Rail Fares
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Industrial Action on the Railways
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Secretary of State’s words, but I have to say that they did not get any better on the second time of hearing, and I listened to the Statement with increasing despair.
When such a serious dispute is going to cause huge disruption and misery across the country, there are two approaches that a Government and a Secretary of State can take. The first is that they can sit back and do nothing—except perhaps a few media interviews where they blame everyone else and take no responsibility—but that negligent approach makes it even harder to tackle the issue. There is another approach: they can recognise the responsibilities that come with being in government. They can recognise the social and economic cost of strike action and then roll up their sleeves, show some leadership and do everything they possibly can to ensure that there are urgent, meaningful discussions and official talks. That is the job that Governments are elected to do. Even now, at the 11th hour, it is possible. Some of us think it is an essential government duty to facilitate and hold last-minute talks to avert strike action that will be devastating for workers and passengers alike and damaging to an already fragile economy. I heard the noble Baroness trivialising the meetings, talking about beer and sandwiches; I do not care what they eat and drink at these meetings, as long as the meetings take place.
We all know that it is better and probably easier to prevent industrial action than to try to resolve it once the workers have gone out on strike. If these strikes go ahead, it is obvious that there is only one way they can conclude: by negotiation and discussion. Even the Government’s own MPs know that that is the case. This Secretary of State’s former PPS, Jake Berry, expressed his frustration with the Government over the weekend. Pointing out that he was a lawyer, he said:
“I can tell you that the only way out of a dispute is via negotiation.”
He called on all parties—and explicitly named the Government—to get round the table and sort it out.
Can the noble Baroness give me one example—just one will do, even if it is a very small one—where the Government have convened any discussions at all between the employers and the employees in this dispute to find a way through? Unfortunately, I suspect that she cannot. I suspect that there has been no attempt whatever, and yet surely that is a basic requirement of government. If the Minister and the Secretary of State are not prepared to get a grip and do their jobs then they should move over, because there are plenty of others on this side of the House who would be happy to ensure that there are negotiations, rise to the occasion and show some real leadership.
This is worse than just a failure of leadership. The Government have not only stepped back when they should have stepped up but they have tied the hands of those charged with resolving the situation. It has been revealed that the train operating companies have no mandate from the Government with which to negotiate, so when they do have meetings there is nothing to discuss. That information has come from a source inside the train operating companies. Then we have the Secretary of State, as partly repeated by the noble Baroness today, accusing union negotiators of leaving talks to go to a rally. When those talks ended on Friday, the understanding was that further discussions were scheduled for Sunday, after the rail bosses had engaged with the Department for Transport on what they might be able to discuss with the unions. And yet no talks were convened. Why?
When a rail manager said in a radio interview this morning that there would be no compulsory redundancies, the union’s response was that this was the first it had heard of that and how significant it would be for going forward with the negotiations, yet the Secretary of State appeared to refuse to rule out any such job losses on TV. Which is true?
It is really hard to escape the conclusion that government Ministers are content for strikes to take place as long as they are not their fault and they do not have to take any responsibility for them. I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness.
First, could she say something about how withholding a negotiating mandate from the train operating companies means there can be any meaningful progress? Secondly, given that safety is a key issue, what assessment has been undertaken by the Government regarding the cuts to the maintenance workers? Thirdly, as I came into the Chamber I was given information about a letter written by Steve Barclay, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, to Rishi Sunak. The Government’s message has been very clear on how important it is that we have wage restraint, and they have been very clear on that in this dispute and others. But tonight, this letter reveals that the Government apparently want to remove curbs on bankers’ bonuses to attract more people into the City. On the one hand, we are telling people who are working that they must have wage restraint, so does it not seem somewhat hypocritical to say that the constraints and curbs that have been in place are to be removed in the City? I am grateful to Paul Waugh and the i newspaper for that information.
It comes back to the Government seeming to think that the rules are for other people but not them and their friends. I hope the noble Baroness can say something about this; she must realise how deeply it will affect those who do not want to go on strike and who are trying to negotiate if they find that the Government are using two sets of rules—one for those in the City on high incomes with large bonuses and another for those who are working.
No one wants to see these strikes go ahead; they will be devastating and they will hit hard. But if the Minister thinks that government means not lifting a finger other than to point the blame at others, that is not a way forward. It is a gross dereliction of duty that fails every single test of leadership. The public deserve better from this Government, who want to sit back and do nothing to try to resolve this position.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which opens with a list of those affected by the strikes. I should say that my plans have had to change for the latter part of this week. Potential revellers in Glastonbury have had their plans ruined and people going on holiday have had their plans upset. But it is workers, school and university students, and patients who will be most affected, and whose lives will be most impacted in the longer term by these strikes.
I would take the ministerial hand-wringing about this issue much more at face value if the Government had moved heaven and earth to solve this strike, but they have not. They have not lifted a finger and are making a virtue of this inactivity. Perhaps the Minister could update your Lordships’ House on when the Government last discussed this issue properly with union representatives. What does “doing our utmost” mean in terms of actually doing things? What is the Government’s utmost when it comes to stopping this strike?
This would be bad enough if the railway was being organised under the old franchise system, but as the Minister knows, the Government “took back control” of railways during Covid and essentially imposed a TfL-style service contract system. They are the real employer, and not to negotiate is a dereliction of duty. The Government hide behind the “we are not the employer” excuse, but with the formation of Great British Railways the Government are in charge. They have effectively nationalised the railways. The Government cannot expect this power of owning the railway without responsibility. Their responsibility is to negotiate.
The unions should not be inflicting this misery and should not be in a position to, but Grant Shapps is just as much to blame for failing to have acted to stop it from happening. We should look at the facts. As the Minister said, the railways have suffered throughout the pandemic and passenger numbers are yet to bounce back. This huge interruption will only hurt the recovery of passenger confidence in the railways. Here I agree with the Minister. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Government need to understand that and get everybody around the table and thrash this out. Until that happens, we will not get resolution. Can the Minister please explain why her Secretary of State for Transport is more willing to step into the media and try to save the Prime Minister’s neck than he is to sit around the table and save rail passengers from the problems we are seeing?
