Police and Crime Commissioners and Panels

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is not for me to comment on individual cases. However, police and crime panels must refer serious complaints and conduct matters to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Panels are responsible for resolving non-serious complaints made about a PCC’s conduct when in office. Ultimate responsibility for handling any complaints they have received remains with the panel.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the likelihood of members of police and crime panels asking difficult questions of police and crime commissioners if they belong to the same political party, bearing in mind that they will want a police and crime commissioner from their own political party to be re-elected? Is it not time to take party politics out of policing?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would argue that it is about public accountability, not party politics. We heard through part 1 of the PCC review that the public cannot always easily access information on how well their force is doing, which is obviously vital if they wish to hold PCCs to account. The review therefore recommended that the specified information order of 2011 was amended to require PCCs to publish additional information. That came into force in May 2021. There is transparency and accountability in the system, and rather more than under the old one.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I join him in paying tribute to the 7,300 victims and survivors who gave testimony to the inquiry, and who have shown great bravery and strength in telling their stories; but there will be many thousands of other victims who did not feel able to come forward. I hope they too will feel that this report is a substantial and serious attempt to understand the extent of institutional failure to protect children over many decades.

This report, seven years in the making, is of immense importance. It offers practical solutions and a solid, rational oversight of a crime that is alternately ignored or sucked into conspiracy theories, which we see through organisations such as QAnon. The report shows the true banality of evil, and it is all the more powerful for that; I pay tribute to Professor Jay for producing it.

This is a report about one of the worst imaginable crimes—about the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and the institutional cover-ups when the abuse came to light. These institutions were there to protect children but instead they acted to protect their own institutional reputations.

The report raises concerns about current child protection arrangements. First, it refers to the explosion in online-facilitated child sexual abuse, including the grooming and rape of children and babies. The Home Secretary did not mention this in his Statement, but can the Minister confirm that the online harms Bill will complete its passage through the Commons next week and be accelerated straight to the House of Lords? Can the Minister also confirm that the National Crime Agency will not have to make the 20% staff cuts which it has been asked to draw up in the recent past?

Secondly, the report says that

“significant reductions in funding of public services”

after 2010 is one of the key factors that has had

“a deleterious impact on responses to child sexual abuse.”

Does the Minister accept the damage done by the scale of the cuts in child protection? What can he say about protecting our existing arrangements in the forthcoming spending review?

Thirdly, the report is clear that organisations still do not take child protection seriously enough. What is the Home Office’s position on a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse? The Labour Party has been calling for it since 2014, and it is worth noting that former Prime Minister Theresa May, who initiated this report, supported this key recommendation of the report.

Fourthly, the report is clear about the failings in the criminal justice system. The charge rate on child sexual abuse has dropped from 32% in 2015 to 12% last year. There are many other examples of failures in the criminal justice system too, but surely child sexual abuse should be the top priority.

Fifthly, the Home Office has responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, yet the independent inspectorate found just last week that they were being placed into unsuitable hotels where the staff did not even have DBS checks, and hundreds of children have gone missing. What action have the Government taken since the Minister saw those reports over the weekend?

This report is clear about the systemic failures, past and present. We in the Labour Party have been part of the problem. My right honourable friend Yvette Cooper apologised on behalf of the Labour Party for its part in that failure. Too often, there has been a deference to power, which has overridden a duty of care.

I spoke about the banality of evil. Noble Lords will know that I sit as a magistrate in London. Magistrates would not normally deal with these types of offences but several times in my experience as a magistrate in family courts, youth courts and adult courts, I have had witnesses and defendants make very serious child sex-related accusations when we were dealing with far lesser charges in the court process. We as a court system need to be alert to people reaching out for help when they are in the court system. We owe it to the thousands of survivors who have spoken out.

I have two final points to make. The first and very important point is that this is not a historical problem; it is happening today. My question to the Minister is: what is being done to ensure that children know where and how to report abuse? Secondly, I repeat a point made by many Members in the other place: can the Minister give an undertaking that there will be regular reports to Parliament on how the Government are implementing the recommendations in the report?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This seven-year Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse sheds light on extraordinary and appalling institutional failings. I want to thank the right honourable Theresa May MP for establishing this inquiry in the first place, as well as Professor Alexis Jay, the chair, and her panel, and, most of all, the survivors and victims who selflessly came forward because they wanted to prevent what had happened to them happening to anyone else.

This is a catalogue of failure to protect children, failure to listen to children and failure to believe children. There must be a change of culture, both in society and in those institutions which put their reputations before protecting children. We on these Benches are also truly sorry. All Governments have failed these survivors and victims, along with the police, health and social services, and local authorities. We have all let down the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

The physical and emotional damage these children have suffered has led to a lifetime of suffering. The Home Secretary said that the perpetrators will be “caught and punished” and that “all available levers” in his power, including the police and criminal justice system will be used to bring offenders to justice. Can I ask the Minister how that will be brought about when there is a lack of police resources, the police are already overstretched and the Crown Prosecution Service does not have enough lawyers? The proportion of criminal cases overall resulting in prosecution is falling and there are serious backlogs in the courts. Will the Government increase the resources to the criminal justice system, for example, those available to the police and Crown Prosecution Service? Will the Government ask those institutions to prioritise child sexual abuse cases?

It is right that we should say sorry to the victims and survivors, but we should also not forget those falsely accused whose lives and reputations were seriously damaged as the police lurched from not doing enough to the opposite extreme. Those making false allegations damaged genuine victims as well as those they wrongly accused. Every victim must be protected, cared for and believed while the police engage in an objective search for the truth.

I shall mention three specific issues. First, will the Government introduce an effective statutory duty to report child sexual abuse?

Secondly, when it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as has already been said, they are being placed in inappropriate accommodation in hotels where those looking after them have not been DBS checked. More than 100 have gone missing. In going missing, they are vulnerable to sexual abuse. In the Home Secretary’s Statement, he said that

“there is no worse dereliction of duty than failing to protect a child”,

but the Home Office has not been protecting these children by allowing them to go missing. What are the Government doing to ensure that this is stopped?

Thirdly, on prosecutions, the Home Secretary talked about the number of convictions for possession of indecent images of children increasing by 39%. But what about the number of children being rescued from abuse and the children in those indecent images? What about the prosecutions of those producing the images, not just those in possession of them?

There were 2 million pages of evidence and 107 recommendations. It will take time to fully process and action all those recommendations. That must not be lost in the current political turmoil. Child sexual exploitation is endemic and increasing. As the report says:

“this is not just a national crisis, but a global one.”

Urgent action is needed to reverse the increasing numbers of children being abused. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will regularly update the House and not wait until all the recommendations have been addressed?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for a large number of questions. I will do my best to get to all of them in the time available.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that of course there are many thousands of other victims. We should be thinking about those who were unable, for whatever reason, to come forward, as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, there were an enormous number of submissions. Once again, I commend those who did and their bravery.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about the Online Safety Bill. I cannot confirm that it will be given expedited progress through this House. However, as the noble Lord noted, I believe it is on Report in the other place next week. We will be working with DCMS, particularly in light of this report.

