Lords Chamber

Monday 8th September 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
None Portrait Oral questions: Displacement of the Palestinian population from Gaza City
-

Second Oral Question. Paper.
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:05
15:05
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Planning delivery as set out in the government's Plan for Change
-

Third Oral Questions, Baroness Maclean of Redditch. standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:06
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
None Portrait Oral questions: The state of the labour market
-

Fourth Oral Question. Paper.
15:17
15:17
15:18
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I don't want to trade stats but hey why not. if he has looked carefully at the most recent set of data he will see employment is up at record level and economic inactivity is down, wages continue to grow and we have a healthy number of vacancies in the labour market. Let me say, he has raised important point, about the skills needed for employers at the moment and the fact is the market is changing. In terms of graduates, the most recent data for graduates showed the risks of a strong graduate deployment market and graduate climate is still above average.

I don't want to send out messages that degrees are not worth having. However, there are signs that they are the beginnings of changes in that market. What the government is doing is not just for graduates but will people, we risk the fact that 2 million people left behind because they don't have the right skills or opportunities. Skills England recently published a report providing an assessment of the government's priority skills 2030 and it gave a detailed analysis of future employment needs across 10 critical sectors aligned with the Industrial Strategy and the Plan for Change.

What I hope you will appreciate is by moving adult skills into DWP that strengthens the garment focus on the importance of a highly skilled workforce and accompanying growth. Typically there's a lot of experience in retraining and reskilling workers and teachers that focus that will make the difference.
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:29
15:30
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 41, amendment hundred and 36, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moulsecoomb. Noble Lords will note, I am not Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. My noble friend roundabout now is I hope emerging from theatre having had the operation on her first and so she won't be in the House for a few weeks so I'm afraid I'm picking up amendments from the noble Lady, my noble friend. I apologise for not taking part in the second reading of this bill but the timing of the operation was uncertain so that's operation was uncertain so that's I rise to move the moment 136 and speak to 187 in the name of my noble friend.

These are two new clauses, both of which address the rights of children. Now, most of us will understand, I hope and believe that most will accept in the UK we regard the rights of children is enormously important and that some thing we are making decisions we have to always keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or they will be children resident in Britain. And just to set a couple of context points for this.

I note that the rights of the child, article 3, many will be aware is about the best interests of the child, decisions, towards parental guidance, how important that is for children and 9, which talks about separating from parents, how that should be avoided, wherever possible. And if we think about what that means if a parent is deported, what it means for the child, I was going to some testimony from an organisation called... Immigration detainees. They were talking about what it is like when a child is seeing their parents facing deportation.

They are saying that it is obviously devastating. The family has been torn apart, they face ever seeing their family in the fresh again. If someone is deported to Jamaica or India it is going to be possibly impossibly expensive for the child to ever be in that parents arms again. There is also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, they have employment that fits around that one parent is that of the other parent or the other parents working as all of those arrangements fall apart very suddenly and the child is the one that suffers.

So that is the context of these two amendments and these are two new clauses that proceed to put forward to make sure that this bill addresses and indeed, in the case of 136 amending at the nationality and Asylum act. Addresses the rights of the child. See this, as the explanatory statement sets out. It seeks to ensure that article 8, the EHC HR, claimed by a sense to less than three years imprisonment, if certain conditions are met. This is about genuine and parental relationship the qualifying child.

And this is about the reality of children's lives. Not just this year or next year, but the whole of their childhood. If we go to Amendment two 187, this is a new clause inserting into this bill. To have due regard to family unity. So this is again the rights of the child front and centre in the exercise of all Immigration and Asylum Act in. It applies to the Secretary of State immigration officers exercising immigration and asylum functions and to 1st tier and I would tear in deciding human rights appeals.

We hear a lot about the problems in our society, the difficulties in our society, but if we are going to be a caring society, a society that is for the future, prepares young generations for the future, then I would put to your Lordships' House that these two amendments are a step in the direction of making sure you do indeed, as we so often claim to do that the rights of children there for the future, for all of us. Big

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendments are proposed, after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments are proposed, after clause 41, insert the new clause as clause 41, insert the new clause as printed in the marshalled List. The question is this Amendment two be agreed to.
15:35
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. Declaws which the honourable lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Declaws which the honourable lady is seeking to amend the deportation of foreign criminals, provides 117 C1, deportation is in the public interest. I would suggest that the well-being and best interests of children are in the public, are a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals, at the moment. The noble Lady is rightly focused on children. I won't take too much of your Lordships time in this on the two clauses, together.

