Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsThursday 27th November 2025
(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 111(Corrected)-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (26 Nov 2025)
“Definition of modern slavery exploitation: orphanage trafficking(1) Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6) insert—“Orphanage trafficking(7) The person is a child who has been recruited into a residential care institution overseas for the purpose of financial gain and exploitation.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, the proposed new clause in my Amendment 247A would expand the definition of exploitation under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to include children who have been recruited into residential care institutions that engage in orphanage trafficking. One privilege, and benefit, of being a Member of this House—or indeed of the other—is the fascinating people whom one meets and finding out about issues that I do not think everybody would always understand.
It was only last week at the annual general meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery that I discovered that, during the passage of this Bill in the other place, my right honourable friend Dame Karen Bradley and Sarah Champion had put down an amendment, which is being mirrored here, about orphanage trafficking. That had not come across my radar, even though I have been—I declare my interest—the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. As I say, it was not something that I had been aware of, so I tabled this amendment. By some chance, earlier this week, I met Dame—no, not Dame, sorry, I have elevated her; I met Claire Wright MBE. She is a patron of a very good charity called Hope and Homes for Children. She was talking to me about orphanage trafficking and I said that I had put down an amendment. We got into a discussion with my noble friend Lady Sugg, who I see here in her place, so she also heard about this. It just goes to show what can happen.
Orphanage trafficking is a form of child trafficking defined as
“the recruitment or transfer of children into orphanages, or any residential care facility … for a purpose of exploitation … or profit. It involves both ‘acts’ and ‘purposes of exploitation’ that meet the definition of child trafficking under the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons”.
As I have said, it is a little-known crime here in the UK, but it is estimated that around 5 million children worldwide are living in residential institutions, which exist not to help, support and educate the children but to make profits from charitable donations and something that I had not come across before called “voluntourism”—a form of tourism in which travellers participate in voluntary work. Australia has been in the lead with this and was the first country to legislate to outlaw this crime.
Child trafficking into institutions is something that has been going on and is linked to the funding of orphanages through private donations, volunteer tourism, as I have just mentioned, mission trips and other forms of fundraising. It is estimated that US Christian organisations alone donate approximately $3.3 billion to residential care each year. The popular practice of orphanage volunteering—people from high-income countries travelling abroad hoping to help children living in orphanages, with every good will in the world—also serves to provide a continual income for the orphanage as well as reduced labour costs for the care of the children. There is, however, a grim downside to this. Although often well intentioned, these sources of financial and in-kind support undermine national efforts to support broader child protection and social welfare systems by creating a parallel system without official oversight and accountability. They also create a marketplace that can incentivise the expansion of existing orphanages and the establishment of new ones, with the supply of funding and resources into orphanages increasing the demand for children to be in them.
There is evidence of children being deliberately recruited from vulnerable families to fill spaces in orphanages, under the guise of better care and access to education. Once trafficked into those orphanages, children are then vulnerable to neglect, abuse and exploitation. Orphanages that are run for profit have been found to operate under extremely poor conditions to drive down care costs, with evidence pointing to children being kept deliberately malnourished to encourage further donations, forced to interact with and perform for visitors, or forced to beg for financial donations.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who contributed to this short but vital debate on an issue, which, speaking personally, I was not tremendously well aware of before looking at the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many noble Lords have commented that it is the hard work of people such as Claire Wright and others that has brought to light this pernicious activity or—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—this evil trade.
As the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has explained, Amendment 247A seeks to include so-called orphanage trafficking within the meaning of exploitation under Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act. I know the noble Lord has concerns about modern slavery and trafficking in his wider work. I pay tribute to his work as chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery for highlighting this evil activity and the wider concerns around modern slavery.
As the noble Lord described, in our case, concerns about orphanage tourism would be about volunteers from the UK visiting orphanages overseas, fuelling this activity and contributing to a cycle of harm and exploitation of children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made a very relevant point: a lot of it is done in good faith. However, it can be undermined and exploited by those who are acting in bad faith.
