Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for the very helpful and wide-ranging discussion we had last week. I also thank his admirable predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for the time she set aside to see me with the mother and sister of Andrew Devine, who were constituents of mine in 1989. Having sustained terrible injuries, Andrew died in July 2021 from complications relating to the severe brain damage he suffered during the crush, becoming the 97th Hillsborough fatality.

In the debate that I initiated in your Lordships’ House on 13 November 2025, referred to by my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, I referred to the hope of the Devine family that there would be one enforceable code of conduct for public officials, backed by meaningful sanctions. I raised this issue last week with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and I hope he will tell us what progress is being made in achieving it, and that he will commit to continue to engage with the family, and with the House, on how the code will work and what will actually be in it.

Although this Bill is, of course, about more than Hillsborough, for me the story began in the run-up to, and the days which followed, the catastrophic semifinal played on 15 April 1989. Before the match, I had sent the Government correspondence questioning the suitability of the ground at Hillsborough. In the days that followed, I began asking questions, which went without answer for years and years on end. By way of example, I wrote to Sir Cecil Clothier, then the chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, calling for an independent inquiry, and describing in my letter

“a smokescreen of propaganda aimed at diverting attention from the truth”.

In a note to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, Sir Cecil reassured him that he had done his best to “deflect”—his word—my complaint. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has just said, a classic example of the closing of ranks.

Repeated calls for a fully independent inquiry were similarly deflected with Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, stating in 1998—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howard—that new evidence did not justify a new inquiry. In 2009 the anger erupted when—as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned—the Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, was booed and interrupted by the crowd at an Anfield memorial service. To his eternal credit, Mr Burnham stayed and listened to the raw anger. That in turn led to the creation of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, under the diligent chairmanship of the Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, and to the 2017 report that has been referred to, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, and its call for the duty of candour. Shocking denialism had become unsustainable.

A Bill to achieve that purpose was then introduced by Mr Burnham, with the Hillsborough Law Now campaign launched here in Parliament in 2022. Along with others, I pay tribute to their unflagging work for truth and justice. It has been quite exemplary.

In 2024, the Joint Committee on Human Rights decided to examine the Bill. We published the report Human Rights and the Proposal for a “Hillsborough Law” and called for the duty of candour. But the JCHR, which I have the honour to chair, also called for proportionate legal aid and representation for bereaved families during inquests and inquiries to match the resources of the state. I hope the Minister will say how we are going to counter the disparity and ensure the equality of arms that other noble Lords have referred to during these proceedings.

The JCHR has also examined ways of enhancing the role of the Independent Public Advocate. I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady May, and other noble Baronesses and Lords as well, had to say about this. We examined ways of enhancing the role of assisting families and victims in the immediate aftermath of major disasters. We were deeply impressed by Cindy Butts, the Independent Public Advocate, and the noble Lord, Lord Wills, both of whom accepted my invitation to give important evidence to the JCHR on her significantly underresourced role. What is the Government’s current thinking on that? During our discussion last week the Minister said, on the advice of his Bill team, that it was possible that the scope of the Bill might be broad enough here in this House for us to bring something on the independent advocate into it.

On Thursday, however, I also asked the Minister about the incorporation of the Hicks rule. In February of this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Andy Burnham and I met Jenni and Trevor Hicks, whose teenage daughters, Sarah and Victoria, both died at Hillsborough. We met for the launch of the Hicks rule campaign, calling for a legal mechanism to correct historic court records that falsely claimed that victims of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster died instantly and endured no suffering. We know that is wrong. Jenni Hicks told our meeting:

“For more than three decades, the law has recorded something about our daughters that we now know simply isn’t true. This isn’t about compensation. It’s about truth. It’s about dignity”.


That meeting was held in the same House of Lords room, Committee Room 1, where in 1992 five Law Lords ruled against Jenni and Trevor Hicks. As part of the process of accountability, how will we ensure that families facing similar battles, often going through hell, will be able to have the public record put straight when historic legal findings have been based on a farrago of lies and do not reflect the truth?

On Thursday last, I also shared with the Minister the story of a mother whose student daughter committed suicide and who is a member of the ForThe100, which campaigns for greater accountability and legal clarity in higher education. Universities and colleges of higher education are in the unusual position of being independent institutions that also exercise public functions. How they will be expected to engage with the new laws, especially at inquests after the deaths of students or, as in the case of Cambridge, for instance, academic staff? Will the duty of candour be fully engaged? I hope that the Minister will write to me, setting out clarification on that. I should declare that I have two honorary unremunerated connections with two Liverpool universities.

