Queen’s Speech
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour and a pleasure to open this second day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech.
The topics that we are due to cover are wide-ranging. My speech will therefore take noble Lords on a journey that at times might feel somewhat circuitous, but there is a common thread running throughout: the Government’s continuing commitment to deliver on the issues that really matter to the people of the United Kingdom. That includes, for example, fighting crime wherever and whenever it rears its ugly head, empowering those tasked with keeping us safe to do their critical work, delivering a criminal justice system that works in the interests of the law-abiding majority, and ensuring that our laws reflect the way that we communicate, consume and do business in the modern world.
National security is the foremost responsibility of any Government. It is an immense task. The scale and breadth of the threats that we face cannot be overestimated and, on that point, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work tirelessly to protect the public. For them to do their jobs effectively, it is vital that our laws keep pace with the ever-changing threat picture. The National Security Bill will deliver the biggest overhaul of state threat legislation for a generation. It will harden the UK’s resilience against hostile activity from foreign states and ensure that our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the tools that they need to protect our national security. The Bill will reform espionage laws dating from the beginning of the 20th century, introduce new offences to tackle foreign-state-linked sabotage and interference, and enhance police powers to support these measures.
A registration scheme will be created to help combat damaging or hostile influence exerted by foreign states in the UK. This will be added post introduction so that we can take the time needed to ensure its effectiveness. As a tool of last resort, a new suite of state threat prevention and investigation measures will be introduced to manage those who pose a threat but have not met the threshold for prosecution. While the majority of the National Security Bill will focus on countering hostile threats from foreign states, the Bill will also include measures to prevent the exploitation of our civil legal aid and civil damage systems by convicted terrorists.
We must remain alert to the threat from terrorism. The Manchester Arena attack in 2017 has particular resonance for me but, whenever and wherever the atrocities occur, we owe it to the victims and their families to learn every lesson and, where necessary, to take action to enhance public safety. The Protect duty Bill will establish a new requirements framework which mandates those in control of certain public locations and venues to consider the threat from terrorism and implement appropriate and proportionate mitigation measures. The Government have worked closely with partners and victims’ groups to develop these proposals, including Figen Murray, to whom I pay tribute, and the Martyn’s law campaign team. Our message is clear: we will do what it takes to keep law-abiding citizens safe and to protect our national security.
The Public Order Bill, introduced in the House of Commons yesterday, will be familiar to noble Lords, as many of its measures were brought forward in January as amendments to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Regrettably, noble Lords rejected the amendments, and the passage of time has served only to reinforce the pressing need for these measures. The Bill will ensure that the police have the powers that they need to prevent and reduce this kind of serious disruption to our transport networks and key national infrastructure which we have seen in recent months. It includes a number of new offences including ones relating to locking on, obstructing the construction of major transport works and interfering with the use or operation of key national infrastructure. The Bill also provides for serious disruption prevention orders to target protesters who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. The concern in January was that these measures had not been properly scrutinised. The new Bill will ensure that both Houses will have the opportunity to do just that. I hope that, having done so, we can then get these measures quickly on to the statute book.
I welcome the fact that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act is now on the statute book. As I have said, towards the end of its passage the focus was on the public order measures, but we should not forget that it is a wide-ranging Act delivering new laws to protect the public, support our police and cut crime. The Government’s focus now is on implementing the provisions of the Act as soon as practicable, with a raft of measures coming into force on 28 June.
The Government are bearing down on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our financial system. We will build on the recently enacted Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act by bringing forward the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill to further strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive while dirty money has no place to hide. The Bill will include reforms to Companies House, reforms to prevent abuse of limited partnerships, new powers to seize crypto assets from criminals, and reforms to give businesses more confidence to share information in order to combat economic crime. The Bill will support enterprise, enabling Companies House to deliver a better service, and maintain swift and low-cost routes for company creation. It will also boost the UK’s defences against economic crime, including fraud and money laundering, delivering greater protections for consumers and businesses.
The United Kingdom was the first country in the world to enact legislation dedicated to tackling modern slavery, through the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015, and we remain a world leader in these efforts. We have already made significant progress through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which provides clarity to victims and decision-makers on victims’ rights, supports the early identification of possible victims and tackles abuses in the system, but we need to go further. When it comes to confronting the evils of modern slavery and human trafficking, we simply cannot afford to stand still.
The new modern slavery Bill will build on our existing legislation to strengthen the requirements on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to eradicate modern slavery in their supply chains. It will extend these requirements to public authorities, mandate the reporting areas to be covered in modern slavery statements, require organisations to publish their statements on a government-run registry and introduce tougher financial penalties for non-compliance. The Bill will also improve the effectiveness of court orders to prevent modern slavery offenders committing crimes, and improve the support system for victims. Ahead of the introduction of the Bill, we will publish an ambitious new modern slavery strategy setting out our approach to tackling this heinous form of criminality.
Falling victim to crime is a traumatic and often devastating experience. The impact is often profound and can stay with people for many years, even their whole lives. We must give them every possible chance of recovering. The victims Bill will guarantee that victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system and ensure that the right support is available at the right time. The Bill will place the victims’ code into law, sending a clear signal about what victims can and should expect, and it will drive up standards by increasing transparency and oversight of victims’ services provided by the criminal justice agencies.
I have discussed the need for reform of our immigration and asylum system on numerous occasions here. The Government’s New Plan for Immigration set out our vision for what is a much-needed overhaul, and the Nationality and Borders Act, with which this House is very well acquainted, is the legislative vehicle for delivering that change. We are embarking on this effort at a time when the world is facing a global migration crisis. The United Kingdom has a long tradition of providing sanctuary to those in need. We are rightly proud of the way that our country stands up for what is right. Offering the hand of friendship to those in desperate need is what we do. It is what we will continue to do.
We cannot continue to operate a parallel system for those arriving in the United Kingdom illegally, having travelled through safe third countries. The world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda is part of our comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system. It will help to break the smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life. We are also stepping up our operations in the channel to tackle highly dangerous crossings. Border Force and Royal Navy officers and assets are working side by side, and their joint work will be supported by £50 million of new funding. There has been much debate about our approach, but the simple fact is that people are risking their lives attempting to reach the UK and we will not shy away from taking action to prevent further tragedies.
The world is united in horror at Russia’s assault on Ukraine. Once again, this country’s impulse, in the face of such a horrific situation, is one of compassion and support. Through the visa schemes we have set up and our wider humanitarian response, the Government have sent a message loud and clear: the UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to do what is right.
Our desire to keep the public safe is not confined to what we might call the physical or offline world. Under the ground-breaking Online Safety Bill, tech companies will be accountable to an independent regulator to keep their users safe. There will not be a safe space for criminal content online. Platforms will have to quickly remove illegal content, including terrorist material and child sexual abuse and exploitation, and there will be a particular focus on protecting children from harmful or inappropriate content. The Bill also contains important safeguards for freedom of expression. We are committed to getting this right, and I am grateful to colleagues for their input so far. I am sure that the insight and knowledge across this House will be of great value as the Bill progresses.
We are more connected than ever before. Through the Product Security and Telecommunications Infra- structure Bill, we will make sure that these connections are fast and secure. We need our tech to work remotely and to be secure. Underneath all that, we need the digital infrastructure to support these connections. That is why this Government have made huge investments in digital infrastructure. To stay ahead of the game, this Bill is needed to keep transforming tomorrow’s networks and securing ourselves against future threats.
The Government are also committed to establishing a new pro-competition regime for digital markets. The regime will introduce clear rules on how the most powerful tech firms should treat businesses and consumers when delivering key services, such as social media and online searches. The regime will be overseen by a dedicated digital markets unit, which will be housed in the Competition and Markets Authority. The unit will have robust powers to enforce the regime, including tough fines of up to 10% of a firm’s global turnover for breaches. We will publish draft legislation in this Session and a Bill will be introduced as parliamentary time allows.
The UK’s broadcasting industry is a global success story. We want our public service broadcasters to remain at the heart of that success. By delivering a major and much-needed update to broadcasting legislation, we will enable our broadcasters to compete and thrive in the 21st century. This will be good for audiences, for British-originated content, for our economy and for our ability to project British values globally.
International trade plays a vital role in our domestic economy but, due to existing laws, some of which date back to the 19th century, trade still relies on billions of paper documents, which is costly, inefficient and outdated. A proposed Bill will remedy this and provide businesses with more choice and flexibility on how they trade. Modernising the law and putting electronic trade documents on the same legal footing as paper documents is essential to remove the need for wasteful paperwork and needless bureaucracy. The Bill will allow businesses to use electronic trade documents when buying and selling internationally, making it easier, cheaper, faster and more secure to trade.