In terms of cuts to the NCA, I do not know how it will be managing its budget. What I can say is that the Government have committed to a £20 million per annum uplift to that budget, which is going through. Whether that impacts staff numbers I cannot really say. I apologise for not having that information to hand. When we do, I am sure we will be able to come back to the House with it.

The noble Lord also asked me to accept the damage done by cuts. I am afraid I am going to refer back to an answer I gave in a debate last Thursday. The world has changed, and a lot of these crimes have developed as a result of the changes we were just discussing regarding the online world, so the responses will have to change. It would be inappropriate of me to use hindsight to say how the world might have been had things been done in a different way, given that the world has changed enormously. I cannot do that.

A number of questions were asked about the mandatory duty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, called it a statutory duty. This is going to be looked at. The Government have committed to look at all the various remaining recommendations. I remind noble Lords that 107 recommendations were made and 87 have been already actioned because they came out before the publication of the final report. The Government have committed to look at the remaining 20 and respond to them all within the six-month period. That is what we will be doing.

I understand the arguments for mandatory reporting. The inquiry’s report powerfully draws out the systemic failures of institutions to treat child sexual abuse seriously, as both noble Lords have noted, and to properly report allegations of child sexual abuse. As I have just said, we are committed to supporting front-line professionals working with children and to making sure they feel confident and equipped with the right resources and training to identify and respond to concerns or cases of child sexual abuse.

I could go on about this. There is one little caveat I would like to make. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested that the Labour Party was calling for this in 2014. In 2016, there was a consultation on mandatory reporting; I do not know if he remembers that. The evidence was very mixed. There were plenty of principled reasons from high-profile organisations which have a vested interest in this particular subject, which were not necessarily in favour of it. All these things have to be considered, and I am very happy to share those statistics with him afterwards if he would like.

Both noble Lords asked me about the criminal justice system and the various numbers. Again, there were calls for more money which obviously I am unable to answer. However, I can answer a little regarding the numbers of prosecutions and offences committed. I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred to this in his speech. There were 103,496 child offences recorded by the police in the year to March 2022. It is a horrific number and a 16% increase on the previous year to March 2021.

However, there has been an increase, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted, in the number of convictions for indecent images. That number has increased by 39%. It is still a small number; I acknowledge that it is too small. I cannot say what has been happening to the victims of those images. I would like to be able to give him more information. I will investigate and come back to him if I can. I could go on in terms of the numbers, but, frankly, it is pretty horrible, and I think we should move on.

A question on unaccompanied asylum seekers was asked of me. On average, unaccompanied children seeking asylum are moved to long-term care within 15 days of arriving in a hotel. Obviously, we know that more needs to be done. That is why we are working closely with local authorities to increase the number of placements available and offer councils £6,000 for every child they can provide accommodation for. Any child going missing is obviously extremely serious and we work around the clock with the police and local authorities to urgently locate them and ensure that they are safe.

There is a lot of work being done around public awareness already, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred. I am sure I will have an opportunity to go into more detail on precisely what that work is, but he should rest assured that it is happening. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary committed to action all the remaining recommendations, or at least to come back with considered responses to them within the six months mandated by the inquiry. I think I have answered most of the questions. I apologise if I have not, but I shall leave it there.

Violent Crime, Gang Activity and Burglaries

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Snape, for the opportunity to debate these issues. It has been an interesting debate, with much of the focus being on policing and resources.

When I joined the Metropolitan Police, in 1976, sometimes it was very busy, you were rushing from one call to another, and it was difficult to empathise with the third burglary victim you visited that day. At other times, there was time to sit on a wall on a housing estate and talk to the skinheads and punk rockers—I am that old. However, not any more. Police are seriously under-resourced and overstretched. Difficult decisions had to be made to cut costs. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about the very difficult decision that he had to make when he was Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in the light of those cuts. It is very easy for me to say that I would not have made the cuts that he did. I was not the commissioner at the time and so did not have the accounts.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, talked about cuts during the coalition. Cuts were universal during that time, and we have seen the consequences of unfunded public spending. But, as the noble Lord said, the Conservative Government continued to cut after 2015, when the 2015 Liberal Democrat manifesto said that we wanted to increase public spending in line with economic growth.

Public trust and confidence in the police are essential. The significant reductions in—and, in places, almost total absence of—visible policing, with cuts in police community support officers, have not been restored by this Government. There has been decimation of frontline supervision. Putting a chief superintendent in charge of multiple London boroughs, given that I just about managed to effectively lead one London borough, Lambeth, as a commander—the equivalent of an assistant chief constable—illustrates why we have some of the current problems with the Met.

I fear that it has gone past unreasonable cuts to police budgets. There may now be a culture whereby cuts are used as an excuse not to provide the service the public requires and deserves—a policy-driven situation. Police officers on the front line want to give members of the public the service they deserve, but they are unable to. For example, there was a burglary at the block of flats where I live, and there was CCTV footage of the suspect. Nobody came, and the crime was written off within days. I spoke to a serving superintendent who said that many crimes that could have led to prosecutions are now being written off, rather than being investigated.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, have said, this is about the whole criminal justice system, not just the police. When I made an allegation of homophobic abuse, the police were great. It was a hate crime, to which they responded very positively. Then we went to court, my husband was a witness, and we were both treated as though we were the ones on trial—we were the ones in the dock. He is Norwegian, and he says that he would never give evidence in a British court again after the way he was treated. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, are of course far more compelling.

We operate a system of policing by consent, and the support and co-operation of the public are essential to the police operating effectively. That means we have fewer police, unarmed police, who rely on the public being their eyes and ears and dialling 999 when they see something suspicious and giving evidence in court as witnesses, rather than large numbers of armed police officers acting without the active involvement of the public.

If the public do not like and do not trust the police, it is not just a PR disaster; it makes the police ineffective. We cannot have, and do not want, a police officer on every street corner, routinely armed—policing by force rather than by consent—but without the active support of the public, the current system fails.

I will comment briefly on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talking about young people being seen not as criminals but as victims. When I was the police commander in charge of Brixton, I said that if you randomly stopped a young black man in Brixton, they were statistically far more likely to be a victim than a perpetrator of crime. Unfortunately, that was not the way a lot of officers treated them. That is why the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is so important. It is not just about what is morally right about political correctness: it is about treating everyone with dignity and respect, and the fundamental effectiveness of the police, by getting the public on their side.