We know that this Bill is about a lot more than what happened at Hillsborough. That has been set out by many other noble Lords. If the Bill can bring an end to the depressingly familiar pattern of deflection, cover-ups and concealment, backed up by exemplary penalties adequate to punish outrageous conduct, legislators will at last be able to say that they have done their job and honoured the memories of those who have been the victims. I support the Bill.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 417 I will speak to the associated Amendment 419, both in my name and with named support across the Committee. The purpose of these amendments is to provide a clear and easy-to-use legal basis for those found guilty of sanctions breaches and other similar offences to pay compensation in the public interest to specified victims’ organisations listed in the proposed Schedule 22A and any other similar organisations added to that list through regulations.

There is a clear case for legislative intervention in this area. By way of overview, the existing law provides only a very narrow basis for using the proceeds of confiscated criminal assets to compensate victims, and only in straightforward cases. Victims are rarely allocated any share of the sums recovered. Amendments 417 and 419 would empower courts to award compensation for public interest or social purposes, addressing a significant gap in the law by enabling compensation in the more complex cases for which the existing law is ill suited—for example, supporting Ukrainians who are most impacted by breaches of the UK’s targeted sanctions against the Putin regime and its corrupt cronies.

Against that overview, I turn to the main features of the existing law to demonstrate why they do not go far enough. First, compensation orders under the Sentencing Act 2020 are designed to compensate direct victims of criminal conduct. Where a conviction has been secured, the court is empowered to order the offender to pay compensation for any personal injury, loss or damage arising from the offence in question. The courts have, however, held that these kinds of compensation orders are intended only for clear and simple cases, where there is an obvious direct victim and the amount of compensation can readily and easily be ascertained. Thus, for example, a builder may take a £15,000 deposit to complete building work for a home owner and fraudulently make no attempt to carry out the work. There is a clear victim and a clear loss: the home owner and the £15,000. The compensation order is well suited to handle that sort of case.

By contrast, a court is highly unlikely to be able to make a standard compensation order in a sanctions breach or similar case. Sanctions breaches are rarely clear and simple cases because, by the nature of the offence, the consequences are wide reaching, and they can violate the rights of a large number of people. Victims of the breach, or indeed the precise loss or damage suffered, will typically be very difficult to identify or quantify with the necessary precision required by the current law.

Courts are ill equipped to handle victim compensation in such cases, given the vast and multifaceted harms at issue and the indirect connection between the harms and the sanctions breach. The NGO Redress has advised that its experts are not aware of any single sanctions breach case in the UK in which the court has issued a compensation order for victims. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can provide us with any such examples. Such compensation orders are simply not suited to complex economic crime, such as sanctions offences.

The second area of the existing law is confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In the event of a conviction, the court can order the confiscation of a portion of an offender’s assets, provided they have been found to have benefited from their criminal conduct. These confiscation orders are intended to deprive the defendant of the proceeds of the crime, rather than to compensate victims. The amounts confiscated are usually paid to the Government’s bank account and then sometimes shared across certain government departments and arm’s-length bodies. No amount is typically paid to victims, subject to very limited exceptions.

The third category of the existing law is forfeiture orders, also under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. In this respect, agencies such as the National Crime Agency, HMRC and the Serious Fraud Office, among others, can institute civil forfeiture proceedings in some situations, in which a court may issue a forfeiture order in respect of funds associated with unlawful conduct. Here too, however, the law is inadequate to deal with sanctions breaches. There is a statutory requirement for funds that have been forfeited under such an order to be paid, again, to the Government’s general bank account, with very limited exceptions relating to situations where someone can show that the amount belongs to them and that they were deprived of it by the offender’s unlawful conduct. Again, that is ill suited to the sanctions context.

Pulling this together, I suggest that, unless the law is changed, in the vast majority of cases judges will have no real ability to award compensation to the victims of sanctions and associated crimes. Not a penny will go to the very people most harmed by the criminal violation in question, not because they are undeserving or have not suffered a harm, but simply because there is a gap in the law that means their position cannot be addressed. This shortcoming is increasingly indefensible in the current world in which we live and will only grow as the UK rightly takes more sanctions enforcement action, most immediately in the context of Ukraine but also in any future cases.