The Government will shortly set out proposals designed to create a data protection regime that is pro-growth and innovation-friendly while also maintaining the highest data protection standards. The proposed reforms will reduce burdens on businesses and scientists, improve enforcement of data protection breaches and make data protection law clearer. The Bill will also make good on the Government’s commitment to legislate for other policies in similar subject areas, such as increasing industry participation in smart data schemes and enabling a secure and trusted digital identity market across the economy.
The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act and ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, national security and effective government. We remain committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and are acutely conscious of this country’s long and proud history of protecting and promoting freedoms. The Bill of Rights will enable us to build on that long-standing tradition by reinforcing freedom of speech, strengthening our common-law traditions, restoring public confidence in the system and curbing abuse of the human rights framework by criminals. Given the abundance of knowledge and experience within this House, I am anticipating an insightful and comprehensive debate.
As Her Majesty’s Speech demonstrates, we are as determined as ever to change our society for the better and improve people’s lives. Our mission is clear: to make the country safer, stronger and more prosperous. I assure the House that the Government’s commitment to that endeavour is undiminished. I beg to move.
HM Passport Office: Backlogs
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question asked earlier today in the other place:
“Due to Covid-19, over 5 million people delayed their passport applications in 2020 and 2021”—
I do know how to clear a Chamber. The Answer continues:
“With demand for international travel having returned, Her Majesty’s Passport Office is currently receiving a higher number of passport applications than ever before. Some 9.5 million applications are expected in 2022, compared with approximately 7 million in a normal year.
Since April 2021, 500 new staff have joined and a further 700 will join by the summer. As a result, the vast majority of passport applications are being processed within the 10-week timeframe and over 90% within six weeks. Less than 1.4% of the passports printed last week for UK applications had been in the system for longer than 10 weeks.
With a record number of applications in the system, customer inquiries have increased accordingly. However, the passport advice line, which is run by Teleperformance, is not currently meeting the needs of passport customers. Clearly, this is not acceptable. The Home Office has clear standards for the level of service that suppliers are expected to provide.
Her Majesty’s Passport Office has engaged with Teleperformance at its most senior levels to emphasise the need to significantly improve performance as soon as possible. Alongside steps to bring the operation of the passport advice line, email and call-back functions within the required standard, Teleperformance is urgently bolstering staff numbers in response to the recent surge in customer contact, with 500 additional staff due to be added by mid-June.
We recognise that colleagues will wish to raise cases and queries on behalf of their constituents. HM Passport Office staff have therefore been deployed to answer passport-related inquiries to the Home Office’s dedicated MPs hotline and, for the most urgent cases, they will also be available to conduct in-person passport surgeries at Portcullis House.
While we acknowledge that there have been issues with customer contact that must and will be resolved, I take the opportunity to recognise the work of HM Passport Office staff who continue to ensure that the vast majority of passport applications are processed in under 10 weeks. Their efforts, alongside the extensive work that went into preparing for record demand, have ensured that passport applications continue to be processed in higher numbers than ever before.
Across March and April 2022, HM Passport Office completed the processing of nearly 2 million applications. As this output demonstrates, HMPO staff are firmly focused on maintaining a high level of service and are fully committed to ensuring that people receive their passports in good time for their summer holidays.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Question in the other place. I start with an anecdote: last Monday, a friend of mine showed me a picture of an 11 year-old Ukrainian boy in Wandsworth in his brand-new school uniform. He started at Southfields Academy, in Wandsworth, on Monday; I understand that so far it is going very well. He was standing there, proud as punch, in his new school uniform. My friend said that Wandsworth Borough Council has been very helpful in setting up all the various measures they had to put in place to host this family. I will not try to claim that as a Labour success, given that it happened only on Monday.
I thank the hard-working staff at the Home Office for trying to deal with this backlog. We believe that this is a problem of leadership and planning, not of the staff themselves. We also believe that the surge in applications for passports was wholly predictable. Too often, we have to come to this House to ask about delays—on passports, on Ukraine visas and on asylum claims, including those of Afghan interpreters, for example. The costs to the people involved in this application process are difficult to describe because of the extremity of the situation in which they find themselves. Does the Minister believe that the management and leadership process in the Home Office is fit to deal with the current shortcomings and future requirements that will be made of it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
First, I join the noble Lord in being happy about his story of the Ukrainian schoolboy standing proudly in his school uniform on Monday. I praise the noble Lord for not trying to claim it as a Labour victory; whenever these things happen, we are all happy that they turned out well.
It might be helpful to outline the context in which we find ourselves. As I said, HMPO processes 7 million passport applications in a normal year. Due to Covid, only 4 million applied in 2020 and 5 million in 2021. That means that more than 5 million people delayed applying for a British passport throughout 2020 and 2021. Therefore, the unprecedented figure of 9.5 million applications is forecast for 2022.
As I said, some of the problems with phone lines are completely unacceptable, but I think HMPO staff have performed to their best. In this context, 90% of applications being issued within six weeks, between January and March this year, is an excellent figure. In fact, over 98% were processed within a 10-week timeframe, but I am not going to stand and deny that there have been snags in the system. As I outlined, we are working very hard to resolve them.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is aware that, far from enjoying exactly the same benefits as members of the EU, our citizens must now have three months’ validity on their passports. The Government should have been more concerned with the process of issuing passports than with what colour they are. Have there been any discussions between the Government and EU countries about relaxing the three-month rule while the UK sorts out this dreadful crisis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can take that point back. I may be completely wrong here but I thought the EU insisted on six months. I am glad someone is nodding, so I am not going mad: the EU insists on six months. There might be a pragmatic solution. We are probably undergoing a hump in the process and things will smooth out, particularly by engaging more staff.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned that the performance of the contractor answering the telephone lines was unacceptable. Does the contract with Teleperformance have any penalties, so that there is a financial consequence to the company if standards are not maintained?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As always, my noble friend asks a very good question. I do not know the answer to it. I know that we have been engaging with the contractor and outlining that what is happening at the moment is utterly unacceptable, and I know that steps are being taken to rectify that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that commercial confidentiality will not be cited as a reason for not replying to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Following my noble friend’s question, have the Government had any discussions with the travel industry to ensure that passengers who are unaware of either these problems or the need to have a period remaining on their passport are alerted to the issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In relation to this issue, I know that HMPO has sent nearly 5 million text messages to UK customers who hold an expired or soon-to-expire passport to advise them to allow up to 10 weeks when next applying—so communications are going out from our side. I do not know about other countries.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, how many additional civil servants have been taken on to deal with the backlog? Is Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who criticised the Passport Office so bitterly, now satisfied with the work of this organisation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
HMPO’s staffing numbers have increased by 500 since last April, and it is in the process of recruiting a further 700 people. In total, as of 1 April this year, there were more than 4,000 staff in passport production roles.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
First, I am reassured. The reason I knew it was six months—I will point out another wrinkle in this—is that I was going abroad in March, so I anticipated this issue and sent my application off early. It was very efficient and I got my passport back really quite quickly. The only problem was that the courier kept trying to deliver it to the wrong address because of the postcode—but do not worry about that. There was no way of putting in an extra message for the delivery driver saying, “Please go to the gate at something or other”—because I live in the countryside. Anyway, leaving that aside, the process was very efficient.
But there is another wrinkle. Normally, when you renew early in the UK—I realise that this particularly concerns us Scots, who worry about money—that extra period is put on to your passport. The expiry date is taken from when the current passport expires. The EU counts it from when it arrives—that is, the renewal date—so be careful, because you lose that bit that you used to get credited with on your passport under the old British system. Personally, I think that it is unfair. I am delighted that the passport can just put it on, but you do need to warn travellers that they might need to add a bit more on.
The thing I really want to ask, though, is this: what plans are there to deal with the extra 1,200 staff who have been specially recruited to deal with the problem? That is quite a swelling of the Civil Service at a time when I thought we were trying to economise and cut back. Are these people full-time staff that the Civil Service will have to retain for ever and somehow find other employment for—or what plans have we for downsizing again when the crisis is over?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Again, the noble Lord makes a good point. I will inquire as to whether we have recruited permanent staff or agency staff. If they are permanent full-time staff, they can of course be flexible to meet the needs of other parts of the Civil Service.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, at the end of 2020, when the Passport Office realised that it was 2 million short of its normal applications, why did it not encourage people to apply early, anticipating the problems that we now see?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not know the answer to the question of why we did not encourage that. Obviously, we project numbers each year, but those numbers clearly did not transpire last year and we are now facing 9.5 million applications this year.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, so we will go on to the next business.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsWednesday 27th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (27 Apr 2022)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B and C.
We return again to consider the Nationality and Borders Bill, and I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for the careful consideration they have given to the issues at hand and the care with which they have scrutinised this Bill. We must now make progress to pass this on to the statute book.
I turn first to Motion A and Amendment 5F, which would require that the provisions of Part 2
“must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention”.