The Government are clouding the crime figures, claiming that crime is falling, by ignoring the fact that criminals are increasingly moving online, committing telephone fraud by conning vulnerable people—many of them elderly—who can lose their life savings. They are not including these crimes in their publicity. They claim that crime is falling, but when you include online crime, it is actually increasing. But there is hope. The current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Mark Rowley, whom I do not know, seems determined to turn things around. Nationally, the police have committed to attending every burglary. In my opinion, either a forensic examiner or a police officer should attend, but only if it is necessary should they both attend.

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, the issues of gang violence and knife crime are complex and deep-seated. Restoring a visible police presence may at least stop the vulnerable from carrying knives for their own protection, but only if they believe that the police will be there to protect them, whatever the colour of their skin.

Concerning gangs—here we go, I am going to be controversial—drug law reform needs to be seriously looked at, to take drug dealing out of the hands of criminals and put illegal drug dealers out of business. The two main political parties in this country need to get over the ideological aversion to serious drug law reform. People are dying: from knife crime, from drug misuse and from overdose—including a former partner of mine—because of ideology.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, said, county lines is child criminal exploitation, and the victims of that exploitation need to be treated as such. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, has again reminded us, alcohol misuse is an even bigger problem in terms of the damage that it causes and the drain on police resources.

Not only has the Conservative Party lost the confidence of the public for financial competence; it can no longer claim to be the party of law and order.

Metropolitan Police: Misconduct

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the noble Baroness and not agree with her, but I am going to say that I think that the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the interim report is most welcome. The new commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, has the full support of the Home Secretary in delivering his plan for transforming the Met, focusing on the key areas of more trust, higher standards and less crime. I hope that all noble Lords will welcome his initial responses, which have been broadly welcomed across the spectrum.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Mark Rowley has set out a bold plan to turn things around but, without very swift changes to police misconduct regulations and strong support from the Home Secretary, he will not achieve his objectives. Will he get them? Another review is just not good enough.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I am afraid that I do entirely agree. It is also worth pointing out that the noble Lord omitted to mention the split of responsibility between the Home Office, the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. The Mayor of London is the occupant of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—MOPAC—which is the equivalent of a PCC for London. It is responsible for holding the Commissioner of the Met to account for the exercise of their functions and the function of those under their direction and control. MOPAC is also responsible for ensuring that the Metropolitan Police is efficient and effective in setting policing and crime objectives. There are a number of players in this particular space at the moment; they all have a job to do and, as I say, I welcome—and I think everybody should welcome— Sir Mark Rowley’s initial response.

Rwanda Asylum Partnership

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I answered to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I will absolutely take that back to the Home Office and see what can be done.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in a written submission to the High Court this year—not a previous year—said:

“There should be no transfers of asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda under the UK-Rwanda Arrangement.”


It said there was “a serious risk” of human rights abuses and a serial disregard for international law in Rwanda. The UNHCR has clearly changed its mind. Why will the Government not change theirs?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already stated that we are of the firm opinion that Rwanda complies with international law. I go back to my earlier answer: under the scheme I described earlier, the emergency transit mechanism under the aegis of the UNHCR, Rwanda has welcomed and integrated more than 500 individuals who were evacuated from Libya. Personally, I am at a bit of a loss to understand why the UNHCR seems to take this line with us when it is doing it itself.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how sad I am to see the Home Secretary depart from her job today. I had very high regard for her; she brought great legal expertise and determination together. At the same time, I wish Grant Shapps well in his new job as Home Secretary. He was my neighbour in Hertfordshire and is a long-standing friend of mine. I hope that he will pursue with equal diligence the obligations we have and the commitments that we had in our manifesto.

However, there is little point in tidying up the law in the way that we are doing today if the law itself can be turned inside out by the courts. It is pretty clear that that is what has happened time and again in recent years. As a result, we have some 250,000 rejected—failed—asylum seekers in this country who, since 2005, have not been returned to their countries or removed from this country. That is in addition to the 125,000 who have been granted asylum.

The rate of acceptance on first application in this country suddenly doubled after the Windrush scandal, although it is hard to see what the logic of that doubling was. The effect is that we now accept twice as high a proportion of asylum seekers on first application as does France, on the other side of the channel—which is doubtless one reason why people choose to leave France and come here, even by dangerous routes.

Can I just deal with three or four delusions, illusions or mistakes that are very prevalent? The first is that we have no safe routes into this country. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made some very sensible points, particularly about the constant change in the regulations we face. We have some 13 different routes and they have exploded in numbers over the last year. We have seen the best part of 300,000 people arrive in this country and be accepted by safe migration routes, including 150,000 from Ukraine. That is a wonderful way we are responding to the problems in Ukraine and almost all of them want to return if and when peace returns to Ukraine. Sadly, that may not be immediate and many of them will put down roots in this country, so will add to our population. They are wonderful people, but we have to take into account the fact that we have a massive increase in our population. There were 120,000 from Hong Kong—again, one understands why—and 20,000 from Afghanistan. All arrived by safe routes. So when President Macron says that the problem with Britain is that is has no safe routes, he is simply out of touch with what is happening in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that there can be no doubt about the desperation of people who cross the channel in small boats to come to this country. Let us be quite clear: they are coming from France, Germany and Belgium. If they are desperate, what is it about those countries that makes them desperate? They are not coming here from Afghanistan or Iran by boat; they are coming from France and Germany. One of the reasons can be that they have applied or could apply in those countries but know they would be rejected, whereas here our system—having been degraded by constant legal undermining of the rules—makes it much more likely that they will be accepted, even if other countries would not consider them legitimate asylum seekers.

The third point I want to make is that it is an illusion to say we have taken back control of immigration. Over the last year we have given over 1 million visas to people to come and settle in this country. Where are the houses going to be?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Great.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

“Great” says the Liberal Democrat noble Lord.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was agreeing with him about the numbers who have been given visas—a tiny fraction of whom are asylum seekers. I am not applauding the millions of people who are being given visas; I was agreeing with him that that was happening.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I misinterpreted his “Great”; he was saying that I am great rather than that the number is great. That is good.

It is an extraordinary thing: 1 million people. The problem with immigration is not that immigrants are different from us, but that they are exactly the same. They need homes to live in, medical facilities, schools and everything else. We have not got enough for the existing population, so we ought to be thinking very clearly: is it wise to issue 1 million visas for people to come and live in this country?

Finally, it is constantly asserted that migration is good for economic growth. In the last decade and a half, we have had the highest rate of immigration to this country in our history and the slowest growth in productivity. I rest my case.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the Government and the aims and objectives of this immigration statement of 11 May. Respectfully, I do not support the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I found it very interesting to listen to the arguments of my noble friends Lord Horam and Lord Lilley, with which I agree.

