly so—to those who are detained. I cannot support a 28-day absolute limit, saving in exceptional circumstances, because the circumstances that I have outlined are far from exceptional; they are quite standard.
Motion C2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require a bail hearing every 56 days. This is more difficult. I think the Government’s position, approved in the other place yesterday, of a bail hearing every six months, is adequate. The reason is that it is a default provision. It is additional to the right of the individual, advised by all those expert groups, to apply for bail at any time, and to argue at any time that there is now no reasonable possibility of being removed, or that there is no good reason—for example, a fear of absconding—for detention.
I also mention Motions D1 and D2. Motion D1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would prevent the detention of a pregnant woman, save in the most exceptional circumstances. The problem with that is that it would prevent the detention for removal of a woman who arrives at Heathrow Airport with no basis for entry and who can, if she is detained, be removed from this country, and rightly so, within a short period—for example if she is not making an asylum claim. That is not “the most exceptional circumstances”; it is a fairly standard case. Motion D1 would also, as I understand it, prevent in any circumstances the detention of a pregnant woman who is the subject of a deportation order but who refuses to go voluntarily, who can be removed within a very short period. I cannot support that.
Motion D2, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is again more difficult, but I am satisfied on balance that government Motion D is a very substantial change which will protect pregnant women, made in response to the amendment approved by this House.
We ought to bear in mind that what the Government have agreed under subsection (2) of the new provision is that a pregnant woman may not be detained under a relevant deportation power for more than 72 hours or for more than seven days where, and only where, such detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown. The Minister in the other place, Mr James Brokenshire, has responded to the concerns expressed by this House and I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that this amendment, which was approved in the other place, should be approved.
Immigration Bill
Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, Amendment 6 would put into law the recommendation of the Shaw review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, commissioned by the Home Office, that the current presumptive exclusion from detention for pregnant women should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, twice stated that the Government would reflect on the matter by Third Reading. However, he also made it clear that the Government did not consider it appropriate for there to be an absolute rule and gave the example of an irregular migrant—I deliberately do not repeat the term “illegal”, in line with the recent recommendation of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights—who arrives at an airport and can be returned almost immediately. Six days later, the noble and learned Lord sent a detailed letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in which, among other things, he addressed the specific questions that I had raised about the new guidance on the detention of pregnant women. I am grateful to him for that, in particular for his agreement to share a draft of the new operational guidance with detention-related organisations such as Women for Refugee Women, to which I pay tribute for its tireless work on behalf of women in detention.
However, on the underlying question of whether pregnant women should be detained at all, the noble and learned Lord in effect repeated what he said on Report, and I did not see any evidence of the promised further reflection. I had assumed that there would be a further statement giving the Government’s formal response to Shaw’s recommendation, but when none had appeared by yesterday, I realised that it was not to be and therefore thought it important that your Lordships should have the opportunity to consider this question, which inevitably got rather lost in the debates about the wider question of time limits. I apologise that, as a result, the amendment was tabled at the very last minute.
Stephen Shaw was clearly aware of the issue of pregnant women who might not otherwise be returned quickly to their country when appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, he concluded:
“I believe that the Home Office should acknowledge the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the detention of pregnant women does not result in their removal. In practice, pregnant women are very rarely removed from the country, except voluntarily”.
He therefore recommended unequivocally that the presumptive exclusion from detention should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. In doing so, he cited evidence from the Royal College of Midwives, among others, which he said demonstrated the,
“incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.
In a witness statement to the High Court, the director for midwifery at the RCM spelled out the medical reasons why detention is completely inappropriate, particularly for a group of pregnant women with significant or complex health and psychosocial problems in need of higher levels of care than the general population. I here call on the Minister to arrange for a discussion of the issues raised by the detention of pregnant women with the RCM, Medical Justice—which has produced a damning research report on the issue, endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—Women for Refugee Women and organisations working with those who have suffered torture.
Stephen Shaw stands by his recommendation; I heard him speak recently and eloquently in support of it. He spoke of detention’s “undoubted damage to mothers and unborn babies” at a meeting in Parliament hosted by Caroline Spelman MP, who together with me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—who I do not believe is in his place—were members of the parliamentary inquiry into detention which recommended that pregnant women should never be detained for immigration purposes. That inquiry’s recommendations were endorsed by a Motion in the Commons last September. In his address, Mr Shaw drew attention to the Prime Minister’s prisons speech earlier this year, in which he expressed particular concern about the position of mothers and babies in prison.