The Government’s position remains that the provisions of this Bill are compliant with the refugee convention. The other place has consistently accepted this position. Ultimately, though, I cannot support this amendment as it is an attempt to copy Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the effect of which on the interpretation of the legislation is unique and far outside the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. The amendment goes on to provide a mechanism for the courts to declare that certain provisions may be incompatible. Again, I must take issue with this for the same reasons, because we absolutely assert that the interpretations of the refugee convention which we are taking in this Bill are fully compliant. I will explain to the House why it is open to us to take this view.
The refugee convention leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation by contracting states. This ensures that it can stand the test of time and be applied across many jurisdictions with different legal systems. Necessarily, therefore, there is a need to define and apply such terms in domestic legislation in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention —the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made that point yesterday —taking a good-faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language of the convention.
The provisions in Part 2 are in line with this. They are clear and unambiguous, and are a good-faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The plain fact is that there may be differences in interpretation in different contracting states—that is how international law necessarily must work to allow it to remain relevant and applicable across a range of jurisdictions—but this does not mean that the interpretation we are taking here, to which we ask Parliament to agree, is not a good-faith interpretation. We have considered carefully the compatibility of these provisions with the refugee convention, and a great deal of the Government’s position was comprehensively set out in the all-Peers letter sent by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
We need to consider one of the primary purposes of Part 2: to provide a clear interpretation of key components of the refugee convention. This will benefit all those who interact with the asylum system, be they Home Office decision-makers, the courts, legal representatives or, most importantly, asylum seekers themselves. We have talked at length about how people seeking protection deserve a clearer, quicker and more just system. Let us not take away from the gains made by this Bill by casting doubt on what Parliament has agreed are fair interpretations of the convention.
The new amendment is not only unnecessary because the contents of Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligation; it is also contrary to a fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, where possible, to tightly define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining compliant with those obligations to support consistent and accurate decision-making.
Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that her Amendment 5D, to which this amendment is similar in effect, was intended to do
“no more, but no less, than that already provided for in law by the ECHR”.—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 148.]
The ECHR has been given effect in domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and is constitutionally different, as the ECHR has a supranational body whose judgments relating to interpretation are binding. The Human Rights Act therefore gives courts the authority, so far as it is possible to do so, to read and give effect to primary legislation and subordinate legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention rights.
However, the Act goes further and recognises the primacy of Parliament, as a declaration of incompatibility does not invalidate either the primary legislation or subordinate legislation where primary legislation prevents removal of incompatibility. The refugee convention has no supernatural court—I mean supranational court; things are getting spooky—and is not incorporated into domestic law. It is no different to other international instruments beyond the ECHR, and there is no rational reason to treat it or Part 2 of this Bill differently to other parts of the Bill in this regard. The amendment would have wider cross-government implications.
The amendment now includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to be notified when the court or tribunal is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility with the refugee convention, and allows the Secretary of State to join proceedings. Unfortunately, that does nothing to alleviate our objections to the amendment, as I have just outlined. Our position remains that the provisions in Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligations, in particular those under the refugee convention.
Turning to Motion B and Amendments 6H and 6J, I must again insist that we cannot accept anything that goes against one of the absolutely fundamental aspects of this Bill: deterring people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. The status of Clause 11 as a deterrent is closely tied to the “first safe country” principle. Although the inadmissibility policy encourages asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, it might not always result in an asylum seeker being removed to a safe third country; for example, due to some documentation or logistical issue. Consequently, the differentiation policy is required to add an extra layer of deterrent to the asylum policy framework, and we have a moral obligation to act to prevent such dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 6H, which again seeks to shift the burden of proof in applying Clause 11 on to the Secretary of State and seems to intend to make it more difficult for the Government to apply one of their core principles. First, I assure noble Lords that my officials are developing detailed guidance for decision-makers to assess whether the claimant qualifies for refugee status and, where they do, whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. As is currently the case, we will continue to support claimants throughout the asylum process to ensure that they are able to present all evidence substantiating their asylum claim, including in relation to whether they are group 1 or group 2 refugees, for example via a substantive asylum interview with a Home Office official. As I explained, while Home Office officials will continue to provide this support, it remains necessary for the claimant, not the Secretary of State, to demonstrate whether they are group 1 or group 2. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 6J, which, to be clear from the outset, is completely unnecessary. The Government, as I and my colleagues in the other place have said many times, are fully committed to complying with our international obligations. All the clauses in this Bill, the changes to the Immigration Rules which will be required to implement them, and the New Plan for Immigration more broadly will be compliant with all our international obligations. This includes our obligations under the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In fact, there is already legislation which ensures compatibility between the Immigration Rules and our obligations under the refugee convention. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in the Immigration Rules. It states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
I remind noble Lords that it is our unwavering position that all provisions in the Bill, including Clause 11, are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. I also assure noble Lords that Section 2 of the 1993 Act will continue to act as an additional safeguard for policies covered in the Immigration Rules, which will include differential treatment of refugees. As such, I cannot support the amendment.
Turning lastly to Motion C, Amendments 7F and 7G would effectively create an amnesty to allow people who have claimed asylum prior to the commencement of the Bill, along with their adult dependants, the right to work after six months rather than the current 12 months, as well as removing the condition restricting jobs for people who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list. The amendment would not only reward people who have in many cases arrived illegally in an attempt to undermine our economic migration system, but it would create enormous operational burdens for the Home Office to implement, very likely—as per the findings of the Government’s review into the policy —leading to a net yearly loss to the department in running costs.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government want to see all claims being settled within six months, so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, including working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the New Plan for Immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept this amendment. I conclude my remarks there and beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I made the point yesterday about the time we have spent on this; I do not think your Lordships have ever felt that we in any way have tried to rush this or any other legislation. We have gone many days in Committee, for 12 hours or more, discussing at length all the concerns and issues at hand. Many of the points have been remade today in a very articulate way.
I think my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay feels that he has been slightly misrepresented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I wonder if he might check Hansard and come back to my noble and learned friend.
In response to the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this has been clearly set out, as I have said before. These provisions are clear and unambiguous and a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The courts of course have an important role in ensuring that legislation is applied correctly, but it is for Parliament to make that legislation. That is the rule of law and is the result of our dualist system.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we maintain that the general rule of interpretation in Article 31(1) of the Vienna convention requires a treaty to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. On that basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has quoted, we have taken a wide-reaching exercise to understand this and considered relevant factors, such as the law in other jurisdictions, case law and the words of academics. We believe that all provisions reflect a good faith, compatible interpretation of the refugee convention.
With those words, and echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I think that it is time to pass this Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords once more. It is often a huge privilege to hear debates from all sides in this Chamber, but sometimes that privilege comes with an awesome burden, as the Minister knows all too well. I am referring not just to this Chamber but to noble Lords in other places in this building where they beaver away at their work.
I have had the privilege in recent months to serve on the new and important Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which had the privilege of hearing not so long ago from the Home Secretary. While I will repeat my admiration for the Minister and the way in which we can disagree well, this is not the case with everyone.
I want to say a word about good faith, which has been cited a few times. Before that committee, the Home Secretary gave evidence about the pushback policy. The committee has members far more august than me, including my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who quizzed the Home Secretary about the legal basis for pushing back boats in the channel and the controversy that had raged. She assured us that there was a legal basis and that the purpose of the policy was to deter refugees and the evil trade. The purpose was to deter asylum seekers and we were assured that there was a legal basis, as was Parliament and the public. When that policy was judicially reviewed, the Home Office sought public interest immunity over provisions in the policy document that revealed that the Home Office knew that it would be contrary to the refugee convention to ever repel a boat with a person who said, “I need asylum. I am a refugee”. It was only because the courts were able to say no to the public interest immunity that the Government and the Home Secretary were exposed and that policy is now over. That is how important the rule of law is.
I have been torn in making my mind up about this Division right now. I have been so grateful for the support of my noble friends—my noble friend Lord Coaker in particular— but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood says he will go to the stake for the rule of law, I will go with him. I have moved the Motion and would like your Lordships’ House to agree it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6G.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion, so I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7F and 7G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7H.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and I beg to move.
Motion C agreed.