As the noble Lady has identified, the unity of family, about which politicians talk an awful lot is generally in a child's best interests. I have to say I am not sure about there being a public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept but I'm not quite sure how to define it. In 187 there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. And i.e. Have been aware, over the years, though the means have been developed, Skype families, as they used to be called were desperately distressing for everyone desperately distressing for everyone concerned.

And just to use one example, that I heard many years ago, a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because the child had never seen the father below, I suppose chest level. It's not Skype these days, the principal still these days, the principal still remains. And I think in brief, what I would say is to thank the noble Lady and Baroness Jones. I hyper recovery is quick and well. Bringing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us to the attention of that. I also wish a swift and full recovery to the noble Lady Baroness recovery to the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and I think a Jones of Moulsecoomb and I think a colleague is ably set out the thinking behind this amendment. I suspect I am more Semitic than some suspect I am more Semitic than some members of the committee. May I suggest an additional observation and a point that it demonstrates,
15:38
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
and a point that it demonstrates, even to those who feel very, very antsy anyone who is committed a crime being able to stay in the UK. The amendment demonstrates that article 8 of the convention is, is broadly drawn. So that there is room for some considerable debate, about where the line should be drawn, in relation to what is a necessary and proportionate interference. For example to prevent crime, or for the purposes of immigration control. And therefore, a great deal of latitude has always been around to signatory states.

As to where in the first instance democratic politics and government, elected government date thinks that that discretion should be found. And governments of both persuasion, for many years have attempted to structure that discretion, just as Baroness Jones is doing in one direction in this amendment. Structuring that direction by a combination of primary legislation, immigration rules and policy. And so anybody who says that one needs to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights, because of article 8, in particular, the convention is really quite misguided.

Although not misguided at all and that they are doing this for various political reasons. I have only been a lawyer for 31 years but to my understanding there have only been four cases since 1980 in which the UK government has been found in violation of article 8, in removal cases. For cases since 1980. So if people are upset about the way that domestic courts are drawing the line in particular places. I would suggest that that is some thing for the domestic legislation, primary, secondary rules, guidance and so on, about these cases.

This is in no way a justification for some of the toxic debate about international human rights that we have heard in recent days, weeks, months and years.
15:40
15:42
15:42
15:44
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for moving the amendment. I do hope she will pass on her best wishes of his Majesty's government and myself to Baroness Jones of scum for absence from this House and look forward to seeing her back, in October, undoubtedly for day six of the immigration bill, date to be determined in October. The noble Baroness the amendment imposes a duty 187 on the Secretary of State have due regard to the unity of the family unit in immigration functions.

I think it is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I do share the views that have been expressed, by the opposition front bench and also noble Lord handing that the amendment is in itself unnecessary. The protections it seeks to apply already firmly embedded in law and practice through section 55 of the border citizenship and immigration act 2009. The human rights right 1998 of the Public Sector Equality Duty, derived from the equality act 2010 and plans family reform which are announced in our immigration white paper in May, our immigration white paper in May, which will shortly before both houses, in a relatively short order.

There is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child, the UK sections 55 and border citizenship and immigration 2009. It ensures that the consideration of the child's best interests is a primary, but not the only consideration when carrying out the relevant functions. I think it is fair to say that the U.K.'s immigration system rightly supports family migration for British citizens and those settled here. The way individuals wish to establish family life in the UK, it is appropriate that they do so, the basis of financial self-sufficiency and the ability to integrate into society.

And the system already provides the dependent children, through crosscutting rules, in the appendix children and provides provisions for parents to join or remain with the children in defined circumstances. Article 8 as other noble Lords of mentioned, the European Convention on Human Rights, provides a robust radio framework for assessing the rights of family life. The immigration rules reflect the nature of quality article 8 sitting requirements that talent at the individual right foot respect for family and private life with the public interest and safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK foreign criminals and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

Now I note that Baroness Hamwee and my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti have supported that. I think five of the national Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has already set up Parliament's view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases. Engaging collar fired right to respect private and family life, It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases. This means the public interest in family being financially independent as required by the requirements set out in primary legislation.