I make it very clear to all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the Opposition Front Bench—that the Government share the same concerns. That is why the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office provides travel advice warning British nationals of the risk of volunteering with children and highlighting how volunteer visitors may unknowingly contribute to child exploitation and trafficking. The advice that the FCDO gives signposts travellers to the global standard for volunteering, which helps organisations provide responsible volunteering. By adopting the global standard, organisations commit to promoting child-safe volunteering in all environments, which includes not facilitating visits to orphanages or other institutional care facilities.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the specific vulnerabilities of children and encompasses the exploitation of children for the provision of services of any kind and to enable someone to acquire benefits of any kind, including financial gain. Therefore, orphanage trafficking is already captured by the broad terms of the existing legislation. It is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, anticipated that that may be the tenor of my contribution.
I point out to noble Lords that on 16 July this year, the Home Office launched a public call for evidence on how the Government can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. The call for evidence closed on 8 October, and the Home Office is now analysing responses received. A report summarising the key findings and themes from the call for evidence responses will be published in due course. Of course, the Home Office will consider the evidence gathered to explore any further changes that can be made to improve the identification of victims.
We are seeking to introduce new modern slavery legislation as part of our efforts to review and improve the modern slavery system. This new legislation will enable us to clearly articulate the UK’s responsibilities under international law regarding modern slavery, allowing us to reduce opportunities for misuse while ensuring the right protection for those who need it.
I make no commitments here to your Lordships’ Committee, but that may well be to an opportunity to revisit some of the issues raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, floated the suggestion of a wider round table; I will certainly take that back to colleagues and discuss it.
For the reasons I have outlined about Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act already capturing orphanage trafficking in the broad terms, we do not believe it is necessary to amend Section 3 any further, as the conduct in question is already captured. In light of this explanation, and hoping that it does not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and other noble Lords too much, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, one of the many benefits of this place is having people who know much more than I do about a subject and who are certainly much more eloquent. Everybody who spoke after me fit that description. It was extremely good to have the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester pointing out that it is not every orphanage, and so forth.
However, it is an important issue. My friend—I call her that because we work very closely together—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right: we did not spot this in our debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act, but that is because modern slavery in all its forms is always developing; the traffickers and exploiters are always looking at something new.
I am very grateful for what the Minister said. If I could predict the lottery numbers as well as I can predict ministerial responses, I would be a very rich man. We will come back to this, not necessarily in this Bill, but we should be looking at it. It would be good if we could perhaps at some stage get a Minister—they are very busy at the moment with this Bill and goodness knows how many other things—to meet the lady we mentioned and others, just to get an idea of the scale of it. But there is so much of this exploitation—we have only to look at Ukraine and the children who are being trafficked into Russia. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long. I speak as somebody who for most of their adult life was a retailer, until the good people of the Uxbridge constituency sent me into the other place—but I continued to be a retailer, behind the counter and also having to deal with putative shoplifters.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is putting forward. He put it very well: “shoplifting” makes it sound not so important; “shop theft” is important and has to be tackled. The measures to support retail staff are very welcome. Shop theft is very frightening for staff, who are very often younger people or women. When they see people stealing, they often do not know what to do. If they knew they had some back-up, it would be of great reassurance. With that, I will sit down and hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, put forward a number of alternative approaches to reduce shoplifting. However, they fail to address practical realities and risk creating more issues than they resolve.
The proposal in Amendment 216A would allow shopkeepers to circulate photographic evidence of suspects, including on social media. This raises significant questions about privacy and misidentification. If the accused turns out to be innocent, the shop must pay compensation, but this is fundamentally unworkable and could cause serious harm to innocent people, damaging reputations in ways that money cannot fix.
The noble Lord himself said that this is likely to be able to be worked only in large stores rather than small shops, but the shops most affected by theft are small businesses run by one or two people. Shopkeepers in my area are busy enough running their shops without spending hours reviewing camera footage, creating digital copies and ensuring timestamps.
Clarifying the arrest powers of security staff, as proposed in Amendment 216B, may seem helpful, but increasing their authority to arrest and detain risks misuse and legal challenge. Security staff do not have the same training or accountability as police officers, increasing the chance of wrongful or disproportionate arrest. Video evidence and procedural protections are helpful but not adequate substitutes for professional policing standards.