Emergency Services: Ministers of Religion
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to put in place a multi-professional strategy for the emergency services concerning the attendance of ministers of religion at the scene of situations involving serious injury.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, a working group bringing together representatives from policing and the Catholic Church has now concluded its exploration on the issue of access to crime scenes for religious ministers. Decisions regarding access in such situations remain an operational matter. However, the College of Policing has now published revised guidance on managing investigations, reflecting those discussions and wider input. As a result of those changes, we do not have any plans to pursue a multiprofessional strategy.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and the Government on taking action on this delicate matter, which came to prominent attention at the time of the tragic murder of Sir David Amess. I welcome the new guidance. It recognises explicitly the convention rights of both the dying and their families in these emergency crime scenes. But it remains, as my noble friend says, entirely an operational decision for the police. What mechanism is my noble friend going to put in place to ensure that the revised guidance leads to a change in practice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. At the moment I am not subject to much congratulation, so I take it where I can get it. I totally agree with him. It might seem like a small step, but it is a huge step for many families who might have found themselves in the same position as Sir David Amess. Guidance is being distributed to forces, and I know that forces were keen to have clarity on what to do in such situations. Coming back to my first point, it is of course an operational matter.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have two virtual contributions. First, we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, would the Minister agree that communication is vital? Will there be a list of priests in each area, with telephone numbers, who could be available if a priest were needed to give the last rites in serious injury cases?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that is a very interesting question. Obviously, it might not be entirely predictable where priests might be in the case of a serious incident, but it is certainly true that, in circulating the guidance, police will now be far better informed about how to go about these requests should they arise.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think there is any doubt that the police chaplaincy service is fully supported by the Government. It provides a vital service at critical times to people in need. I cannot say further than that, but what I will say to the noble Baroness—and I congratulate her on the work she does —is that the Government fully support the service.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, this is a delicate area, especially when we are dealing with crime scenes or potential crime scenes. Nevertheless, do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to ensure how this information will be rolled out in training people who are going to be in charge of these scenes? Is there going to be any monitoring to ensure that this is available? The sacrament of the last rites is a fundamental religious principle for many people. Can we have some assurance that this is going to be monitored?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sure it will be monitored, for the very reason that we need to be very clear that the police should be able to do the job that they have to do at the scenes of what might be quite critical incidents. They need to have the freedom to make those judgments but also be mindful of the wishes of people who might want to have a priest or religious leader with them at the time of critical illness or nearing death. I say to the right reverend Prelate that there is certainly further learning to be done on this, but I think this is a very welcome step forward.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, has thought been given to arranging for all of us to carry something similar to a kidney donor card in this context? One of the saddest aspects of the appalling murder of Sir David was that he was denied the last rites. He was a devout Roman Catholic; he would have expected to have them. If we could have a degree of co-ordination, so that all of us, if we wished, could carry such a card, perhaps that could be of some help.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, last month, as the Minister said, the College of Policing updated its guidelines to allow for the attendance of ministers of religion at the scene of a crime where appropriate, following a collaborative effort led by the Metropolitan Police and the Archbishop of Southwark. What steps will the Government be taking to review this decision and ensure that there are no unintended consequences of this welcome step? I note that a number of other questions from noble Lords have been about reviewing this decision and monitoring it to ensure that it is properly implemented.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord and other Members of the House are absolutely right. We do not want any unintended consequences from this guidance—which has been developed very quickly, I might say—such as contamination of a scene, which might impede a criminal investigation. As with all things that we do, we will review this, and I am very happy to come back to the House in future months and see how it is working.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsTuesday 26th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (26 Apr 2022)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 73; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 73C to the words restored by their disagreement to Amendment 73; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 74A to its Amendment 74, on its Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, or on its consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G; do not insist on its Amendment 87, or on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 73E in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and in their Amendment 87K to the words restored by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 87.
“(5) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the operation of the amendments to section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 made by this section, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.”
“(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the operation of section 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, and with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion B.
We return to familiar ground, namely the powers of the police to attach conditions to a protest, in particular relating to the generation of noise. In our last debate on these issues, we heard quite an entertaining speech from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who sought to caricature these provisions, but it would be no laughing matter if a group of protesters camped outside someone’s house or place of work and blasted out noise from loudspeakers at all times of the day and night.
By any objective test—under the Bill it is an objective test—the noise generated would amount to intimidation or harassment or cause those in the vicinity to suffer alarm or distress. In such a case the police should now be able to act, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has pointed out, the public would expect them to act. In such a case, the police could place clear and enforceable conditions on the protest, perhaps prohibiting the use of amplification equipment or musical instruments between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. So I hope we will not hear again the accusation that these provisions are unworkable. They are workable, proportionate and fully justified, albeit that, as I have said before, we expect them to be infrequently used.
On Motion B, I reiterate that the national policing lead for public order, Chief Constable Harrington, has been clear about the challenges of policing demonstrations which can start off as a procession but morph into an assembly, or vice versa. There is now no good reason for treating the two differently in law, and the provisions in Clause 56 should stand. We will of course want to keep the operation of these provisions under review, and Amendments 73E, 80K and 87K put forward by the Commons now enshrine in the Bill a commitment to post-legislative review to be completed within two years of commencement of the relevant clauses.
This is the third time that noble Lords’ amendments on these issues have been rejected by the Commons. The Commons has now voted on no less than four occasions during the passage of this Bill to endorse the noise-related provisions in Part 3. This brings me to the broader constitutional issue raised by my noble friend Lord Deben in our last debate.
My noble friend argued that the Government was failing to honour “the deal” between your Lordships’ House and the other place. We have honoured that deal and continue to do so. Given that the Commons is the elected House with a democratic mandate, the deal has never been that the other place rolls over whenever this House rejects a particular provision in a Bill. Rather, the deal is that the Commons reflects on the concerns raised by this House and thinks again. Having done so, the Commons may agree the substance of a Lords amendment, may propose a middle way, or may decide, as in this case, that it cannot accept a particular Lords amendment.
In relation to this Bill, there are many examples where the Commons has accepted the letter or the spirit of an amendment put forward by noble Lords, but in relation to the two public order issues, where the two Houses continue to disagree, the Commons has considered and reconsidered the concerns voice by noble Lords but has concluded, as is its right, that the provisions sent to this House last July should stand. The deal is that we, the unelected House, now accept the clearly and repeatedly expressed view of the Commons. We have done our constitutional duty and it is now time to let this Bill pass.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I say from the outset that these provisions do not enable the police to ban noisy protests. They enable the police to attach conditions to a protest in relation to the generation of noise. That is quite an important distinction. Similarly, Clause 56 does not enable the police to ban assemblies. I simply reiterate that these provisions represent a measured and proportionate rebalancing of people’s rights to protest peacefully with the rights of those whose lives may be unacceptably disrupted by the tactics employed by the minority of protests—such as those by the group Just Stop Oil, whose members believe that their rights and point of view trump everybody else’s.
Setting aside the substance of the amendments, the central issue now before noble Lords is whether it is appropriate to send these amendments back to the Commons for a third time. We have already—quite properly—asked them to reconsider these issues not once but twice. I do not think that asking the same question for a third time will yield a different answer.
On seniority—that is, the rank of a police officer—for an upcoming protest, the chief constable of the relevant force will be responsible for making the decision on whether the threshold is likely to be met. This power can be delegated to an assistant chief constable under Section 15 of the Public Order Act. For a protest that is already in train, the most senior officer at the scene will decide whether the threshold is met; depending on the circumstances, that senior officer would typically be an inspector, chief inspector or superintendent.
With that said, I hope noble Lords will agree to Motions A and B.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 80, do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E, 80F and 80H to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with that Amendment, do not insist on its Amendment 80J instead of the words left out by that Amendment and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 80K to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 80.
“(7) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the operation of the amendments to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 made by this section, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion B, so I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 April.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsTuesday 26th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 26 April 2022 - (26 Apr 2022)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4H.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the world is facing a crisis of migration. An estimated 80 million people are displaced by conflicts and instability around the world. Others seek to move in search of improved economic opportunities. Challenges need solutions, not just complaints about what is proposed.
Managing migration—welcoming and effectively supporting those most in need, while protecting borders and closing down the dangerous business of people-smuggling—is one of the most difficult public policy challenges faced by any Government. Breaking the business model of the people smugglers and managing the flow of people entering this country is one of the most humane things that we can do. The measures in the Bill will allow us to save lives and ensure that we can effectively provide support and care for those who need it most.
I therefore beg to move this House does not insist on your Lordships’ Amendment 4, does agree with the other place in their Amendments 4A to 4F and does not agree to your Lordships’ Amendment 4G.
I start by addressing Amendments 4J and 4K. As I have said to this House, it is very important that in cases where we have already made a decision to deprive, the subsequent deprivation order remains valid and effective to protect the UK from high-harm individuals and to preserve the integrity of the immigration system; that is the purpose of this clause. With respect to the noble Baroness, the Government do not accept that deprivation orders made prior to commencement of the Bill are invalid. We have repeatedly said that we will always try to give notice of deprivation, but in some cases that simply is not possible, for good reasons, which I have outlined during the course of the Bill. Amendment 4J also suggests that we can just make a new order, but that may not always be possible, as, of course, the circumstances in an individual case may have changed.