Each application for permission of the family roots are considered on its merits on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. Where an applicant does not meet all the core eligibility requirements the decision-maker will go on to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal in breach of article 8 and the right to respect private and family life, of the ECHR, this involves considering whether the refusal would result in justifiably Haas consequences -- harsh.

As has been mentioned under section 141 of the Equality Act, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality opportunity and fostering good relations between those with and without protected characteristics. Given the nature of any protected characteristics such as age, disability, sex and pregnancy, the consideration of the impact will inherently include the effect on family life. The government is fully committed as I have said a number of occasions to complying with international law and protecting human rights.

We are therefore proposing reforms to the system but ones which we believe will be compatible with article 8 of the ECHR. As we have announced in the immigration White Paper, this government will set out a new family policy to cover all UK residents including those who are British, settled, and work routes or refugees, seeking to bring family members to the UK which will include clear relationship requirements and appropriate level of English language skills, and to ensure the family units have sufficient money financially to support any migrants without reliance on the taxpayer.

We intend to reform article 8 and consideration of exceptional circumstances by setting out a clear framework which I hope will be endorsed by Parliament for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK including on the basis of exceptional circumstances who do not for within our family policies. I would respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that amendment 187 is not necessary. Turning to amendment 136 I have a stronger disagreement with this than simply it isn't covered by that legislation currently.

Article 8 of family life and amendment 136 would be replacing article 8 of family life exception for deportation for foreign criminals who have a qualifying child with the lowest test that applies to the places. Where an article 8 claim is made by foreign national offenders, sentenced to less than four years imprisonment the claim will succeed if they show effective deportation on a qualifying child would be unduly harsh. This is a high threshold that applies to other article 8 claims where there is no commonality recognising the strong public interest in deporting foreign criminals.

We have set out in our immigration white paper our intention to bring forward legislation to allow us more easily to remove foreign national offenders. We remain resolute in our commitments to deport those who abuse our hospitality, by committing crimes in the UK, and I'm sorry but it will not be appropriate to lower the article 8 exceptions to deportation for foreign criminals, including those who have a qualifying child. This amendment will undermine our ability to deport serious, violent and persistent national offenders and I therefore cannot support a.

Replacing the unduly harsh threshold with the new lower reasonable test will open the doors to litigation to determine the parameters of what could considered reasonable. It fails to reflect public interest and there's an easier way to avoid that in the first place which is don't commit crime. Self-evidently, don't commit the crime and you will not face that activity. I cannot accept the amendment because lower the threshold and for that reason I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraw the amendment 136 because I can't accept that under any circumstances but also I hope she can accept explanation of amendment 187 which I think is unnecessary for the reasons outlined.
15:52
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their kind with each sent to my noble friend and I will certainly pass all of those on as soon as possible. And I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate, including the noble Lord the Minister although I will point out that in his closing comments, the noble Lords repeated several times, don't commit crime. Of course the child who were talking about here has not committed any crime at all.

It's the future of the child's whole life and family life that were talking about here, not focusing on the criminal but focusing on the child. I want to thank the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee for bringing in an important point that the well-being of children, we're not just focusing on those children, we are focusing on the public and just, the future of our children is the future of all of us and I think the noble Lady made it useful point by noticing how often the unity of the family is brought up in public debates but then seems to be excluded from certain parts of the conversation.

Lady Baroness Chakrabarti made a really important point in the context of our current national debate, for those who would see a withdraw from the commission of joint human rights, it is a flexible instrument and that reflects the fact of why these amendments have been brought. The noble Lady, noble Lord Lord Pannick said, asked why these were needed and said, it's all there in article 8 judgements. The noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti said we can set the guardrails, we can say what article 8 means and that is what this amendment is seeking to do.

Nonetheless, we have had a useful debate. It is really important and I think what the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee said about Skype families, that's an issue I've been working on for a very long while. We do have to get a new term, may be Teams families or Zoom families or I'm not quite sure what it is. But it is really important to think about the reality of, let's think the child of seven or eight who knows there never going to be held in the arms of a parent again.

