Banks: Immigration Act 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Compliance with the Immigration Act produces a benefit for society, as many immigrants contribute very well to the economy. I count myself as an immigrant; noble Lords can make a judgment about that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, regarding the Immigration Act 2014, whose provisions I take it are actually in force, can the Government identify how many individuals have been identified as being in the United Kingdom without permission only through checks by banks and building societies under that Act? Can the Government say how many individuals have been wrongly denied opening an account and for how long, on average, because of these checks?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is quite difficult to answer the question of how many people might have been denied access to a bank account under the Immigration Act 2014 because people who are here illegally are part of a changing picture. I do not have to hand information on people who have been wrongly denied access to a bank account, but I can get back to the noble Lord on that topic.

Operation Conifer

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I take what my noble friend says, but it is very important to understand that part of an investigation of this sort also looks towards whether there are any contemporary child safeguarding issues around the living. If members of the public bring complaints and allegations forward to the police, it is right that the police investigate them, particularly if there are any ongoing or current misdemeanours to be looked into in addition.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding, which may well be incorrect, is that Wiltshire Police undertook this investigation in effect as the lead for a number of police forces, as the Operation Conifer investigation was not confined to alleged matters or to people in Wiltshire. In the light of the concerns expressed in some quarters about the investigation, and in the light of the response the Minister has given to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, can she clarify this point? Which elected person, if any, had the statutory power—if they so chose to use it—to challenge how the Operation Conifer investigation was being conducted or even to stop it? Did the Home Secretary have that power? Did the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner have that power? Did some other elected figure have that power—or did no elected figure have that power?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The elected power who would have the authority to undertake any of the issues that the noble Lord is talking about would be the PCC. It would be up to him whether to call for an investigation and it would be for him to, perhaps, refer matters to the IPCC. He is the elected power.

Immigration: International Students

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I hesitate to intervene in the sense that, frankly, I could not do a more effective demolition job on the Government’s policy than the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, did. But I still do not think that we have heard from the Minister why the Government apparently see the overriding need to keep international students in the net migration figures, bearing in mind that the evidence shows that their removal would not make any significant difference to those figures. Is she able to explain to us why the Government are not prepared to stand up now and say that they are about to change their policy? From the response that she gave, which appeared to be a glowing one on the number of students coming into the country, can I take it that the universities are still quite happy that international students are retained within the net migration figures?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What the noble Lord said about high compliance lends credence to the fact that our reforms are working in this area. We wish to continue to attract international students to study in the UK and we absolutely recognise the cultural and financial contribution that they make to this country. That is why we have commissioned the study that I referred the noble Baroness to, and why we do not limit the number of genuine international students who come here to study and from whom UK businesses can recruit.

Cannabis

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I first apologise for being late for the beginning of the debate. If I had a credible excuse, I would offer it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing the debate, which has attracted a lot of interest—as reflected by the number of speakers.

As has been said, there is a regime in place, administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—MHRA—to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. However, as has been said, and as I understand it, only one product containing cannabis extracts—Sativex—has been licensed as a medicinal product by the MHRA. Equally, as I understand it, the MHRA has recently decided that CBD-only products—cannabidiol is one of the main compounds of cannabis—which are used to treat various symptoms, should be considered as medicines.

The question we are debating is whether the Government plan to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the evidence supporting the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 or Schedule 4. Cannabis is controlled as a class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In its raw form, it currently has no recognised medicinal benefits in the UK and is therefore listed as a Schedule 1 drug under the misuse of drugs regulations. This explicitly forbids doctors from prescribing cannabis and inhibits research.

If cannabis were rescheduled, it would enable patients with a wide range of conditions to obtain cannabis medicines to alleviate their symptoms, and doctors could prescribe it on a named-patient basis, taking responsibility for patient safety, until licensed cannabis medications became available.

In their 2017 drugs strategy, the Government said that they were committed to grounding their approach in the latest available evidence. They stated:

“The advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs … is fundamental to informing our approach and we will continue to seek their valuable input and advice”.


Have the advisory council expressed any view to the Government that it now thinks it appropriate to undertake a review into either the classification or the rescheduling of cannabis—and, if so, what has been the Government’s response? If significant new evidence is now available that was not available previously and which might well influence the view of the advisory council—which appears to be the position—there is a case for inviting it to consider it, particularly in the light of the Government’s position that the advice of the council is fundamental to forming their approach.