Of course I empathise with the terrified people whose desperation is so great that they risk their lives, and their families’ lives, to seek a safe refuge. This is an unimaginable position for anyone. However, I also accept that something effective must be done at our borders to stop criminals intent on abusing these fears and risking people’s lives. It cannot be right that a country such as ours, which stands proudly for protecting the vulnerable, standing strongly with those who have been wronged and upholding the highest standards of human rights and justice, should at the same time, due to inaction or inefficient action, be facilitating conditions for this injustice to occur.

That is why I support the statement from 11 May and believe it will help with the immigration crisis we face on our shores. The statement has introduced new permissions to stay where a person is granted on a protection route and made a pledge finally to define what “claim for humanitarian protection” means, so people who really need the help most know clearly who they are and their application can be completed swiftly, with the most minimal of delays. A clearer definition for the exceptional circumstances which warrant children coming to join refugee parents or relatives will also provide more transparency and clarity and make it easier for children to join loved ones sooner and more safely.

It also provides some different allowances for when a person comes to the UK via another safe country. I think this is fair enough. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, stuttered, but he said that people come through another safe country, and then slightly retracted the comment. We must deter dangerous journeys and encourage asylum claims to be made in the first safe country. Differentiating between people who come here first and people who come via another safe country is important and fair.

I support all these measures and the Government’s other moves on immigration, such as amending criminal offences, with increased maximum penalties for people smugglers and boat skippers, and the ability to impose visa penalties where countries pose a risk to international peace and security, to name but a few. These will ensure that those most at risk and most vulnerable will be welcomed and protected while those who use current loopholes for their own criminal gains and risk other people’s lives in the process are stopped in their tracks. We should get on with this without delay.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate, bearing in mind the subject of the regret Motion, but we support the regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and we are very grateful to him for bringing these changes to the attention of the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, regrets the implementation of plans, set out in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to treat refugees differently depending on how they entered the United Kingdom. The issue is yet to be tested in the courts, as it inevitably will be. We maintained at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, that it was a breach of the UK’s international obligations under the UN refugee convention—a view supported by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has an interesting perspective on the backlogs in asylum applications. Some 10 or more years ago, we had double the number of asylum applications and a fraction of the backlog. We were deporting far more overstayers and illegal immigrants than we do now. All this points to a catastrophic failure by the Home Office—nothing more, nothing less.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, the Government have been very generous on the basis that they expect and hope that the vast majority of those people will return to Ukraine, once peace has hopefully been restored. It is a very different situation.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that rather than taking back control of our borders, we have thrown them open. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, said, there is nothing now to stop people coming here with visa-free entry, which is not only still open to residents of all EU countries, but the Government have added 10 more countries to that list. These are people who can put their passports in the e-passport gates at the airport, disappear into the country and nobody knows who they are, where they have gone or whether they ever leave.

I am a little confused about the arguments on identity cards. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who apparently supports the idea, told us how difficult it is to open a bank account. Tell me about it—I have been trying to open a bank account for the last two weeks. I have shown my passport and I have gone to the bank; it wants to know where my income comes from—most of it is a Metropolitan Police pension. Yet, apparently, we need identity cards as well, to try and control things. I think things are difficult enough as it is.

But we digress, widely. The Minister may argue that our objections were debated during the primary legislation that these rule changes are based on, and the majority of this House rejected those arguments. The specifics—for example, that group 2 refugees will get permission to remain for only what I thought was 30 months but the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, thinks is shorter—were not on the face of the Bill, and this is the first time that Parliament has had the chance to debate the specifics in legislation.

We should not expect details of safe and legal routes to be included in the Immigration Rules, but when refugees are to be treated differently depending on whether they have arrived by a safe and legal route—that is, group 1 refugees—or otherwise as group 2 refugees, Parliament has the right to expect the Government to set out what safe and legal routes are available currently and those that are planned, including any limits on those numbers. Without knowing how many or what proportion of asylum seekers will fall into each group, how can Parliament make a judgment as to whether to agree these changes to the Immigration Rules?

As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, group 2 refugees will be disqualified from family reunion, so we are going to have far more unaccompanied child refugees coming to this country who will not be able to be joined by their families.

This week, the BBC reported that 181 of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children aged 18 or under have disappeared since they have come to this country. They are put into hotels with no supervision, and they disappear. How many more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are going to be lost and potentially abused, whether through modern slavery or through child abuse, if they are not allowed to bring their families to join them and look after them? Why is there not a risk assessment around how many more unaccompanied child refugees are going to be placed at risk as a result of these changes?

There is no risk assessment on this at all, but there is precedent in the past for impact assessments to be published alongside changes to the Immigration Rules. In September 2020, the Government published an impact assessment for changes to the Immigration Rules for students. In November 2020, they published an impact assessment for changes to the Immigration Rules for skilled workers. The changes we are debating today are arguably the most fundamental changes to the Immigration Rules ever enacted—so where is the impact assessment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam (Con)]

The noble Lord says that that is an effective deterrent, but, with respect, it would have to be tested in reality, just as the Government’s measures are being tested in reality—or not tested in reality yet.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Arguably, the Government’s policy is being tested in reality, because the threat hangs over everybody who crosses the channel that they could be sent to Rwanda—albeit that there is a stay on it because of the action before the courts—yet there are record numbers coming across the channel. So, I would argue that we need to try something else.

The whole disgraceful Rwanda policy is designed to avoid the UK making any decision about whether someone is a genuine refugee or not by simply removing them to Rwanda and letting the African nation decide. The change in the rules ensures asylum seekers who arrive in the UK, other than through what I would argue are practically non-existent “safe and legal” routes, will automatically be removed without any consideration of the merits of their claim for refugee status. Can the Minister explain, for an unaccompanied child refugee who claims asylum in the UK because they were in danger of persecution in both their country of origin and the country from which they travelled to the UK, do these changes mean that their persecution in the country from which they fled immediately before arriving in the UK will no longer be considered as grounds for eligibility for humanitarian protection because it was not their country of origin?

Has the Home Office thrown the baby out with the bath water through these changes? If, as the Minister claimed earlier today, the Home Office will consider the vulnerability of asylum seekers before sending them to Rwanda, why can it not consider at the same time whether the application for asylum has any merit, rather than refusing to even consider it and sending people to Rwanda?

We objected to almost every provision in the Nationality and Borders Act and it is therefore no surprise that we regret these Immigration Rules, which give effect to the primary legislation. In recent years, asylum seekers have amounted to only around six in every 100 immigrants to the UK. If anti-immigration advocates, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed, we on these Benches believe the focus should be on the 94% who are being given visas, not the most vulnerable desperately seeking sanctuary in the UK.

There appears to be a glimmer of light in the former Home Secretary’s resignation letter to the Prime Minister today in which she said that

“I have had serious concerns about this Government's commitment to honouring manifesto commitments, such as reducing overall migration numbers and stopping illegal migration, particularly the dangerous small boats crossings.”