The argument that the absolute exclusion recommended by Shaw would tie the Government’s hands inappropriately might appear reasonable. The problem is that, in effect, it means no real change from the status quo so roundly criticised by Shaw and others, including HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which told Shaw that there is little to suggest that pregnant women are being detained only in exceptional circumstances, as is supposed to be.
Current Home Office policy already states that the only exception to the general rule that pregnant women should not be detained is when removal is imminent and medical advice does not suggest that the woman concerned will go into labour before her removal date. In spite of this clear policy presumption against detention, in 2014, 99 pregnant women were detained and, in 2015, 69. Of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood during 2014, 30—that is nearly one-third—were held for between one and three months; four for three to six months; and only nine were deported from the UK. I understand that there is a pregnant woman who has been there for just over two months at present.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what additional safeguards the new approach brings. How can he reassure noble Lords that the new policy will mean that pregnant women are detained in only the most exceptional circumstances when the current policy is already supposed to ensure that? I know that the Home Office believes that the new gatekeeping team to be introduced as part of the adults-at-risk approach will introduce a degree of objectivity into detention decision-making and so protect against inappropriate use of detention. However, given that this team will still sit within the Home Office—albeit in a different management chain from those making the decisions—the oversight it provides will clearly fall short of the independent element for detention decision-making that the Shaw review recommended the Home Office should consider.
Returning to the example of the pregnant woman who arrived at the airport with no right of entry, it is the only example we have been given of where an absolute exclusion would cause a problem. So it should be, because it is the only exception that exists at present. I have not seen any evidence as to how often this occurs at present. The fact that nine out of 10 pregnant women held in detention in 2014 were subsequently released back into the community rather than deported suggests that it is rare. ILPA makes the point that if a pregnant woman claims asylum she cannot be returned until her claim is determined in any case.
As Women for Refugee Women argue, refusing to accept Shaw’s clear recommendation of an absolute exclusion from detention on the basis of what would appear to be a small number of cases each year where swift removal might be possible, and when there is clear evidence that allowing decision-makers discretion results in significant numbers of pregnant women being detained in circumstances that are far from exceptional—just one pregnant women being detained when she should not be is one too many—is not sensible, effective or humane policy-making. I hope that even at this late stage the noble and learned Lord will accept Stephen Shaw’s recommendation, which has support across the political spectrum and from a wide range of civil society groups, none of which have been convinced by the Government’s argument against doing so. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I raised this issue in Committee, and then my noble friend Lord Hylton and I took the trouble to go to Yarl’s Wood where we asked questions about the number of pregnant women who had been detained there in the past or might currently be detained. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who did such wonderful work on this Bill in its earlier stages. He commented on a Channel 4 investigation into Yarl’s Wood, which was shown in March 2015, where staff members called the women being held there “animals” and “beasties”. Having watched the programme, the noble Lord said to the House:
“I watched that documentary on Channel 4, and quite frankly I was sickened”.—[Official Report, 28/1/15; col. 103.]
Having been to Yarl’s Wood, I was able to say to the House that many of the staff we met had learned the lessons of that experience, and certainly my noble friend and I were impressed by many of the standards that we saw, but nevertheless we could not be convinced that it could ever be right, as the noble Baroness has just said, to have even one pregnant woman detained in those circumstances.
The Royal College of Midwives has said that:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
In the review referred to by the noble Baroness, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England, Stephen Shaw, says this:
“that detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take … to be a statement of the obvious”.
Alongside that, of course, there are long-standing concerns about the conditions in Yarl’s Wood. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has called it a “place of national concern”. Although I have tried, I hope fairly, to say that conditions have undoubtedly improved, nevertheless it is not a place where pregnant women should be.
The briefing material referred to by the noble Baroness from the organisation Women for Refugee Women poses the question that the Government frequently ask in these circumstances:
“If the government said they were going to stop detaining pregnant women, wouldn’t women lie and say they were pregnant—or get pregnant deliberately—just to avoid detention? And wouldn’t women abscond if they weren’t detained?”.