We have heard in the debate about the case of Alfie, who is nearly six. As I understand it, some children with his condition have responded well to whole-plant medical cannabis with no side-effects. Indeed, as I understand it, Alfie’s consultant at his children’s hospital supports trying medical cannabis but cannot do so because it would be illegal for him to prescribe it at present. As has already been pointed out, in several other countries, including Ireland, a named consultant can prescribe whole-plant medical cannabis to a named patient. The future does not look good for Alfie at present. I ask the Minister to look at Alfie’s case to see what help can be given to get medical cannabis under the management of his consultant here—either now or, if he has to go abroad for such treatment, once it has been shown that it helps him.

Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, I wish I had been present for the debates that took place. I certainly take on board what the noble Lord said. I have not got an answer for him today, but I will look into the question that he asked.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government’s 2017 drugs strategy states on page 4:

“While use of new psychoactive substances among the general population is low … they continue to appear rapidly on the market, and use among certain groups is problematic, particularly among the homeless population and in prisons”.


What exactly is “problematic” meant to convey in this context that could not have been conveyed in more specific, clearer language? If the problem is among the homeless and in prisons, would a solution not be more social housing and affordable housing to rent and buy in the first instance, and a review of the lessons that should be learned from an excessive reduction in the number of prison officers over the past seven years in the second instance?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I guess that “problematic” means causing a problem to society. It is a particular problem with homeless people because such drugs are very cheap—ditto in prisons—and some psychoactive substances are not easy to detect, particularly spice. I forget the end of what the noble Lord said. Ah! It was about prison officers. Certainly, from some of the documentaries we have seen on television, it needs to become harder to get drugs into prison and there are more and more ingenious methods of secreting them into prison.

Prevent Strategy

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for that question. On Islamophobia, the Government are absolutely clear that hatred and intolerance on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender identity have absolutely no place in our society. Our hate crime action plan sets out our commitment to defeating all forms of hatred. Generally, the Government’s counterextremism strategy defines extremism as,

“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

This applies to all forms of extremism, including the far and extreme right wing.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Of course, the Prevent strategy to counteract extremism and acts likely to incite extremism applies across the board and to the whole community. Recently, some of our national media have carried a news story about alleged cultural impositions on a Christian child in the care of Muslim foster parents— a story that was subsequently revealed, following court proceedings, to be inaccurate in significant aspects, as well as being accompanied by a contentious mocked-up photograph. The way the story was presented and headlined was hardly designed to lower the temperature as far as attitudes about extremism are concerned. How exactly does the Prevent strategy apply to misleading reporting of such stories in our national media?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is extremely unhelpful and can be divisive when such stories hit the media. With regard to how that might fit into Prevent, the Prevent programme is fundamentally about supporting vulnerable individuals and safeguarding them from being drawn into terrorism. It is safeguarding in a similar way to how we would safeguard people from drug abuse or physical and sexual abuse. I will not comment on individual cases, but that would be the clear distinction between the two.

Refugees

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too add my congratulations to those already expressed to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on securing this debate and on the report of the inquiry, of which he and my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Dubs were members.

As the report says, very little time has been given to considering what happens to refugees once they have been granted protection by the UK Government. Accordingly, the inquiry set out to ascertain to what extent refugees are welcomed into the UK. As has been said, the evidence to the inquiry indicated that a two-tier system has developed for refugees. Those who arrive through a resettlement route are provided with accommodation and receive support in accessing services and finding employment; for those who have gone through the asylum system, there is no such support.

Significantly, the inquiry report states that that has not always been the case, as between 2008 and 2011 the Government funded a programme to help newly recognised refugees through what is known as the move-on period, offering a year of support. However, the programme was ended in September 2011 and instead, after receiving a positive decision on their application, newly recognised refugees are now given just 28 days before the financial support is cut off and they have to leave their accommodation.

The inquiry found that, allied with the lack of support in accessing the social security system—asylum seekers are unable to work for at least 12 months—and the housing market, the shortness of the 28-day move-on period leaves many newly recognised refugees homeless and destitute. On top of that, there are delays in receiving the documents needed to register for social security support, and wrong or incomplete advice is given at jobcentres. In addition, with no payments being received for at least six weeks after an application is submitted under the national rollout of universal credit, the 28-day move-on period will not be long enough even for those refugees who receive all their documentation promptly.

The inquiry report recommended that the move-on period should be extended to at least 50 days and that a national refugee integration strategy, overseen by a Minister for refugees, should address the issues which newly recognised refugees face during the move-on period and which are highlighted in the report.

The inquiry report also concluded that there was a regrettable lack of a government cross-departmental strategy setting out how all refugees can be successfully integrated into the UK, not least covering the area of support in learning English, the lack of which can have an adverse impact on people accessing other areas of support, securing employment and taking a full part in community activities. The inquiry report made recommendations to address this issue, including an increase in funding for classes in English for speakers of other languages.