The resigning Home Secretary says she has serious concerns about the Government’s commitment to stopping illegal immigration. Can the Minister enlighten us as to what she means?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this has certainly been a wide-ranging debate. I intend to concentrate on the regret Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which we fully support. We welcome the Motion and the opportunity to discuss matters relating to asylum and immigration in general.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that while I do not agree with some of his policy prescriptions, I totally agree with him—which is why I was nodding—on the complexity and sometimes impenetrable nature of trying to understand what is actually going on. That is really unhelpful to any of us debating these matters. We all have different perspectives on this, but all of us are seeking an immigration and asylum system that works and is fair. We will debate how that is achieved but, in order to achieve it, we certainly have to understand what is meant and, frankly, that is sometimes quite difficult. I very much agreed with the point the noble Lord made about that.

I say gently to the Minister that it is extremely unhelpful to the whole debate on asylum, immigration and refugees to have the chaos we have at present. The Home Secretary has just resigned. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, just quoted her letter, which appears to suggest that although there was a security or national security breach—we are not sure yet—there was also a furious row in government about what was happening with respect to migration targets, visas, refugees, small boat crossings, et cetera.

Whatever our view, how on earth can we debate these matters without being certain what the Government themselves believe in? What is the Government’s policy? Are the new Immigration Rules, which we have debated and discussed and which my noble friend Lord Dubs referred to, government policy? Does the new Home Secretary agree with the Immigration Rules or will he disagree with the Prime Minister? We just do not know. I am not trying to make a political point. I am making the point that from the point of view of this it is extremely important that the Government sort out what they are saying: otherwise, who can have confidence around any of this?

Indeed, while we have been speaking, there have been rumours that the Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip have resigned—which are as yet unconfirmed. Here we are—the noble Lords, Lord Lilley, Lord Horam and Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and my noble friend Lord Dubs—and that is going on all around us. Whatever our view, that just cannot go on.

These are real people, families, refugees and people in need. Even if we think this or that should happen, we cannot have a situation where the Government are falling out among themselves with all that going on. I will just say, because this is the opportunity to do it—I know the Minister will take this—that we simply have to know where we are in order to debate these things.

I found this an interesting debate, which showed the House of Lords at its best. Many of us were Members in the other place, and even where views and arguments clash, out of that comes better public policy, which is what we want.

I want to concentrate on the regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I will reiterate some other points that were made, because it is important for us to put these on the table and then ask some specific questions.

The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules published in May reflects changes made by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, as well as covering a number of other issues. The key change which the regret Motion quite rightly focuses on is to implement the provision in the Nationality and Borders Act to have two tiers of refugees, with the support a person is entitled to based on how they travelled to the UK rather than their actual need. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, can the Minister clarify what support is available to the different groups: the length of stay, the support that they will or will not get, the nature of any detention that they would face should they be put in group 1 rather than group 2, and so on? It is unclear to me, reading the Immigration Rules, what they mean with regard to all that, so we need some clarity. The statement makes some changes to definitions, including changes needed to allow for the effective operation of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda, and there is some clarification on the family reunion rules.

This Chamber and His Majesty’s Opposition and others raised detailed and sustained objections to the Nationality and Borders Act during its passage. The Act did nothing to address the backlog of asylum claims and in fact clearly risks making things worse. In our view, it did nothing to create genuine safe routes to prevent dangerous journeys. Instead, it put barriers in the way of refugees fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable situations, as well as victims, including children, who are trying to escape modern slavery.

In this House, multiple votes were won calling for proper planning of safe routes, preventing offshoring, calling for international co-operation—a point my noble friend Lord Dubs made with specific reference to the need to work with France—and ensuring safe family reunion routes for unaccompanied children in refugee camps. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, many children are going missing on arrival in this country; we do not know where they are, which is completely and utterly unacceptable. The House also called for protecting the rights of modern slavery victims, and addressed many other issues. Unfortunately, the elected House, as is its right, insisted on the Act remaining and rejected many of the changes that your Lordships put forward. The regret Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has brought forward seeks for us to look again at some of these issues and to raise certain questions.

I point out to the Minister that whatever system you have, there has to be greater effectiveness of the bureaucracy. There is administrative chaos with much of this, and it simply has to be resolved. I will give the Minister some statistics, and perhaps he can say what is being done about it. The number of basic asylum decisions being taken each year by the Government has collapsed. Decisions have fallen from 28,000 to only 14,000 last year. What an earth is going on? It does not matter what system you have; if the number goes from 28,000 to 14,000, there is a real problem. That is fewer decisions than either Belgium or the Netherlands, let alone Germany or France.

According to the Red Cross in the submission it gave us for this debate, of the applications submitted in quarter 4 of 2021, only 7% received a decision within six months. The equivalent of that was 56% in 2018 and more than 80% in 2015. What on earth is going on? What on earth is happening? Irrespective of the system you have, if you get a collapse in the effectiveness of the administration, nothing will work. All you get is undermining of the system. That backlog costs the taxpayer huge sums of money and prevents the system operating effectively. Can the Minister confirm how long—that is, how many years—the average wait for a basic decision to be made on an asylum claim now is?

The creation of group 2 refugees, who will receive only temporary asylum leave, will require the system not only to make the initial decision but to retake that decision multiple times. What impact assessment have the Government done on that change—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made this point, I think—where multiple decisions must now be made? What are the Government doing to address their backlog and how will the system, which is already struggling, cope with the additional burden that this measure places on it?

Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2022

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

The UK is committed to improving the provision of mutual legal assistance across borders and this order will enhance the level of co-operation that the UK can offer to, and seek from, other countries. Mutual legal assistance is a key tool in combating cross-border crime and ensuring justice for British victims of crime. I therefore commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. As he just said, criminality is increasingly cross-border and anything that mitigates the reduction of the UK’s ability to tackle international crime as a result of the UK leaving the European Union has to be welcomed. I have only a couple of questions.

Paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order states:

“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”


Yet paragraph 6.3 explains that Switzerland is included in this order because it was previously included

“on the basis of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States on the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, on the other part”—

the so-called “Swiss Agreement”. Paragraph 6.5 states,

“When the UK left the European Union (“EU”), the obligations that previously applied to the UK as a member of the EU, under the Swiss Agreement, ceased to apply.”


Albeit only in relation to Switzerland, it appears that this instrument does relate to withdrawal from the European Union. Will the noble Lord explain? Will he also explain why these countries—Georgia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Switzerland and Turkey—have now been included and why now, bearing in mind that the primary legislation dates from 2003 and the 1959 convention was ratified in 2010? I am reassured that Russia is not included as part of this instrument, and we support the order.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Labour Benches support the order. I have a couple of questions. Luxembourg was the latest country to ratify the second additional protocol in 2021. When did the other states in this order ratify it? Is there any reason why we have waited until now to designate them?

