Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I find myself in broad agreement with what he said about the need to broaden the categories of “personally connected” as set out in the Bill.

My first reaction on reading this part of the Bill was that we certainly need to be more inclusive of other relationships. My second reaction, I must admit, was that there were some relationships that should probably be excluded, as they would dilute the impact of the focus of domestic abuse legislation. For example, the relationship of landlord and tenant, without more to support a clear connection between them in a domestic setting, should not be within the scope of the Bill per se. I think that was a point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Amendment 6, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would extend the legislation explicitly to guardians. I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, about the fact that this is probably, or may well be, covered by the legislation. I suspect that is true in relation to children in Clause 3, but I think it does not deal with the situation between A and B in Clause 2. I think that was the point the noble and learned Baroness was making, unless I am mistaken. Maybe I have misunderstood that; I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, in concluding this part of our discussion, say in that regard.

But it seems to me that guardianship certainly needs to be included quite obviously for both areas. I just wonder whether it should cover the situation where A or B has been a guardian and is no longer a guardian, because I would expect the close nexus—the close relationship—to continue.

I have much sympathy with the case put forward on Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and my noble friend Lady Altmann; with Amendment 11, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which was so ably, emotionally and correctly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton; and Amendment 12, in the names of my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.

Essentially, consideration of this part of the Bill relates to what relationships the domestic abuse legislation should cover. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I think that the starting point should be: would we want to exclude anything where people are in the same household? As I said, some relationships, such as landlord and tenant, should maybe be excluded, but otherwise I see no reason to exclude anything where there is a close and trusted relationship, as there would be in the context of carers. Indeed, we really should recognise the realities of abuse today and the society in which we live, and that, in this pioneering piece of legislation, we are setting out the principles and frameworks of the law in this area for years to come. We should get it right and be bold.

I say that too in the context of Amendment 8 on forced marriages, so ably set out by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Some of the scenarios may possibly be caught by the Bill’s provisions where a forced marriage has already taken place, but there might be problems if the marriage was null and void . Clearly, it does not cover the situation where the marriage has not yet taken place. There is a very powerful, almost unanswerable, case to extend the definition of “personally connected” to cover this situation.

The same is true of Amendment 9, on domestic servitude, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. No doubt there are provisions in modern slavery legislation to deal with that scenario, just as there would be provisions relating to forced marriage and so on, but there is a powerful case for extending the protection and all the measures of the domestic abuse legislation to these situations.

As I said, we need to recognise the realities of life in Britain and the country we are governing today. I will listen to my noble friend’s response with interest, but there is a clear case for extending the definition of “personally connected”, which we are debating.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. At Second Reading, I tried to set out how important it is that this legislation encapsulates, as far as we humanly can, all the possibilities that, if not included, would be felt to have let down the people we seek to help in years to come. I used the example of the first effort back in 2003, in the domestic violence and victims Act, for which I was responsible as Home Secretary, where we clearly took a step forward but a very tentative one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for understanding and supporting what I was trying to say.

My dilemma is this. While I very clearly understand the thrust of the amendments and the critical nature of getting right the definition of “personally connected” to make the Bill work and watertight, and to enable the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary to use it as an effective tool, there are real dangers in some of the amendments—not in the essence of what is sought but in the extent to which they make it difficult to decide which Act is to be used, first by the police in filling in form 124, then by the Crown Prosecution Service, and subsequently in our adversarial court system, where a substantial case has been made and knocked down because of the detailed nature of the definitions involved.

So I have some sympathy, as I normally have, with the Minister in how to get this right. For instance, I agreed wholeheartedly with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and with the very thoughtful and powerful presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reflecting the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see carers involved, and I cannot see any reason why we cannot involve them. But we then drift into the situation of a friend who regularly comes round to the house and seeks to sexually abuse someone. Surely that would fall under the Sexual Offices Act 2003, for which I was also responsible. The wider you make the definition, the more difficult it will be to get a successful prosecution if you use the wrong piece of legislation.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, knows more about this than I ever will, because, although I was responsible for trying to develop policy, she had to implement it. It seems that we should try to do what we tried to do recently in another Act: the Minister should, once again, get people to come together to look at how the very sensible amendments being moved this evening can be tightened up, so that the legislation is broad enough to encapsulate the concerns that have, quite rightly, been raised. At the same time, it should not be loose enough to allow a very clever barrister—we have a number of them in our House—to run rings round the prosecution.

