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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just explained, the amendment would ensure that children in care were entitled to remain in the United Kingdom.

When the same amendment was debated in Committee, several of your Lordships emphasised that post Brexit it is both logical and necessary for children who are already in care, along with those entitled to care, to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, for otherwise where would these children go?

Nor, of course, can it be in the child’s best interest to be removed from care in the United Kingdom simply because we are leaving the European Union. Equally, under our own law and that of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, we are obliged to look after the child’s best interest in all respects. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister affirmed that this is what we will do.

However, the Government are concerned that post Brexit an automatic right to remain in care in the United Kingdom would encourage local authorities not to apply for leave to remain for each child currently in their care.

Yet surely local authorities providing care to EEA and Swiss children ought not to have to face the additional administrative burden and red tape implied—to have to make an application for leave to remain for each and every child before the given deadline.

Would it not be much better and far less time consuming if, rather than dealing with the majority of cases, local authorities instead had to deal with only very few of them? Those are the cases where it might not be in the child’s best interest to remain in the United Kingdom. For the latter cases, an administrative act could easily be made before the given deadline in order to avoid the automatic or de jure leave to remain after having left the European Union.

Therefore, without the amendment, local authorities would have to shoulder an unnecessary burden just at a moment when they had many other pressing tasks to perform.

Yet, at the same time, acceptance of the amendment means that children currently in care would no longer be uncertain about their future care if, for whatever reason, local authorities should not be able to meet the deadline for an application for leave to remain.

Worse still, without the amendment there is also a risk that, after the given deadline will have passed, some children might then be deported.

For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposes.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which seeks, of course, to offer security to EEA children in care in the UK and those entitled to care-leaving support. The noble Lord and his colleagues have set out the case for the amendment very clearly and I certainly do not want to repeat their comments, but I want to add my support as someone who worked in mental health services for many years—decades, actually—originally on the front line. My recollections of the vulnerability of those children remain with me even after what is perhaps four decades.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her helpful letter explaining the Government’s position. I welcome her assurance that protecting the rights of EEA citizens who are resident in the UK has been the priority since the outcome of the EU referendum, and that the Government have been working with local authorities and others to ensure that vulnerable children obtain immigration status. It seems that the Government agree with the sponsors of this amendment that it is essential that children in care and care leavers have secure UK status.

The Government may have identified a weakness in our amendment—that it would not in fact provide these children and young people with the clear status we all want them to have—although I was very much reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I hope the Minister can clarify this point, because it really is of fundamental importance.

If needed, I hope the Government will table their own amendment at Third Reading to make sure that the Bill fulfils what are not only our objectives, but theirs. I think the Minister would welcome the fact that the amendment places a duty on local authorities to identify which children in their care are at risk of losing their status when the UK leaves the EU, and therefore which children need support to get through the hoops to achieve settled status. This is so important, because local authorities do not routinely collect nationality data on children in their care. They may assume that none of their children are from the EEA and will not take any action on this important issue. It is easy to anticipate that, through no fault of their own, these children could end up undocumented.

The evidential burden for settled status is another problem, particularly when people are up against a deadline. By reducing the evidential burden, many of these vulnerable children will be rescued from having undocumented status after the transition period. The Home Office has previously stated:

“Children who do not apply because their parent or guardian did not submit an application on their behalf can submit a late application. This includes children in care and care leavers”.


If the Home Office is committed to the principle of late applications for these vulnerable children, why not support that principle through this amendment? Or does the Home Office have in mind that these children be given pre-settled or temporary status? If so, Ministers will know that this only defers the problem of lack of documentation when they come to apply for permanent status. I would be really grateful if the Minister clarified this point.

Finally, the numbers of children involved are perfectly manageable: 5,000 looked-after children and 4,000 care leavers across the whole of the UK would need to apply to the EU settlement scheme. My preference would be for a government amendment, if necessary, meeting the precise objectives of this amendment, to be tabled at Third Reading. If, however, the Minister is unable to agree to work with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others to generate the right amendment for Third Reading, if necessary, I hope that he will press this amendment to a vote, and I will certainly support it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I can be brief, because this amendment has cross-party support, but I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I did not read the amendment as declaratory. My reading was that looked-after children should be given settled status. I assume from the Minister’s letter of earlier today and the comments on the declaratory scheme that the problem with Amendment 14 lies in proposed new sub-paragraph (1):

“is deemed to have and be granted indefinite leave to remain”.

Perhaps “is deemed to have” suggests that that person will not have any documentary evidence.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested, if that is indeed what the Minister understands by the declaratory nature of the amendment, it would be helpful if the Minister considered a rephrasing in a government amendment that would have the import of granting settled status to looked-after children and care leavers. Then, they would have settled status and documentary evidence, since the only reason that such people would end up in a Windrush-style situation is if the Government left them there.

Brexit: Refugee Protection and Asylum Policy (EUC Report)

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the EU Committee, whose report is comprehensive, clear and informative; it is really quite excellent. I want to put a number of questions to the Minister. No doubt her wind-up speech will respond quite automatically to some of them but, in so far as that is not possible, I wonder whether the officials might respond to some of the unanswered questions today.

As the report says, a UK withdrawal from the Dublin system after Brexit would result in,

“the loss of a safe, legal route for the reunification of separated refugee families in Europe”,

as my noble friend Lord Jay quoted. In a no-deal scenario, the impact on refugees really could be appalling. Can the Minister give an assurance that a temporary extension of the current arrangements will be put in place in the event of no deal until a satisfactory alternative system can be generated? It does not seem a lot to ask.

Very concerning is the fact that the UK does not participate in the family reunification directive, under which the participating EU countries have common rules governing the exercise of the right to family reunification by their country nationals, including special rules for refugees. The report points out that:

“The Government has indicated its intention to establish a new strategic relationship on asylum and migration with the EU—replicating some of the key principles of Dublin”.


I emphasise “some”. Can the Minister indicate which principles the Government do not plan to include in their new strategy, and why not?

I share the concern of the committee about a potential reduction in the reunion rights of vulnerable unaccompanied children; a number of noble Lords have already referred to this incredibly upsetting issue. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will actually increase the protection against disruption to family reunion afforded by the Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and can she spell out what the additional protections will be? Future UK-EU asylum co-operation should include a framework for the speedy resolution of refugee family reunion cases, ideally based on continued UK access to the Eurodac database. Can she give the House any information about these issues?