Meanwhile, we have seen sabre-rattling about agency workers from the Business Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng. Can the Minister please tell your Lordships’ House when we might expect a statutory instrument to be laid here so we can find out what his plans are? On the face of it, it looks like a political gimmick which is actually deeply impractical. This is a tight labour market; it is a tighter labour market than we have ever known. Agency workers are in really high demand. They can pick and choose the jobs that they take. Agency staff are unlikely to choose a role that causes them to have to cross a picket line rather than a job that does not. Where are these people coming from?
Even if the Government manage to find workers, it will not fundamentally address the underlying issues causing the strike actions and it will not save many of the services. For example, train drivers are trained for weeks to learn a new route. We saw this complication during the Covid crisis. You cannot just swap one driver for another, even if they know how to drive the train. What this looks like is the Government seeking to pour petrol on an already incendiary situation. The tone of this Statement adds to my suspicion that this is what is happening. Inserting third-party agency workers into this scenario is likely to inflame tensions and elongate strike action.
For my part, I think the Government think this is putting pressure on Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and are not intending to solve the dispute. That is wrong. The Statement laughably urges divisions to end, but the Government’s language is inherently very divisive. It is the people of Britain who will suffer: the cancer patient who misses an appointment, the student who fluffs an exam after having to take a much longer journey to school, and the zero-hours worker who misses a whole week’s wages because they cannot get to work. These are the lives the Government are using to fuel their narrow political aims. Does the Minister agree with me that this is beyond reprehensible?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think that the noble Baroness is challenging me on that point. Has she actually invited the unions to a meeting with the Government at any point? I did ask that, and I would be grateful if she would respond to it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Well, that is marvellous; I have only just started my response, so if the noble Baroness could just hold her horses, that would be brilliant. Let us get back to the questions that she asked and indeed to the Government’s Statement. At face value, it is indeed the case that the current Rail Minister and her predecessor have met the unions in the past to press the need for reforms, and to outline the reforms set out in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail about the establishment of Great British Railways, changes to terms and conditions, modernising railway and creating this fantastic thing that we all want. But this was not part of the negotiations, because the negotiations are between the employer and the unions, as they have always been. That does not mean that the Government do not take great interest in the negotiations—we want to see an increase in pay—but it has to be done fairly, between the passengers, the taxpayer and the workers.
There are working practices that need to change. I am sure that all noble Lords will have heard of some of them, and I suspect that some have thought, “Yeah, it does need to change”. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about job losses. Over the course of the Covid pandemic, any job losses that have happened to date have been voluntary. A very successful voluntary severance scheme was launched in October 2021. There were 5,000 applications for that scheme—I am sorry, would the noble Baroness like to intervene?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness was mumbling, and I was desperate to know what she had to say.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Could the Minister answer the questions that I asked?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am trying to answer the questions that the noble Baroness asked. As I was about to go on to say, it is clear that the industry will do whatever it can to avoid job losses. There will be voluntary schemes, and we expect them to be popular. But of course each train operating company, and indeed Network Rail, has a vision for how we will put the reforms into practice, and there will be different ways that each organisation will do that, with the human resources available to it. We will have to see how that all pans out because, obviously, different organisations will require a different number of people to carry our different levels of service.
I turn to some of the other questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised. She mentioned that there is no mandate. There is a mandate for both Network Rail and the train operating companies. However, even so—I will say this again and again and no doubt I will be at the Dispatch Box many times talking about it—this is not just about pay; this is about terms and conditions, and we have known about changes to those for a very long time. We need to think about how we get to a stage where we manage to operate a seven-day railway in circumstances where, at the moment, you simply cannot. Southeastern’s high-speed operation, which has been in place since 2009, is incredibly successful. It is a great service, and that is the level of customer offer that we really should be giving to our customers on a modern railway, particularly as leisure travel is so important.
The noble Baroness also mentioned safety. Safety is, of course, the Government’s top priority. We have one of the safest railways in Europe, and there is an enormous uptick in the amount of advanced technology used for safety on railways—such as drones to check rail lines, which is much more effective than doing that by eye, and all sorts of machines that check for internal cracks in the rails. So, yes, there is an increased use of technology, and sometimes that means that people’s roles will necessarily have to change. The noble Baroness said that this will deeply affect the workers, and I agree. I feel very sorry for that, because at the end of the day we need those workers, and we want them to create these railways of the future. We do not want them to go on strike; we do not want them to damage their own livelihoods, which is what striking will do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that the Government are apparently not lifting a finger. I can absolutely reassure them both that the Government have been working on this all through the weekend. Obviously, at the moment, this is the biggest priority for my department. It is taking up an enormous amount of time in the department—rightly so—because you cannot build a modern railway on poor foundations. That is what we run the risk of doing. We must make sure that we have reforms, particularly to working practices, such that we can create the modern railway that we all want. At the moment, we are not there.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agency workers, and we are looking at all options for them, because we do not want future strikes to punish the travelling public. When I have more information, I will of course bring it back to your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, I believe I have answered all the questions.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I wish to declare an interest: I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for GWR, whose services I normally use almost every day but clearly will not be using tomorrow.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, my interests are slightly different: I try to travel on the trains most weeks.
We have a few minutes left. The Minister will have heard from across the House the disappointment in both the tone of the Statement and the fact that the Government have not been more proactive on behalf of the public in trying to resolve this issue. She said at the end of her comments that she had answered all the questions. Actually, she had not: I raised the issue of the letter from the Prime Minister’s chief of staff to the Chancellor, which appears to be saying that they should remove the curbs on bankers’ bonuses. I asked her if she felt that such action would be detrimental to those involved in this dispute because it seems rather hypocritical to urge wage restraint on one group of workers while allowing large bonuses for another. If she could comment on that, I would be grateful.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful for the reminder that I had not commented on that. The reason is that I have not seen the letter so I do not know what is in it and am not able to comment.