Tonight has been an excellent example of how the real concerns that exist out there can be reflected, as were the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in commencing the Committee stage this afternoon, when she referred to the organisations and campaigners, all of whom are helping us to get this legislation right.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have virtually unqualified admiration. I have seen what he has done over a long period of years and have agreed with a very great deal of it.

It is important that this landmark legislation is able to deal with abuse involving relationships between those who live in the same domestic setting or where there is a dependency within a domestic setting. That is why I give great support to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who spoke with great eloquence, force, lucidity and passion. What she said convinced me entirely. I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will indicate a willingness to incorporate the amendment that she spoke to, or something very like it.

I want to concentrate my brief remarks mainly on Amendment 8, spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said, she speaks with an authority that none of us can begin to emulate or rival in any way.

It seems absolutely crucial that this landmark Bill, as I call it, covers forced marriage. I say that for one reason above all others. I have been privileged to attend a number of meetings arranged by another formidable Baroness—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has been conducting a campaign to underline the dangers of sharia law in the context of marriage. At those meetings, some quite exceptionally brave women—mostly very young—who have been forced into marriage, or who are threatened with being forced into marriage, have given testimony to colleagues from your Lordships’ House. What I have heard at those meetings has been not only moving but sometimes tragic, because a number of those who have given evidence to us have suffered bereavement within their family circle. I implore my noble friend to make sure that forced marriage is very much included.

It is very good to be able to give virtually unqualified support to a Bill, and I am delighted to be able to do so. However, I sincerely hope that this will be as comprehensive an Act of Parliament as possible when it comes into force, that so far as possible all domestic abuse will be included and that high on the list will be forced marriage.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hain in his admirable description of what has happened historically and what we need to avoid in the future. Our previous debate was cracked before Christmas because we had a break and started again on another day. I shall try to be brief because I hope that will not happen this evening and that we can move forward with some form of consensus.

In commending the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Hain, I have to say that we are getting ourselves in a real muddle. Having sat through the earlier debate on the previous group on the very reason why this Bill is necessary, I feel incredibly sorry for the Minister. Not only does she have three major Bills on her hands and all the other day-to-day questions and activity, but she must scratch her head about why something that was taking place without the framework we are trying to develop is now being criticised when a framework is being put in place.

I have a great deal of sympathy with her, and I am grateful that she was prepared to talk to my noble friend Lord Hain and me about this. I was also grateful to the Met, the counterterrorism branch and the security services for the discussion I had with them, refreshing my memory—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has—about what has taken place over the years since I was Home Secretary and the improvements that have been put in place, including the order passed in 2013 that the noble Lord referred to. I think it was Statutory Instrument 2788.

The other part of the muddle seems to be this: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is right, in my view, to say that it is probably not appropriate for a judge to make the pre-review, and therefore the authorisation of criminal activity. I too think it is not appropriate, not for the reasons he gave, but because I do not think that judges should authorise criminal conduct and criminal activity. They are then in an entirely different role to the one they were trained to undertake and have our confidence in carrying through independently. That is why the Minister is almost certain to agree to Amendment 33—spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, today and in its previous iteration before Christmas—to make some progress. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with whom I often agree, that I think there has been some move behind the scenes and that we will see that carried through on Wednesday.

I can understand the concerns of those operating in the field that we should distinguish between, for instance, those taken on as what used to be called “snouts” or informers and placing someone, as a police officer, in a situation of potential criminal conduct, which is very different. I understand that very well. At a higher level, it is really important to see the implications of placing an officer in those situations, which might have a major knock-on effect in terms of the reputation of the Government, never mind the policing and security services.

In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to authorise the clearance prior to the activity beginning, as happens with phone taps and surveillance. In those circumstances, while this amendment is much tighter than the previous one that I, my noble friend Lord Hain, and others signed, it is desirable to have that level of authorisation for very specific placements of trained officers while giving greater flexibility to what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has talked about and must have experienced on a day-to-day basis when he operated in the police service.

This is so complicated because these elements do not sit easily with each other. It is not easy to sort out what would be the most appropriate way forward. I simply ask the Minister to consider whether a higher level of authorisation is required for very specific activities where an officer, whether in the police or security services, is placed in circumstances and situations that could lead to considerable reverberations down the line, taking into account the strictures made on human rights and, of course, our duty of care.