I agree with the response:
“Establishing if a woman is pregnant or not is very straightforward: she simply needs to take a pregnancy test! The idea that women would get pregnant as a way of avoiding detention is unfounded and based on sexist stereotypes about women and the way they behave”.
To illustrate the strength of that argument, which I agree with, it is perhaps worth mentioning to noble Lords the story of one woman, Priya:
“Priya was trafficked to the UK and forced into prostitution. She has been detained in Yarl’s Wood twice; the second time she was locked up, she was 20 weeks pregnant, and was held in Yarl’s Wood for seven weeks before being released back into the community”.
Picking up her story, she says this:
“I was released after three months in detention, and fell pregnant by my partner, but then I was detained again. Although I had a written report from an expert, the Home Office did not believe that I was trafficked, so my claim was refused and I found myself back in detention. This time around I was in Yarl’s Wood for about seven weeks, and I was 20 weeks pregnant when I arrived.
I only had one hospital appointment while I was there, for my 20 week scan, and even then I was escorted by officers who took me 40 minutes late for my appointment. I felt frustrated that I wasn’t able to speak to the midwife after my scan because there was no time. The officers just took me straight back to Yarl’s Wood instead”.
I will not read the entire testimony to the House, but let me pull out two more sentences:
“The first time I was detained in Yarl’s Wood, I was on medication for sleeping and depression, and I took an overdose because I felt so hopeless … I couldn’t eat the food in the canteen; that made me sick too. A lot of the time I could only really manage milk. It was too far for my partner to visit and, as an asylum seeker as well, he couldn’t afford the travel, but we spoke on the phone every day. I’ve been released now but I still feel depressed”.
Levels of depression in Yarl’s Wood and incidents of self-harm have been very high indeed. The prisons inspectorate report in 2015 found that more than half of women who were detained there felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived, and that there had been 72 incidents of self-harm in the previous six months —a huge rise from the previous inspection. Surely these are circumstances in which we should never put someone who is pregnant.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I understand fully that the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is to reflect the recommendation from Stephen Shaw that pregnant women be absolutely excluded from detention. On this point, I reiterate what I made clear on Report and set out in my letter to the noble Baroness and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. While the Government agree that it is not right to detain pregnant women unless there are exceptional circumstances, it does not consider that an absolute exclusion would be workable.
As has been explained in this House and in another place, it is important that the Government are able to detain, for a short period, those with no right to be in the United Kingdom who refuse to leave voluntarily. For example, if an immediate removal is planned, a short period of detention may be appropriate to facilitate a safe departure where there are absconding risks or other public protection risks to be considered. Furthermore, exempting from detention an individual who has arrived at the border with no right to enter the United Kingdom and who can be put on a return flight quickly would allow pregnant women access to the United Kingdom regardless of their immigration status.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned that 99 pregnant women were detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 and that this number had reduced to 69 in 2015. I am advised that there is, at present, one pregnant woman in Yarl’s Wood. She is a foreign national offender who recently completed an 18-month prison sentence and was detained there on 9 February. A deportation order was signed and removal directions were in place for 3 April. These were later brought forward to 26 March but then deferred because of an asylum claim being made. I am advised that there has now been an application for judicial review as well. Taking that case as an example, if removal ceases to be imminent there is every prospect of release subject to conditions. This is what frequently happens in these circumstances and goes some way to explain why only a small proportion of those actually in detention are subsequently removed from detention and deported. Many are released under condition and their asylum or immigration status is determined subsequently and the matter disposed of in that way.
I stress that we are dealing with cases in which there are exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, observed that uncertainty over immigration status could itself be a source of stress and anxiety for a pregnant woman. That may very well be the case: who could dispute it? But she went on to say that they can be detained for not very good reason. We cannot accept that. Our policy and guidelines are very clear: pregnant women are to be detained only in exceptional circumstances. There is a requirement for that detention in particular and exceptional circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, will be aware that, on Report, I stated that the Government intended to reflect on the detention of pregnant women and would have a considered position by Third Reading. I apologise to the House for the delay in completing that consideration. This is a complex issue and the Government continue to give it serious thought in the context of the work that is under way in developing policy on adults at risk in detention and the further implementation of Stephen Shaw’s report and its recommendations. That is taking time to finalise because the Government do not want to rush what is and is recognised to be a highly important issue. But I assure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government will be making a formal announcement on this matter very shortly. Indeed, the Government expect to make such an announcement in a matter of days.