Can the Minister comment on the conclusions of David Bolt, the UK Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? He said—I thought very tellingly—that

“the Department had handled family reunion applications as if they were visit visa applications”,

and that the Home Office had been

“too ready to refuse family reunion applications on the basis of insufficient evidence”,

instead of giving the applicant more time to produce more evidence, which might result in a much fairer and more efficient outcome. Bolt made the point that the readiness to refuse came from seeing these applications as “the wrong thing”. I do not fully understand all that, but it certainly sounds deeply worrying. Despite an improvement following the Bolt report, evidence from other witnesses shows that stakeholders continue to have significant concerns over the process for reuniting refugee families in the UK.

Probably the most upsetting aspect of the refugee tragedy is the fact that unaccompanied children are not allowed to sponsor their parents to come to the UK. The Refugee Council said that these restrictions condemned some of those children never to see their family members again. I find that shocking. Can we really continue with such a policy? I think not.

Not quite as bad as the position of unaccompanied children, but nevertheless also unacceptable, is the rule that family reunification does not allow so-called non-dependent children to be reunified with their families in the UK. What this means in practice is, of course, that the family has to leave behind an 18 year-old or so daughter or son, and we know that, in a number of countries, a daughter on her own with no family protection at all could be in serious jeopardy. Again, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this will be dealt with.

The report rightly refers to the Home Office’s failures to assess the evidence available and its tendency to apply an

“excessively high standard of proof”

in family reunion cases. It also states that the Home Office regularly exceeds the time limit to conclude these cases under the Dublin regulation, and the time taken is, as we all know, no small matter. Delays can have long-lasting and serious impacts on the mental and physical health of vulnerable child refugees, who have already suffered enough before they arrive here.

An anomaly that should surely be sorted out when we leave the EU is that local authorities receive £25,000 over five years to support a child with a family who arrive through a resettlement scheme, but nothing to support an unaccompanied child and help with the costs of the care system. How can that be justified? Perhaps the Minister can comment on that.

Finally, lengthy periods of detention for asylum seekers need to be thought about. The Refugee Council noted that the UK was the only country in Europe that did not have a maximum time limit for immigration detention. As noble Lords know perfectly well, thousands of people are detained each year for long periods, costing £100 million annually and affecting the health and well-being of the detainees—and, of course, many of those are children. Again, do the Government plan to right this wrong? I sincerely hope so.

After all that, I suppose that I need to say something positive. I understand that the UK has a good record on implementing the refugee resettlement programmes. Indeed, I understand that the UK can claim to be a global leader in resettlement, so we are able to do things properly. I congratulate the Government on that success and hope that they can extend that good practice to the other areas that I have mentioned.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, has withdrawn from these proceedings, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 22 is the first in a group that also includes Amendments 24, 29 and 31, all relating to asylum seekers’ right to work. On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on a very different amendment, talked about the purposes of work. I noted them down as being to earn money, for self-actualisation and as a matter of reputation. These all apply not just to you and me but to asylum seekers.

All the amendments in this group are variations on a theme. Our Amendment 22 would give an asylum seeker the right to work after three months if there has been no decision on his or her case. It will not escape noble Lords that the “if there has been no decision” is an important part of this.

The amendments are expressed to relate to EEA and Swiss nationals, to bring them within the scope of the Bill, but it is not beyond the scope of one’s imagination to think that there may be people seeking asylum in the UK from EU countries—Poland and Hungary might spring to mind—so it is not irrelevant. This is not just straining to debate a matter that I know has concerned many noble Lords for a long time.

The Minister may tell us that we will soon see a Bill about asylum, which the Home Office is currently reviewing. That is, it is reviewing the issue of asylum rather than a particular Bill. The Committee will be glad of any news not just about the Bill but about the consultation that the Home Office is undertaking with stakeholders about these issues. There are many stakeholders.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has moved to the position from which he will respond—at least it looks that way; I am looking at him on a rather small screen—and I hope he will be able to give some assurances about consultation with stakeholders with regard to the changes in our asylum provisions.

The great majority of asylum seekers are keen to work. Persistence is probably part of the make-up of many of them by definition, their having managed to get to this country. They want to pay tax and to contribute to their new society. They are often very skilled; that will be the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 31.

It is very harsh not only to provide such a low daily allowance—I know the noble Lord would be required to disagree with that—but to take a long time in determining claims. In a way, that is the real issue. We picked three months because that gives time for an individual to settle. An asylum seeker may need longer to become comfortable with the English language if he is not already an English speaker, though I am constantly impressed by people’s facility with English. It puts me to shame.

There is also the issue of preventing working. I referred to self-actualisation and reputation, the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We all know the value of work to each of us as individuals: the sense of self-worth and of achievement with a job well done, or at least attempted. We know what it does for our well-being and for good mental health, and how important it is to be able to support one’s family.

I know the Committee will be interested in the right reverend Prelate’s proposal for the displaced talent visa, which recognises the skills that refugees bring with them, but Amendment 31 is not an alternative to the other amendments in this group. It is about a visa and about refugees, not asylum seekers whose status is not yet recognised. It is imaginative, and the Government may consider it something to be pursued. I am sure the right reverend Prelate would be the first to agree that his amendment should not be a sop to distract us from the other issues to which I have referred. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that asylum seekers from the EEA and Switzerland will be granted permission to take a job from six months of their application for asylum if a decision at first instance has not yet been taken at that point. It is fairly obvious that I support the three-month amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which is a little more radical than this one, and hope the Government may accept it.

The Minister will be aware that people often wait months, if not years, for a decision. These individuals, having escaped fear of torture or death, are left to live on a pittance of £5.66 per day. As I considered what to say today, I found myself thinking that, of course, six months in this situation is far too long. What are we as a nation doing impoverishing people in our community? Frankly, £5.66 is a disgrace.