I am not sure that I feel comfortable with the amendment moved and supported by my own side, and I will finish on this. There is a wonderful feeling at the moment that politicians are not appropriate for, or capable of dealing with, high-level situations, even though they have been elevated to the highest possible level. I understand that, particularly at the moment, but I cannot for the life of me understand why my own party is so taken with giving the judiciary roles that are not about judgments of criminality or even carrying out reviews, both of which judges are perfectly capable of because that is their role. What is this love of the belief that we should hollow out the state, as we call it in the academic world, so that politicians are seen as incapable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them, but judges are not? I worry about this, because we are getting ourselves into a terrible mess, where eventually politicians will dance to the tune of Covid but very little else.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who speaks with deep personal experience and authority. I listened to the passionate debate on the previous group of amendments, and now on this group. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made his case for Amendment 5 in his usual persuasive manner, but I favour a slightly different approach, not least for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Hence I will speak to Amendment 16, as introduced so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

If the state is to grant advance pardon to individuals to commit serious breaches of the law, this should not be a common occurrence, and it is a decision that should be taken at the highest level. To my mind, that should be at the level of government. I accept that there might be occasions when, for matters of national security, criminal acts will need to be committed, but I have not been convinced of the need for change in the status quo regarding the way these authorisations are given. However, as the charity Justice says, it is inconceivable that the Government should not be accountable for serious criminal offences committed with their approval—but if that approval is delegated to officials, who will be accountable?

I have many qualms about this legislation. As many have remarked, the Government have repeatedly failed to make a convincing case as to why such a drastic abandoning of moral norms should be sanctioned. They have certainly failed to provide convincing arguments as to why such a broad set of agencies should need access to criminal conduct authorisation. What undercover activity does the Food Standards Agency, for instance, envisage having need of? However, while I am not comfortable with aspects of the legislation, I have no doubt of the Government’s determination to press ahead with it. It is therefore down to this House to try to make it more palatable.

As ever, the Government are keen to embrace anything that will show contempt for the European Court of Human Rights, and this obviously presents an opportunity to do that. But it is imperative that we try to stop these powers being used with impunity—and how better than by making government directly accountable? It would clearly be wrong for officials to have the power to grant immunity from prosecution to undercover agents on the basis of what they perceive as necessity without external authorisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes that the judiciary could provide that authorisation; the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out the flaws in that. I would prefer it to be the Government: the shift in responsibility from Ministers to officials has become a worrying trend. It seems that senior officials are deemed dispensable these days, but Ministers are not; ministerial resignations are now very rare, although I am sure that most of us have a little list of those that we feel are long overdue. The issuing of these orders is a very serious decision, with potentially enormous effects; it would surely be appropriate for a Minister to take ultimate responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I have received two requests to ask short questions from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Hain, who I will call and then call the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the Minister on her tenacity and her grasp of detail, which is reassuring and refreshing. Would she consider providing a regular quarterly update to the Home Secretary in addition to the annual report to which she has referred—part of which is redacted and part of which is on public record? In that way, there is at least some responsibility in the political arena as an ongoing feature of the new pattern, which is clearly going to involve Amendment 33 and the consequentials.

Antique Firearms Regulations 2020

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I appear to be stalking the Minister, as I turn up on all occasions when she presents, as she did yesterday on the important domestic abuse legislation. On every occasion I find myself reflecting on the past and wishing that I had done more in the areas she addresses. That is true today.

We are iterating as we go, because the changes the Minister described this afternoon build on what has been done over many years since 1968. I remember the terrible events at Dunblane and the actions we had to take under the then Conservative Government, and the changes we made when I was Home Secretary. On each occasion there appeared to be a loophole and something else that needed to be done. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, I appreciate that this is inevitable because we are learning as we go along, and so are criminals and perpetrators. They learn how to adapt and to adopt new methodologies as we close a loophole.

I am strongly in favour of the regulations. It may appear to be a very small measure but I am clear, as the Minister said, that we are attempting to close loopholes on risk. If anything puts people at risk—and use of these historical weapons has grown—we should try to close the loophole.

My only comment is that there is absolutely no real inconvenience to collectors, whether in the public sphere such as museums, or individuals who have developed a collection over the years. There is no real harm in asking them to register what they have because criminals will redeploy their skills on those historical weapons and in some cases make them operable, although it is more difficult with the ammunition. We sometimes create a bureaucratic barrier that does not really exist and would not be a problem for people registering. I put that on the table.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I am very pleased indeed to follow my noble friend Lady Armstrong and commend the work that she has done over so many years in this important field. I want to reinforce one or two of the points that she has made. To start with, I will indicate my support for the words used both by the Minister in introducing this debate and by my noble friend Lord Rosser about those who have campaigned individually or in organisations to bring about change over the years.