Dealing with the context of Ukraine, the UK positions itself, quite admirably, as a global leader on Russian sanctions. Some 3,000 targets have been sanctioned to date. Yet, when it comes to enforcing these sanctions and penalising any breaches of them, it is the UK, not the victims, that retains the proceeds. Having dedicated unprecedented diplomatic and financial resources to seeking to bring an end to Putin’s war for the benefit of the Ukrainian people, it is striking that the courts have practically no legal basis to channel any of the proceeds of Russian sanctions breaches to Ukrainian victims, whom the sanctions programme is ultimately intended to protect.

I turn to alternatives. In correspondence between Redress and the Home Office, which I have seen, the Minister referred to other amendments proposed to the Bill to ensure that the uplifts to existing confiscation orders can similarly be redirected. However, these are subject to the same or similar limitations as the existing law. In particular, the limitation of the concepts of victim and loss being narrowly defined means that redress is not available for indirect victims. It is that gap that my Amendments 417 and 419 are intended to address.

In the light of that, I stress that my challenge to the Minister is a constructive one, because I want to put on the record the personal experience I have of the deeply conscientious engagement he has had on matters of Ukraine that I have raised with him. I thank him publicly for that, as I have done privately. Can he offer a cast-iron guarantee that the existing law, coupled with any proposed amendments the Government are putting forward, goes as far as Amendments 417 and 419, or does he accept that there is a gap? If he does, can he explain the justification for it? I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner. I have signed Amendments 417 and 419. The noble Lord has made a powerful, constructive and eloquent case for we should try to tackle the public interest compensation orders and deal with the gap that is left by confiscation orders, compensation orders and forfeiture, which he mentioned in his speech.

Hillsborough Law

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the development of the proposed ‘Hillsborough Law’.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister opened last week’s House of Commons debate on the Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—with what he described as

“a simple acknowledgment, long overdue, that the British state failed the families and victims of Hillsborough to an almost inhuman level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/25; col. 653.]

Echoing the “burning injustices” description used by the noble Baroness, Lady May, he powerfully described the closing of ranks, institutional lies, cover-ups, smears and betrayal by the very people who should have been protecting families: victims who became trapped in a cycle of profound grief and wicked vilification, with the public purse used to bankroll misconduct and malfeasance and to camouflage the truth. Truth, expeditious justice, and consequences are the three themes I wish to address today.

Hansard records that 36 years ago, as a Liverpool Member of Parliament, I sent correspondence to the Government of the day questioning the suitability of Hillsborough for the semi-final on 15 April 1989. I enclosed a statement from the chief executive of Liverpool Football Club, who said

“there was no way I could support the choice of Hillsborough this year with the same ticket allocations applying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/1989; col. 32.]

Of course, the match was played, with disastrous consequences.

Despite repeated suggestions that the fans had brought the calamity on themselves, Lord Justice Taylor accurately identified the role of South Yorkshire Police and criticised its attempt to shift responsibility from itself to the spectators. Four days after the disaster, I wrote to Sir Cecil Clothier, then chairman of the Police Complaints Authority, enclosing a first-hand account from a constituent. I asked him to open an independent inquiry into attempts by the police spokesman to blame the fans for their own deaths. I said this was

“part of a smokescreen of propaganda aimed at diverting attention from the truth”.

He declined to investigate the conduct of the police, despite repeated requests.

Years later, I was shown a letter from Sir Cecil to the chief constable of South Yorkshire, saying that he had done his best to “deflect” my complaint. Sir Cecil signed the letter “Spike”: a word journalists use when an editor has decided to withhold a story from publication. With the truth being “spiked”, victims had to watch a system circle its wagons around its own. In 2012, the Hillsborough Independent Panel found that 164 statements had been altered significantly, and 116 had been amended to remove content that was unfavourable to the police.

It was only when the original 1990 to 1991 inquest verdicts of accidental death were re-run—using the obligations of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 2 of the ECHR—that verdicts of unlawful killing were finally reached. Some 27 years had now passed as the truth gradually began to emerge. The 2016 jury vindicated the fans and established gross negligence, defects at the stadium, errors in the safety certification and much more besides. Instead of consequences for those at fault, we have seen early retirements and enhanced pensions.