Spain: Travel
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the letter from Baroness Vere of Norbiton to all Members on travel corridors and Spain, sent on 26 July, what support they will provide to those who have (1) visited, or (2) travelled through, Spain and are subsequently required to self-isolate on their return to the United Kingdom and are unable to fulfil work-related obligations as a result.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we encourage employers to show flexibility by allowing employees who return from Spain to work from home where possible—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
My Lords, we encourage employers to show flexibility by allowing employees who return from Spain to work from home where possible while self-isolating or offering paid leave. We expect that many employers will have their own policies for self-isolation. Some may continue to offer full pay for all or some of the isolation period. Those who need urgent support may be entitled to new-style employment and support allowance or universal credit.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it was not any better the second time. The Government have failed to understand the practicalities and financial impact of self-isolation. The letter sent out by the noble Baroness only contained guidance for office workers if they were being forced to go back to work, saying that the Government were encouraging employers to be understanding and adding that staff could go to ACAS. That is not acceptable; it is totally irresponsible. She and I are working from home today, as is everybody else who is asking her a question on this issue, but for millions of people, usually in the lowest-paid jobs, that just is not possible. Even if their employers are understanding, their landlords and others may not be. Pricing people out of self-isolation is dangerous for all of us. Will she report back to the House tomorrow on what action Ministers are taking to provide financial support, including statutory sick pay, for those who the Government say must self-isolate?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
My Lords, the Government have been absolutely clear: urgent support is available for those who need it. That may be the new-style employment and support allowance or it may be universal credit, depending on the individual circumstances. I will happily write to the noble Baroness with more detail of both those schemes. My letter to her was not intended to be comprehensive, but it set out many of the things that we are doing.
Lifeboats: Ceredigion
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the RNLI carries out a coastal safety review every five years. It is a very extensive review based on extensive research; it considers all the rescue records and looks at all the reports of launches and incidents carried out by the lifeboat stations. It has concluded that services by the New Quay RNLI all-weather lifeboat could have been carried out safely and effectively by an Atlantic 85 inshore lifeboat, supported by the new, faster lifeboats at neighbouring stations if required. I understand that people who have long experience in this area locally are concerned about it. The RNLI continues to have conversations with them and will ensure that they are given the appropriate information.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was asked just now what assessment she had made of the need in the area. She told us what assessment the RNLI had made. She referred to the campaigners as being passionate. We can also say that the RNLI is passionate, because day in and day out volunteers are out there saving people’s lives and collecting and raising the funds to do so. This is a difficult decision that has been made. What engagement do the Government have with the RNLI to ensure that the interests of the public are taken into account, so that the Government can assure themselves that the work it is doing takes public safety into account? That may allay some fears of those who are concerned about this decision, or who may be in a position to provide funding so that they do not have to make this decision.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, lifeboat provision in the UK is delivered by independent charitable organisations that declare their lifeboats available to Her Majesty’s Coastguard. As I said, we are very grateful for their work. It is the responsibility of the organisations to decide on the specific operational capacity they consider appropriate, but of course the MCA works closely with the RNLI on the coastal review. The noble Baroness was quite right to pay tribute to the scale of volunteers in this area—it is extremely impressive. The Coastguard Rescue Service is made up of approximately 3,500 volunteers; the RNLI has 5,000 volunteer lifeboat crew; and, as the noble Baroness said, there are more than 23,000 volunteer community fundraisers. They all contribute to providing the excellent service on our coasts.
Brexit: Cross-Channel Transport
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of post-Brexit cross-channel transport planning exercises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Transport is undertaking a comprehensive and wide-ranging programme of work to ensure that we are prepared for the UK leaving the European Union. We will continue to work closely with other departments across government and with stakeholders to ensure appropriate contingency plans are in place for post-Brexit cross-channel transport. Until an agreement is reached, the Government will continue to plan for all eventualities.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, 90% of UK trade is handled by our ports, so the Minister is right that Brexit planning is essential. But we had the farcical Manston exercise in which 89 lorry drivers pretended to be a Brexit convoy to Dover, where they take about 10,000 lorries a day; the Government have given a multimillion-pound ferry contract to a company with no ships, no staff, no premises and no port agreements; and the Road Haulage Association estimates that new documentation could take eight hours per truck. Do the Government have any further exercises like Manston planned, and how confident can the Minister be that those exercises help prepare for Brexit day? How confident is she that all these issues will be resolved by 29 March? Finally, is it not now essential that the Government rule out a no-deal Brexit?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to point out the focus we need to put on the short straits, and that is what we are doing. As she pointed out, we carried out a live test at Manston on 7 January. Despite what noble Lords may have read in the papers, we can confirm that there were enough vehicles there to ensure the trial was successful, and it achieved its objectives. It was a useful exercise in helping us to understand the effect of potential traffic on that route and to ensure that both local traffic and freight can continue to flow. Of course, we will continue in our preparedness. Just last week, with 180 local attendees we carried out a tabletop exercise designed to explore some worst-case scenarios. If they are needed, all our arrangements for traffic management in Kent are fully functional.
Gatwick Airport
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we need to introduce new laws to ensure that drones are used safely and responsibly. Earlier this year, we introduced a law which makes it illegal to fly a drone within a kilometre of an airport and above 400 feet. In November next year, we will introduce a registration system which includes a mandatory safety check before a person can fly a drone. As I said, these drones are being operated illegally. I am afraid that I am not able to give a further comment. It seems that the drones are being used intentionally to disrupt the airport, but, as I said, this is an ongoing investigation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I think that it is a Front Bench response on an Urgent Question.
I am dissatisfied by the Minister’s responses. I am sure that I am not the only noble Lord to declare an interest in Christmas flights from Gatwick, but there are two sets of issues: the longer-term issues referred to and the emergency issues for today. This incident is causing disruption and distress for thousands, with more than 100,000 people stranded.
Given the length of time that this incident has been going on and the scale of the disruption, it is clear that it has not been caused by a teenager playing with an early Christmas present from their bedroom. It is obviously malicious. The Government have to address serious issues.