Brexit impacted some of the collaboration we had on criminal matters with Switzerland, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, and the statutory instrument will rectify that. Were there any other consequences on international co-operation from Brexit? Have they also been rectified? Are there any other countries apart from Russia—I totally agree with what the Minister said—we wish to designate but are unable to at present? If so, which are they?

The order refers to Sections 47 and 48 regarding prisoner transfer if consent is given. What happens if consent is refused, if a prisoner does not agree? What then takes place? Is there a process or are there other ways by which a prisoner can be moved between countries? Are all the arrangements outlined in this protocol reciprocal? How many requests do we typically make under this Act each year? One of my favourite questions: this order relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland; will the Minister explain how Scotland operates with respect to this protocol?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I should say I thank all noble Lords, but I can be specific: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, for contributing to this debate. As I set out at the start, this instrument will enhance mutual legal assistance with these six countries and strengthen the UK’s overall ability to combat transnational crime. Mutual legal assistance is a critical tool in tackling cross-border criminality and promoting a pathway to justice here in the UK and overseas. As we have all said, this form of international co-operation has never been more important. Not only does it help to ensure that borders are not barriers to justice, but it allows us better to defend our public safety interests.

To go on to the specific points that have been raised, I am grateful to both noble Lords for supporting the non-designation of Russia at this time. I will have to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on his question about other countries that may have been non-designated in the past, because I do not know the answer. I will find out.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about Switzerland and the EU and why we are redesignating Switzerland. Its designations for certain sections of the 2003 Act were removed following the UK’s departure from the EU, as the co-operation agreement between the European Community and its member states on the one part, and the Swiss Confederation on the other part, to combat fraud and any other illegal activity to the detriment of their financial interests, also known as the Swiss agreement, no longer applied. However, Switzerland remains a signatory to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its additional protocols, so it has been determined that it should be redesignated for the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act. Inasmuch as that relates to the EU, the question is correct: our departure from the EU meant that we had to redesignate Switzerland. Switzerland is obviously an important partner in the fight against cross-border crime and it is important legally and operationally for the UK to seek and provide effective assistance.

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord on whether there has been any capability gap between the UK and Switzerland in the period since the 2019 regulations and this order. We are unaware of any requests which have not been facilitated while these additional Swiss designations have not been in place.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Is it right then that what the Explanatory Memorandum says about this order being nothing to do with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is wrong?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am reluctant to comment on the Explanatory Memorandum, simply because I have not read it. It sounds like it is, from what the noble Lord has said. I will seek clarification on that.

Both noble Lords asked why these countries are being grouped together. To be honest, it is in the spirit of efficiency and maximising the use of parliamentary time. It was decided that one instrument should be used to make a number of designations, rather than designating Switzerland and the other countries listed through separate instruments.

The countries that have ratified the second additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959 since the previous designation in 2013 are those that we have listed. I will not run through them again, but the most recent country to ratify was Luxembourg, which did so in 2021.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked for the total number of outgoing MLA requests sent to all countries over the past few years. I can run through them in detail. In 2017, the number of outgoing requests was 346; in 2018, it was 350; in 2019, it was 320; in 2020, it was 235; and in 2021, it was 371, making a total of 1,622. I can go into much more detail on incoming requests if the noble Lord wishes me to, but I hope he does not. I will also more than happily come back to him on the reciprocal question that he asked because I do not have the information on that to hand.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the order, which was laid before this House on 18 July, be approved.

Following the horrific terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, the then Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, commonly referred to as MAPPA, used to supervise terrorist and terrorist-risk offenders on licence in the community.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, hereafter referred to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power, and a power of urgent arrest. These powers were established in response to recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC following his review of MAPPA.

This order relates to the new power of personal search, the creation of which was also recommended by the Fishmongers’ Hall Inquests—Prevention of Future Deaths report. The personal search power has been inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000, in new Section 43C, by the 2022 Act. The new search power came into force on 28 June this year.

As was set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new personal search power applies across the UK, enabling the police to stop and search terrorist and terrorism-connected offenders released on licence who are required to submit to the search by their licence conditions, should the Parole Board determine such a condition is necessary. The officer conducting the stop and search must also be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the power for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of search powers that are conferred by that Act. In June, Parliament approved regulations laid by the Government that amended Section 47AA so that it extends to cover the new personal search power inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 by the 2022 Act. This created a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a revised code of practice that includes guidance on the exercise of the power conferred by new Section 43C.

We have duly prepared a draft revised code of practice, and this order seeks Parliament’s approval to bring the revisions we have made to the existing code of practice into force.

I will now set out the nature of the revisions the Government have made. The primary update to the code of practice is the incorporation of the new stop and search power provided for by Section 43C of the Terrorism Act 2000. The revised code sets out important parameters that govern the use of the Section 43C power and provides clarity for police officers on the power’s scope. This includes providing guidance on the thresholds to be met before the section 43C power can be used, scenarios in which it might be appropriate for use and the powers of seizure associated with the search power.

We have also set out clearly within the revised code the limitations on the clothing that a person can be required to remove when the Section 43C power is being exercised by the police. In keeping with existing stop and search powers, police officers exercising the Section 43C power may not compel a person to remove any clothing in public except for an outer coat, a jacket or gloves, and an intimate search may not be authorised or carried out under the new power.

The new Section 43C stop and search power has been specifically created to help manage the risk posed by terrorist offenders on licence who are assessed to be high or very high risk to the public. The Government plan to collect data from police forces on the use of this targeted power, as we routinely do for other stop and search powers, and make this data publicly available through future statistical publications.

Given that the existing version of the code was brought into force in 2012, the Government have also taken this opportunity to make other minor changes to the code to ensure that it accurately reflects current practice, legislation, terminology and organisational responsibilities. The updated code reflects the creation of police and crime commissioners and structural changes to other police authorities, including the creation of authorities overseeing combined police areas.

We have also ensured that organisational names have been updated, for example replacing previous references to the Association of Chief Police Officers’ counterterrorism co-ordination centre—it does not trip off the tongue—with up-to-date references to the Counter Terrorism Policing national operations centre.

The revised code also includes a new paragraph which references the Children Act 2004, and its Scottish equivalent, to highlight the need for the police to ensure that in the discharge of their functions they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all persons under the age of 18. Although this is not a new policy, the Government considered it important when revising the code for safeguarding duties such as this to be made explicit.

In addition, we have used this opportunity to make other minor but necessary amendments, such as updating links and contact details within the code, including refreshing the web address where the most up-to-date version of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest, can be found.

In the course of revising the code, the Home Office has consulted the Lord Advocate and other appropriate persons and organisations, including the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Counter Terrorism Policing and Police Scotland, all of which are supportive of the approach being taken.