And how does the other parent explain that to the child? I'm sure my noble friend will look at this debate and take on board all of the comments that have been made, so for the moment I beg to leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave
15:55
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
withdrawn. After clause 41, amendment 137.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 137 and to declare my registered interest is to declare my registered interest is the unregulated non-executive chair of the Board of Trustees of the of the Board of Trustees of the Leicester law centre. I remind the committee that I am co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on All Party Parliamentary Group on access to justice. I want to begin by thanking noble Lords who have put by thanking noble Lords who have put their names to my amendment and others who have expressed their support for my amendment.

And also support for my amendment. And also to those who outside the House have provided excellent briefings and provided excellent briefings and particular assistance to me and to particular assistance to me and to other noble peers. In the government's own words, the UK's asylum and immigration system is asylum and immigration system is broken. In few areas is this damage more obvious than in that struggle people face accessing immigration people face accessing immigration advice, legal advice, largely due to advice, legal advice, largely due to so-called legal deserts.

Stemming of us so much dust from the drastic cuts to legal aid following the legal aid sentencing and punishment for a always to be known as an asthma. Immigration legal aid is in the words of the public law object " an advice sector that has collapsed, leaving individuals adrift in an ocean of unmet need ". The facts are fairly brutal. In June. In June 2025 the Law Society estimated that 63% of people in England and Wales cannot access a local immigration legal aid solicitor.

The result is that 50% of claimants are under presented in asylum claims and appeals. In real terms this means that almost 55,000 people are left without a legal aid representative at a time when the need one. This amendment is about that crisis. Its purpose is to put duty on the Lord Chancellor to makes a full legal aid available within 48 hours to individuals in immigration detention. This will ensure that people are supported time obvious extreme vulnerability, perhaps in fear of their lives, safety and futures, to navigate the confusing to predict bodily labyrinthitis that UK immigration system.

And this will save taxpayer money by facilitating better decisions earlier on. Recent announcements made early access to legal aid more pressing than ever. The first people have been detained as part of the government pilot of the treaty, which facilitates expedited deportations, in addition it is intended to expand the deport now appeal aged skin. It's also been suggested that the government plans to replace tribunal's with independent adjudicators to speed up appeals. On top of this, we are seeing an expansion of the detention estate such as the reopening of Campsfield House removal Centre in Oxfordshire enabling more people to be detained.

While of course recent increases in immigration legal aid fees announced by the last Lord Chancellor, now of course the Home Secretary, are very welcome, as she recognised herself these changes are only designed to " stabilise the system and pop-up bits that are most likely to experience system failure ". As the Institute for Fiscal Studies have confirmed, these increases will go nowhere near storing the Ministry of Justice budget to pre-cuts levels, the legal aid project being 36% lower than in 2008.

The increases announced also don't deal with that unique and urgent challenges of accessing legal advice in immigration detention and are unlikely to prevent system failure in that context. This amendment is a further step to support the government was Mac efforts to prop up the most broken part of our legal aid system. I want to address directly why the government and the House should support making legal aid available for migrants in detention. Firstly, to ensure perhaps 70 Parliament.

If people can't obtain legal advice, and challenge Home Office detention decisions, when they may be unlawful, the laws passed by Parliament frankly aren't worth the paper they are written on. Secondly, this amendment supports the rule of law of which access to justice is as the committee will agree surely, a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After splitting 2017. A quote obtaining advice and representations obtaining advice and representations is not nearly meaning that competent lawyers exist, it also must be that lawyers exist, it also must be that their advice and representation are their advice and representation are sensibly affordable, for ordinary people and businesses. Access to justice he went on as a practical, justice he went on as a practical, not a hypothetical requirement. Thirdly, is that legal aid is mated Thirdly, is that legal aid is mated to make the immigration system work to make the immigration system work effectively.

It is both the law and the Home Office policy that people should be able to access legal advice before they are removed. advice before they are removed. Indeed it was then the late governments, the last government firm conviction during the passage of the unlawful migration act, that that was the position. Therefore that was the position. Therefore with prompt and effective advice, with prompt and effective advice, the immigration system simply cannot function from one day to the next. And the Lords, alas, the reality is the access to justice for people in immigration and detention is largely illusionary.

Evidence shows that existing government schemes to provide access to immigration and detention is not working to stop people detained in immigration removal centres IRCs are entitled to just 30 minutes of free advice, or obtain the system at the DA. However a survey by detainees and found that only 27% of respondents have a legal aid solicitor. This contrasts with with 75%. The situation is equally dire for all retaining prisons. These individuals are entitled to 30 minutes of free legal advice, from the telephone legal advice service, however a bail for immigration detainees surveys last year found that 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under that scheme to quote the words of the Jesuit refugee legal service, in a report this year.