The police say that they have 20 units looking for the operator or operators. Do they have the expertise and equipment? They now say that they are launching a campaign for information. Have the Government consulted or engaged our military, who surely have a higher grade of technology for dealing with drones? Which Ministers are monitoring the situation and co-ordinating the emergency response, and who will they report back to? I remember the days when Prime Ministers would have had a COBRA meeting overnight to co-ordinate ministerial responses.
Given their urgency, I would expect the Minister to have investigated these issues and to have come back to the House today with an answer. If she cannot give an answer now, will she assure the House that she will return within the hour to do so?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as I said, this is an ongoing operation. Sussex Police are in the lead and have officers on the ground. They are doing everything they can to locate the drone and its operators. All relevant parts of government, including the Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are involved in the response, and we are doing everything we can. As I said, it is an ongoing police investigation and I am afraid that I am not able to confirm the details at this time.
Southern Rail: Disabled Passengers
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Southern Rail regarding disabled passengers, in the light of the company’s plans to change the role of conductors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, each train operator is required to participate in the passenger assist system, run by the Association of Train Operating Companies, which allows disabled passengers to book staff assistance when required, and in a disabled persons’ protection policy, enforced by the Office of Rail and Road, setting out the level of services and facilities that disabled passengers can expect, how to get staff assistance and how to get help. This will not change.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the shocking daily chaos that is Southern Rail. Passengers are at breaking point, and there is no support from the company or the Government, but all those cuts, cancellations and overcrowding problems are compounded for those with disabilities, for whom railway travel is becoming more difficult and, for some, inaccessible. Could the Minister confirm reports of a wheelchair user being told recently that their wheelchair was too heavy for the bus replacement service and that on the new driver-operated trains disabled passengers would have to phone the station at least 24 hours in advance? Is it really the Government’s view that a driver viewing 12 carriage doors on a screen the size of an iPad can guarantee the safety of all passengers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, if the noble Baroness provides me with the details of the wheelchair issue in the case that she raised specifically, I shall follow that up and come back with a direct answer. On some of the other issues that she raised, she is of course quite right—and I agree, as I have previously from the Dispatch Box—that the situation with Southern is unacceptable. I assure noble Lords that the new Secretary of State has made this issue and its resolution a priority. Indeed, the new Rail Minister is in front of the Transport Select Committee today, so there is a real baptism by fire for my colleague. It is a priority for the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister; the issue needs resolution.
On the issue of driver-only operated trains, as the noble Baroness is aware, it is not about making conductors redundant. It is about making them into train supervisors; they will continue to have a role in working with the driver of these trains, ensuring primarily the safety of all passengers.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government are determined to do all that we can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. The proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We therefore propose to add both Jama’atu Ahli Sunna Lidda Awati Wal Jihad, more widely known as Boko Haram, and Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK, to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 12th proscription order under that Act.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes that both organisations meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate to exercise her discretion to proscribe them. Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism.
The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to a proscribed organisation; invite support for a proscribed organisation; arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available, relevant information on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, and advice that reflects consultation across government, including the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. These decisions are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is right that both Houses must approve the order before proscribing a new organisation.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that both organisations are concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence but I can provide a brief summary.
Boko Haram is a prolific terrorist organisation, based in Nigeria, whose ultimate goal is to establish the Islamic Caliphate, seeking to undermine democratic government through its campaign of violence and attacks. It has targeted all sections of Nigerian society—Muslims, Christians, rich, poor, civilians and members of the security forces alike—as well as members of the international community. For example, an attack near Abuja on Christmas Day 2011 that killed at least 26, and an attack on a bus station in Kano City in March 2013, that killed more than 60, were both attributed to the organisation.
The organisation has also sought to attack western targets in Nigeria. In August 2011, it claimed responsibility for a suicide attack against the UN building in Abuja that killed 26. They have also targeted westerners for kidnapping in the last few years.
I stress that the Government are aware of the concerns over the approach used by the Nigerian Government to defeat Boko Haram. While the UK Government continue to work with Nigeria to fight terrorism, we also make it clear that human rights must be respected at all times in our work to defeat terrorism around the globe.
Minbar Ansar Deen is a Salafist group based in the UK which promotes and encourages terrorism. Minbar Ansar Deen distributes material through its online forum which promotes terrorism by encouraging individuals to travel overseas to engage in extremist activity—specifically fighting. The group is not related to Ansar al-Sharia groups in other countries.
Decisions on when and whether to proscribe an organisation are taken only following extensive consideration and in the light of emerging intelligence. It is important that decisions are built on a robust evidence base, do not adversely impact on any ongoing investigations and support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism. It is not, of course, appropriate for us to discuss specific intelligence that leads to any decision to proscribe.
The proscription of both these organisations will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of these organisation and their activities.
I should make it clear to noble Lords that proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism.
I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact, so the legislation provides an appeal mechanism. Anyone affected by the proscription of an organisation can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. If refused, the applicant can appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, a special tribunal which is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add both groups to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the explanation and the information he has given to us today. I understand that he is restricted in what he can say for reasons that are obvious to us all, but I appreciate the information he has been able to give. We also understand that Governments do not act unless they are assured that the information available is accurate and up to date. I feel some sympathy for the noble Earl on these issues as I did in connection with the Misuse of Drugs Act, in that some of the words can be quite difficult to pronounce. I commend him on his efforts.
Obtaining evidence on which to bring forward such orders is obviously time consuming, painstaking and can at times be very dangerous. I am sure that your Lordships’ House wishes to pay tribute to the work of the agencies that undertake such investigations. As the Minister said, a group can be proscribed under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if it,
“commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
On the basis of the information provided by the noble Earl, we are content to support the Government in this proscription.
This is the third time I have spoken for the Opposition on proscription orders; unfortunately, each time a different Minister has spoken for the Government, but I hope that the noble Earl has had the opportunity to look at some of the previous debates we have had on the other two orders. He will have noted that last year I queried why action had not been taken against the Boko Haram sect, given that the organisation that we were then taking action to proscribe, Ansaru, was in fact a breakaway group from Boko Haram and had been in existence for a much shorter time. I asked then that it be kept under review as we were somewhat surprised not to be discussing this group then, given the evidence of their activities that was available.