The announcement will not involve an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women. It will, however, set out a very clear and limited time for detention, only in exceptional circumstances, as it may be applied to pregnant women.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I wonder if the Minister can explain to us why, if it is possible for the Government to make a statement in a few days, it is not possible to make that statement today.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I was in a position to make the statement today, I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that I would do so. He may be familiar with the wheels of government and with the requirement for these matters to be approved at various levels before a final statement is made. If I was in a position to make that statement, I reassure the noble Lord that I would not hesitate to make it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, from these Benches I add our thanks, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who has started on a rather long walk, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said. It is one of a series of admirable walks but the noble Lord’s colleagues have been walking well alongside him, and after him, during the course of the Bill. It feels a little odd to agree that the Bill do now pass, because we are by no means clear what it will provide by the time that it has endured—a word that the noble Lord the Chief Whip might use—ping-pong. We are by no means finished with these issues or with the Bill itself.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, from the Cross Benches, perhaps I can briefly add a remark to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, particularly in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose leave of absence was agreed by the House only yesterday. I was privileged to get to know the noble Lord, Lord Bates, when we served in another place and we remained friends after he left the House of Commons. I was delighted when he was appointed as a Member of your Lordships’ House; I was even more delighted when the Government had the good sense to appoint him as a Minister of the Crown. He has discharged his responsibilities in the House over the passage of time, particularly on the Modern Slavery Act and now on the Immigration Bill, with great distinction. We have huge admiration for the work that he is undertaking, which is to raise the peace pledge and the work of the Red Cross and Save the Children. It touches on many of the issues which we have debated in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Bill so, before the Bill passes, I am sure that we all add our voices to those which have already been raised in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for all that he did.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bates, were he present today, would be touched and gratified by the comments that have been made about him. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken but, more particularly, I am grateful to the Members on both Opposition Benches and the Cross Benches for their constructive role throughout the passage of this Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, has not quite left our Chamber yet. We will be returning to it. Nevertheless, the whole tone of the debate has been extremely positive even when it has been questioning and, from the point of view of the Government’s Benches, I express my gratitude for that.
Syria
Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
It may be possible for me to give a more substantive answer to my noble friend as the days proceed. But he is absolutely right in what he says about our experience of the Russians, which is why I made it clear earlier that we need to judge Russia by its actions and not by its words. President Putin has committed to a political resolution to the conflict through UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Russia’s co-chairmanship of the International Syria Support Group is further evidence of that. President Putin told European leaders on 4 March that he agreed that now was the time to focus on the political process. He backed the timetable agreed in Vienna of a political agreement within six months and a schedule for the preparation of a new constitution and elections within 18 months. We are saying to Russia that it must use its influence to end the conflict once and for all, rather than prolong it, and we hope it chooses to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, reverting to the question that was asked by the noble Baroness from the Opposition Front Bench a few moments ago, has the Minister had a chance to consider the unanimous resolution passed yesterday by the House of Representatives of the American Congress, declaring events to be a genocide, following in the footsteps of both the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Does he not agree that the time now is right for this country to consider passing such a resolution, invoking whatever judicial procedures are necessary to bring that about, and to bring the matter up at the Security Council, pressing for a referral to the International Criminal Court, in the light of the monstrous acts of barbarism by ISIS and others that have taken place?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have noted with deep concern and condemnation the actions to which the noble Lord refers. We have also noted the resolution that he mentioned. As he knows, however, it has been the consistent position of the Government, and that of Governments before us, that any resolution declaring genocide is a matter for the judicial system rather than the Government. But that does not alter the facts on the ground, which are truly dire. We are very concerned that these matters should be given the due weight and prominence that they undoubtedly deserve in the negotiations.