The plea for the right to work after six months is endorsed by no fewer than 200 non-profit organisations. This is a very modest and widely supported proposal. Even Sajid Javid recognised in 2019 that it is time for reform. The coalition of these 200 organisations wants the six-month reform combined with the ending of the restriction on asylum seekers from applying for jobs not on the incredibly narrow and restrictive list of highly skilled professions on the Government’s shortage occupations list. I strongly support the abolition of this restriction, which was introduced only in 2010. That is telling; we seemed to manage pretty well before that.

Now, in effect, asylum seekers are rarely enabled to work. Does the Minister really believe that this is morally right and economically sensible? As Sajid Javid recognised, reform should no longer be delayed. Reform would enable asylum seekers to begin to integrate, to support themselves and live with dignity, to support their children to lead healthy, productive lives and, very importantly, to avoid the very real risk of exploitation and modern slavery.

We would all benefit too. The coalition of 200 organisations calculates that taxpayers would save £97.8 million if asylum seekers were enabled to work from six months. In 2019 it polled over 1,000 businesses for their view on whether asylum seekers should have the right to work. Some 67% of those employers agreed that they should, and a similar number believed it would ease the UK’s skills shortages. There is also huge public support for the right to work after six months. The Government would really have a great political benefit if they would only accept this amendment.

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

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

We cannot put our heads in the sand and think that unemployment will miraculously and rapidly create a workforce of skilled, low-paid carers to look after those with complex needs, and that vacancies will evaporate. They will not. I believe that we will be coming back to these issues at Report, and dividing the House.

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 47, to which I added my name, but I also strongly support other amendments in the group, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Patel, who spoke powerfully in favour of making sure that we do not create barriers preventing health and social care staff coming to this country. I do not want to duplicate what others have said, so I will speak briefly about the difficulties we have in recruiting staff over here, which others have certainly emphasised.

The NHS employs half a million staff and has 100,000 vacancies reported by trusts, many of them among low-paid workers. This figure is projected to rise over the coming years, rather than diminish. Our problems will become pretty well impossible to manage unless we do something about it.

We want more support staff employed in primary care. This has been a policy goal for a long time and the NHS long-term plan continues to reflect this ambition, but the number of support staff working in community services has continued to fall, and I expect it to continue to do so. GP surgeries are desperate to appoint support staff but cannot do so. As others have said strongly, a similar picture applies to the social care sector, where we have 8,632 vacancies, according to the latest available data—surely unsustainable, as the number of elderly people needing care rises relentlessly, not to mention, as others have, the many people with disabilities and a range of problems.

The NHS Long Term Plan acknowledges that international recruitment will continue to be vital in the short to medium term if we are to deal with our staff shortages. This is being constrained, says a report by the Health Foundation, by immigration policies. Surely the Government need to pay attention to that, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point. Immigration policies are really causing problems for our health and social care services. Instead of imposing barriers to EEA and Swiss entrants, would it not be better for Ministers to concentrate on reducing barriers to well-qualified migrants with good English from the rest of the world? Amendment 47 is key, as are the other amendments in this group, if we are to improve our health and social care staffing or to avoid a serious drop in the quality and availability of these crucial services. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to Amendments 47 and 66, but the intentions and sentiments already expressed so well by many noble Lords are ones that I fully endorse. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Masham, and other noble Lords for the excellent way in which they have explained the urgent need for measures in the Bill that specifically address the shortage of social care staff. I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench, who I know cares about this issue as much as so many of us around the House, to take back to the department the strength of feeling across the House on this matter and address some of these issues before Report.

We are talking here about the biggest failure of social policy in modern times. The inadequacy of our social care provision is already well documented and well known, and the Government are already committed to addressing this issue as soon as possible. We cannot move forward and improve the quality of social care without staff. We cannot mechanise this. Care workers may be low paid, but that does not mean they are low skilled. They are essential to enabling increasing numbers of people to live decent lives. We are not talking about bringing in low-paid shelf stackers; we are talking about the emotional, physical and mental well-being of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Given that the Government are the main funders of social care and have not yet funded adequately social care providers who employ staff who might generally earn above the £25,000 cut-off, that imposes on the Government a duty to ensure that our immigration policy does not deter those who might be willing to work for less than that figure—most of the people who work in social care already do so—from coming to this country when, as we have already heard, around one in five of our social care staff is already from overseas.

I know my noble friend responded to these concerns at Second Reading by saying that the Government hope that Britons will fill the shortfall, but hopes are not good enough. It takes time to try to find any UK nationals, train them in the right skills and raise the standards of pay. What are these elderly and disabled people supposed to do in the meantime? They need care. I therefore hope my noble friend might still consider the implications of these amendments, or at the very least agree to a transitional, temporary social care visa, perhaps for five or 10 years, that specifically enables social care providers and individuals who need to employ somebody to care for them in their own home to find those overseas workers who are willing to come here and fill the gaps we currently have, rather than having an immigration system that rules out being able to bring them in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 32, which is an important amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. As she indicated, this amendment bears directly on the anomaly that lies at the heart of the Bill. It purports to deal with aspects of our withdrawal from the EU, so one would expect it to deal with the consequences for citizens of the EU and the EEA only. However, in its report of 2 September the Constitution Committee stressed that this Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary to secondary legislation.

I expect the Government to argue that changes to Immigration Rules have long been dealt with by a process similar to that for statutory instruments, but to introduce an entirely new system in this way is a very different matter. Furthermore, in its report of 25 August, the Delegated Powers Committee, from which we will hear very shortly, pointed out that the “made affirmative” procedure that the Government have chosen will mean that the new regulations will come into force before they are debated in Parliament.

Finally, as I understand the position, the Home Office is working on a complete revision of the Immigration Rules which might run to several hundred pages. They could be put through Parliament with no serious examination before they come into force. I think the Minister mentioned something to this effect earlier. Will she clarify the position? Is this indeed what is likely to happen?

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As a member of the Delegated Powers Committee I strongly support all the points made in our report and, along with other noble Lords, I very much look forward to hearing from our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

I am aware that part 6A of the Immigration Rules sets out the points-based system which applies to migrants from the rest of the world. EEA citizens will move from a position of free movement to having to find their way through a thicket of literally hundreds of pages of rules and guidance currently applying to the rest of the world. Will the points-based system be adjusted for EEA citizens? If so, in what ways will the EEA rules diverge from the current system set up in part 6A? The framework should surely be in the Bill.