I understand the need to have accurate, up-to-date information, but there is also the need to act swiftly and decisively. Are the noble Earl and the Government content that they have acted quickly enough? It would be helpful if he could give some explanation about why there has been a time lag between these two orders, given that we previously knew about the activities of Boko Haram when we discussed this issue last year. The evidence appears overwhelming and the Government are quite right to bring it before us; the Minister described some of the large-scale terrorist attacks that have claimed many lives.
That brings me to one aspect that is of concern; I do not know how the Government are seeking to address it. One core or central organisation may have many different parts, and as one group or organisation is proscribed, another ready-made organisation takes its place and carries on with its deadly mission. I appreciate all the issues we have discussed about action having to be evidence-based, but I am pretty sure that the security services must have some kind of organisational chart or map of the relationships between different groups and individuals and how they interact. It would be helpful if the noble Earl was able to say something about how we can address this issue of different organisations being proscribed and then others springing up.
In both the previous debates I raised the issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The noble Earl will recall that when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, was the leader of the Opposition, he was in no doubt that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed. He repeatedly attacked the Labour Government for not doing so. The Minister, rightly, has been very clear today that action to proscribe a group has to be taken on the evidence available. I know how complex and difficult it is to get all that evidence and present it in an appropriate manner. However, unless David Cameron was acting irresponsibly as leader of the Opposition, he must have examined and considered the issue and the information at that time and made the judgment that Hizb ut-Tahrir should be proscribed.
At Gordon Brown’s first Prime Minister’s Questions in 2007, David Cameron made this his first topic. He said:
“Hizb ut-Tahrir … should be banned—why has it not happened?”.
When it was pointed out that evidence was required, Mr Cameron criticised that and said:
“What more evidence do we need before we ban that organisation … when will this be done? People will find it hard to understand why an organisation that urges people to kill Jews has not been banned”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/07; cols. 951-52.]
The party opposite has now been in power for more than three years and still Hizb ut-Tahrir has not been banned but there must have been evidence available for the then leader of the Opposition to make the very bold statement he made on many occasions in the House of Commons.
I am not going to make the same points that were raised against us when we were in government. I thought at the time that it was inappropriate and irresponsible and it would be inappropriate and irresponsible for me to do so as well. However, I ask the Minister to assure your Lordships’ House that this organisation is under observation and review and that there will be no unnecessary delays in bringing forward a further order if the evidence warrants it.
Is the Minister aware of the evidence presented in the 2011 review of the Prevent strategy that Hizb ut-Tahrir is targeting universities and seeking to radicalise students? That was confirmed in a Parliamentary Answer to Diana Johnson MP last week. The Minister, James Brokenshire, said that,
“we believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, target specific universities and colleges … with the objective of influencing and recruiting students to support their agenda”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/13; col. 786W.]
I know the noble Earl understands the danger of home-grown extremism. Your Lordships’ House was shocked, angered and deeply saddened by the horrific killing of Lee Rigby in London. I do not think that there is anything more that I, or anyone else, can say that makes a more powerful and compelling case for reviewing all measures in place for tackling this kind of recruiting behaviour to ensure they are appropriate and effective. I hope the Minister can give an assurance today that there will be such a review to ensure that all the current measures to tackle recruiting behaviour are effective and if not, that they will be strengthened to ensure that they are. Can I also ask the noble Earl about the funding for the Prevent strategy and similar work and if any changes have been made to that in the past three years?
Towards the end of his speech the Minister referred to organisations that could be deproscribed on application to the Home Secretary and, if the response was unsatisfactory, by judicial review. As I understand it, the independent reviewer, David Anderson, has proposed that there should be a process for organisations to be deproscribed. I am not convinced that the Government have acted on that yet. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could say something about that. On both points I am happy for him to write to me.
We support this measure and I hope the noble Earl can address the points I have raised. We are deeply grateful to those who obtain the evidence required and appreciative of the dangers they face in obtaining such evidence. I also want to impress on the noble Earl how important it is that we act on accurate information as swiftly as possible.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the order was made on 3 June and came into force on 10 June 2013. The order specifies four N-BOMe and six benzofuran substances, including their simple derivatives, as drugs subject to temporary control under Section 2A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 29 May, the Government received a recommendation from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) under the temporary control provisions of the 1971 Act, advising that the N-BOMe and benzofuran substances are being misused, and that their misuse is having sufficiently harmful effects to warrant legislative action. My honourable friend the Minister for Crime Prevention was satisfied, in consideration of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s assessment, that the conditions to make a temporary class drug order were met.
N-BOMe substances are highly potent drugs which are regarded as alternatives to the class A drug LSD. Clinically observed health effects include hypertension, agitation and aggression, visual and audio hallucination, and seizures. Two patients were admitted to intensive care after using this drug. Anecdotal evidence from self-reported users also highlight highly negative effects including confusion, shaking, nausea, insomnia, paranoia and unwanted feelings.
We agree with the ACMD that urgent action is required because of the extremely potent nature of these substances in powder and liquid form, and the high risk of overdose. We are also aware that to mitigate the risk of overdose, some suppliers have used perforated pre-loaded paper doses in the form of blotters and tabs, similar to the way LSD is sold.
The benzofuran substances—such as 5- and 6- APB—are related to the class A drug ecstasy (MDMA). They are most commonly sold under the brand name Benzo Fury and marketed as legal alternatives to ecstasy. The effects of these substances include insomnia, increased heart rate and anxiety, with some users reporting ecstasy-like symptoms. Several deaths and hospitalisations in the UK have been associated with the use of these compounds. There are also risks associated with the long-term use of these drugs such as cardiac toxicity.
The order applies UK-wide to protect the public, enabling enforcement action against suppliers and traffickers, while the ACMD prepares full advice on these substances. The order also sends out a clear message to the public, especially young people, that these substances are harmful drugs. Of course, we will continue to monitor data on these drugs to measure the impact of the order through all available channels, and share this information with the ACMD.
This order was made in consideration of evidence that these substances pose a clear threat to public health and safety, not least young people who believe traffickers’ claims that legal highs are safer than controlled drugs. We have a duty to take action to prevent new psychoactive substances—NPSs—which pose equally serious health risks from gaining a foothold in the UK drugs market.