The report also drew attention to particular issues and barriers faced by some groups of refugees—not least women and children—such as exploitation and violence, greater delays in accessing support due to the non-allocation of a national insurance number, the shortage of available childcare and a lack of both education and experience of an educational environment. Again, the inquiry report includes recommendations to address these concerns.

Other issues raised in the report, and in respect of which recommendations are made, cover the causes of the difficulties for some refugees in being reunited with family members and the negative impact that this can have on their prospects for integration, as well as their state of mind. In addition, there is the impact that some aspects of the asylum system and the process itself can have on their future prospects of successfully integrating.

The inquiry report was published in April, so I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of the Government’s thinking on its analysis of the experience of new refugees in the UK and the recommendations made to address the issues identified.

As has been said, the report draws attention to good work that is being done in welcoming refugees. However, as it says:

“Refugees want to integrate. They want to contribute their skills, qualifications, experiences and knowledge. They want to be with their families. They want to be safe”.


It is surely in everyone’s interests that all reasonable steps are taken to enable those goals and objectives to be achieved for those who have been granted protection by the United Kingdom.

Immigration Act 2016

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question.

I have previously asked—without success—for the Government to provide the figures on the number of further unaccompanied children that local authorities have said they have the capacity to take in the current financial year, 2017-18, under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, on the basis that government funding at the current level per child will be continued for further unaccompanied children coming here under the Dubs amendment in the current financial year. If I am again to be unsuccessful in getting an answer to that question, is it because, in the Government’s view, that question is now irrelevant because it appears in the response to the UQ that the Government have now put a cap of 480 on the number of children who can come here under the Dubs amendment? This is surely the same figure applicable at the time of the PNQ on 27 April 2017, in the light of the addition of the further 130 children as a result of a government administrative error, when the Government also said,

“we have not closed the Dubs scheme”.—[Official Report, 27/4/17; col. 1444.]

Surely, in the light of the response to the UQ, which appears to apply a cap of 480, that claim made on 27 April no longer stands up, and if I am right in saying that, frankly, that is a disgrace.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, regarding the cap, the specified number was set out in legislation. It was initially 350, which was based on the consultation we carried out with local authorities. I have apologised before at this Dispatch Box—I apologise again—in that there was an administrative error and the figure then rose to 480. That figure is based on the number of children that local authorities can accommodate. It is right that we have not closed the Dubs scheme, which remains open. There are numbers to be filled and therefore the Dubs scheme is not closed.

Security in the UK

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and thoughtful debate and I thank the Government for providing the opportunity to raise some areas of potential, if not necessarily always actual, concern. It was the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, I think, who urged the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, to answer the questions raised in this debate by giving us her personal views. If the noble Baroness does that and her personal views differ from those of the Government, this may be one of her last appearances at the Dispatch Box even at a time when Cabinet Ministers do not always seem to be expressing a common policy line.

Inevitably, in a debate on this issue the Government will be limited to a greater or lesser degree in the amount of detail they feel able to give in response to issues raised. From the Opposition’s point of view, the inevitable lack of such detail makes it difficult to challenge and hold any Government to account, but I hope there are Ministers, however few, who know exactly what our security and intelligence services are doing and in what way, and that there are checks and balances so that Ministers are not simply dependent on what they are told.

That is not a criticism of anybody; it is simply what ought to be the case in a democracy where there is accountability through elected leaders. There is, of course, the joint Intelligence and Security Committee, but the Government can hardly be expected to answer for it. In any case, it cannot be answerable to the people of this country for the effectiveness of the role it undertakes in the way that a Government and Ministers can for their actions and decisions. However, it would be helpful if the Government could provide an assurance that even if the number of Ministers in the know is small, they are satisfied that they have sufficient control over and knowledge of what our security and intelligence services are doing to be able to say that there can be no significant or potentially controversial activity that our security and intelligence services had undertaken of which they were not aware.

There has been much discussion recently about public sector pay. I assume our security and intelligence service personnel have also had their pay capped for the last seven years in the same way as other public employees, including the police. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that or otherwise. If that is the case, what impact has that had first on morale, secondly on recruitment and retention rates, and thirdly on the number of posts vacant? Has this vacancy figure increased or decreased over the last few years?

The Government have said that more resources have been put into intelligence and security services. Will they confirm what that increase has been in each of the last three years? Will the Minister also say who determines where existing and additional resources will be directed? Is it ultimately a ministerial decision in the sense that it at least requires ministerial agreement, or is the issue of priorities and where resources are directed one that is left entirely for the intelligence and security services to decide?