The revised code promotes the fundamental principles to be observed by the police and helps preserve the effectiveness of, and public confidence in, the use of police powers to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. I very much hope that noble Lords will support these alterations to the code of practice.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to Home Office Minister. If it were me, I would also be thinking, “Oh goodness, what have I done?”, but I am sure he will be excellent in his new role. I thank him for explaining this order. As when we considered the primary legislation that lies behind this order, clearly we are supportive of the changes in the legislation. We know from the tragedy at Fishmongers’ Hall how the risk posed by offenders on licence is an inexact science. These additional powers for the police to stop and search people on licence on the recommendation of the Parole Board are an important tool in trying to manage that risk and act as a deterrent to those on licence from carrying out the sort of appalling attacks that we saw at Fishmongers’ Hall.

As the Minister explained, the order is about the revised code of practice, which is quite a lengthy document. We are here to hold the Government to account for, in this case, the changes that have been made to the extensive code of practice. I understand the issues around the change in the legislation and Section 43C but, as the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister have explained, a series of other amendments have been made to the code. The Explanatory Memorandum says that these “include”, and then gives a list of those changes, as the Minister explained. It would be extremely helpful to have a “track changes” copy of the code of practice so that we could see exactly what the changes are to the revised code of practice. Although the changes to incorporate the new Section 43C are fairly obvious, as I say, the others are difficult to find in among the code of practice. However, this is an important step forward in terms of giving these additional powers to the police for those who may pose a risk after they have been released from prison, and it is important for the police to have a code of practice to go with those changes. Having said that, we are supportive of the order.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on his promotion and wish him well in his task—not too well, perhaps, but pretty well. But seriously, I know that he will be diligent in the execution of his duties and will work with his usual co-operative manner.

We too support what is obviously a very sensible and necessary step forward by the Government. I have a couple of questions that I want to ask. The Fishmongers’ Hall attack clearly highlighted some problems, which the independent reviewer took up and made recommendations about. It is good that the Government have reacted and responded to that. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we support what they are doing here.

The order is called the Terrorism Act 2000 (Alterations to the Search Powers Code for England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2022. It revises the code of practice with respect to those three, yet its extent is to the whole of the UK, which includes Northern Ireland. I do not quite understand how a code that relates to three parts of the UK extends to all four. You would expect the title to refer to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We all appreciate the sensitivity in Northern Ireland, but can the Minister explain how a British order, which does not include Northern Ireland, extends to the whole of the UK, as in the notes? If there has been widespread consultation, does that include Northern Ireland and who has it been with, notwithstanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting? I just do not understand the process or how that works. I am sure there is a very simple reason laid out by somebody, but I cannot find it. I do not understand this, but it is laid out in the order.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that this new power can be used with a convicted terrorist who is released on licence, provided that a search power is included in the licence. Can the Minister explain for all our benefit in what circumstances a terrorist released from prison would not have a search power included in their licence? If that were the case, what power would a police officer or whoever else have with respect to a potential terrorist?

One would assume—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would know better than me—that if a police officer thought a terrorist act was about to be committed, they would have a power to try to do something about that. If that is the case, why would you have a new power included in the Act? In other words, what is the purpose of including the search power in the Act and in what circumstances would you not have that anyway? That would be interesting to know.

Can the Minister say a little more about the thresholds? It seems to me that in most cases, and particularly in Section 43C, we are talking about powers to search without suspicion. What are the thresholds for that? Is that where the officer has a belief that a terrorist act is going to be committed, even though they have no grounds for that? How does that happen?

As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, quite rightly said, there are a number of changes. The Government talk about minor changes being made, but it is very difficult to understand what those changes are and to track them through. For example, the Minister said that there are examples in the code of what a police officer can or cannot do with respect to clothing or in a public place. Is this the same or has that changed as a result of the new power that this secondary legislation gives to police officers? Is there any change in relation to who can carry out the search—for example, a female officer searching a male terrorist, or the other way around?

The Minister talked about children and this applying to children under 18. Is there a lower age limit? What do we mean by children? I understand that children means those under 18, but is there a lower limit or does this apply to anybody, irrespective of age, who a police officer believes may be about to commit a terrorist act?

As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the questions we have laid out are important because public confidence, particularly in the use of stop and search without suspicion, is of real importance. I would be keen to hear what steps the Government have taken to ensure that public confidence has been and will be sought in some of these situations. One can imagine the difficulty for the police operating in communities where this power might be used and the sensitivity of it.

Rwanda Asylum Partnership: Removal of Unaccompanied Children

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for securing this debate. We debated age assessment at length during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill, the difficulty in accurately assessing the age of children and the danger that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children might be wrongly identified as adults and removed to Rwanda. I agree with everything that was said in the comprehensive opening by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and reinforced by other noble Lords—perhaps with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, who said many things with which I would take issue if I had more time.

Evidence in the High Court this week has cast doubt on the whole Rwanda scheme, with UK officials apparently repeatedly telling the Government not to strike a deal with Rwanda over asylum seekers, according to court documents, as reported in the Independent newspaper. Rwanda was initially excluded from the shortlist of potential partner countries on human rights grounds. The UK high commissioner in Rwanda indicated the country should not be pursued as an option because it has been accused of recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries, has a poor human rights record and has been criticised by the UK for extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture and crackdowns on anyone critical of the regime.

In February 2021, Rwanda was not recommended as it was rated amber/red for human rights, its asylum system and political feasibility, questioning whether mitigation measures would provide a respectable case against legal challenge. Officials in the Foreign Office continued to advise No. 10 against engagement in May 2021, suggesting Rwanda does not have a functioning asylum system in compliance with refugee convention obligations. A draft of the official government guidance, published after the deal was announced in April, had been sent to the Rwandan Government for review. They flagged a number of points of concern on the evidence base on human rights in Rwanda, and the Home Office changed the document based on their comments. Parts of the documents covering Rwanda’s previous asylum deal with Israel, which was ruled illegal by the Israeli Supreme Court, have been redacted by the Home Office’s legal team.

Numerous memos were circulating in the Foreign Office raising concerns about Rwanda’s human rights record and violations of the political opposition or those who oppose Rwanda’s president. The criticisms go on and on—and these are government documents that have been declared to the High Court. On April 12, the day before the agreement with Rwanda was signed, an internal government memo said the agreement was

“unenforceable, consisting in part of upfront payments, meaning fraud risk is very high.”

This is just some of the evidence, with more disclosure to come. Rwanda is no place to send any asylum seekers, let alone children.

There is no foolproof way of assessing age, as noble Lords have said. There is a real danger of highly vulnerable children being further traumatised—wrongly traumatised—by being sent to Rwanda if the Government proceed with this inhumane policy.

Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Lords Chamber

It makes what has happened here a sad reflection on the way in which, for some reason, the Home Office wants to diminish the impact of the Modern Slavery Act. I find it astonishing that it should want to do so. I strongly support what other noble Lords have said, and I too ask the Minister to look at this regulation again, withdraw it, and bring it back when she has looked at what the 30 or so, very sensible, anti-modern slavery organisations are saying about it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. It is probably totally out of order but, if I may, can I commend her for demonstrating selfless integrity by her intervention at the weekend?