Our action today, through temporary control legislation, is a vehicle which enables us to act swiftly to protect the public and provide time to the advisory council to gather evidence and prepare full advice on these drugs. Legislative action also plays an important part in supporting our wider public protection policies.
This legislative action is supportive of our long-term strategic objectives set out in the Government’s action plan to tackle the new psychoactive substances market from all angles; to reduce demand by raising awareness of the harms of new psychoactive substances; to make it difficult to obtain and supply those that pose risks to health; and to ensure that statutory services are able effectively to provide treatment and support recovery. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the drugs. I am always grateful that these drugs have street names that we can pronounce, because the only light relief there could be on this issue is to hear the Minister reading out the chemical names of all the substances for which he has brought forward the order today.
We on this side of the House put on the record our appreciation of the work of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, specifically for the work it has done to bring forward this order. Its members give freely of their expertise and advice, and we are hugely grateful that they do so. We are content to accept their advice and support the order before us today. There is evidence that these two drugs, N-BOMe and Benzo Fury, and their derivatives and variations have been responsible for hospitalisations and deaths. They are dangerous and damaging and those who trade in these substances care nothing for their impact and the harm that they cause—merely for their own profits.
In supporting the order I refer to some of the key issues that are relevant to this discussion, and on which I would find it helpful if the Minister could provide some clarity and information. I understand and appreciate the process that has brought this specific order before us, but I am not altogether clear on some issues, such as timescales and action taken by other countries, whether it is on similar timescales and whether greater co-operation is now available. The Minister will be aware of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which has a key role in detection and assessment of new drugs across the entire EU. Can the Minister tell me—I think that we have had similar information from Ministers previously—how many new substances have been identified by the EMCDDA since 2010, and how many of those have now been identified by the Home Office early warning system? The Minister may not have the figures to hand and I am happy for him to write to me. We learnt from the debate on an earlier order that the Home Office had identified only 11 out of 90 substances identified by the EMCDDA in 2010-11. My understanding is that now more than 200 substances have been identified by the EMCDDA. How many of those have been identified by the Home Office? I ask because I am keen to see that we are keeping pace with the rest of Europe in identifying and taking action on new drugs and substances as they enter the UK market.
The Minister mentioned that they are sometimes referred to as legal highs. That lulls some people into a false sense of security that a drug is safe because it is not illegal. Yet the only reason it is legal is that the formal process of making it illegal has not been completed. Yesterday I Attended an IPU briefing on the drugs trade and I was struck by one specific fact: that synthetic drugs now account for 20% to 25% of the drugs market. As their use is growing, the need to be on the ball with identification and action becomes all the more important and crucial.
When debating a previous order I asked the then Minister if he was aware of the reasons for the difference in the number of drugs identified by the EMCDDA and those identified by the Home Office. He was not able to respond to me on that occasion. It would be helpful to know and, again, I shall understand if the Minister prefers to write to me with the accurate statistics and explanation. I suspect that there are probably a number of genuine and understandable reasons. Is there just a short time lag between one body indentifying a substance and the information being fed through to the Home Office? Are the Government waiting for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? I will come back to that point, because we do not want any unnecessary delay in identifying and taking action, when the growth of these synthetically manufactured drugs is racing ahead.
I am keen to ensure, as I am sure the Minister is, that we make full use of co-operation with other European countries that are tackling the same issues, which are incredibly difficult. Co-operation across international boundaries is essential as we are all facing similar problems that are having a similar impact on our societies. We all want to be reassured that we are acting on these issues with the sense of urgency that the public deserve and expect. I do not for one second doubt the Minister’s intentions; I would not want that to be misunderstood. However, I am worried that some of the factual information of the timings gives cause for concern. It may be that we need to review the process that we have undertaken to get us to this point to see whether we could act more swiftly.
My understanding is that the information contained in the letter that the Home Secretary received from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated that Benzo Fury, the drug that we getting a temporary banning order on today, was first referred to the National Poisons Information Service in 2009, after being identified as a drug that led to hospitalisations. I am not suggesting that that on its own would be enough to bring us to this point, because obviously the drug has to be properly assessed. However, the chair of the ACMD, Professor Les Iversen, recently said that the council had the resources to assess only two or three new substances a year. If between 70 and 200 dangerous and damaging substances are on the market legally and there is an increase in the manufacturing of synthetic drugs—many of which there will be a strong case for making illegal—to be identifying or assessing just two or three a year is completely inadequate. Is there more that we should be doing now to ensure that we are not constantly lagging behind what is happening in Europe? Such a lagging behind is likely to lead to increased dangers and increased hospitalisations, and possibly worse.
Does the Minister know how long it took for the drug Benzo Fury, for example, to appear on the Government’s forensic early-warning system since it was first identified in 2009? It seems to me that there should be some co-operation and cross-referencing—I have given him notice that I would be asking this question today—between the National Poisons Information Service, the TICTAC database on chemical compounds, the EMCDDA’s register of new substances and the Home Office’s forensic early-warning system. Can he provide some information on how such co-operation and liaison works? Again, I am happy to receive a letter.
Can the Minister also tell us what processes are in place to investigate the effects of a substance once it is recorded? We need a proper pharmacological investigation into these substances, but I understand that this is very expensive. My understanding is that it costs approximately £100,000 per substance. The Home Office has provided just £200,000 from the health budget for this purpose, although I am not sure whether that amount remains following the CSR. European co-operation would be invaluable. I would be interested to know what discussions are taking place with other European Ministers and agencies.
One of the flies in the ointment of increased European co-operation is the Government’s plan to opt out of the police and criminal justice measures of the EU. I know that the Government want to opt back in to some measures. It would be inconceivable if this kind of measure was not included as it is clear that the EMCDDA is very much ahead of the game as to what is happening across Europe as a whole. Are there any contingency plans on the drugs issue, particularly if a Danish type of situation arose where we could not opt back in, as we wanted?