Finally, Amendment 216C proposes a new offence of conspiracy to commit theft. The noble Lord is right to point to the growing involvement of organised crime. The police have said that international criminals are targeting UK shops in what a Co-op boss describes as “organised looting”. However, I disagree with the noble Lord in respect to the solution he proposes. It seems likely to disproportionately target those committing relatively minor thefts, potentially imposing severe sentences on them of up to 10 years, while doing little to address those orchestrating and controlling those criminal activities.
Shoplifting is undoubtedly out of control, and a new direction is desperately needed. The Liberal Democrats believe the current epidemic is the result of years of ineffective police resourcing, which has left local forces overstretched, underresourced and unable to focus on solving crimes such as shoplifting—I stress the words “unable to” rather than “unwilling to”. We want to see a return to genuine neighbourhood policing, with more police visibility and a staffed police counter in every community. That is why I have tabled Amendments 429 and 430 later on in the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 232A and 262A are in my name. I have also signed Amendment 232, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has given an excellent explanation of his amendment, so I will just say that I agree with him.
Both my amendments provide a defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who are coerced into committing offences. Both amendments have a simple purpose: to ensure that victims of exploitation are not treated as criminals for acts they were compelled to commit. The amendments are supported by academics and charities such as the Children’s Society.
The Bill, as it comes before the House, creates two new offences in Clause 56: child criminal exploitation and cuckooing. These are important steps. They recognise forms of exploitation that front-line workers, police officers and charities have been grappling with for years. However, the Bill currently does only half the job. It recognises the exploitation, but not the victim. Unlike the long-established offences of modern slavery and human trafficking, these new offences do not come with a bespoke defence for victims who commit unlawful acts as a direct result of their exploitation. Unless a victim can prove duress—a notoriously high bar—their only option is to argue that what happened to them also amounted to slavery, servitude, forced labour or trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act. That is a legal contortion, and it is simply impossible for many victims.
It leads to outcomes that I do not believe this House would wish to endorse. For example, a child forced by older criminals to store drugs or weapons, a young person threatened into carrying out low-level offending under fear of violence, or someone whose home has been taken over by a gang who is then compelled to assist in their criminal activities would all be vulnerable to finding themselves before a court, even though their exploiters are the ones truly at fault.
We have been here before. When Parliament passed the Modern Slavery Act in 2015, we accepted, rightly, that victims sometimes commit offences because they see no realistic alternative. Section 45 of that Act created a defence for those victims, carefully limited, and subject to important exclusions. It has not opened any floodgates. It has provided protection only where the courts are satisfied that the offence was the direct consequence of the exploitation, and that a reasonable person in the same situation and with the same relevant characteristics would have acted in the same way.
These amendments have the aim of applying the same principle to the new offences that we are creating today. The amendment on child criminal exploitation mirrors the structure of Section 45. It would not excuse all behaviour and would not allow serious offences listed in Schedule 4. It would apply only where the prosecution cannot disprove that the child acted because they were compelled to do so, that the compulsion arose directly from their exploitation and that a reasonable child of the same age, sex and vulnerabilities would have seen no realistic alternative. In other words, this is a defence grounded in both common sense and compassion.
The same is true of the amendment concerning victims of cuckooing. Anyone familiar with this phenomenon —and many police forces now are—knows that victims have often been threatened, groomed, manipulated or assaulted. They may be obliged to let their home be used for criminal activity, and they may then be forced to play a role within that activity. The amendment would make clear that, where the compulsion arises directly from the cuckooing, those victims should not be criminalised for acts they were compelled to perform.
These defences would not apply in most cases. They would apply only when the court is satisfied that the offending was the direct result of the exploiter’s conduct, not incidental. They offer a fair and proportionate safeguard. They would also prevent the injustice, indeed the absurdity, of Parliament recognising exploitation on the one hand, while punishing its victims on the other. When vulnerable children or exploited adults are used as tools by criminal networks, the criminal justice system should not compound their suffering by treating them as willing participants. These amendments would complete the logic of the Bill and would ensure that the law protects those who need protection most. I hope that the Minister will look at these amendments and see the validity of what I have explained.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I should start by declaring my interest in the register as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which probably these days should have changed its name to the Modern Slavery Foundation, because that is in fact what we are really dealing with. It was the late, great Lord Field of Birkenhead who first came up with the expression “modern slavery” and I think it is something we should have as a tribute to the late noble Lord, who was a fantastic Member of this and the other House.