Armed Forces Bill
Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
My Lords, without wishing to preclude further debate on this amendment, it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I confirm the announcement made by my ministerial colleague in another place on 29 February. This was that the option of receiving a lump sum of £140,000 will be extended to veterans in receipt of a war pension for diffuse mesothelioma who were diagnosed before 16 December 2015 and also to those who have yet to have a claim accepted. We listened to the views of parliamentarians and ex-service organisations, particularly the Royal British Legion, which commented that the Government had “done the right thing” in announcing these changes to the compensation pay-out.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord today in Committee. I apologise to the Committee, as, although I attended some of the Second Reading debate, duties elsewhere in the House prevented me from being able to be present for the Minister’s reply. I therefore did not speak at that stage and I crave the indulgence of the Committee in speaking today.
Noble Lords might know that I currently have before the House a Private Member’s Bill which has received a Second Reading. It enjoyed all-party support and would provide funding for research—to which the noble and gallant Lord just referred—into the causes of mesothelioma, a disease which the Government themselves predict will take a further 60,000 British lives. We have the highest incidence of mesothelioma anywhere in the world. No effective treatment exists; there is no cure and once diagnosed, the average patient dies within a few months.
On introducing that Bill, and in relation to our Armed Forces, I said that,
“the failure of the 2014 Act to include provision for compensation for our servicemen who die of mesothelioma is a glaring anomaly. The British Legion, the Royal Navy & Royal Marines Charity, the Royal Navy Royal Marines Widows’ Association, the Royal Naval Association and others all support calls for change”.—[Official Report, 20/11/15; col. 385.]
I contrasted at the time the position of a 63 year-old civilian, who might expect to receive around £180,000 in compensation, compared with a veteran’s entitlement to a year’s worth of war pension which, paid at the maximum rate for a non-married naval veteran, amounts to just £31,000. I argued then that veterans should be offered compensation at least equal to that which the courts and the Government have decided that civilians deserve. The unequal treatment of our servicemen and servicewomen amounts to a serious breach of the Armed Forces covenant, which is supposed to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged because of their service.
I am particularly grateful, therefore, that the department has recognised that this is an anomaly that needs to be rectified, and I strongly welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said to the Committee a few moments ago. Of course, this echoes what his honourable friend in another place, the Parliamentary Undersecretary, recently told the House of Commons. He will also know that there was not just that anomaly: there was an anomaly within the anomaly in that a very small group of people—some 60—had been excluded from the scheme because of the way in which the timeline in the announcement fell. It is particularly good that the noble Earl has been able to say today that that will be removed—that the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord West, has put before the Committee will be realised.
The noble Earl will also know, especially given his previous duties at the Department of Health, that this is a disease that does not have a cure and needs much more basic research. He will also know that until the mid-1960s, blue asbestos—crocidolite—was widely used in the insulation of Royal Navy vessels. In consequence, many Royal Navy personnel have died of mesothelioma, particularly those working in boiler rooms and in engineering trades but also those on board ships during refits.
Professor Julian Peto, in an analysis for the Royal British Legion, estimates that a further 2,500 Royal Navy personnel will die of mesothelioma between now and 2047. On 8 December 2015 I asked the noble Earl in a Parliamentary Question how the Government intend,
“to assist members of the armed forces who are diagnosed with mesothelioma in the future; and what assessment they have made of whether those individuals should receive financial support at least equivalent to that of civilians diagnosed with the disease”.
The noble Earl replied that this was “a complex matter” and that:
“The Department commissioned advice from the Independent Medical Expert Group to look at mesothelioma and the awards paid through the WPS”.
The noble Earl promised an announcement and we have now received that.
However, if I may say so, there were also written into this and other Questions tabled at the time questions about the levels of research and indeed the data collection by the Government. I refer particularly to the comments of Commodore Rhod Palmer, who is a third-generation Royal Navy sailor diagnosed with mesothelioma in April 2015. Incidentally, he is one of those who would have been excluded from the new compensation scheme—the anomaly within the anomaly. He said:
“No amount of money will ever compensate sufferers and their families for a preventable death. However, it is a real breakthrough that the Government will treat all current and future sufferers of mesothelioma exposed to asbestos during their Service under comparable terms as civilians. This payment allows patients with mesothelioma to make arrangements to maximise their quality of life during this terminal illness and to support the family that they leave behind”.
He went on to say:
“Looking to the future, I strongly encourage further funding of research into advancing the treatment of this devastating condition”.