I apologise for taking slightly longer to speak, but I am very concerned about the number of drugs coming on to the market at the moment. Can the Minister say anything about internet sales? A number of internet sites offer what they call “legal highs” as alternatives to already banned or illegal drugs. It is hard, I know, to monitor the actions of all of them, but what monitoring is taking place? Often it can be a way of identifying when a legal drug is getting hold of the market.
It is clear from the drugs listed today that one has to be very precise about the substances involved. I understand that there is a risk that a minor chemical change can create a new drug and then a new order is needed. The Government are trying to address that issue and that is why the order before us today is welcome. Do we need to have a new order each time there is a chemical change? I support the order. I welcome the Minister’s explanation and thank him for bringing the order forward. However, we need a broader strategy to ensure that we are not running behind to catch up on such a serious issue.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Medical Research Council’s ethics and regulation committee. Can the Minister say whether consideration has been given to altering the defaults on this policy? When it comes to prescription drugs, we require proof of safety before a drug proceeds to clinical trials and attempts to establish efficacy. Why should proof of safety not be a prerequisite for the marketing of any substance that is used as a drug?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will answer the noble Baroness’s question before I forget it. I suspect the reason is that the legislation creates serious criminal offences and we have to be sure that the creation of such an offence is necessary. If I have anything more to add—if any inspiration comes from the Box—then I shall do so, but I suspect that that is the answer.
I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I thank the House for the helpful discussion. I trust that when I have finished I will have fully made the case for the temporary class drug order to be approved in the House on the basis of the latest available evidence and the ACMD’s advice.
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about resources. The Home Secretary commissions the ACMD to undertake specific pieces of work each year, and it has the flexibility to prioritise its resources accordingly. However, the use of generic definitions means that the advisory council is able to consider and provide advice on families and groups rather than on individual substances. This enables the Government to tackle multiple substances in a single legislative action.
Before I go into further detail on the points raised by noble Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in commending the ACMD for its continuous work and support of our work priorities, including on “legal highs”. More than ever, the fast pace of this market requires careful prioritisation of our resources and underscores the need for closer working within a broader network of partners, in the UK and abroad, to inform and preserve the integrity of our drug laws.
The noble Baroness quite rightly asked about a sense of urgency. In the case of this particular order we received advice from the ACMD on 29 May; we made the order on 3 June; and it came into effect on 10 July. The noble Baroness also asked when benzofuran compounds were first identified in the UK. Our forensic early warning system, which I will say more about in a moment, first identified the benzofuran substances 5- and 6-APB in early 2011. Together with the advisory council we kept under review the health harms associated with these compounds. The latest evidence suggests that legislative action needs to be taken.
I remind the House that we take action when we see a health harm becoming apparent, not when we become aware that the drug exists. The drug can exist—theoretically it might be on the market in other parts of the world—but we will not legislate until it starts to cause a problem in the UK. We do not need to legislate for everything. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that we do not want to legislate for every drug that could be abused.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making and I am grateful for it. I was making a point about the different organisations which all have a responsibility to share information in this area. The poisons body to which I referred first identified this as a problem in 2009. It took until 2011, according to the noble Earl’s information, for the Home Office to become aware of that.
Earl Attlee
The noble Baroness may or may not be right. However, I will have more to say on co-operation.
We are making progress in reducing the availability of these drugs through UK law enforcement agencies prioritising work on new psychoactive substances. We are also working with trading standards to tackle their emergence using consumer protection legislation and providing guidance to complement drug control. We have a world-leading forensic early warning system that we are exporting, through leading two resolutions at the UN, enabling the monitoring of new psychoactive substances at a global level for the first time.
Perhaps I may first draw your Lordships’ attention to the forensic early warning system. This is a Home Office programme set up since January 2011 in response to legal highs. It detects new drugs in the UK through test purchasing and forensic work. It informs the advisory council’s consideration and our wider response. It works by test purchasing samples for analysis from the internet and “head shops”—whatever they are—collecting music festival and non-casework police samples, and other sensible courses of action. This has made a vital contribution to health and safety at summer festivals. Data from FEWS has been shared with ACMD to inform its advice on a drug called 2-DPMP, synthetic cannabinoids, methoxetamine—which I tried to practice pronouncing—including the latest substances, NBOMe and benzofurans which we are talking about.
I also draw the House’s attention to the drugs early warning system. This works by linking health and law enforcement agencies to provide access to evidence and timely information on NPS—new psychoactive substances. UK Focal Point acts as an information hub, collecting and sharing data from UK and EU drugs early warning systems with ACMD and the Home Office. So we are not on our own. UK Focal Point can also liaise directly with the National Poisons Information Service when required. When, for example, a threat from a new psychoactive substance becomes apparent, the Home Office will ask UK Focal Point—and has done so in the case of these substances and others that I cannot pronounce—to distribute a request for information from national and international partners.
The noble Baroness asked me about the number of new substances coming on to the market. Counting the number of substances identified elsewhere in Europe cannot be used as a barometer to measure the extent of the problem in the UK. Many of these substances have never been seen before in the UK, a point that I have already made, and the majority of those that have are controlled thanks to the generic definitions which capture families of drugs used under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Government are acting fast to tackle these new substances.
I have talked about the forensic early warning system. In addition, the temporary control power affords a flexibility to control these drugs quickly while the advisory council assesses their full harm and when the evidence base on their prevalence, use or likely use and harm supports legislative action. As I have already said, the use of generic definitions enables us to future-proof our legislation by catching families and groups at a time, and therefore drugs that are yet to appear on the UK market. These systems, including our drugs early warning system, continue to contribute to the considerations of the ACMD, as it has done with NBOMe and benzofuran substances and our previous temporary class drug methoxetamine, which is now a class B drug. In addition, health and law enforcement partners continue to have access to information and the latest evidence from the UK and EU.
The most helpful course of action that I can take is to write to the noble Baroness on some of the further details, which I think she will find interesting. I hope that noble Lords will find that this legislative measure will ensure that the public are protected from the harm of these new psychoactive substances. I beg to move.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2013
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Stamford
I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if I intervene on a slightly different matter, but a matter directly related to the subject of this order. I believe it to be in the public interest to do so. I shall speak very briefly.