Amendment 4K seeks to remove one of the safeguards that the Government introduced into Clause 9 in response to earlier concerns raised in your Lordships’ House about the right of redress. Subsection (7) specifically provides the clarity that the right of appeal remains for deprivation decisions made where notice was not given prior to commencement of the Bill, and on the same terms as appeals where notice is given. Deleting this subsection, as Amendment 4K suggests, would therefore remove this safeguard.
I turn to Amendment 20D. I very much welcome the spirit of this amendment, but unfortunately it could still compromise our ability to prosecute people smugglers because it is still open to exploitation from organised crime gangs involved in people-smuggling, who could very easily manipulate circumstances to deliberately endanger migrants’ lives, as they do now, by providing inadequate craft in which to cross the Channel, and then provide their own rescue as a means to avoid prosecution. The clause already provides protections for persons undertaking rescues, which we put in place after listening to the concerns raised in both Houses about rescues undertaken by the RNLI and other independent rescuers. This new amendment would simply add a barrier to successful prosecutions.
I move next to Amendment 25D, which relates to modern slavery. It is too narrow and does not fulfil the aims of the original clause. The amended definition of “public order” does not include all individuals who have been involved in terrorism-related activity or who otherwise pose a risk to national security, or those who have been convicted of serious criminal offences, such as manslaughter, murder, violent acts and sexual offences. I have listened to concerns raised previously and I want to be clear that offences included in the original drafting of Clause 62 are not minor offences, as Parliament agreed back in 2015 when passing Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act. Even where an individual meets the public order definition, the Government have been clear that our approach to the disqualification is discretionary. It is not our intention to carry out a full public order consideration of every individual who enters the NRM, but rather where a specific concern or threat has been identified. I understand the wish to have determining language such as “exceptional” and “genuine” threat in the Bill, but this would no doubt—albeit unintentionally—mean that the public order disqualification would be unworkable in the UK and would continue to leave us unable to remove dangerous individuals, despite there being cases where it is lawful, appropriate and in line with our international obligations to do so. That is why we have previously provided further detail in this House about the proportionate approach that we will take to implement this measure, and clarity on the mitigating factors that will be taken into account as part of a case-by-case approach.
I further reassure noble Lords that although it is right that the Government are able to withhold protections where an individual is a threat to public order regardless of age, as envisioned in our international obligations under ECAT, children’s vulnerabilities are always an essential consideration. We will take particular consideration of the age and maturity of those who are under 18, and of course children have separate protections anyway under the Children Act.
I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about how the public order disqualification measure might impact the number of “duty to notify” reports—that is, suspected adult victims of modern slavery who do not consent to enter into the NRM—as the NRM is a consent-based system. Foreign nationals who choose not to be referred into the NRM and are therefore subject to a duty to notify are likely to be already engaged in parallel with the immigration system. Reasonable grounds decisions, conclusive grounds decisions and, in future, public order disqualification decisions will continue to be taken separately from any consideration of an individual’s immigration status.
I want to be clear that first responders should always refer victims into the NRM, in line with modern slavery statutory guidance, using the online form, even when the individual may meet the public order definition. Decisions will then be taken on a case-by-case basis. We are committed to improving the training of first responders to increase awareness of the NRM and ensure that potential victims can make informed decisions about whether to enter the system, and we are supporting that with an improved legal aid offer for victims of trafficking within the Bill.
We recognise that those individuals who have prior convictions may be more frequently targeted by the exploiters. That is why we are taking a proportionate approach to identifying those who are of public order concern. Trained decision-makers will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account mitigating factors, including the nature and seriousness of any offence; the time that has elapsed since the person committed any such offence; whether that offence was committed as part of an individual’s exploitation and the level of culpability attached; and whether an individual is assisting or co-operating with a relevant investigation or prosecution effort. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
I turn briefly to Amendment 26B. The Government’s unshakeable position is that support should be provided on the basis of need, tailored to the individual and their personal circumstances. During the passage of the Bill we have committed that, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support will receive appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months. What still concerns us about the amendment is that it would move us away from taking an individualised needs-based approach to the provision of support, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.
I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken succinctly to these groups of amendments. Before concluding, I will directly address the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the facilitation offence. I can confirm that we do not intend to refer people for prosecution except in egregious cases. We will assume that they are telling the truth and acting in good faith, unless we can disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The noble Lord also asked about modern slavery, public order and those forced into criminality. As I said in my opening speech, we recognise that individuals who have prior convictions may be more frequently targeted by exploiters. That is why we are taking a proportionate approach to identifying those who are of public order concern. Trained decision-makers will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account mitigating factors. These will include the nature and seriousness of any offence, the time that has elapsed since the person committed such an offence, whether the offence was committed as part of an individual’s exploitation and therefore the level of culpability attached, and whether an individual is assisting or co-operating with a relevant investigation or prosecution effort.
I think I have addressed the points that noble Lords have made. Without further ado, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it is with a great regret that I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Motion A1 withdrawn.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C.
5C: Because the Commons consider that Lords Amendment 5B makes unnecessary provision.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C. With the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Motions C, D, E, F, G, H and J.
I turn first to Amendment 5D. The Government’s position remains that the provisions of this Bill are compliant with the refugee convention, but I cannot support the amendment, as it strikes at the heart of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. The convention leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation, which ensures that it can stand the test of time and be applied across many jurisdictions with different legal systems.
There is therefore a need to define and apply such terms in domestic legislation in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention, taking a good faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language of the convention. The provisions in Part 2 are in line with this. It is not, therefore, appropriate to require the courts to consider whether the Bill is compatible with our international obligations where Parliament has passed clear and unambiguous provisions. These provisions are clear and unambiguous and are a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention.
The new amendment is not only unnecessary because the contents of Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligation; it is also contrary to the fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, where possible, to tightly define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining complaint with those obligations to support consistent and accurate decision-making.
Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F are another attempt to alter the effectiveness of the differentiation policy. As we have discussed in great detail during the course of debate on the Bill, to do so would go against one of its fundamental aims, which is to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House in saying that we want to see a stop to all such journeys to the UK. These journeys endanger lives and line the pockets of dangerous criminals, both here and abroad.
Turning first to Amendment 6D, it is important to note that Clause 36, which is relevant to the criteria used to differentiate under Clause 11, already provides that an individual may still be treated as having “come directly” even if they stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, provided they can show that they could not reasonably have been expected to claim asylum in that country. Clause 36 also allows discretion to be exercised in determining whether someone claimed “without delay”, whether that person claimed as soon as it was “reasonably practicable” being a key factor to be considered when assessing these criteria and therefore again being relevant in determining a refugee’s grouping. These provisions already achieve what the amendment is trying to effect, and as such I do not support Amendment 6D, which is not required.
I cannot support Amendment 6E, which seeks to shift the burden of proof in applying Clause 11 on to the Secretary of State. First, I assure noble Lords that my officials are developing detailed guidance for decision-makers to assess the credibility of a person making an asylum claim and, where a claimant qualifies for refugee status, whether they are in group 1 or group 2. The guidance will outline that all claimants will be afforded the opportunity to rebut a provisional decision to identify an individual as a group 2 refugee. As is currently the case, we will continue to support claimants throughout the process to ensure that they are able to present the evidence substantiating their asylum claim, and this includes in relation to whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. Although Home Office officials will continue to provide this support, it is not for the Secretary of State, but instead for the claimant, to demonstrate whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.
I now turn to amendment 6F, which, I need to be clear, is completely unnecessary. Changes to the Immigration Rules will be made in order to operationalise the differentiated asylum system, as well as other provisions within the Bill. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in the Immigration Rules. It states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
I must remind noble Lords that it is our unwavering position that all provisions in Part 2, including Clause 11, are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention, but Section 2 of the 1993 Act will continue to act as an additional safeguard for policies covered in the Immigration Rules, and as such it does not need to be referenced within the Bill.
The amendment is also unnecessary as the best interests of child already are and will continue to be considered as part of the asylum decision-making process. This is clearly stated throughout our current decision-making guidance and will continue to be clear in upcoming publications. In addition, access to family reunion will be available to all group 1 refugees and group 2 refugees where a refusal would be in breach of their Article 8 ECHR rights, in line with our international obligations.
I turn next to Amendments 7F and 7G. These are nearly identical to previous Amendments 7B and 7C and, like those previous amendments, they would not only reward people who have in many cases arrived illegally in an attempt to undermine our economic migration system but would create enormous operational burdens for the Home Office to implement, very likely—as per the findings of the Government’s review into the policy—leading to a net yearly loss to the department in running costs. I once again reassure noble Lords that the Government want all claims to be settled within six months, so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, including working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the wider new plan for immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept those amendments.