Governments often talk about the need to get value for money. I assume the same applies to our security and intelligence services. If that assumption is correct, what are the criteria against which a judgment is made on whether our security and intelligence services maximise value for money in respect of their resources? Equally, and perhaps more importantly, how do we know the extent to which a lack of resources may be impeding the effectiveness of our security and intelligence services with potentially serious consequences?

In the current climate, our security and intelligence services have never maintained that they can or will be able to stop every attempted act of terrorism from succeeding. They have always said in the current situation that it is a case of when rather than if, but have also quite rightly drawn attention to the number of occasions on which they have been successful in nipping a significant number of likely such acts in the bud. The significant number of successful prosecutions for terrorist or terrorist-related offences is of course a matter of hard fact. From that we should take considerable comfort and for that we should all be extremely grateful for the work they do.

In recent months, we have had four high-profile terrorist incidents in which varying numbers of lives have tragically been lost. In some of these instances it has been reported that the perpetrators have been known to the security and intelligence services. There can of course be different interpretations of the relevance of that situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said. As I understand it, the Government have asked the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, to look into issues surrounding these recent attacks. What doubt or concern led the Government to ask David Anderson to undertake this exercise? What exactly are his terms of reference? When will the report, and to what extent will his findings, be made public?

The Government intend to establish a counterterrorism commission. What existing government concerns or issues is the commission meant to address which are not being addressed at present or not being addressed adequately? In addition, what activities currently undertaken by other bodies or individuals will in future be undertaken by the counterterrorism commission, and to what extent will its work be new and not undertaken at present? What kind of budget will the commission have?

The Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has said—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to it—that existing statutory powers are sufficient to address current threats from a legal powers point of view, although he has indicated that sentencing levels should be reviewed. On both these issues, is the Government’s view the same as that of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, if not, what is the hard evidence that further legislation would make our security and intelligence services more effective in combating terrorism and related acts? Were any of the four recent incidents in London and Manchester not prevented because of insufficient legal powers as opposed, for example, to insufficient resources to cope fully with current workloads or just plain bad luck? Is this one of the questions on which David Anderson has been asked to report?

One area where there has been a reduction in resources is in our police, whose numbers have been cut over the past seven years. The Government’s argument has been that, since crime rates have fallen, this has not caused a problem. Crimes of violence, however, are on the rise; the level of hate crime has increased; cybercrime, which affects individuals and large corporations alike, has gone through the roof, and there is now heightened concern over acts of terrorism both here and in mainland Europe.

Our security, police and intelligence services play a key role in combating acts of terrorism; so, too, do the public, as other noble Lords have already said, not least my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. One way in which the role of the public is vital is through drawing the attention of the police to those whose actions and words suggest they might be open to being persuaded or encouraged to contemplate such acts. Yet cuts have been made in community neighbourhood policing—the very police personnel who have built up the closest contact and relationship with the communities they serve and who are most likely to have the confidence of those communities. That confidence is so vital to picking up and being given information and can not only reduce the level of long-term crime but help in combating acts of terrorism and hate crime and in preventing people going down that road. My noble friend Lord Bach spoke powerfully on the impact of cuts on neighbourhood policing and on policing in general. The effectiveness of the Prevent strategy can only have been weakened by the cuts to community neighbourhood policing.

Concerns have been expressed about the approach to the Prevent strategy as opposed to its concept or purpose. Terrorism is not confined to those who claim to act in the murderous and thuggish way they do in the name of a particular faith or religion. As has already been said, Jo Cox MP was murdered by a right-wing extremist, and the perpetrator of the attack at the Finsbury Park mosque certainly was not claiming to be doing it in the name of Islam, any more than do those behind the recent increased levels of hate crime against Muslims and against women Members of Parliament. Yet for many Muslims the Prevent strategy seems to be aimed primarily at them, and with it the inference that Muslims as a whole are both the source of terrorism and supporters of terrorism. That does nothing to enhance trust and confidence, and nothing to encourage the flow of information which is so vital in preventing and combating acts of terrorism, acts which do not distinguish between faiths when it comes to those who are killed or maimed as a result. Indeed, the hard facts show that those who commit acts of terrorism or hate crime are more than likely to already have criminal records. That suggests either that they are easily led by those with extreme political views, or that they simply choose to adopt a violent approach to those groups they decide they do not like: that is the key factor behind the acts they commit, rather than any credible adherence to any faith or religion. They do not deserve the cover for their actions which they claim a faith or religion provides, and no faith or religion deserves them.