The noble Earl will recall that when he was at the Department of Health I moved an amendment to the Mesothelioma Act to provide financial support from the levy on the insurance industry, which was defeated by a handful of votes. At the time four insurance companies were voluntarily supporting research and the noble Earl believed that many of the other 120 insurance companies covered by the levy would voluntarily join the other four in supporting research into this killer disease. Sadly, I have to inform the noble Earl and the Committee that the opposite has happened, with only two companies now voluntarily supporting research. In supporting this amendment and welcoming this week’s announcement, I ask the noble Earl to study the correspondence that I have sent him today, which includes a letter sent on 18 February to Mr George Osborne, the Chancellor, by Professor Sir Anthony Newman Taylor CBE of Imperial College, urging him to release LIBOR funds—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord West—to help fund a national mesothelioma research centre, which Imperial wishes to create with the National Heart and Lung Institute, the Royal Brompton Hospital, the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden Hospital. Incidentally, in that letter Sir Anthony says that the current rate of death is around 3,000 a year. He says:
“There is an urgent need to find curative treatment for this awful disease”.
He says that modern genetics hold great promise but that,
“sadly, to date, mesothelioma has not been the focus to achieve this at any research centre in the UK, or, as far as I am aware, at any centre worldwide”.
The Committee will recall the decision of the Chancellor to transfer some £35 million from the fines levied on the banks for attempting to manipulate the LIBOR interest rate. That money was transferred to the MoD for use in supporting the Armed Forces community. The proposal from Imperial College would be an imaginative use of some of those funds to help to find cures for a disease which has claimed too many lives among members of our Armed Forces. Following our debate today, therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Earl would write to me with a considered response to Sir Anthony’s initiative.
I shall conclude with a word about data collection within the Armed Forces. In February 2014, I asked the Government,
“how many of the annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma involve former members of the armed forces; what data are kept on the cause of death of former servicemen; and what research they plan to commission into the incidence of mesothelioma amongst former servicemen”.
The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, replied:
“Data on the number of annual fatalities caused by mesothelioma does not identify those who were former members of the Armed Forces … The MOD has no plans to commission research into the incidence of mesothelioma amongst former Service Personnel”.—[Official Report, 11/2/14; col. WA 125-6.]
It is the duty of the department to do that, and it should have such plans. I encourage the noble Earl to revisit this issue. This should not be a case of don’t ask, don’t say. This is about people’s lives and our duty of care towards them. Anecdotes and speculative figures are no substitute for hard-edged data and empirical research, and today I again ask that data collection be instigated.
The noble Lord pursued this argument in June last year when he asked Her Majesty’s Government:
“What data is collected about the incidence of mesothelioma among members of the armed forces; what studies of this issue have been conducted; what estimates they have made of the future incidence of mesothelioma among service men and women and of connected fatalities”.
Those questions still have to be answered, and I hope today’s debate will help us to attend to that. In reply the Minister said:
“The MOD has not conducted studies or research about mesothelioma”.
Surely it is high time it did.
The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine produced an estimate in 2009 that about 2,500 Royal Navy veterans will die from mesothelioma between 2013 and 2047. Surely, we should be commissioning research across the services to establish what the likely incidence will be and, more importantly, what we can do to avert this suffering and these deaths. Surely we should be supporting the work of our scientific community and offering hope to those who have been diagnosed with this horrible disease.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I support the amendments and welcome the statement from the Minister. It was sobering when the noble Lord, Lord West, said at an earlier stage that he and others played snowballs with this material in vessels. Sadly, anybody who comes from an industrial city such as mine with shipyards and other related businesses knows that that was common practice. Dust and fibres were brought into homes on clothing, and that transferred the disease to families, which is why in 2001, when I was Enterprise Minister, I set aside £180 million to cover what we considered to be the compensation required for people who had previously worked for shipyards, which were a nationalised business at the time, to cover deaths to 2050. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has done enormous work on this issue over recent years, says the same thing—that that is the sort of timescale.