Clause 4 has potentially life-changing consequences for a large number of people—an issue raised by the Delegated Powers Committee report. Ministers are given the power to modify primary legislation or to modify retained EU legislation, which has a similar status to primary legislation, as noble Lords know. These provisions, together with the power for Ministers to introduce regulations on any subject in connection with Part I of the Bill, provide incredibly wide powers for Ministers.

I want to take just one example of an issue which needs to be dealt with in the Bill and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will raise a number of others. Tier 3 of the PBS which applies to unskilled workers has never been opened. We know that the UK is likely to face severe shortages of so-called unskilled workers in some sectors, most particularly health and social care but a number of others as well. Can the Minister press her colleagues to spell out in the Bill the key changes envisaged to the PBS, at least for the short to medium term, to keep the UK economy functioning adequately? Then, of course, Ministers could have the powers to introduce regulations to adjust the system over time. I fully recognise that there would be a need for that.

We all understand the need for Ministers to be able to introduce consequential amendments through secondary legislation, such as removing the references to free movement scattered across the statute book. Typically, however, most consequential amendments are put in the Bill and then regulations are used to tidy up the bits and pieces that were somehow missed during its passage.

We are invited by counsel to the Delegated Powers Committee to consider whether Ministers’ powers to make consequential amendments through regulations should be restricted by a test of necessity. Can the Minister convince the Committee that the wide powers to make consequential amendments to this Bill are in fact necessary? It would be very interesting to hear the Minister’s defence, if you like, of the breadth of those consequential amendments left to regulations. Why cannot most such amendments be included in the Bill before Report? I am sure colleagues would support a short delay before Report to allow that to be done.

Even more serious than the power to make unlimited consequential amendments is the power to make regulations in connection with Part I of the Bill, as other noble Lords have mentioned. I strongly support the amendment from the Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to deal with that issue. This would of course become redundant if Clause 4 were replaced with a string of substantive clauses.

Can the Minister provide an adequate justification for the broad discretion given to Ministers to levy fees or charges on anyone seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who until the end of the transition period would have had free movement rights under EU law? If not, then these matters must surely be in the Bill with provision for Ministers to adjust the fees or charges over time. As others have said, transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are surely known. Why are they not in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could explain that.

Finally, I had understood that Brexit was all about restoring the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This is just one of a series of Bills transferring powers from the EU not to the UK Parliament but to Ministers. We know that even where the affirmative procedure will be used, Parliament has no real power to influence the shape of those regulations. I hope the Minister will do all she can to achieve a more democratic outcome to this Bill, even at this late stage, by replacing Clause 4 with a series of clauses spelling out the Government’s policies, or at least the framework of those policies, to adjust the points-based system to meet the needs of the UK economy in the post-Brexit world.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, one of the most distinguished members of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am particularly grateful that she has not stolen all the sexiest bits of our report and has left me some original bits to quote, although a number of noble Baronesses and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, also quoted extensively from it. Perhaps I should sit down and say, “I agree with everyone who has gone before me”, but since I have been here in the Palace for about eight hours, working upstairs, I feel I should earn my crust.

I am speaking on Clause 4 stand part only to draw attention to some of the key points of the Delegated Powers Committee report on the Bill. I am privileged to chair that committee but, in view of some of the highly critical reports we have made recently, my noble friends may be pleased to know that I will be standing down as chair. My term is up by Christmastime, so there may be a more emollient chairman in future.

Last week I spoke on the Delegated Powers Committee report on the medicines Bill and quoted extensively from it. Our report then was hard hitting and I make no apology that I was robust—I suppose I was not robust but scathing—in my condemnation of the delegated powers, which in my opinion were an affront to democracy. I said then that the Bill was “not unique”, just another in a long line of skeleton Bills with all the blank spaces to be filled in by delegated legislation—much of it negative, of course.

Today I will not be as vicious in my remarks, but I report in sorrow that this Bill also has some fundamentally excessive delegated powers. Clause 4(1) confers on the Secretary of State powers to make regulations containing

“such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any provision”

of Part 1 of the Bill, including Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation. The combination of the permissive concept of whatever the Minister thinks appropriate, as opposed to necessary, the words “in connection with” the Bill, the subject matter of Part 1, ending free movement, and the number of persons who will be affected make all this a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive.

With regard to those provisions, my Committee said:

“As we said in our earlier Report, we are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations (assuming no amendment was made to primary legislation).”


As for the scrutiny of regulations, we are concerned that the first set of regulations would be made by the “made affirmative” procedure, avoiding legislative scrutiny before they come into effect, but subsequent ones would be draft affirmative—but only if they amended primary legislation. Everything else would be negative, even if the regulations amend or repeal what is known as retained direct principal EU legislation. By contrast, the approach in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is that the affirmative procedure is mandatory where regulations modify retained direct principal EU law.

We were also concerned that delegated legislation could alter fees and charges enacted in primary legislation. As mentioned by noble Baronesses earlier, it is usual for legislation to have a schedule at the end listing consequential amendments and a provision that regulations can tidy up any missing bits or loose ends with further consequentials, but in Clause 4 the bulk of the consequentials will be done by regulations afterwards.

So we concluded, overall, the following:

“We remain of the view, expressed in our earlier Report, that clause 4(1) contains an inappropriate delegation of power and that the Bill should be amended so that: the words ‘or in connection with’ are removed from clause 4(1); consequential amendments are included in the Bill itself, but with a power to add others (subject to a test of necessity) by regulations (subject to the affirmative procedure if primary legislation or retained direct principal EU legislation is amended or repealed); transitional protections for EEA nationals who are resident in the UK before the end of the transition period are included on the face of the Bill; clause 4(5) (about fees and charges) is removed, unless the Government can provide full justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power; and clause 4(6), which provides for the first set of regulations under clause 4(1) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure, is removed from the Bill.”


Those were the principal conclusions that we reached.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Disabled Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 24th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his splendid Bill. I am embarrassed to stand up at this point, I have to say. I had in mind just to add a few comments right at the end of this debate, just to show another voice of support. But I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his superb presentation of the case; it was truly outstanding, with his usual clarity, intellectual rigour and his delightful sense of humour. I think that we will all want to thank him for the pleasure of listening to him.