I also make my own appeal to the Minister to fight within government to allow amendments that are being proposed by so many noble Lords contributing today to be taken on board. The reason for that is very simple. Back in 2003, when I was Home Secretary, we introduced what became the first Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. Now, 18 years later, I see just how inadequate that Act was. It will, of course, be for future generations to build on this new Bill, and the measures taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015, but the more we can get this right now, the fewer victims there will be in future. The more good we can do now, the more we will protect people now and in the future. That is my first appeal.

My second is to commend what the Minister said about Claire Throssell and her terrible loss back in 2014, which took place in what is now the Sheffield City Region, and the work of Independent Domestic Abuse Services in Yorkshire. So many of these organisations have, over many years, campaigned to get to where we are today, and I do hope that will be reflected in a willingness from government to listen and learn. I also commend the Minister for her own campaigning inside government to get to this place today.

My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned what has happened during lockdown. It is timely, albeit somewhat late, that we should debate this today at the beginning of yet another lockdown, when I suspect many people will be at more risk than they were back in April, May and June. Clare’s law, which was mentioned by the Minister in introducing this debate, will be strengthened, and I welcome that. The right to ask and the right to know are absolutely crucial, but so are so many of the amendments that have been mentioned already.

I heard Nicole Jacobs this morning thankfully supporting the measures that many Members will be seeking to add to the Bill as well as to strengthen existing clauses. I heard one of the victims of non-fatal strangulation spelling out clearly what that meant. It was something that I had not been aware of before the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—a campaigner of her own and to whom I am grateful—as Victims’ Commissioner drew my attention to it. It is critical to ensure that we hear the voices of children and victims, and take the necessary actions now, not later, to make the Bill as effective as possible. I hope that there will be a response by all Members of the House to ensure that that happens.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pity, although entirely understandable, that we had to break the debate last week because not only were the contributions extremely informative and, in some cases, profound, they set the context as we continue the debate on this group.

I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in relation to making the illegal legal. We are here because we want to provide a regulatory framework and powers to ensure that what was undertaken previously is set in the context of legal and authorised actions. Phone tapping, interception and surveillance were all illegal until they were authorised in a regulatory framework, which happened only in recent decades. What we are trying to do here is fill a hole to ensure that we have a grip on this and know what is being done on our behalf and that it is being done in an acceptable fashion.

That is why I want to speak to Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain, who spoke powerfully and from the heart last week about his experience. I also support the concepts in Amendments 46 and 73, ably spoken to by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Butler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who I worked closely with when she was head of the Security Service. When I was Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was surprised to receive a phone call from me asking him to have oversight on terrorism, which I was pleased to do. In a non-partisan way, I say to the Minister, who does not carry responsibility for this matter, that she might take the message back to her colleagues in the Cabinet that it sometimes helps not to be seen to give your friends all the jobs. I just lay that on the table.

There is also a great deal of merit in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Clark, and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. We have seen important exposés by people embedded in homes for people with learning disabilities, children’s homes and retirement homes. We must be careful not to infringe on legitimate investigations.

However, I want to return to the debate on Amendments 15, 46 and 73. I thought that some very good points were made in relation to the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lady Kennedy. I understand why, but there is a real contradiction in putting a judge up front in charge of legalising something rather than having them act as a commissioner in reviewing a decision that has been taken. As was said last week, it misunderstands the role of the judiciary—even barristers can sometimes misunderstand the role of the judiciary—not only in terms of its profound and important role in our legal, criminal justice and constitutional life, but in terms of the skills and experience that members of the judiciary gain in building to the point where they take on the job, and the experience that they have in the job. It is worth looking at the role of the Home Secretary or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Hain, the equivalent in Northern Ireland. Their important role is legitimised by their being elected and they are accountable in the sense that they can be held to account if they report back to the two Houses of Parliament. Perhaps this proposal could be integrated with those in Amendments 46 and 73.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said last week, a behind-the-scenes, behind-the-Chair discussion before Report might be a way forward. The Minister would be able to seek agreement from her colleagues so that there was sufficient movement to enable us to agree and to provide the legitimacy and accountability that everyone is seeking in this group of amendments. If we could do that, we could move forward with some confidence that we will put right something that should have been put right. Although the issue was not prevalent at the time, I accept my part in not having filled every hole in the process of ensuring that we scrutinise and have a mechanism to review, and therefore legitimise, what has taken place. I am really pleased that we have been able to continue the debate this afternoon. I hope the Minister will be able to pick up not only on the comments this afternoon but on the very substantive issues raised last week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord knows how I operate, so he can be absolutely sure I would be happy to meet noble Lords to discuss some of these amendments. I was particularly attracted to the post-facto oversight, because operationally —I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, is going to say something about this—prior authorisation could be very difficult. To get that notification as close to real time as possible is, I think, what we are all seeking.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

In the light of the answer the Minister has given, including her willingness to talk with my noble friend Lord Hain, I am happy to withdraw.

[Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am not going to repeat what I said in my speech, but I want to make three small points—[Inaudible.] The first is to correct an impression that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, largely corrected: that the decision to authorise is made by a handler. It is not. In MI5, it is made by a senior manager who may be several grades above the handler, so it is a twofold process.

Secondly, there has been a certain amount of reference to training. I am out of date but the training in MI5 for someone to be permitted to run covert human intelligence sources certainly involved extensive residential courses and frequent refresher training.

Thirdly, I just hope that, as we come to look in the amendments in more detail at later stages of the Bill, noble Lords will bear in mind that the details and numbers of this activity must remain top secret and cannot be revealed, because the lives of covert intelligence sources are at risk. If sufficient information can be pieced together to point to their existence or encourage people to look for them, they will be exposed and potentially killed. I know that noble Lords understand that; I hope that they will forgive me for repeating it. I am not going to engage with other points at this stage because the Minister has summed up well and I know that there will be further discussions between her and Members of your Lordships’ House.

Life in the UK Test

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that British values are common values. However, some of them may not be writ large in some of the countries that people come from. It is important to reiterate our common values—including the rule of law, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said—in integrating people into British society.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

As someone responsible for introducing the first of the Life in the UK documents and tests, I recommend that people should read Professor Trentmann’s article in the Times Literary Supplement. Will the Minister write to me to explain why the Government have not yet accepted the excellent recommendations of the Lords Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, which dealt with some of the more outrageous anomalies in the present test and the document on which people are tested?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him for the first Life in the UK test. I know that the Home Secretary considers all feedback on what should be covered in the test. For example, the referendum on the EU is now covered. I will certainly take the noble Lord’s point back.

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

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

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

We should always try to solve the problems by looking at how we train, educate and pay our own people. Given that unemployment is rising to the level forecast by the Chancellor, surely, this is an inescapable requirement.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a very thoughtful and interesting contribution. I agreed with some of it, in particular the accolades paid to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Hunt. They made such excellent speeches that I can be brief, given that many Members wish to speak today, and I have some sympathy for both Front Benches regarding the length of our sessions at the moment, not least on this Bill. However, I want to draw attention to one or two of the issues that have arisen.

Mention has been made a number of times of the Migration Advisory Committee. I heard Professor Bell on the radio yesterday making the perfectly reasonable case that, as my noble friend Lord Rosser excellently pointed out, it is important that care workers be paid more and respected more. I am fully in favour of trying to tackle head-on the understaffing, underpaying and undervaluing that currently constitutes the general attitude, despite all the sympathy often exuded towards those working in the care sector. However, Professor Bell eloquently made the point that I want to make: that you can get almost £1 an hour more working in general retail than in residential care, despite the enormous challenges arising during the Covid pandemic, as spelled out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.

Here is a thought. I have it on the good authority of Professor Bell that, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, which concluded its main survey work in March, the consequences of the pandemic are twofold. First, yes, there will be greater unemployment, and that will be felt differently in different parts of the country and will therefore have a differential impact. I do not expect people to move for £8.70 an hour—which is the average pay in residential care, because that is the minimum wage across the country—given that they could not even afford to pay the rent; that is, if they have not been evicted by the time they get there because the moratorium has been lifted. We therefore have to have some common sense here.

There is no sign of the pay increase that should be taking place now, and the oven-ready deal promised a year ago has not yet emerged from the AGA—when it does, it will probably be grossly undercooked—so we will not have a solution. It is no good Professor Bell —I am very happy to debate him on this—going on the radio or producing a 650-page report saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if the Government coughed up the money so that local authorities can pay increased rates?”, and that we should protect ourselves from exploitation. That is not happening. I pay tribute to the noble Lord who has just drawn attention to what I said in Committee about private equity investment in this area.