Access to legal advice, immigration and detention is becoming an impossibility. Many people sign up for advice ever hear back. Even when they do hit back, the lawyer will often be unable to offer detailed advice of the quality for capacity and understandable reasons. Even if existing schemes provide free legal adviser to the minority, can access the experience of practitioners and NGOs, suggest that the schemes are too often fill to provide ongoing consultation after that initial 30 minutes.

In supporting a person to bring an appeal and the tribunal is where decisions against them be unlawful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even worse is that where a person is not detained, either in an IRC or in a prison there is no specific in a prison there is no specific government scheme at all providing free immigration and legal advice. free immigration and legal advice. For example people pertaining short-term holding facilities and residential holding rooms are just not entitled to the access that not entitled to the access that others are. In some the main government scheme providing immigration I'm afraid failing to immigration I'm afraid failing to provide the very basis of access to justice.

This amendment is intended to support the government to resolve this crisis. The committee will know that immigration law is notoriously complex and I do not need to go into complex and I do not need to go into the details. Evidence consistently shows that being supported by a lawyer enables individuals with a lawyer enables individuals with a valid claim, such as for asylum or valid claim, such as for asylum or trafficking to submit relevant evidence and prepare their case more effectively.

This helps the parties narrow the dispute and government officials to make I would argue more accurate decisions as a National Audit Office made clear last year, the result of failing to provide effective legal early advice in this system is money, time and resources wasted for court adjournments, supporting a person, accommodating people in hotels, and tribunal appeals. We cannot afford this waste at a time when the asylum appeal is backlogged and increase. Better we get it right the first time this investment now is needed to prevent even further expenses in the.

The government's own words in the legal aid system is in crisis and will get worse unless we crossed this carry out urgent reform. The government's recent actions, in terms of funding, they don't reflect the unique challenges of accessing immigration legal advice or detention. Further action is needed for the system, to save it from collapse. From a rule of law perspective and from a class perspective. The position is untenable. The government needs to respond.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments are proposed, after clause 41, insert the new clause as clause 41, insert the new clause as printed in the marshalled List. The question is that this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. I rise to support this amendment
16:07
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support this amendment to which on the signatory it has been moved by the noble Lord, he has set out in detail the progression of the amendment. So I will not repeat his arguments. What I would like to highlight, the human impact of lack of legal aid for those in immigration detention. Look at the scenario, those in detention may face trauma such as persecution, threats to life, inhumane treatment by human traffickers. Following this trauma, they face a very complicated trauma, they face a very complicated and confusing system which they have to navigate.

It is in fact extremely difficult to navigate the system without competent legal advice. If they get anything wrong it is very detrimental for them, this could endanger their safety in the long term. The service which all the evidence shows is not easily accessible and is of doubtful quality, concerns have been expressed by his Majesty's Inspector of prisons. Which gives only 30 minutes of advice, which is not enough to explain the circumstances and furthermore at the end of 30 minutes there is no clarity if they were supported.

If appeal deadlines are missed, and because of the nationality and orders at 2022 this is held as evidence all this is when those detained are locked up in prison conditions, potentially definitely. This scenario My Lords is not exceptional, all the evidence shows this is an exceptional and quite common. In short system dividing legal assistance and representation in detention is growing. Action is urgent, not least for the reasons described by Lord Bach such as the piloting of the transmigration deal.

We need practical action to improve access, to high quality legal advice within 48 hours. This My Lords will not only be humane as has already been described but increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration & system. I therefore commend this amendment to the House.
16:10
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
I too have put my name to this amendment and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the way in which he opened and explained this amendment. About 40 years ago, my first task in the other place of all the tasks I did there was to be a member of the standing committee of the police and criminal evidence bill. Which is probably the most important criminal law statute that was being enacted, certainly in my time in the House of Parliament.

In paragraph 6 of the government, the home offices online summary, which is shared with the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Society, online. It says the police must tell you,... Why you have been arrested and are being detained. And there is an analogy with what we are discussing today and what happens in cases where people are arrested in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If somebody is taken to a police station, who have done various pieces of work with the police.