Turning briefly to Amendments 8B and 8C, as I have said many times before and the leader of the Opposition said on Sunday on television, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally and is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system. By enforcing this part of the Bill, we are taking the battle to the people smugglers, showing them that their horrible business will be made unviable. For this very important reason, we cannot agree to these amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53H to 53L and begin by addressing the announcement made by the Prime Minister recently. As noble Lords are aware—in fact, we discussed it yesterday—we have now entered into the UK and Rwanda migration and economic development partnership. This ground-breaking partnership addresses the international challenge of irregular migration by disrupting the business model of organised crime gangs and deterring migrants from putting their lives at risk. Those making dangerous, illegal or unnecessary journeys to claim asylum in the UK may now be relocated to Rwanda, where their claims will then be processed.
I should be clear that the objective of the UK-Rwanda partnership is to create a mechanism for the relocation of individuals whose claims are not being considered by the UK—the inadmissible—to Rwanda. In future, we may want to extend eligibility for overseas processing to those who have otherwise abused the UK’s asylum system, beyond undertaking dangerous or unnecessary journeys. That is the intention of this measure, which will make it easier for us to remove those who have pending asylum claims to another country for their claims to be processed.
At this point, I should say something about the partnership agreement. It is in full compliance with domestic and international law. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions, with a strong history of supporting refugees. I would encourage noble Lords, if they have not already done so, to read the memorandum of understanding underpinning the UK-Rwanda partnership, which contains many of the assurances that they are looking to receive through these amendments. Not only that, but the MoU makes clear that these assurances will be monitored by a monitoring committee independent of the Governments of both the UK and Rwanda. This committee will have unfettered and unannounced access to relevant records, locations, officials and whatever else it needs to complete its assessments.
Much has been made, and was made in your Lordships’ House yesterday, of how this arrangement is underpinned by an MoU rather than a treaty. An MoU is a standard arrangement between states. By way of example, in 2019, the UNHCR and the African Union signed an MoU with Rwanda to establish an emergency transit mechanism; this partnership facilitates the relocation of refugees and asylum seekers from the conflict zones in Libya to the safety of Rwanda. The UNHCR recently extended this MoU, which will now run until 31 December next year. There is nothing novel, unusual or untoward about underpinning this arrangement with an MoU, the terms and monitoring mechanism of which give us the assurances we need to operate this arrangement safely and in line with our international obligations.
Outside the partnership, noble Lords need look no further than the safety criteria set out in these measures to be assured that we will only ever remove someone whose asylum claim is pending to a safe third country where it is in accordance with the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Everyone considered for relocation will be screened, interviewed and have access to legal advice. Decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, and nobody will be removed if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I turned around then because thought I was back in the Commons being heckled. That is why these amendments are so important.
Very briefly, on Motion C1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my Motion J1, which essentially deal with the same thing—the offence of arrival and the differential treatment—the Government and the Commons have failed to answer how on earth anybody can claim asylum in this country if they arrive here through an irregular route. They cannot; they are automatically assumed to be illegal. We are saying to the Government: surely that cannot be right.
Nobody wants unlimited irregular migration, but without Motion C1 or Motion J1 we are essentially saying in this Bill that Uighurs, Christians fleeing persecution and people from Ukraine or any of the hot spots of the world who come to this country are criminalised and are second-class refugees. Is that what we really want? On something as fundamental as that, we are perfectly entitled to turn around to the Government and ask, “Are you sure you’ve got that right? Is that what you really want?”. If in the end they say yes, as I suspect they will, of course we will have reluctantly to give way, but do we really want to say that a Ukrainian being bombed and fleeing on 3 January or whenever the illegal Russian invasion started—it applies from 1 January—who arrives in this country without a visa, a passport and the proper papers is illegal and a second-class refugee? Is that right? All the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and me seek to do is to ask, “Do you not need to think again on that?”. I suggest that they do.
The right reverend Prelate’s amendment essentially deals with safe and legal routes and the importance of what we have seen with respect to Rwanda. We saw in the Private Notice Question yesterday and the short remarks made today that there should have been a full and fundamental debate about Rwanda and the rights and wrongs of that policy. Rather than seeking workable safe return agreements with our closest neighbours, which we have successfully used in the past, the Government have instead spent millions of pounds press-releasing a deal that the Civil Service could not even sign off as being value for money. That is what we are being asked to accept and what Motion F1 on offshoring, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, seeks to deal with.
In closing, so that people get the gist that I support the amendments—I think we are right in sending a few back, if we and other noble Lords are lucky enough to get a majority in this House—I will speak to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and some other noble Lords have supported Motion B1. What I am going to read is so important; it speaks for itself. The Government say the Bill conforms to the refugee convention. Motion B1 is saying, “Let’s put that in the Bill, then”. Why is this so important? It is because this country flies in the face of what the UNHCR said. I will read the paragraph. I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I read this, then I will finish. The UNHCR said:
“The Nationality and Borders Bill follows almost to the letter the Government’s New Plan for Immigration Policy Statement, issued on 24 March 2021, in some cases adding further restrictions on the right to claim asylum and on the rights of refugees. UNHCR must therefore regretfully reiterate its considered view that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and with the country’s longstanding role as a global champion for the refugee cause.”
That is why Motion B1 is so important, why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords have made the remarks they have, and why my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has moved this Motion. The UNHCR has said that our global reputation is at risk. That is why we should ask the House of Commons to think again, and we are perfectly entitled to do so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, a very happy 50th anniversary of his maiden speech. I do not think I will be here on the 50th anniversary of my maiden speech; my family will not let me.
Yes, people have taken longer in this debate than they might have. It is an incredibly important Bill, so I do not accuse my noble friend Lord Horam of being long and rambling. As is the convention of your Lordships’ House, everyone has a right to have their say. In my time I have listened to many a long and rambling speech and managed to keep a smile on my face, so I think we all should.
I will first talk to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, supported by my noble friend Lady Stroud, on the cost of the right-to-work amendment. We have carefully considered all the evidence put forward on the issue, and the financial assumptions made by the Lift the Ban report are not supported by our findings. They are optimistic and do not reflect the nuanced reality of asylum seeker employment. To the extent that there would be any savings at all—that is doubtful—they are likely, in all cases, to come with a loss to the Home Office stemming from operating a more relaxed policy. There are a number of operational challenges, but the main ones relate to the likely need for many asylum seekers either to transition in and out of support while working, due to the nature of low-paid transitory jobs, or to continue to be supported while working. This would mean that savings on support payments would be extremely limited, while setting up and maintaining a system to calculate adjustments to such payments as wages rise and fall, week to week and month to month, would be complex and costly.
As a result, the Government’s view is that our resources would be better deployed in reforming the end-to-end asylum system and reducing unfounded intake, thereby resulting in faster decisions and genuine refugees being able to work and integrate more quickly. My noble friend and I agree on the ends, just not on the means to get there.
I turn next to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I repeat that the UK is a global leader in resettlement. We have provided a route to resettlement for more than 100,000 people.
On the refugee convention, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, the Attorney-General has signed off this Bill. We maintain that our policy complies fully with our international obligations and is a good faith interpretation in line with the Vienna convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the Vienna convention is not intended to be a free-for-all; there are parameters in it. Where the terms of the refugee convention are open to some interpretation, there may of course be more than one good faith, compatible interpretation. I notice that the noble Lord is shaking his head—I never expected him to agree with me—but that is our view. My noble friend Lord Wolfson has set out at great length his view on the refugee convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, challenges me to make the statement that we do not think it complies but are doing it anyway; he will not be surprised that I am not going to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said it is for the courts to decide our interpretation. No, it is for Parliament.
In response to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, supported by my noble friend Lord Cormack, I reiterate that these amendments would go significantly beyond existing legislation, which has of course been in place for decades.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked me to confirm that there will be a chance to debate the Rwanda partnership in both Houses before any individual is removed. There has already been significant debate on the partnership in a Statement by the Home Secretary, in Commons Questions, in a PNQ and again in this House today. I know there will be many more opportunities to debate this.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also asked about family reunion. As I have said to him on many occasions, those with family links in the UK who want to be considered for entry to the UK should seek to do so via legal and safe routes. No one should put their life into the hands of criminals by making dangerous and irregular journeys. I assure the noble Lord that access to family reunion will be available to all group 1 and group 2 refugees where a refusal would breach their Article 8 rights, in line with our international obligations.
My noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how the Rwanda partnership would apply to victims of modern slavery. Decisions on the partnership will be taken on a case-by-case basis and nobody will be relocated if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them. Everyone considered for relocations will be screened, interviewed and have access to legal advice. The provision in the MoU ensures that Rwanda supports everyone who is transferred. Again, I reassure noble Lords that we will only ever act in line with our commitments under our international legal obligations, including those that pertain to potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C, so I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7B and 7C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7D and 7E.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion D, so I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 8B and 8C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 8D and 8E.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, so I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 53B, 53C and 53D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 53E, 53F and 53G.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F, so I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G and I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H and I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13C, or on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J and I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Lord Coaker
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 13D as an amendment in lieu and Amendment 13E as a consequential amendment—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 20C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K, and I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 25B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 25C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Platinum Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2022.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the instrument before the Committee today to extend the licensing hours in recognition of Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee. I am asking the Committee to support the instrument to extend licensing hours on Thursday 2 June, Friday 3 June and Saturday 4 June. Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make an order relaxing opening hours for licensed premises to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national or local significance”.