My noble friend Lord Hunt made the important point that there will be a cut-off point in three months’ time. Yes, of course we should be emphasising this and supporting people to take up jobs in social care. We should be training them properly and giving them a career pathway so that they can see the way ahead. Their career pathway is somewhat blocked at the moment by the fact that, the higher up you go, the more likely the Government are to allow someone from outside the country to come in and take the job. I tried to explain that on a previous occasion, but I do not think I was eloquent enough. I will use this example: you can come in and drive a BMW but you cannot come in to drive an elderly Robin Reliant that has rusted to the point where the brakes do not work and the doors are falling off. That is what happened in social care, as illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. There is death and fear within the sector. You will not cure that in three months, nor persuade other people to move house to take up jobs because they have just been made redundant from quite well-paid employment in areas where they hope to take up training and other opportunities.

I therefore appeal for everybody, including the Migration Advisory Committee, to get real. I appeal to the Minister to go back to government—it is not her fault but that of the Treasury—and say, “In the next three months, we as a Government will not solve this problem. We will not be able to encourage sufficient people to take up these jobs. We know that the turnover rate is massive”—it is even greater than my noble friend Lord Rosser said—“that the vacancies exist and are unattractive, and that some people will be highly unsuitable.” So, for goodness sake, let us have a continuing review. That is all Amendment 3 asks for: to get this right and ensure that the consequences of closing the door to the other 27 members of the European Union on 31 December do not have a disproportionate impact on the care of those we are supposed to care about. This is why this debate is taking place, because of the new situation arising from the way we are treating those from the European Union and the EAA. Were that not to happen, we could have a more rational debate, as appealed for by the previous speaker, on how we adjust to ensure that we are not reliant in key areas —including, apparently, butchery—on drawing in people from across the world. That includes, of course, doctors and nurses, who, under the programme that has been laid out, will be allowed to be recruited into the country.

There are such contradictions and we are in such a cliff-edge position that I have gone on longer than I intended, because the more I think about it, the more passionate I am to ask for a bit of common sense.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 3. Personally, I have quite a lot of sympathy with Amendment 30, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which she referred to as “tougher and more radical”. I voted to remain in the European Union precisely because I recognise the importance of free movement of people. I agreed with virtually every word said by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I shall be brief, because I am aware that we are only on group 2 and the target is to get to group 14 this evening.

The social care system is in crisis. All noble Lords who have spoken have referred to the difficulties that it faces—problems that have been made clear by your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee over the years. The Minister should not have to answer for the social care system. She is not the Minister for Social Care; she is Minister of State in the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is right: the equivalent of the Migration Advisory Committee should report to not just the Home Office but to the Department for Education, the department of health, the Treasury and BEIS because they all need to understand the skills deficits in this country.

The specifics of Amendment 3 are about the social care sector. This Bill is in front of us today because of Brexit but the social care sector is highlighted because of the Covid crisis. Today’s amendment would have been necessary even without six months of a global pandemic, but that pandemic has made clear to everybody both the importance of social care and the huge numbers of EU and third-country nationals in this country looking after some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

It cannot be right to say that those people should not be here and should not be working. We value people being here. Although the noble Lord, Lord Horam, is undoubtedly correct that we need to ensure that British people are adequately skilled, can we really assume that we will suddenly go in the next 14 weeks from no training to saying that someone who is unemployed can take on a job in the care sector that is being vacated by an EU national who has gone home and will not be replaced by another EU national? There might be medium and long-term aspirations for change, but we must accept that the change on 1 January will be immediate.

For that reason, I ask the Government to take this modest amendment very seriously. In her letter to noble Lords earlier today, the Minister referred to Amendments 3 and 30. She stressed that the MAC is a “world-class, independent body” and that it will report. Well, it reported yesterday and expressed its concern about the social care sector. If she cannot give us an answer today, will she come back before Third Reading with some recommendation of how she plans to reconcile her letter to your Lordships, the MAC’s report and the importance of ensuring that, on 1 January, the social care system is not even more vulnerable than it is already? I strongly support Amendment 3.

Emergency Services Network

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I should say to the noble Lord is that the testing of the product is the essential bit in terms of gaining that confidence that noble Lords have talked about that the ESN will get online and will work, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, underground, above ground and in remote areas.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

To be fair to the Minister, 20 years ago the analogue system was a shambles as well. But I would like her to agree to talk to her colleagues in DCMS about why we should not reach the kind of partnership deal with Huawei, using UK or European partners, that the Trump Administration have reached with TikTok.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2020

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Rosser in his amendment. I shall not delay the House for long because the Minister has heard me before on this issue. It was just a couple of weeks ago, when I was trying to point out the contradictions of a policy that encouraged people to go into the residential care sector and to progress, only to find that we are encouraging, enabling and supporting people who are coming in at a higher level—at management level as well as higher care levels—but not those who come in at the lower levels. We have the contradiction of expecting domestically resident employees to stick at the lower levels of residential care while we encourage migrants to come and take the more highly skilled parts of the health and residential sector. As I always do from the Minister, I felt I got an ironic smile when she said that she understood that this area and the world we are working in are full of contradictions.