It seems obvious to me that those of us who are lucky enough to be able to run up a step into a pub or a shop—including the Minister, who I am sure would have no difficulty running up a step into a shop or pub—have a duty to ensure that those people who are unlucky enough to be locked out of so many of these buildings have the right of access. I have to confess that I had assumed, as a rather ignorant person, that when Alf Morris’s Bill went through Parliament, the discrimination against disabled people due to lack of access had basically been dealt with. I was shocked and very surprised to learn that, for 800,000 wheelchair users, it is still a major problem and that they are locked out of 71,000 shops, pubs and restaurants simply because of a little step. It was not something that I had expected. Quite clearly, the requirement under the 2010 Act for businesses to make “reasonable adjustments” to enable access for disabled people is simply too vague and not working. We need to applaud the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for this very simple proposal to deal with such a massive inhibition for so many people.

Cleverly, the noble Lord includes two clauses, the second of which on first sight appears to cover the first. I had to reread them because I thought, “Hang on, why these two clauses?”. He of course distinguishes between a reform covering steps up to six inches and that covering steps up to 12 inches. He makes very clear the really quite significant difference in cost between these two levels. As he said, one could talk about different levels of step, but these two are quite interesting because the six-inch step can be sorted out with a spend of a mere £100. Thinking of smaller businesses, it seems to me that they really would not have a problem with that, so the big question is: why not?

The briefing makes it clear that if you are talking about 12-inch steps, that is much more significant, which I for one certainly would not have thought about. It would cost something like £3,000 or £5,000, and I can think of small businesses that would really struggle to cover that cost, certainly in one year. There is no question that we need greater access for wheelchair users, but I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would consider it an appalling diminution of his Bill to limit it to the six-inch step, with its smaller demand.

I was particularly struck by the noble Lord’s personal research—it was rather delightful, I thought—looking at Victoria Street, Horseferry Road and Strutton Ground, and his finding that, in these streets, 87% of steps would be covered by the six-inch rule. He went on to say that all the evidence suggests that that 87% figure probably applies throughout the country. I find that reassuring. Maybe it would be worth implementing that provision to eliminate 87% of the problem. Surely no Government could refuse to do that. Why would they when the cost to a business would be £100? The bigger spend might be an issue, but that would not be the case here. Therefore, there are two possible approaches: one is to exempt small businesses below a certain level of turnover; another is simply to eliminate the provision on the 12-inch step and limit the Bill to the six-inch provision.

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be in a position to support the Bill—at least the 87% of it. I hope, as I am sure everybody in this Chamber does, that the whole Bill will be passed, but I implore the Minister to do all she can with her colleagues to support it.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has formed the basis for the order.

The order relates to methiopropamine, commonly known as MPA. The effect of the order is to permanently control MPA as a class B drug under Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply or offer to supply this drug without a Home Office licence.

MPA is a stimulant psychoactive substance similar in structure to methamphetamine. It has similar effects to other stimulants such as MDMA, amphetamine and cocaine. These effects include stimulation, alertness and an increase of energy and focus. Side-effects reported include abnormally fast heart rates, anxiety, panic attacks, perspiration, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating and sexual dysfunction.

The National Programme of Substance Abuse Deaths reported 46 cases where MPA was found in post-mortem toxicology between 2012 and April 2017. In 33 of these, MPA was implicated in the cause of death. In November 2015, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to a temporary class drug order. This followed reports that MPA had emerged as a replacement drug for the methylphenidate-based compounds which were subjected to a temporary class drug order at the time. The increasing number in use and the number of associated deaths and harms, together with the potential intravenous use, led to urgent advice from the ACMD to control MPA by way of a temporary class drug order.

In September 2016 the desired effect of the temporary class drug order appeared to have been successful, as the prevalence and problematic use had declined. However, the ACMD recommended that MPA be subject to another temporary class drug order to allow sufficient time to gather further evidence to recommend full control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

On 16 June this year, the ACMD reported that MPA is a drug which is being, or is likely to be, misused and that misuse is having, or is capable of having, harmful effects. As such, the ACMD recommended that MPA be permanently controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class B drug. The ACMD also found no evidence that MPA has any recognised medicinal use beyond potential research.

This order, if approved, will provide enforcement agencies the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of MPA in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. We expect that the permanent control of MPA will continue to offer the notable impact it has provided following its temporary control under a TCDO. It is for these reasons that my honourable friend the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability accepted the ACMD’s advice that MPA should be subject to the order.

It is intended to make two further related statutory instruments to come into force at the same time as the order, to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister—I had not anticipated this debate starting quite so early. I well understand the need to control the supply of methiopropamine, or MPA, and I applaud the Government for seeking the professional opinion of the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs and for following its recommendations. As we know, Governments have not always consulted the ACMD, nor have they always followed its recommendations, so that is to be commended. It is unfortunate that the ACMD and the Government have decided that the most appropriate instrument for the control of this drug is the outdated Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, rather than the Psychoactive Substances Act. The main consequence of this decision is that the users of MPA will be subject to a criminal record and criminal penalty if found in possession of this drug. Users are likely to be people with severe health problems and in need of help and support.

The Minister will be aware that I and about 100 other MPs and Peers who are members of the APPG for Drug Policy Reform would be grateful for an indication from her, if at all possible, of when the Government will invite the ACMD or another independent body to review the operation of the 1971 Act and, indeed, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and analyse the consequences of these Acts on: the level of addiction to the many banned substances; the substitution of new and perhaps even more dangerous substances for a banned substance immediately following a ban; and the level of use of alcohol and tobacco in response to the bans on these alternative drugs. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the House whether the Government have any plans to evaluate the efficacy of the 1971 and 2016 drugs laws, particularly in the light of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime proposition at the UNGASS in 2016 that evidence-based public health policies are here to stay.

Does the Minister agree that neither of our drugs laws—neither the 1971 Act nor the 2016 Act—were in any way based on evidence that those legislative propositions would actually achieve the objectives that any Government want? For example, we know that the experience in Ireland of an almost identical law to our Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 was an increase in psychoactive substance misuse and drug deaths—anything but the result that the Government would hope, and that we would all hope, would be achieved by a new drugs law.