The Government consider the Platinum Jubilee to be such an occasion. This will be a period in which we celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s incredible service and remarkable dedication, and many people will want to gather with their family and friends and raise a glass to mark this historic milestone.
The extension will apply to premises licences and club premises certificates in England and Wales, which license the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. These premises will be allowed to remain open until 1 am without having to notify the licensing authority and police via a temporary event notice, as would usually be the case. Premises that are licensed to provide regulated entertainment will be able to do so until 1 am on the nights covered by the order, even where those premises are not licensed to sell alcohol. This includes, for example, venues holding musical events or dances as well as theatres and cinemas.
The order does not extend to premises which sell alcohol for consumption off the premises, such as off-licences and supermarkets. Premises which provide late-night refreshment, which is the supply of hot food or hot drinks to the public, between the hours of 11 pm and 5 am, but do not sell alcohol for consumption on the premises will not be covered by the order; such premises will only be able to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am if their existing licence already permits this.
The Home Office conducted a public consultation, which ran for a month and concluded on 26 January this year. The majority of respondents agreed with the extension for the three-day period and that it should apply to England and Wales. The consultation also received responses from numerous trade organisations, which were supportive of the extension of licensing hours. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Local Government Association and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers were all in agreement with the proposed extension to licensing hours for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
I am sure the Committee will support this order to help celebrate a special and historic moment in our national history. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward the order, which I entirely endorse. It recognises and reflects that there is a willingness, as we come out of the pandemic, to celebrate such an auspicious occasion. It has been a particularly tough time for the hospitality sector over the last two years or so.
I refer briefly to my chairmanship of PASS, the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, where I work closely with the hospitality sector. Not having to pay the TEN fee, as referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, will be very welcome in saving not just the fee but the time that would have had to be spent.
I have one hesitation. I am sure my noble friend will be aware of the agent of change issues that have been flagged up. She will be aware that we are just concluding a follow-up report to our previous Select Committee inquiry on the Licensing Act 2003. I am not yet at liberty to say what our recommendations will be because we have not yet concluded that, but there is an issue where there may have been a recent application for an outlet in the hospitality sector to open its doors in an area that has previously been primarily residential. Is that something that both the Government and those acquiescing to these licences will be mindful of, given that it will be, as my noble friend said, a four-day bank holiday? That is my only reservation. Otherwise, I entirely endorse the order.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. On that very tricky question, I might raise a glass beyond 1 o’clock, but in my own home. I am very much looking forward to the weekend, as I am sure all noble Lords are, and I am reassured by the general consensus.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we gave careful consideration to the responses that raised concerns about the potential for a rise in crime and disorder as a result of the extension, and any impact on public resources, including policing requirements. As I said, the National Police Chiefs’ Council raised no concern about the proposed extension. The police have been given early notice of the Government’s plans and have a range of mitigating actions available to them to prevent and to deal with any isolated problems, should they arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, drew attention to previous extensions: namely, for the royal wedding, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and Her 90th birthday in 2016. We are not aware of any increased crime or disorder during those occasions. The SI itself specifically excludes sale for consumption off the premises. It is for a short duration, and many people will want to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee together in their local pub. Pubs may also wish to put on special celebrations for the occasion.
I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the potential boost to trade is very welcome, given the financial pressures that businesses have been under. She also pointed out the cost saving of £21 for a temporary event notice. I am very much looking forward to reading the agent of change report that she referred to, and we will comment on it in due course.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about off-sales for the coronavirus period interacting with this, this is purely for premises licences which establishments have in ordinary times, but I have asked those in the Box behind me what this will mean for off-sales, so I shall get back to him on that. In the meantime, I beg to move, and God save the Queen.
UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership arrangement was concluded by a Memorandum of Understanding and was not therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny requirements under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has entered into a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, which has now been published on GOV.UK, for the provision of an asylum partnership arrangement and to address the shared challenge of illegal migration. The duty to lay before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 applies only to treaties. However, the safety, security and dignity of and respect for those relocated is assured through the agreement and will be subject to monitoring. We comply fully with our legal and international obligations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The agreement will not be a treaty and it will not be enforceable. Given that the deal would end the Government’s legal obligation to certain refugee claimants and therefore reduce their rights, surely such a significant international agreement should be disclosed, debated and agreed by Parliament. Why have the Government tried to slip this agreement out as a memorandum of understanding, hindering Parliament’s ability to scrutinise it adequately? Does the Minister accept that important MoUs such as this with Rwanda that affect human rights should be routinely disclosed and debated by Parliament under the terms of the Ponsonby rule?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships’ House does, there will be ample opportunity to discuss the aspects of this agreement. It complies with our international and other obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of the agreement, and there is nothing in the United Nations refugee convention that prevents this happening.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Does my noble friend confirm that, in the face of legal challenge, the Government have withdrawn their turnabout policies? Does this not suggest that the legal advice from the Home Office that the Rwanda policy accords with our international obligations should be treated with a degree of caution?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this provision has been in place since 1999. I do not know if it has been challenged before, but it is certainly a long-standing provision that we think meets our international obligations.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Government have clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill to enable offshoring, which this House continues to oppose. If this legislation is necessary, why have the Government signed a memorandum with Rwanda before Parliament has approved it? If it is not necessary, why did the Government put it in the Bill in the first place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
If, as they say, the Government see the need for new and innovative means of dealing with the migration crisis now, did they have any contact with any of the other signatories to the refugee convention about these new and innovative methods before taking action on their own?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think it is quite clear why we are taking action now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
No, absolutely not. This Bill has been going through both Houses of Parliament for some time. I am sure that noble Lords have observed that people are dying at sea because of the actions of criminals facilitating journeys to the UK.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, are the Government accountable to Parliament or not? If they are, why should an issue as important as this, the deporting of asylum seekers to a third country, not be subject to an affirmative vote in each House of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that MoUs are subject to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Noble Lords
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am just going on what has been the convention over many years. Usually, the CRaG Act process that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about is for treaties.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, first, why an MoU and not a treaty? I did not hear the answer to that. Secondly, why do the Government seek public interest immunity to protect the secrecy of the pushbacks policy and the fact that the policy could never have been used against asylum seekers? Finally, we hear from parts of the press that the Home Secretary thinks that criticism of the Rwandan deal is xenophobic. Therefore, can the Minister comment on the US State Department’s report on Rwanda of just last year? It reported significant human rights issues, including credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings by the Government, forced disappearance by the Government, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the Government, and 10 other violations of that magnitude.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the US country report last year on Rwanda. Our own country policy and information team carried out an assessment on safety in Rwanda before we entered an agreement. That report is expected to be completed in the near future. I cannot remember the other questions that the noble Baroness asked because it was quite a long question.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Section 25 of the CRaG Act defines the meaning of “treaty” and says that it is a “written agreement … between States”, as long as it is “binding under international law”. Given that the Minister has said that this is a written agreement between states, is she suggesting that the agreement with Rwanda is not binding in international law?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is an agreement which both parties have agreed to be bound by. I will leave it to greater heads to unpick the meaning of that.
I have now remembered one of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which was, “why not a treaty?” I do not know why, but it seems that it was appropriate to have an MoU. I am very happy to write to noble Lords with further detail on that. I hope that they will appreciate that I have not had much notice of this Question and am not going to be blag my way through it; I will write to the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, Amnesty International’s latest annual report sets out that, in Rwanda:
“Violations of the rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy continued, alongside enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force.”