It is a matter of great regret that we have chosen to provide the exemption just for the tier 2 health and care visa for higher skilled workers but not for those who are doing the grinding jobs. On a previous occasion, I asked the Minister for the staff turnover rate in residential and nursing homes. She was good enough to come up with a figure that I think was accurate—41%—which is staggering. It does mean that, over the months ahead, there will be substantial numbers of vacancies in work that supports those who are often at the most critical part of the care journey they are undertaking.

I also want to draw attention to the contradiction in relation to the increased charges for students and their dependants. At the moment, universities are on tenter- hooks. While, thank the Lord, domestic undergraduate recruitment has been better than was previously predicted, we are still uncertain about the recruitment of overseas students, particularly for postgraduate taught courses and postgraduate research. This recruitment is crucial not only to maintaining funding for universities, which has been so badly hit, but also for cross-subsidy with other elements of the system, including vital research. By increasing these charges, we are discouraging people who are part of a cohort that draws down less on health services than other groups of the population simply by the nature of their demographic and well-being. At the same time, we are sending a message that, at a moment of crucial investment for both universities and the future for those individuals—as well as the soft power that that brings to the United Kingdom—we would like to charge them more. That is a matter of considerable regret.

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

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

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

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

I had intended to withdraw from the debate, but having heard the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I have to say that I agree very strongly with what he said. The debate so far has covered the case for a short-term arrangement to make sure that our failure to train in recent years can be made up for, but there is no justification in the medium term for taking doctors and nurses to look after people here from countries that need them far more than we do. That is our responsibility; it is time we trained our own and got a grip on it.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment and the brief, excellent speech he made at the beginning of this debate. I also want to reinforce points that have been made by the majority of your Lordships, with the exceptions of the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. Although I do not dispute for a minute that both noble Lords have a point, they have highlighted what I hope to put across this evening, which is the complete contradictions that exist in this debate.

I shall start by picking up those points made by the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green. I am presuming that, when we reach Report, they will be moving amendments that will remove the so-called health and social care route announced in July, because under that route doctors and nurses could be recruited from across the world to fill vacancies at that level.

One of the contradictions that I want to highlight relates to young people. Young people who cannot find a job anywhere else due to the aftermath of Covid-19—the 20% drop in GDP and the knock-on effect on unemployment—might decide to go into social care. Most young people I speak to want a career and to be able to progress, and there is progression in both residential and social care. However, as things stand with the proposals by the Government, the area from which we would allow people to be brought in from overseas would be at that higher level, whereas at the lower level the vacancies that have been mentioned—122,000 in England alone—would not be fillable from outside the country. I do not know whether the Government believe that, given the crisis in unemployment that is about to accelerate, people will just take up those vacancies even if they are not emotionally and physically suitable to take up caring duties. As has been made clear in this debate, you have to be a particular type of person to take up some of the less attractive duties of caring for someone who is severely disabled or frail and has dementia.

The contradictions, also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, abound. We all want to see improved wages in this sector. That would not only reward people morally for what they do but help fill vacancies. But the danger of simply putting money into the sector, given the level of private equity ownership, might well be that it gets creamed off, rather than helping to fill vacancies. Or, they will simply close the homes if the money is not provided, which will cause an even bigger problem—as part of the contradictions, we would end up with older, frailer and more severely disabled people in hospital settings, which are more expensive but would allow for staffing to be brought in from outside this country. We saw that in March and April, when people who should have been in different settings in the first place were cascaded out into the residential sector unchecked for Covid-19 and ill-prepared in terms of PPE to be able to deal with it. The consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, are obvious for all of us to see.

The biggest contradiction of all—and I put this to the noble Lords, Lord Lilley and Lord Green—is that, on the centre-left in politics, people are generally suspicious of markets and, on the right, people generally embrace markets. But as I said on Second Reading, in the case of the labour market, the situation is reversed, and those who believe vehemently in markets are against a labour market and against being able to draw in from across the world those who have something to offer the area we are talking about this evening.

We need to sort out the contradictions. That includes the issue of austerity, which led to a bigger downturn in funding for local government services and those funded by local government than any other public service area in the country, with the result that local government has been struggling both with its own direct health provision and with funding in the market and the ability to sustain services.