I was at one stage the chair of the London policing ethics barrel. Those who have been out and spent the night with police officers on duty have seen this happening in real time, in the real world. Somebody is taken into the police station, under arrest, they wait to be interviewed and then a duty solicitor is found for them if they do not have a solicitor of their own. And the job of that duty solicitor is to explain to them in terms they understand and hopefully in a language they understand why they have been detained.

The people who are arrested for criminal offences in the ordinary course of things, noisy Saturday night in North London, they do not actually expect to be kept in custody for a very long time. If somebody is detained under immigration detention, it must be even more alarming, because the consequences that they see panning out before them are being put by force on an aeroplane and return to a country which they have not been to for a very long time.

It may be a very deserved return but it would still be alarming. In the police situation that I've described it is just worth looking at statistics, 25% of those arrested are not charged with any offence whatsoever. 25%, one in four. Mistakes are made and sometimes they are glaring mistakes. The wrong person is arrested, here by reason of the mistaken identity or because they happen to be a youngster carrying the identity card of somebody who might look rather like them but is a bit older.

They may be arrested, mistakenly because of their age has been misunderstood there may be a terrible mistake which can only be ironed out if somebody is there to help them. Because completeness understands occur. It is very important in all cases that there should be an early intervention, it may be a very brief intervention, in which a lawyer can be made available, to ask the person as to whether what is happened to them is not right, that is not the question but legitimate as part of the process.

Now, in a sort of immigration detention were talking about, it's maybe that the figure of mistakes would be much lower than 25%. I would accept that. I would not accept for one moment that there would be no mistakes. And indeed the provision of legal aid is a key component in upholding the constitutional rights and access to the courts. Which is in itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid, in what are regarded proportionately as proper circumstances can amount to breach of fundamental rights.

I site for example the judgement of Gordon Reid, in the Crown, through UNICEF, against the Lord Chancellor, 2017, UK Supreme Court cases, page 51, paragraph 66. It is an undeniable right. Now I want to congratulate the government on some steps that it has taken to deal with immigration cases. That they are speeding up the process, dramatically. I hope that those cases, for example the Afghan and other cases, where people are given asylum anyway will be speeded up say they can be dealt with similarly.

I hope the government will fulfil its promise to appoint more adjudicators, judges of one kind or another for as long as is needed to deal with the backlog. I hope that the government will use these adjudicators in a creative way by sending them out to where the people they are adjudicating a prawn are situated, so that cases can be dealt with in bulk, possibly by hiring a local school or village hall, or simply setting up a room wherever those people are held, in order that the cases can be dealt with quickly.

Indeed, I spent a number of years as a deputy High Court judge dealing almost entirely with judicial review cases. And a large number of those cases were dealt with by very carefully prepared paper applications, which the judge dealing with could manage 12 or more cases in a day. This 12 or more cases in a day. This I believe if that sort of process is created, it would work. But there has to be some legal advice to people, at least of a rudimentary and informative client in a language they understand, it may be done by telephone as long as it's properly managed.

And I would suggest that in an accelerated detention process, there ought to be, and I would say this, wouldn't I, the appointment of an independent reviewer, who could report to Parliament on a regular basis, naming and shaming as independent reviewers to, and the way in which I used to logo and my noble friend Lord Anderson for example has done so effectively in the period since he took over from me as independent review of child will legislation and indeed.

If we were to take those steps, as suggested by the noble Lord in his amendment, this amendment would build upon current legal aid arrangements. Where a person is taken to a police station, and it's decided there is no criminal elegant -- element of the case, but there's an immigration element, the police as a matter of practice request assistance through the immigration police station advice scheme. For immigration matters that are classified as criminal offences, the details are captured by the defence solicitor contact centre, which is responsible for bringing in a criminal solicitor.

The proposed system which is implicit at least in the amendment we are considering now would simply involve allocating an immigration lawyer to an individual upon them entering detention. It's all very simple. It's going to happen. The government has the opportunity to make this work in a constructive and speedy way without being sued through the courts through judicial and forced to do it as a happen if this is not dealt with at this stage in this bill. I would commend the amendment strongly to the House and thank the noble Lord for moving it.
16:19
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Self evidently I'm not Mr Lightwood and her name on behalf of these benches is to this amendment Baroness Ludford. The noble Lord described immigration law as labyrinthine. It certainly is. There are easier subjects in which to practice. And I think that a society we are very lucky that there are some lawyers, a lot of lawyers, who are prepared to... I don't say this lightly, but sacrifice themselves in order to ensure that people are advised about the labyrinthine rules.