What is not mentioned is that while some people think this disease is literally dying out, it may be in this country, but it is not dying out in the world. I am sure we have all seen the horrifying photographs of women in the Indian subcontinent surrounded by mountains of this material which is coming off ships that are being scrapped on beaches in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. They are being dismantled, and these women are sorting this stuff out. It is horrifying to think of the downstream consequences that will produce. Therefore, anybody who thinks this matter is going to be settled in a few years is wrong.
In the amendments in my name in this group I want to draw attention and attempt to raise awareness through publicity among former members of the armed services who may be at risk or who may be susceptible to this disease. It is important that ex-service personnel and their families are made aware of the changes that are now taking place. I was also hoping for a monitoring process to ensure that the comprehensive and prompt detection of cases is also part of it. If people have been exposed, while it may not be currently curable the management of the disease can be handled. I had two neighbours who got this disease; it was a terrible death that they suffered. One of those individuals spent just one year of his entire career in the shipyard, where he, from time to time, went through an area where the electrical materials were being covered in asbestos. One exposure to one fibre, if you are susceptible, can be enough. That was 40 years earlier. It does not discriminate between a person’s normal health, class or physical condition. It is just one of those things: some people are susceptible and others are not. It does not matter whether you are exposed to it for one day or for 20 years. If you are susceptible, you are susceptible.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the progress that has been made by the Government in expanding the scheme. When I supported my noble friend Lord Freud with the Mesothelioma Act, I could not understand why it was not extended to MoD personnel. My question to the Minister is about research. Many noble Lords raised the issue of research, which could have very great benefits. What lines of research are available? When I was with my noble friend Lord Freud, I understood that there were not that many good avenues for research. I have not found any areas of research that might provide some benefits.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Perhaps I can help the noble Earl because his noble friend Lord Prior of Brampton has been extraordinarily helpful on this subject and, as recently as two weeks ago, convened a meeting at the Department of Health which I attended. Many of the people involved in current research into mesothelioma were present. The big issue they all raised was sustained funding. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, knows far more about this than me so I am sure he will deal with it in his reply. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, can be reassured that there is a lot of interest within the research community but it comes down to funding.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, for raising this critical issue. Mesothelioma—as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, outlined—is a devastating disease that changes the lives of not only the people diagnosed with it but also those who care about them: their families and loved ones. The fact that life expectancy after diagnosis can be so tragically short is why it is so important to ensure that we get the support right for those affected by the disease.
The arrangements we announced will give veterans and their families greater control over their finances and choices to suit their individual needs. So, subject to finalising the necessary legislative changes, lump sums of £140,000 will be able to be paid from 11 April 2016. The lump sum will be provided through the well-established war pensions scheme, administered by Defence Business Services Veterans UK. Veterans UK currently prioritises claims for mesothelioma and will continue to do so. Claimants will be given a choice of either the new lump sum or the existing war pension payments. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke about the need to raise awareness and I fully understand that concern. Defence Business Services Veterans UK will write to existing and new war pensions scheme claimants diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma to explain that they have the option of the current payment arrangements or the new lump sum. The Veterans Welfare Service will be on hand to help claimants understand the lump sum option.
Defence Business Services cannot offer independent financial advice, so claimants will be advised to seek independent financial advice and to discuss their decision with their families. In addition to the announcements we made and to raise awareness of the lump sum option, details were given on the same day to ex-service organisations for them to publicise to their members.
On detection and treatment of mesothelioma, when individuals leave the Armed Forces their healthcare needs become the responsibility of the National Health Service. Most people with mesothelioma will therefore see their GP first if they are worried about symptoms. Regrettably, there is no reliable screening test for mesothelioma. The aim of screening is to pick up cancers at an early stage of the disease before symptoms develop. At the moment it can be difficult to diagnose mesothelioma since the usual tests for lung diseases often appear to be negative. Additional monitoring—as proposed in Amendment 22—outside of encouraging those worried about symptoms to contact their GP as early as possible would therefore not help detect cases any earlier.
We are, however, engaging with NHS bodies on disseminating information to GPs, respiratory clinics and other healthcare professionals so that when they treat a veteran with mesothelioma caused by military service they can also direct them to the GOV.UK website and the Veterans UK helpline. They have details of how to make a claim under the war pensions scheme and the new lump sum option. I hope that the Committee will agree that this shows that we are absolutely committed to supporting veterans with mesothelioma, and the wider Armed Forces community.