The Government refer to monitoring the control measures through the regulatory framework at paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether any analysis of the impact of the ban on this drug, and of the bans on other drugs, will be undertaken. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Patten (Con)]

In strongly supporting this statutory instrument I have three points. First, the Government have acted with commendable speed to implement the recommendations on MPA given by the advisory committee about four months ago, as the Minister said. However, I seek confirmation that they will always be as swift as possible in the implementation of such future recommendations of these experts. That is provided, of course, that they agree with them—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has pointed out that from time to time they have not necessarily agreed with the experts in their recommendations.

I like, respect and need the views of experts, particularly those of my doctor and my dentist. I value expert advice all the way down the line, but in the end, even they may not always be right, whatever “right” turns out to be. In the end, yet again, Ministers have to decide. It is sometimes difficult for Ministers to turn down expert recommendations, but they have to make their decisions not as experts but in the public interest as members of the Government. I support them also in making those difficult decisions.

Secondly, we have many other experts around to help us, such as those in the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence. That committee gave its views on this very matter last November. It advised, just like the advisory committee, that there is no known medical, research or therapeutic use for MPA; it is just used to abuse and there is no get-out in saying that it can be medically helpful in any way. It has all the side-effects that the Minister pointed out, as well as one that I think she missed—talkativeness, something that some would claim sometimes affects Members at both ends of the Palace of Westminster. I would not suggest, of course, that this is due to substance abuse; it is just due to genetic problems or lack of self-control.

Of course, the World Health Organization has its own problem with experts. Having given expert and excellent advice on this issue, its experts then concluded that the elected dictator President Mugabe should be hallowed for a while as its goodwill ambassador, rapidly backtracking when it spotted that on that occasion they had made a major mistake.

Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who knows much more about this stuff than I ever will, pointed out that you sometimes get substitution. I worry that there are harder substitutes coming in, particularly the ever-stronger strains of cannabis such as Nova OG, produced by cultivation companies in the United States, and described by one marketing organisation in the United States—hard to resist—as,

“extremely potent, top-shelf, designer bud”.

“Queue up and have this” if you cannot get the other stuff that we are trying to make impossible to get. I apologise, because I am a latecomer to this subject and to this debate, that I did not give the Minister earlier notice, but will she be ready and prepared to ask for the advice of the advisory committee on these much stronger strains of cannabis and to act just as quickly if it is thought to be a danger in the United Kingdom? Of course, a letter in the Library of the House would be a very adequate response to that point.

Cannabis

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Thursday 7th September 2017 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the evidence supporting the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 or 4.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, chronically sick patients with constant severe pain and other symptoms have suffered for far too long, reliant on prescribed medications that are sometimes ineffective and with intolerable side-effects for many people.

I remind noble Lords, if they will forgive me, of the case of Faye, whose experience was so brilliantly articulated in the Daily Mail on 2 May. At the age of 27, Faye was diagnosed with crippling rheumatoid arthritis. She describes the side-effects of conventional drugs as,

“more disruptive to daily life than the disease itself”,

which is saying something with rheumatoid arthritis. Faye recognised that prescribed drugs are fine for some people, but not for her. Having never used an illegal drug, and rather fearful, she found cannabis, and very slowly came off her prescribed medications. What was the result? She stopped feeling sick all the time—imagine a life of feeling sick all of the time. Now, two and a half years later, taking only cannabis, Faye says that her quality of life is now 98% of what it was before the diagnosis. She works full-time. Not only is this absolutely wonderful for Faye but it is saving the NHS thousands of pounds a year in medications, consultant appointments, GP appointments and so forth.

Under our drug schedules, as all noble Lords in this Room know, cannabis is listed as a dangerous drug with no medicinal value. In reality, of course, cannabis is safer than many prescribed medications and there is growing evidence of its medicinal value for a remarkable list of conditions. Our schedule is simply wrong and should not remain as it is. We need to inject some urgency into the situation. It is unnecessary and in my view cruel for these patients to suffer another two, three or even more years of agonising, sleepless nights and pain-stricken days or risk arrest to get hold of cannabis, which they tell us is the only effective medication with minimal or no side-effects.

For the first time, the UN is on our side and on the side of our Government should they wish to undertake some reform. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime—the UNODC—at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drug Policy in April last year, made it clear that evidence-based public health policy is here to stay, and that treatment without stigma should be the driver of drug policy. This was a most important statement from the UN body at the centre of international drug policy. After 60 years of drug policy dominated by the notion of a “war on drugs” and the ludicrous aim of creating a drug-free world, the UN is at last asking member states to consider a pragmatic, realistic approach. From now on, countries need clear objectives—how remarkable: let us have some objectives—such as reducing addiction and harm in the consumer countries, and reducing violence and corruption in the producer and transit countries.

If the world is to follow the UNODC lead, countries need to evaluate policies and introduce those for which there is an evidence base. This brings us directly back to medicinal cannabis. We have sufficient evidence worldwide to know that cannabis has very significant medical properties. As I have said, we can no longer justify its Schedule 1 status. At its last meeting, the World Health Organization’s expert group agreed that the widespread acceptance of medicinal cannabis means that the WHO’s insistence on its having no medicinal value appears incongruent, particularly as it relies on 80 year-old data. I believe that is actually progress.

Our own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, determined last October that products containing cannabidiol—CBD, a derivative of cannabis—are indeed medicines and can be prescribed. How can we say under Schedule 1 that cannabis has no medicinal value when, according to our regulatory body, a part of it does? We cannot. We are fortunate to have Ministers in the Home Office who understand the evidence. A blog by the Home Office Minister Sarah Newton in April stated that the Government’s view is that cannabis should be subject to “the same regulatory framework” as other potential medicines, subject to approval from the MHRA.

The big question—this is very important—is whether the MHRA can accept a special status for cannabis, an inexpensive weed with such valuable medical properties. If cannabis is put through five or 10 years of double-blind random controlled trials, it will finish up so expensive that it will be ruled out from the NHS by NICE. Sativex is a good example. My fear is that Epidiolex, for children with specific strains of severe epilepsy, may also be priced out of the NHS market in another three years’ time when the lengthy trials finally come to an end. It is impossible to overestimate the urgency of treatment for these epileptic children, who suffer severe brain damage with hundreds of seizures every single day. Their brains are being destroyed and that damage will not be reversed.