Parliament will want to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. We must finally lay to rest what the 2017 independent report into Hillsborough, chaired by Bishop James Jones, described in its title as The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. Five years after its publication—and 28 years after the disaster—I protested that there had still been no government response to the report’s recommendations that, first, a duty of candour, secondly, an equality of arms at inquests, thirdly, the appointment of an independent public advocate, and fourthly, a charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, should be enacted.

Following this up in 2023, I participated in an all-party group meeting here on public accountability. We discussed a range of public tragedies, including Primodos, atomic test victims, infected blood and Hillsborough. Other examples might have included Windrush, Chinook, Grenfell, Manchester Arena, Covid, grooming gangs and Horizon. After that meeting, I suggested to Ian Byrne Member of Parliament, who had been a young spectator at Hillsborough, that he should write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights—of which I was a member and which I now have the privilege to chair—and ask us to examine the Hillsborough law. It did, and its witnesses included Bishop Jones and Andy Burnham. The hearing led to our unanimous report in May 2024 calling for a Hillsborough law. On 3 March, the Government responded positively. It is indicative that, during its hearings, the Joint Committee was told that a Hillsborough law could have made a difference when inaccurate evidence was given to the late Lord Kerslake’s inquiry in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing.

In addition to the duty of candour, the new law must build on the admirable work begun in 2014 by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and Maria Eagle Member of Parliament in promoting a Bill for an Independent Public Advocate, which I strongly endorsed, and which was established in 2024. The post is now held by Cindy Butts. Although the JCHR has not yet decided what its approach will be on the new Bill, I hope it will consider seeking further information on whether she has adequate powers and resources to support victims of major incidents, to guide them through the obstacle course and to ensure a response from Government. I would like to hear the Minister’s view about strengthening the advocate’s role and for her to tell us why the Government say this Bill might not be the right place in which to do it. I would also like to hear about the creation of a national oversight mechanism to ensure that when recommendations are made, they are implemented.

The House will also want to hear about the practicalities of ensuring that victims of disasters or state-related deaths receive parity of legal representation during inquests and inquiries, and about the resources the Government will set aside for this. Above all, the House will want to hear how confident the Minister is that the new legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials will bring to an end the depressingly familiar pattern of cover-ups and concealment, and whether penalties will be exemplary and adequate to punish outrageous conduct.

In the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, who will steer the Bill through this House, we have a Minister whose entire working life has revolved around justice, and she is particularly well placed to turn bitter experiences and unfulfilled promises into a workable reality. I am grateful to her for the constructive discussion we had last week.

Thirty six years ago, I visited the families of constituents who had loved ones, including teenage children, among the fatalities and the injured. Among those was Andrew Devine, who suffered life-changing injuries after being deprived of oxygen. His remarkable parents, Hilary and Stanley, lovingly cared for Andrew with exemplary humanity and courage. Andrew emerged from his coma in 1994. On his death in 2021, the coroner ruled he had been unlawfully killed, becoming the 97th Hillsborough victim.

Andrew’s family are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet them privately, without media intrusion, to discuss their hope, which they have asked me to relay to the House, that there will be one enforceable code of conduct for all public officials with significant sanctions, including financial penalties, for non-compliance. In the quest for truth, expeditious justice and consequences, Andrew, his family and all those who 36 years ago paid such a terrible price must now be our guiding light. I thank all noble Lords who are taking part today.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear that from my noble friend. I am aware of very recent interaction with the families in Liverpool. My understanding is that those talks have been going positively, and it is very much hoped that we will be able to reach some form of agreement in the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Andrew Devine was my constituent. He died in 2021, the 97th victim of Hillsborough, 32 years after his chest was crushed and he was deprived of oxygen. We owe it, as the noble Lord has said, to his memory and to many others in that disaster and others, such as the Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell, to fully implement the manifesto commitment of a Hillsborough law; I greatly welcomed it when it was made a manifesto commitment. Before the Minister appears before the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the autumn, will he go back and reread the findings of the committee, which called two years ago for “stronger measures” to be put in place

“to prevent a repeat of the failure to uncover and acknowledge the truth of what happened at Hillsborough”

and the subsequent promise to the committee by the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to proceed at pace? Will he spell out to the House what that means and what the proposals are for a duty of candour, as well as an equality of arms in legal representation and an independent advocate? Will he commit that that will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has said, watered down or diluted in any way? Do we not owe that to the memory of Andrew Devine and the many others who suffered?