I have one question—I have learned over the Covid-19 period that you do not get an answer from the Minister unless you ask them a question. My question is simple, and the Minister might be able to answer it tonight: we know what the vacancy level is, but do we have an up-to-date picture of the turnover level in the social care sector? The turnover gives you an idea of how long people can stand working in this challenging but often rewarding setting. What steps might have to be taken if the Government’s hope is that the downward pressure on job availability will help fill, in the short term, the vacancies that we have talked about?

At the end of the day, what we are talking about is the care of human beings. We are not talking about markets or political or economic theory; we are talking about the reality of caring for people in their own homes and stopping them, therefore, having to move into hospital, residential care or residential settings that are dealing with people at very difficult times of their lives. In the end, we have to care enough to get it right.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the powerful opening speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is very experienced in this field, and to the speeches that have followed.

Who can argue about the need for a properly skilled, staffed, trained social care workforce? “Skilled and settled”, I think, was the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. That is why the issues in subsections (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)(c) and (3)(d) in the noble Lord’s proposed new clause seem entirely appropriate questions to ask. But when they are tied back into an immigration Bill, I begin to get nervous. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about contradictions, and I listened carefully to what he said, but the fact is that the issues in subsections (3)(a) to (d) are issues for the sector not linked directly to the immigration matter we are discussing this evening.

I recognise I am probably swimming against the tide, but it is important to realise that workplace psychologists will tell you that you go to work for three reasons. First, you go for the money, and let us not be precious about that. Secondly, and equally importantly, you go for what they call self-actualisation —to improve and increase your life skills, work with decent people, have career progression, have a good performance that is noted and rewarded and, hopefully, operate in an atmosphere of good team spirit. Those are the internal desires most people have in going to work.

The third area is external reputation. When you mention where you work, what do people say in the saloon bar of The Dog and Duck or around the table at a dinner party?

It is worth taking those three yardsticks and applying them to the social care sector. First, there is the money. There is no getting around it: £8.70 an hour is clearly not good enough when compared with £9 for stacking shelves in a supermarket. However, money is not the only motivator here, and when we turn to self-actualisation —the second of the criteria that I mentioned—the situation is quite serious. I have had the privilege of serving on the boards of many companies in my career. When I join one, I often say, “Tell me about your staff turnover.” No staff turnover is not an attractive thing; very often it means that the company has got a bit complacent and is not at the cutting edge, and that the service is not as good as it could be. You want some staff turnover—5%, 10%, that sort of level—to provide the dynamic but, if it rises above that level, it is operationally destructive, distracting and expensive, and the quality of the service starts to fall away.

I understand that in 2018-19 there was a 32.2% turnover in directly employed staff in the sector. Worse, among care workers the turnover was 39.5%. Further evidence of a lack of considered career progression is that half the workforce—excluding registered professionals —have no relevant social care qualifications, which seems to me a question not of money but of managerial grip and organisation, and of making the sector better managed.

Lastly, on the external reputation, one of the great advantages and developments of the pandemic is that people have begun to see how useful, worthwhile and attractive social care can be. People have begun to think about it. Long may that continue but, historically, we all must accept that its reputation has not been that good.

This is a system under acute stress, as many noble Lords have said. The danger of amendments such as these is that they will result in new arrivals, and that immigration will be used as a crutch to maintain what is close to being a broken system. I cannot believe that this is the right approach. More importantly, if the sector believes that it has a “get out of jail free” card, to use the inference that the Minister made when winding up at Second Reading, then there is no pressure on the sector to make any improvements or changes to how the businesses are run or operated, nor indeed is there any pressure on the Government to do likewise. We must find ways to improve the operational performance and the financial performance.

I have two final points. First, on the issue of morality, referred to by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, recruitment in this area is a zero-sum game. What we have, other people lose. Maybe one could say that within the EU there is sufficient prosperity for us not to worry about it, but the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned the wider recruitment. This is a very serious issue. We must look ourselves in the mirror and decide whether it is right and fair for us to be recruiting doctors, nurses and care workers from less- developed countries. It may be serious within the EU, but it certainly is serious around the world.

I will give just one example. When the Ebola virus struck Sierra Leone, there were 136 doctors there, one for every 45,000 people; in this country, the equivalent figure is one for every 300 people. At that time, there were 27 Sierra Leone doctors working in the NHS. If we had not employed those people, we could have given a 20% boost to Sierra Leone’s health facilities. It is not the answer but when we set out our stall for the future we must consider our attitude towards the less developed world, and whether we will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, take ourselves out of the international market for health and social care workers.