Another tragedy that we really need to think about in relation to Epidiolex is, I understand, that GW Pharmaceuticals, which has spent £20 million on these trials, now realises that another cannabinoid would be more effective for these children with severe epilepsy than the cannabinoid upon which those £20 million-worth of trials were based. It cannot repeat them all, so a suboptimal medicine will be put to the MHRA for approval. There is something terribly wrong here and I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to talk about the need to consider a safe—it must be safe—but less costly process of trials for cannabis medicines than is required at present.

Columbia Care, a well-respected company providing reliable, dosable cannabis, may provide an answer. Its products are superior to those accepted in the Netherlands and Germany and may provide a model of trials acceptable to the MHRA. There are other reputable companies providing good-quality cannabis products to Israel and elsewhere. Already 28 US states, 11 European countries and the whole of Latin America recognise that cannabis is a medicine. More states and countries join that list every year. The illegal status of cannabis has undoubtedly discouraged research into its medicinal properties. Oxford University, however, will be funded to the tune of £10 million by Kingsley Capital Partners to investigate our own endocannabinoid system. It is our own system that explains the extraordinary powers of cannabis. I will not go into this but in the meantime Professor Mike Barnes’s report, commissioned by our APPG for Drug Policy Reform, has reviewed all the international data and showed beyond doubt that cannabis is indeed an effective medicine for a number of conditions.

In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to request the ACMD, under the leadership of its excellent chair, Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, to review the evidence for the Schedule 1 status of cannabis and to make recommendations as soon as possible. The UK will then be prepared to respond quickly to the WHO review. I hope that the ACMD will consider the regulations we would need to support a revision of the cannabis schedule. Obviously, a good set of regulations would be extremely important. Again, I hope the Minister will respond to the urgency of the need for reform for these patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I noted the noble Lord’s mention of Bedrocan. I had not heard of it and I am very willing to look into that specific drug. There are of course many drugs available in other parts of the world that are not necessarily available here and vice versa. I will write to him on that point. I will also take up the point about Alfie separately.

[Baroness Meacher]

May I thank everybody who has spoken so effectively in this debate? So many powerful points were made and we have managed to avoid duplication, amazingly. It just shows how many points one needs to make in relation to this—

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, there is no right of reply in this debate.

Psychoactive Substances Act 2016

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord about the Psychoactive Substances Act not working because we have managed to close down more than 300 retailers across the UK which sold psychoactive substances. In 2016, there were 28 convictions in England and Wales and seven people were jailed under the new powers. Additionally, coming from Manchester, I would have to disagree with him, having seen some of the sights that I have on the streets of Manchester recently.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the UN changed the basis of global drug policy in April last year at its special session. We now know that banning drugs will never create a drug-free world. The UN therefore wants nations to pursue evidence-based policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned, and public health policies to reduce addiction and the harms to our young people. The Psychoactive Substances Act runs counter to the evidence. It does nothing to reduce addiction; it increases the risks to young people. Yes, the head shops were closed but they were the last vestige of any kind of protection for young people, pretty inadequate though that was. I therefore reiterate the point: will the Minister give an assurance to this House that she will give the most serious consideration to instigating an independent review of all our drug policies? What are we doing? We are simply making matters worse. Will she come forward with evidence-based policies?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not disagree, and on previous occasions I have not disagreed, that evidence-based policies are absolutely the right way forward. In fact, WHO is undertaking some work of its own and it will report next year on the various elements of cannabis. We await with interest the results of that work.

Criminal Finances Bill

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

I support Amendment 167, so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Stern. I apologise to the House that I was not able to be present at Second Reading. I applaud the Government for bringing forward this important Bill, which will do much to improve our capability to recover the proceeds of crime and to tackle money laundering and corruption.

My particular interest in the amendment comes from my awareness, over the past decade in particular, of the devastation to many countries—particularly Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala and many others in central America and, increasingly, west African states— caused by the production of, and international trade in, narcotics. The Governments of the drug-producing countries have to spend billions of dollars dealing with the drug barons. These are scarce resources which need to be devoted to the development of their infrastructure and to social support for their people, who are, frankly, pretty poor. The secrecy surrounding bank accounts in our overseas territories enables huge wealth to accumulate untaxed, and to be used to control substantial tracts of these countries. For example, I understand that one-third of Guatemala is completely under the control of drug barons, not its Government. Perhaps the single most effective criminal justice response to the situation is through access to their bank accounts in tax havens.

The prevention of corruption and money laundering is therefore of the utmost importance to those countries and Britain, along with our European neighbours, is of course a major contributor to these problems. Britain is a substantial consumer of narcotic drugs: without the demand for these there would be no production or trade. We therefore have a particular responsibility to deal with corruption and money laundering by those involved in the drugs trade. The Minister did assure me that our overseas territories are making good progress towards producing registers of beneficial ownership of companies registered in their territories, albeit not public ones. Like my noble friend Lady Stern, I hope that the Minister will say more in her response about the progress made so far. For example, how many of the territories will actually have registers accessible to police services in place by the end of this year? When do the Government anticipate that all our overseas territories will have such registers in place?

The key element of Amendment 167 is that the registers must be publicly available. The potential for kidnap of innocent very rich people with large balances held in our overseas territories needs consideration. Clearly, none of us would want to create a system which would increase the risk of kidnap. However, rich people are very inclined to be easily recognised by their lifestyle—the size of their yacht or their private plane, for example. People who amass great riches generally do not want to hide them. They really do want the world to know what they have achieved. It is their own actions which appear to me to cause risk of kidnap. I therefore do not believe that we should reject the proposal in Amendment 167.

The important underlying point is that the UK, together with our tax havens, is still the biggest financial secrecy jurisdiction in the world. I have no doubt that much of the black money from the drugs trade in Central America and west Africa is lodged within the wider UK jurisdiction. Having led the world in legislating for a public register of beneficial ownership in 2015 for the UK, money will surely have been moved to our overseas territories. Is the Minister able to give the House any information about the transfer of funds to our overseas territories following the 2015 Act? Presumably, for the very reasons why we need Amendment 167, the Government may not be in a position to give us that information, which would be very helpful to know.