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate can be assured that I will take the matter of victims of domestic abuse very seriously. I am sure she will be pleased to know that we will not have to wait too long for the Gauke review to be published. Obviously, I cannot comment on what is going to be in that, but I am confident that David Gauke will recommend changes to ensure that we never run out of space again. The number of recalls is 13,000 and growing. Only six years ago, the number was half that, so clearly there is a problem. We need to address that, and we will.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, many of us applauded the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, as the Prisons Minister, because he has such commitment to this cause and we still applaud him for the work that he is doing. Is it not obvious from the questions in your Lordships’ House that there is scope for a debate on building new prisons, on recall and on what the right reverend Prelate just mentioned about the Gauke review? We have read today that he says that 11,000 foreign nationals in our prisons will be deported; many of us will have concerns about what will happen if some of them re-enter the United Kingdom prematurely. Will the noble Lord undertake to speak to his noble friend about the possibility of a proper debate about these and associated issues?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his generous words. It is the usual channels that will decide debates, but when it comes to prison building, we are sure that we just need to keep building more prisons. Not enough prison spaces have been built; we need to build 14,000 and to build them fast. On foreign national offenders, we have removed 15% more this year than last year. I have regular meetings with Home Office colleagues to make sure that we are doing it as productively and efficiently as possible.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand there have been multiple meetings between Hillsborough Law Now and the Government, Andy Burnham, Steve Rotherham, Liverpool MPs and my noble friend Lord Wills. I also understand that the Prime Minister is taking a personal interest in this matter. I know that the Government have undertaken to look very seriously at all the questions raised and will come forward with legislation at pace, as I said in my original Answer.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights carried out an inquiry into the proposed Hillsborough law, unanimously coming out in its favour having heard evidence from, among others, victims of the Hillsborough disaster, the Lord Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, who chaired the independent inquiry, and Andy Burnham? In a letter dated 12 April, the Government did not say which of the three provisions—the duty of candour referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, equality of arms or the independent advocate—now requires more delay and further consideration. Do we not owe it to the 97 who lost their lives in 1989—including children, some of whom were my constituents in Liverpool at the time—to say why a promise made as a manifesto commitment is now a promised that has not been kept?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister is painfully aware that he made a promise and yet that date has slipped. Regarding the specific points made by the noble Lord, the Government have undertaken to look at this very closely and come up with legislation. I also am personally affected by this matter—a friend of my brother died in the disaster—and everyone I know who is involved in this is very seized of the matter and wants to get the answer right as quickly as possible.

Prison Maintenance: Insourcing

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

It is vital that the Government are led by the evidence and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. HMPPS has worked closely with the Cabinet Office to undertake a detailed assessment of prison maintenance requirements and how best to deliver them—I have even read all 175 pages of it. While they consider insourcing, the current evidence indicates that the private sector is best placed to provide a safe and decent estate, supported by effective maintenance that delivers value for money. I am continually monitoring performance and will keep my mind open to the best future options.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, last week, during a meeting with the National Preventive Mechanism, I was told that women in prison in Scotland with psychiatric conditions have to be transported 300 miles away. Can the Minister take an urgent look at that situation, but also tell us what is being done about self-harm and suicide in prisons?

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the incoming Secretary-General of the Council of Europe is a Swiss national and former Swiss president. I am sure he will be very well versed on the issue which the noble Lord raises. It is right that we want to work with the European convention in trying to address environmental problems. That is a body of law that is currently being developed. The Government are committed to that, and we will work within the various European agencies to develop that body of law.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Articles 10 and 8 of the convention protect our rights in respect of family life and private life and freedom of expression. The Minister will be aware that the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, and the European court itself expressed grave concern about mass surveillance in the United Kingdom by Hikvision cameras and about the increase in surveillance generally. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this anniversary to undertake to look again at whether we are sufficiently compliant with Articles 8 and 10?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I remember dealing with those types of questions while I was an Opposition Minister in the Home Office. Whether Articles 8 and 10 are indeed breached by these cameras is a very live question; they are everywhere and they are being used in ways that we do not always understand. The noble Lord makes a good point.

Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not sighted on that issue, but I will absolutely take up his suggestion that the relevant Ministers make clear their position regarding the importance of human rights in all parts of the world, and in the example he gave as well.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the House of Commons has accused the Chinese Communist Party of genocide in Xinjiang against the Uighur Muslim population. He will also know that the health of 76 year-old British national Jimmy Lai, who is being kept in a cell along with 1,800 other political prisoners, is deteriorating. What is the Government’s view on the continued presence of British judges dignifying the courts of Hong Kong?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Hong Kong is a friend of ours, and this means we can have a frank exchange of views on human rights matters, which the Government continue to do. The noble Lord raised a specific question about Jimmy Lai and the other prisoners detained in Hong Kong. I will make sure that that is brought to the attention of my noble friend Lord Collins, who is directly responsible for these matters. If necessary, he will write to the noble Lord.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, following the eloquent speeches of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I would like to refer again to the proposal that Schedule 1 should not stand part.

Some of those countries breach protected rights. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister which of the countries on the list practise female genital mutilation and do not reserve refoulement only for men? Which criminalise homosexuality? Which criminalise humanism? Noble Lords may remember the case of the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who has received a life sentence.

Surely it is very odd to remove people to those countries. Does the Minister think that that conforms to our signature to the treaties of international law?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I endorse everything that has been said in the debate so far, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I particularly want to follow on from what the noble Baroness said to the Committee about the suitability of some countries in Schedule 1 as places to which people should be returned; my noble friend Lord Kerr and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, developed that point in their interventions earlier. I will take one example but the arguments I am going to put to the Committee could be applied to other countries on the list as well.

The country I want to talk about is Nigeria. In a later group of amendments, I have Amendment 85C in my name, which seeks to establish

“how the Secretary of State will assess Equality”

provisions

“listed in Schedule 1 and the potential harm to those with protected characteristics including victims of Modern Slavery”.

However, I want to ask the Minister specifically to engage with the issue of justice in Nigeria. This is a country to which we have said it is safe to return men but not women. I argue that it is not safe to return anybody to Nigeria, given the way in which the internal factors in that country currently stand.

The seriousness of the situation was underlined by the visit of Karim Khan KC, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, to Nigeria in 2020. He is continuing the investigation into the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetuated by Boko Haram and other factions—as well as the involvement, I might add, of the Nigerian security forces. That investigation began in December 2020 and continues. Whether or not the ICC will determine that a genocide or crimes against humanity are being perpetrated against the religious minorities in the north of Nigeria lies in the future, but the evidence of why this is a hostile environment in which people face outright persecution is overwhelming.

Simply consider the role of what are sometimes euphemistically called “bandit groups”. They have killed, abducted, forcibly converted and displaced vast numbers of people, many of whom end up in small boats. According to government figures, 4,983 women were widowed; 25,000 children were orphaned; and 190,000 people were displaced between 2011 and 2019, with more 3 billion naira paid to bandits as ransom for 3,672 individuals who had been abducted.

In one incident last year, IS West Africa killed eight people and kidnapped 72 people on a Kaduna-bound train from Abuja while, in 2022, Boko Haram killed at least 60 people from the community of Rann, in Borno State, and killed more than 15 women in Gwoza, also in Borno State. In June 2022, the United Nations reported that Boko Haram and splinter factions abducted at least 211 children, recruited at least 63 children, killed or maimed at least 88 children, raped or sexually violated 53 girls and attacked at least 15 schools. In September 2022, UNESCO estimated that 20.2 million Nigerian children were out of school as a consequence.

I think particularly of the plight of Leah Sharibu, who has just turned 20. At the age of 14, on 18 February 2018, she was abducted by Boko Haram, raped, impregnated and forcibly converted. She is one of 110 girls taken from the Government Girls Science and Technical College in Dapchi, in Yobe State. Here in your Lordships’ House, I met her mother, Rebecca. I promised that I would never miss any opportunity that might come my way to raise Leah’s case. I do so again today because it illustrates the dangers faced by people being sent back to Nigeria, whether they are women or men; indeed, if they come from religious minorities that do not fit a particular mindset or ideology, they are doubly endangered.

Elsewhere in the country, secessionist forces in the south-east of Nigeria and protests by the Indigenous People of Biafra led to gunmen killing, maiming and destroying the properties of citizens in the region. Armed forces against separatists have also been involved in at least 122 extrajudicial killings. Media reports suggest that more than 287 people were killed in the south-east between January and May.