Cybercrime has become an issue of real concern, both when individuals, often vulnerable individuals, are the victims, and also when major companies and organisations, including Governments, are the targets. The acts appear to be committed by individuals who see it as a game, by individuals and organisations which are in it for illicit financial gain or competitive advantage, or by those who act for or with the full knowledge of nation states against other nation states. We appear to be in a situation where our major public utilities, our banking and financial services system and our health service, for example, are potentially at risk of being brought nearly to their knees by such attacks. Presumably, the threat is also there in respect of neutralising or reducing the capability and effectiveness of our Armed Forces.

I appreciate, of course, that there will be real limits to what the Government will want to disclose, but how are decisions made on the resources that need to be made available to protect us from cyberattacks in a situation where the speed of technological advance is rapid, and where keeping ahead of the game is vital? Is the provision of resources to combat the threat of cyberattacks, particularly by or with the blessing of other nation states, affected by financial constraints, or do we provide whatever resources are needed to combat those threats? Lower down the line, have our police forces been given the resources, skills and capabilities needed to combat the rapid increase in the types of cybercrime with which they increasingly have to deal? Are decisions on how such resources are allocated determined by individual chief constables and police and crime commissioners when they draw up budgets, or are such matters determined on a national basis, and, if so, by whom? The effectiveness of the National Crime Agency in combating cybercrime, which recognises no individual police force boundaries, can be hampered only if individual police forces do not regard putting more resources into combating this particular type of crime as a priority when forced to make such choices through being stretched, which is how more than one commissioner or chief constable has recently described their current situation.

There is also the role of service providers, as well as government, in preventing the internet and cyberspace being used to spread extremism and hatred, or as a vehicle for planning acts of terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke about this and, in particular, about what can and cannot realistically be achieved. The decision to withdraw from the European Union, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, referred, could affect co-operation with other European nations through European agencies—the European arrest warrant, for example—which are key parts of the armoury in the constant battle to combat serious crime, including terrorism. What undertakings are the Government prepared to give today at the Dispatch Box that, whatever else emerges at the end of the negotiations on our withdrawal from the European Union, our existing membership of the European agencies and procedures involved in combating crime, including terrorism, will continue to no lesser extent than they do today?

In 2015, the Government announced proposals to introduce a new extremism Bill, but no such Bill ever materialised. In 2016, a counterextremism and safeguarding Bill was announced, but no detailed proposals ever emerged. That may well have been no bad thing. There has been a cross-government review of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest. There have been reviews of the Prevent strategy. We now have a review by Mr David Anderson. There is now going to be a commission for countering extremism. With this Government, there is quite a lot of talk about what they intend to do to counter the threats of extremism and terrorism, whether through Bills or reviews, but all too often not enough action to address the problems our police, security and intelligence services actually face. Indeed, some government actions have made the situation worse, not least through the reductions in community neighbourhood policing. There is also the reality that additional resources found for counterterrorism activities, particularly on the police side, can be at the expense of resources able to be directed at other significant areas of crime.

During the election, following a terror attack in London, the Prime Minister said that, “Enough is enough”. That is true: we have had enough talk. We now have to provide the resources needed to address the major increase in the number of investigations our hard-pressed security, intelligence and police forces have to handle, and end a situation where chief constables, commissioners and PCCs are uncertain whether they are still going to be asked to accept further cuts in real terms—further “efficiency savings”, as they are often called—when they are already using the euphemism that their forces and budgets are being “stretched”.

Immigration Centre Detainees: Pay

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to recognise that immigration detainees have lawfully had their right to work in the UK, if indeed they ever had one, curtailed by virtue of an immigration decision or by the decision to detain them. Therefore, their position regarding pay rights is not the same as for people who are not subject to immigration detention.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, a freedom of information request to the Home Office in 2014 apparently found that in May that year hundreds of detainees had been paid £45,438 for 44,832 hours of work. If that work were not done by detainees in the immigration centre “volunteering”, as the Government seem to describe it, presumably it would have to be done in total or in part by paid staff of Serco or whoever is running the centre. If the figures I have cited for one month are correct, that suggests that the saving from using detainees at £1 per hour, compared to paying employed staff on the minimum wage, would be in the region of £300,000 a month. Who gets the benefit of this apparently considerable financial saving each month? Is it the Government or the firm running the immigration centre who reap that financial benefit?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to recognise that the work undertaken is entirely voluntary. It is not to supplement the work of the contractors. Contractually, the IRC providers must make a minimum number of opportunities available for detainees to participate voluntarily in this paid activity. As I explained to the noble Baroness, detainees’ position regarding pay rights is not the same as for those who are not in detention.