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling this regret amendment, which we support. We agree with him, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and organisations such as CARE—Christian Action, Research and Education—that there should have been formal consultation before the Government came up with the definitions of victim of modern slavery and victim of human trafficking. Without consultation with the anti-trafficking sector, any definition used to determine whether someone is a victim of modern slavery is likely to wrongly exclude victims from the support and protections to which they are entitled.

It was clear from the debates that we had in this House that the whole impetus of the Nationality and Borders Act was to reduce abuse of the national referral mechanism, and it is likely that these definitions are consistent with the Government’s approach in that Act. In fact, when we debated the legislation, my assessment was that all the provisions of Part 5 were about making it more difficult to be recognised as a victim of modern slavery and tightening the restrictions on the support available. In particular, as the noble and learned Baroness has just said, the change to

“significantly impair the person’s ability to protect themselves from being subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour”,

compared with the language in the Modern Slavery Act, which states

“which may make the person more vulnerable”,

appears to be a significant restricting of the definition.

I pay tribute to the honourable Jess Phillips MP for her passionate and detailed critique of these regulations when this draft statutory instrument was considered in Committee in the other place, based on her own experience as a first responder in the NRM process and her subsequent casework as an MP. Many other organisations agree with her that the definitions raise the threshold for identification; set a definition of exploitation that is far too narrow; are not in alignment with international law; do not distinguish between adult and child victims; do not explicitly include criminal exploitation; do not feature “practices similar to slavery”, as detailed within ECAT; and overemphasise arranging or facilitating travel.

Yet again, the Government have taken the cavalier approach of saying they can interpret something—in this case, the European convention against trafficking, ECAT—in whatever way they think fit, when even the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concludes that the definitions in the SI make the situation even more unclear, the exact opposite of what the Government claim to be doing. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the enormous progress made by the Modern Slavery Act, significantly improved by this House, but these regulations and the Nationality and Borders Act row back from that progress.

In conclusion, this statutory instrument appears to narrow the definition of who can be recognised as a victim of modern slavery or trafficking and to create confusion rather than clarity, both of which could have been remedied through a formal consultation process, which was not undertaken. We support this regret amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both for their contributions and for their continued engagement on what is clearly a very important topic for us all. I join the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in paying tribute to the right honourable Theresa May for all that she did on modern slavery. I think that, ultimately, we all have the same goal: to ensure that victims of modern slavery are identified and supported.

Before I turn to some specific points raised, I highlight again that in drafting these regulations, our focus has been on achieving alignment with the definitions currently used operationally and set out in the existing statutory guidance for England and Wales and the equivalent non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I was most grateful to be able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, earlier. One thing that noble Lords quite often do, particularly during the passage of legislation, is request of me that they can see draft regulations before they are brought forward to the House. It is something that was not requested on this occasion, but I would say that, generally, where they are available, I am always happy to share them with noble Lords.

As for some of the other engagement processes that we have undertaken, during the engagement our approach to align the definition with ECAT and the Palermo Protocol was welcomed. We have ensured that this advice is reflected in the draft regulations, which align with ECAT and existing definitions set out in statutory guidance and allow for identification of victims of currently unknown forms of human trafficking or slavery. There has also been a thorough engagement process within the Home Office and with partners such as the police and other first responders, to which noble Lords referred, particularly the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to thoroughly identify potential risks and ensure that no unintended consequences or impacts arise from the regulations. The cost and time considerations of running a full public consultation following the new plan for immigration consultation therefore outweighed the potential benefits, given the opportunities to engage on the issues relating to the regulations, but I think we can all agree that there is something to be learned from this process.

Noble Lords also mentioned the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee expressed one concern: that the powers conferred by what was then Clause 68(1) gave Ministers unlimited discretion to define the terms, rather than setting out in the Bill that they should reflect the provisions of Article 4 of ECAT and Article 4 of ECHR, as intended.

We have ensured that the definitions reflect those international provisions in their drafting, and the committee did not raise any other concerns that the regulations would not receive sufficient scrutiny. However, we recognise the evolving nature of these types of exploitation, and the Government can commit to keeping the terms of the regulations under review in the light of operational experience in the Home Office. The Nationality and Borders Act will also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. These regulations can be considered in that review.

The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Paddick, talked about the definition of “exploitation” being too narrow and said that the drafting fails to consider the specific circumstances of child victims. It is very important that a range of factors are taken into account when considering whether an individual is a victim of slavery. It does not diminish the consideration of age at all. This way of drafting means that the list is inexhaustive and allows decision-makers to bring in various other conditions or factors relating to the individual’s circumstances, including of course their age. The regulations are compliant with ECAT and we make it clear that they allow for different types of exploitation which emerge over time.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, posited that the definitions are limited and do not include practices similar to trafficking, including debt bondage, forced marriage and certain forms of exploitation, including criminal exploitation. As I have said, the definitions as drafted in the regulations provide scope for various forms of human trafficking and slavery to be identified that are not explicitly defined. This is set out in statutory guidance. For example, criminal exploitation is covered by the definition of either human trafficking or slavery, depending on the precise nature of that exploitation, and will remain as currently defined in the statutory guidance. Regulation 3(6)(d), which includes force, threats or deception to induce the provision of services, would cover child soldiers, given the low threshold at which a child would be deemed to have been forced, threatened or deceived, and exploiting children for illicit activities. In the current statutory guidance, debt bondage is set out as a situational and environmental indicator of modern slavery and will remain as such.

Similarly, the current guidance on adoptions and forced marriage will remain the same. For forced marriage, for instance, this is set out in paragraph 2.65 of the statutory guidance. The Government’s position on illegal adoption is covered in the statutory guidance at paragraphs 2.61 to 2.64. While there are restrictions on arranging adoptions, as set out in Sections 92 and 93 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, whether this will constitute forced or compulsory labour depends on circumstances. The position will remain the same. More broadly, slavery includes many of these practices. Debt bondage, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to, and forced marriage mean exercising control over someone in a way that significantly restricts their liberty. The guide is Article 4 of the ECHR, in relation to which slavery is interpreted in the regulations by virtue of Regulation 1(3).

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the compatibility between these regulations and ECAT. I stress that the definitions set out in the regulations are compliant, as I have just said, with our international obligations, including ECAT, and align with existing operational practices. They will ensure that potential victims are identified and that those involved in identifying victims have very clear parameters on which to rely. They are compliant because, put simply, the activities and forms of exploitation mentioned in ECAT are covered by the draft regulations. Following the approach of ECAT, we have intentionally avoided including reference to all specific forms in recognition, again, of the evolving nature of trafficking and slavery, and so as not to exclude victims of currently unknown forms of exploitation.