According to Christian Aid, Save the Children and other leading charities, Ministers have for more than three years made it clear that they want public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories, and that they are working to get them. Despite the Minister’s comments to my noble friend Lady Stern a little earlier, I hope that she will therefore agree that the case remains as strong as ever to extend transparency to those territories and to bring them into line with the UK itself.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I rise as a signatory to Amendment 167, which I fully support.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, highlighted, the recent “global laundromat” revelations make the need for our amendment rather pressing. As she said, it is exactly a year since the Panama papers were published and we have yet another leak. Must we wait for the next one before we follow through on the commitment made by our former Prime Minister David Cameron?

In general, of course, I add my support to the overall measures in the Bill. I know that they will go a long way to addressing corruption. I think that almost all Members of Parliament and Peers who have spoken have supported its measures, which should give the Government comfort. I also agree that the Government deserve enormous praise for the work they have done both here in the UK and internationally to tackle corruption, tax evasion and avoidance. Since David Cameron put the issue at the centre of his 2013 G8 summit, the Government have shown global leadership on an issue that blights so many countries. I very much support the progress made on this agenda, particularly at the anti-corruption summit in May last year, and the work taken forward by the OECD to tackle corporate tax avoidance. It is also worth noting that the former Prime Minister committed himself to seek to persuade the overseas territories to introduce transparency. That is the element I want to take forward today.

We all welcome the progress that has been made by the overseas territories. I am pleased that they have now agreed on the importance of having registers of beneficial ownership and I look forward to them being in place very soon. However, we must also recognise that the UK’s Crown dependencies have made real progress on this in recent years. My understanding is that they will all have central registers of beneficial ownership. While these will not be publicly accessible yet, central registers are much easier to interrogate, and crucially they will be much easier to make public in due course. This contrasts with some of the overseas territories that have not yet put in place central registers. The British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands are, as I understand it, instead implementing—or wishing to implement—a complex system of linked registers. Is my noble friend the Minister content with this? Exactly how would linked registers work in such places? If, for instance, the UK Government made a request, would the Government in the jurisdiction concerned then make a separate request to whoever administers that bit of the register? Is the Minister satisfied that these linked registers will give the UK Government the ability to request information quickly, and does she have any concerns about how they will work, and whether they will make making requests for information easier or harder for the UK Government?

Also, to what extent and with what vigour are the UK Government making representations to the overseas territories about introducing central registers, so that they will be easier to make public when public registers become the new global standard? Naturally, such registers are a good first step for law enforcement agencies to be able to access information quickly. But the Government have already accepted that in order to properly tackle corruption, this information must be open to public scrutiny. Journalists, NGOs and the public must be able to examine the information, not just for us in the UK but also for those developing countries which suffer most from corruption and need access to the information the most. People in developing countries cannot currently benefit from the huge plethora of information-sharing agreements that we have around the world.

I admit that I am a bit confused by the Government’s recent comments on this issue. I was of the impression that it was our strong desire to see public registers of beneficial ownership. I need hardly remind noble Lords again of David Cameron calling them the “gold standard” at last year’s very welcome anti-corruption summit in London. Yet, I noted the Minister’s comments in the other place that we do not expect our overseas territories to have public registers until and unless they become a global standard. My concern is that if we wait for this to happen, it could be an excuse for no progress to be made for many years. Can the Minister assure me that this will not be the case and say how we can guarantee faster movement? I understand that in some cases, there has even been a failure to respond positively to UK inquiries on the subject.

We should remember that the historic relationship with the overseas territories has benefits for all of us. It is fair to ask those jurisdictions that while their economy and defence depend on the stability and integrity of the UK, they should also be expected to follow the same rules of business and investment that we follow here. This is not about destroying a country’s economic business model or anything like that. That is why this amendment has given an extra two years to make registers public. It is about working with them and making sure that they are following the rules in taking clean money and not gaining from illicit finance. The UK’s global reputation is also very much at stake.

I know that there are concerns in this House about interfering in the affairs of overseas territories, but I remind noble Lords that we have done this before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, on issues of equivalent moral importance. I confess that if the Government now think that we should not insist on these registers being made public, why on earth did they suggest it in the first place, and why did Ministers expend so much energy over such a period of time on it? Surely we should not give up at this point. David Cameron was right. We should keep trying as hard as we can and should give all the assistance we possibly can to the overseas territory Governments to achieve this.

Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that all overseas territories will at least have central registers of beneficial ownership by that June deadline? If not, when will all of them have them? The complex arrangements for linked registers seem overly problematic and will make publishing registers more difficult in future. What specific progress has been made in persuading the overseas territories to adopt those public registers? Simply saying that they will adopt them if other countries do it is not enough, and neither is not mentioning transparency while the private registers are being put in place.

As we look towards the UK’s role in a post-Brexit world, we must continue to lead in this important area of anti-corruption and transparency.

Drugs Policy: Departmental Responsibility

Baroness Meacher Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point, because there has actually been a reduction in drug misuse among adults and young people compared with a decade ago. It has gone down from 10.5% in 2005-6 to 8.4% in 2015-16. The number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England has also fallen, to 294,000. Among 11 to 15 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group—drug use has continued to fall since its peak in 2003. On the point about local authority investment in drug treatment, the amount that local authorities spend on treatment and rehabilitation is entirely up to them, because the budgets are devolved to them. Clearly, there are different needs in different areas and it is up to local authorities to deem how that money is spent.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in April the United Nations challenged 50 years of prohibitionist global drug policy at the UNGASS when it declared that evidence-based public health policy is here to stay? I know that the Minister is aware of the considerable evidence now available of the importance of medical cannabis to tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of very sick, chronically ill patients. If the MHRA is willing to work with the Home Office to develop ways in which cannabis medicine can be made available to these very sick patients, will the Minister enter into discussions on that issue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness. She and I have had many discussions both within the Chamber and outside it on this very issue. I recognise the value of Sativex in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and other types of pain relief. The MHRA is open to considering marketing approval applications for other medicinal cannabis products, should a product be developed. As happened in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine provided that it complies with appropriate ethical approvals.