I discovered this morning from my NHS GP—who has a practice in the centre of London, and whose name I cannot put on the record because I do not have his consent to do so—that very frequently he and his practice colleagues come across prima facie evidence of immigration fraud, people being here illegally or indeed people illegally accessing NHS services. Although there is a hotline available to medical practices to report prima facie evidence of benefit fraud, apparently there is no hotline or other mechanism available to GP practices in this country or to medical centres to report prima facie immigration fraud or other immigration irregularities or illegal access to NHS services. I wonder whether the noble Earl will give some consideration to whether it might be a good idea to provide such a mechanism. I believe that the corresponding mechanism that is supposed to alert the authorities to prima facie evidence of benefit fraud works very well.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I have a couple of questions for clarification on the order. At the top of page 2, Article 4 inserts two new articles, 8 and 8ZA. Article 8 has a new process of an oral grant or refusal of leave, whereby an individual who has been granted leave to remain or refusal to remain can be told that by telephone. I am slightly puzzled about the mechanics of how that would work. I indicated to the noble Earl that I intended to raise this matter.
Some people who apply will, of course, not have English as their first language and may have difficulty in understanding. What process is undertaken to ensure that the person receiving the notice to leave the country or to remain fully understands what they are being told, so that there is no misunderstanding? If someone receives something in writing saying that they do not have leave to remain in the country, they can take it to a solicitor and get advice, but if they receive that information over the telephone they will have to digest it at a later date. I am slightly concerned that someone may get information but not fully understand the nature of that information and not be able to act on it because they are puzzled or do not have any proof of that information. How is it possible to be assured of the identity of someone being notified that they may be granted leave to remain or refused leave to remain in the country if you only talk to them on the telephone? I have questions about how that will work. I am not clear about the security issues involved.
Article 8ZA paragraph (4) says:
“Where attempts to give notice”—
for a grant, refusal or variation of leave in writing—
“are not possible or have failed”.
That is the point that the noble Earl was making. That could be put on file and deemed to have been served. In paragraph (4) it refers to “attempts” in the plural, so obviously two attempts have to be made, but is there any guidance on how those attempts should be made? When it talks about attempts to give notice not being possible, why would it not be possible to make an attempt to contact someone? I am slightly puzzled by the wording.
Paragraph (6) says:
“A notice given under this article may, in the case of a person who is under 18 years of age and does not have a representative, be given to the parent, guardian or another adult who for the time being takes responsibility for the child”.
Does that mean a legal responsibility, or could it be a casual and informal responsibility? I recently raised a case with the Home Office where an individual was seeking to have a passport returned on behalf of another person and I was told that it could not act or intercede with that person because there was no legal authority to do so. I am slightly puzzled how the situation of someone who, for the time being, takes responsibility for a child being able to receive information regarding the granting, refusal or variation of a right to remain in the country would work in practice.
My final point is on the presumption of receipt of notice. The article refers to the notice being sent by the postal service and on the second day after it is sent,
“it shall be deemed to have been given to the person”.
What happens in the event of a mail or postal strike, as we have seen in some parts of the country? I would be grateful if the noble Earl could clarify those points and give me some answers.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am grateful for the supportive and thoughtful contributions made by both noble Lords.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, on reporting suspected immigration irregularities, there is a generic hotline for members of the public and stakeholders to report suspected immigration offenders. Information is available on the Home Office website, and I can write to the noble Lord with further information. However, it is a good point that we should understand about the abuse of our NHS facilities.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I will write in detail to the noble Lord on the issue of confidentiality and on whether anything else needs to be done. Everyone is aware of the abuse of our NHS treatment, to which a lot of immigrants are not entitled.
The Government have made this order to protect our ability to control immigration and ensure that migrants are treated fairly. This Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants but is closed to those who seek to abuse the system. We must be clear to the public, our corporate partners and those who wish to come here that we will take action against migrants who fail to pursue the purpose of their leave. In the most non-compliant cases we will require the individual to leave the UK immediately or be subject to enforced removal.
Where the cessation of sponsorship is a result of the sponsor losing their licence or migrant non-compliance is not clear, we must operate a system that is fair and enables bona fide migrants who want to study to switch to another sponsor—and the system does that. However, our ability to take appropriate action must not be hampered by gaps in legislation or result in delays and the need for time-consuming and bureaucratic processes. We do not want to create a duty on sponsors to have to report every change in their migrants’ address, phone number or e-mail address. That would be far too onerous a task. However, it is reasonable to ask the sponsor to provide the latest contact details with their notifications. That will give us the best opportunity of communicating the decision to the individual concerned in the first instance. If we cannot serve the notice on the individual, whether by post or some other means, we will seek to serve the notice on the migrant’s representative. Only where that is not possible, or the service fails, will we serve the decision on file.
The order amends Article 8 of the 2000 order. These changes are technical and retain the current position in Article 8, which provides that a notice giving or refusing leave to enter may be given by fax, e-mail or, in the case of a visitor, orally, including by means of a telecommunication system. The amending order retains the provision in Article 8 regarding oral notice to visitors but transfers the provisions regarding fax and e-mail to the new Article 8ZA, where other means of giving the notice are dealt with—post, courier and so on—and I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to confirm the procedure for giving oral notice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked what the purpose was of such a broad definition of adults who are responsible for children. Perhaps it would be helpful if I read out the answer.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that the noble Earl misunderstood my question. If he checks Hansard, I should be happy to receive a letter with the answer.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, that would probably be helpful. Perhaps I will just move on.
I trust that the House will agree that this order will ensure that we have a consistent statutory framework that protects the Secretary of State’s ability to control migration and is fair on genuine migrants. As I have already said, this Government are committed to ensuring that the UK attracts the brightest and best migrants. Where it is appropriate, we should give individuals an opportunity to continue working and studying here. It is not just a matter of fairness, ensuring that we do not act disproportionately. It is also about recognising the important role that genuine migrants play in enriching our communities and supporting economic recovery. I hope that the House will look favourably on the order and agree the Motion.