I'm a member of the Constitution Committee of your Lordship's House the moment we are doing some work on the rule of law and every witness I think we have raised the issue of access to justice and the committee is paying a lot of attention to that. I wanted to pick up the reference to the 30 minutes of advice which is available. It's not 30 minutes. It's less than that, as I discovered when I visited yours would a few years ago stop -- visited yours would.

It was explained that out of that 30 minutes you have to take the time needed in order to bring the detainee to the room where the lawyer is holding a surgery for want of a better word. Can it really be advice? The first job of the lawyer in this situation is to listen. And I think it must in pretty much every case really, if you were to do it properly, take longer than 30 minutes to have a detainee explain what has happened, or to his or her what has happened, or to his or her own history is, and not even a period taken consecutively, for a number of people, and people who have been subject to human trafficking of modern slavery, I think I been mentioned, to tell that story takes a long time, and to be able to tell that story.

So there's listening. Then there is advice. Or rather, an explanation, and then advice. Left alone action. We know that action doesn't happen. So from these benches we very much support the noble Lord's amendment.
16:22
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Had I been awake I would have wanted to add my name to it but I was sleeping on the set. The noble Lord describes the situation which I don't think is an exaggeration, to call critical stop the numbers that he quotes, the percentages that he quotes, archly shocking and the case were his amendment can be made on grounds of fairness or access to justice and as he said, via the requirement for the executive to carry out the laws that this place has past .With all that and I don't think anybody in this House disagree with all that.

The point I would like to emphasise is the one he made en passant and one that the noble and learned had Lord Carlile made a length. The tacked on this amendment is not just what we should be doing on grounds of fairness equity. It makes sense in terms of economy. The cost of the delays in the system which must in many cases result from inadequate preparation of the case, the wrong grounds being advanced, cases deferred and having to be heard again, the costs of all that must be considerable.

I have no numbers to offer but I do know that in the case of asylum cases, 50% of initial applicants have no legal representation. And in the case of asylum appeals, 60% have no legal representation. That must prolong the process. Like noble Lord Lord Carlile, I congratulate the government on the efforts they are making to reduce the queues of that initial application stage, and appeals. Getting of these backlogs which grew terrifyingly under the previous administration while the emphasis was on the can off working on these cases.

The government is to get the backlogs down are admirable. But they would be assisted by putting into practice what this amendment calls for. So I supported not just on the grounds of equity which perhaps is in itself sufficient, but also on the grounds of economy.
16:25
16:26
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I also support mod bus 's amendment and a tribute to him not just for the end and but for decades of service to access to justice, not least through successive Labour governments and leaderships. I also congratulate him, in his rather impressive list of supporters, many knocking on the door to be supporters but could not get in there quickly enough to be signatories. I remind the committee that here we are talking about incarcerated people. So this is not all migrants by any stretch.

Although I have no doubt that more and more will become incarcerated in the future, there has certainly been a growth in detention in devious decades but these are incarcerated people. Which means that the instinct behind this amendment from Lord Bach is not a 1998 instinct or even a 1950 instinct, it is actually coming from a 1215 instinct. I don't mean 1215 this afternoon, you understand. Incarcerated people who are not getting access to legal advice. And that's both around the incarceration and potentially the urgent removal from the country, urgent removal from the country, without legal advice.

I don't think that most members of the public realise that that is the situation. Obviously I think this is a no- brainer but I must try and walk in other people's shoes and think about what the objections to Lord Bach's amendment would be. Clearly if you believe that governments and successive home offices and their officials always get things right, and that legal process at all and legal advice in particular is just a burden and an impediment and we should ask Lord questions about how much it will cost, if that is your position that is an obvious objection to the amendment.

Another objection would come if you were of the view that nonnationals have no rights, or should not have rights. If you take those two objections together, very quickly, pave the way for many more and worse -- many more windrush situations. And nationals were swept up in a particular scandal. Because of the callous approach to nonnationals. Which takes me to Nova Lord Carlile 's very important speech comparing a lot of these incarcerated people with those who are swept up in the criminal justice system, with place protections, that these people do not have even those these people are often not even accused of the kind
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page