This came following the UK Government’s own concerns, raised in July 2021 at the UN Human Rights Council. In the context of these human rights concerns in respect of Rwanda, it is deeply worrying that the UK Government have now decided that it is a safe third country to which they can offshore asylum seekers. Can the Minister please set out how these conflicting descriptions of Rwanda’s human rights situation have been reconciled?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Obviously, Rwanda has come on a very upward, positive trajectory since the genocide way back when. It is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world; it has a great equality record at the moment—certainly in its parliament —and it houses 130,000 asylum seekers. It also engages with both the EU and the UNHCR in placing asylum seekers.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is not the real reason that the Minister is facing such anger in this Chamber today that, as everyone knows, the Government did it as a memorandum of understanding—not as a treaty—because they knew that the Rwanda deal would be extremely controversial, and that it would be raised by a number of noble Lords across this Chamber? It is of such significance that it should have been fully debated and discussed in both Chambers. Has it not come to something when a former Conservative Prime Minister stands up and says that this policy would have been found wanting on the grounds of legality, practicality, and efficacy? If the Minister will not listen to noble Lords in here, will she listen to the former Prime Minister? That is why people are so angry: there is a need for proper discussion and not for the Government to find some way of by-passing the process to slip through controversial policies.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that anyone would accuse me of trying to stifle debate or of not trying to answer noble Lords’ questions. I do try to answer them and, if I cannot, I will get back to them. As I said earlier, we are abiding by our international obligations. The EU and the UNHCR work with Rwanda to relocate refugees there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I do not think that my noble friend has responded to that point. A memorandum of understanding can be defined as a treaty under CRaG if it is a written agreement between states and it is binding in international law. Why does the Minister not say that the Government will lay this memorandum of understanding before Parliament under CRaG?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I said to the noble Earl that I would clarify the point.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Will the Minister comment on another possible reason, in addition to the one advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for this not being a treaty? If it were a treaty, it would have to be registered at the United Nations, and there might be some embarrassment in seeking to register a memorandum of understanding governing an arrangement that is clearly totally inconsistent with the refugee convention, for which the United Nations is responsible. Can the Minister tell us in addition, since the agreement says that it is not justiciable in international law, how is it to be justiciable?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that people will find ways and means of doing that should they be motivated to do so. I go back to the point about both the EU and UNHCR engaging with Rwanda on the relocation of asylum seekers and refugees.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that there would be ample opportunity to debate this issue. We do not have any ample opportunity; what assurance can we have? There are so many questions of detail to which we do not know the answer. It is just a con trick by the Government, and they should come clean on the details before they remove a single person to Rwanda.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not trying to con anyone. The beauty of your Lordships’ House is that it is self-governing. Debates can be brought to your Lordships’ House for full discussion.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, as we are struggling to defend democracy and democratic decisions, is it not totally opposed to that to try to sneak through an agreement without it being discussed and decided on in this Parliament? Why are the Government so adamant and reluctant to put such matters to a vote of Parliament?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister announced it last week; I do not think that there was an attempt to sneak anything through. The Home Secretary stood in the House of Commons last week and made a Statement about it.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend knows that this is a very controversial area of the Nationality and Borders Bill. I have moved amendments to the Bill, and we have had long debates on this subject. Another Minister indicated that no further legislation would be required to proceed with these arrangements. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the case? Is she saying that the Nationality and Borders Bill is required, or is it the Government’s position that no legislation is required?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend is right on two counts. First, the provision is in long-standing legislation dating from 1999, 2002 and 2004. Under the Bill, the certification process would not be needed, so essentially the policy could proceed with or without the legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has said that some people will find ways and means to make this agreement justiciable. Under our dual system in our constitution, any agreement made by government has to be underpinned by domestic legislation. If this is to be a binding agreement, as the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, it will require ratification by Parliament. How will this agreement be ratified?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is a memorandum of understanding, as opposed to a treaty, which has been the subject of debate today.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Mr Mike Veale
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland about a date for starting the misconduct hearing relating to Mr Mike Veale, announced in August 2021.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, arrangements for the misconduct hearing of former Chief Constable Mike Veale are a matter for the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, and it would be inappropriate to comment further while those proceedings remain ongoing.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, what on earth is going on in Cleveland, where the PCC announced last August that an independent panel, chaired by a lawyer, would begin the gross misconduct hearing against Veale shortly, following a two-year inquiry by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the report of which has not been published? Things seem to move very slowly where police misconduct is concerned. Has the Home Office noticed that a long-standing superintendent in Cleveland denounced Veale last month for subjecting her to, in her words, a “biased, flawed and … unfair” investigation, piling on yet further allegations against him? Is this scandal-ridden man to continue to rake in his £100,000 salary, plus expenses, from his kind friend, the current so-called Conservative PCC for Leicestershire and Rutland? In short, will the Home Office let this very rotten apple get away with it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend will concede that there is a process under way and that misconduct hearings must commence within 100 working days of the officer being served with a notice. But the legally qualified chair does have the power to extend the period of time when they consider it in the interest of justice to do so. It is a decision entirely for the chair, and it would be inappropriate to comment on such a decision.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on from the excellent question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. The contract that Mike Veale has with the Conservative police and crime commissioner in Leicester, under which he has so far been paid £35,000, includes a clause that says that part of his role is to hold the chief constable of Leicestershire to account for implementation of crime strategies. Does the Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable that the chief constable of Leicestershire, with an unblemished record, should answer to someone facing a gross misconduct hearing?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is a matter for the office of the PCC, and it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as immediate past chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. Whatever one’s views of Mr Veale, serious questions have been raised about Operation Conifer from all sides of the House as to whether it was truly impartial, honest or effective. When on earth are we going to get a genuinely independent review of Operation Conifer?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As my noble friend is probably aware, we do not have plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into the allegations or the findings of the investigation. There have been several levels of scrutiny. Operation Conifer was subject to its own scrutiny channel, which checked and tested the decision-making. There were two reviews by Operation Hydrant in September 2016 and May 2017, which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. A further review in January 2017 and the IOPC have also considered specific allegations related to the former chief constable, as noble Lords will have heard this morning.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, this miserable stain has been spreading since 2015. For all the inquiries—many of which were the police authorities marking their own homework—is this really acceptable? When is this matter going to be finished with—later this year, next year or in another five years? Is it not about time we had an independent inquiry into all this? We could have somebody like Sir Richard Henriques, who knows all about it. It could be up and running very quickly to start restoring the reputation of a police service which, if I may say so, my own family over four generations and 150 years was happy to serve.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat what I said earlier on, but on the panel that will investigate this, we have a legally qualified chair, an independent panel member and a member of HMICFRS. In terms of independence, I do not think there can be any argument, and there is certainly no argument about the rightly named Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The IOPC report said that Veale had been found guilty of lying about damaging his work phone so that he could not be held accountable. I understand some senior Tories at No. 10 have done something similar, so what is happening with them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will just repeat what I have already said: that the IOPC is by its very name independent and will conclude its investigations in due course. This House trying to get me to opine on an ongoing investigation is not the best idea for the outcome of that investigation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I must say that the answers to the questions being asked seem like a “no comment” interview on the part of the Government. Let us just repeat some things. Mr Veale, the controversial former chief constable of Wiltshire, resigned after 10 months as chief constable of the Cleveland force in January 2019 following gross misconduct allegations. The IOPC investigated the claims over a two-year period and came to the conclusion that
“there was sufficient evidence to indicate that Mr Veale had breached the standards of professional behaviour”
and
“should face proceedings for gross misconduct.”
Yet he is now carrying out well-paid advisory work for the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire. As has just been said, his responsibilities apparently include holding the chief constable of Leicestershire to account at a time when he himself faces an outstanding misconduct hearing. You could not make it up. At a time when trust and confidence in the police is not at a level we would wish, what action does the Home Secretary intend to take in respect of Mr Veale’s case, which is doing nothing—to put it mildly—to restore confidence and trust in our police? The whole situation with Mr Veale is a joke and a pretty sick joke at that. For how much longer does the Home Secretary intend to take a back seat? I thought she had responsibility for the standing and status of, and confidence in, our police force on a national basis. It is time she took action on this.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the misconduct proceedings are ongoing. If an independent panel finds a former officer guilty of gross misconduct, it can determine that the officer would have been dismissed had they still been serving. If that occurs, the officer would be placed on the College of Policing’s barred list, preventing them rejoining policing.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the whole House holds my noble friend in high regard, but we have had this time and again. Another reputation is being besmirched—that of the Home Office itself. As the noble Lord opposite has just said, the Home Office has ultimate responsibility. Will my noble friend please, at the very least, tell the Home Secretary today that this House is virtually united in its concern at the way these events have been handled?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I note my noble friend’s comments. There is a process ongoing, and it would be wrong for me to opine on that process other than to say that it is ongoing. The Home Secretary has herself initiated a review into the IOPC, which will be commencing shortly, but I must stress that the police are operationally independent of the Home Office.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, if I may say so to the Minister, the sense of urgency from the House, in preference to what is happening in real life, is partly due to the police having created a mood of taking false allegations seriously and the undoing of that mood not being taken seriously. Does she recognise that those false allegations make it harder for real allegations to have credibility? That is why it is so important that this is not shoved down the road. In all seriousness, why are PCCs bringing in outside consultants and strategic advisers at any level? Would she at least tell us that this is a waste of time, part of a bureaucratic state and lack of responsibility and accountability?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Baroness makes a very good point about false allegations. On the other hand, we must be mindful that allegations that are brought forward to the police must be thoroughly investigated. Clearly, there have been many convictions for non-recent child sex abuse. She asked me another question, which I cannot remember—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes; consultants are a matter for the Leicestershire PCC, but there is a remedy at the ballot box for the public.