I welcome the Government’s intention to address criminal exploitation through the child criminal exploitation offence and cuckooing offence and commend them for doing so; it is very important. However, the offences will not apply to the exploitation of vulnerable young adults over the age of 18 or with issues of cognitive impairment, as far as I can see. I am not a lawyer, as I explained in the last group; I have more skills on marking things down in a sale—and thank goodness we did not have Black Friday in my day.
This is a probing amendment. I believe—I have the figure here—that, in 2024, 774 young adults aged 18 to 24 were referred to the national referral mechanism for criminal exploitation, including alongside other forms of modern slavery, and that 65% of all victims referred were in that age group. As far as I can see, they are not covered and perhaps they should be. What I do not understand—I am very willing to be lectured and taught on this—is what happens if this criminal child exploitation has started for somebody at, say, the age of 15 and a half but does not come to light until they are 18 or 19, which could easily happen. Will they be treated in a different way? As I mentioned very briefly, there are obviously young adults who have cognitive impairment and who in effect—I am sure that this is not the correct expression—have the mental age of a child.
I fully support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones also put her name to my amendment. I fully support them and I think that this should go into the Modern Slavery Act, for all the reasons that have been given. I would, however, like some clarification on what can be done about those young adults and where the law we are creating is going to put them.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for introducing this group. These amendments speak to deeply serious issues concerning child criminal exploitation and the protection and coercion of vulnerable people who are manipulated into criminality. The stories behind these legislative questions are tragic and demand considered and compassionate policy-making.
Amendment 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would ensure that children criminally exploited under Clause 40 continue to be identified within the modern slavery framework. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to safeguard exploited young people who are groomed and coerced into offending, and we on these Benches recognise the importance of ensuring that systems designed to protect victims do not inadvertently overlook those most in need of support. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to this amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this short but very important debate on the issues of child criminal exploitation and the interface with our modern slavery law. It is a vital issue on which I think all of us across the Committee wish to ensure we are taking coherent action.
Amendments 232 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and Amendment 263 from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, seek to include child exploitation within the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Amendment 263 also seeks to add cuckooing and broader adult criminal exploitation to the meaning of exploitation under Section 3.
Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already recognises the securing of services by use of threats, force or deception, and the use of children and vulnerable people to provide services and benefits. Such services and benefits may include criminal activity. Therefore, criminal exploitation is already captured by the broad terms of the existing modern slavery legislation. This is as good a point as any to pick up a specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in moving his amendment about alignment with our international law obligations. I say to him that the Government are satisfied that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 adequately protects victims of modern slavery in line with our international law obligations. Exploited victims, including of child criminal exploitation, may benefit from the statutory defence under Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I understand the noble Lord’s intentions in expanding the meaning of exploitation; that is, to ensure that victims of criminal exploitation are not prosecuted for offences committed as a result of their exploitation. The statutory defence in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, to which I just referred, is there to protect slavery and trafficking victims. Where a victim of criminal exploitation meets the definition of a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, they may have access to the statutory defence, as they do now.
Similarly, Amendments 232 and 262A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seek to provide a stand-alone defence for victims of child criminal exploitation and cuckooing who have committed offences as a result of their exploitation. Again, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to protect victims of exploitation from prosecution, but we consider the Section 45 defence already provides the necessary protection. Furthermore, when victims of child criminal exploitation or cuckooing are aged under 18, these amendments would require evidence of compulsion, whereas the Section 45 defence does not require evidence that a child has been compelled to commit an offence, only that they have done so as a direct consequence of their exploitation. These amendments may therefore—I accept completely inadvertently—provide a more limited defence for victims of child criminal exploitation than is clearly the intention.
Beyond a statutory defence, whether to charge a person is an operational decision for police and prosecutors, who must consider the facts on a case-by-case basis. They will apply operational discretion and consider whether potential existing defences in the common law, such as duress, are relevant, or whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
In speaking to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised the issue of why we are limiting the list of victims to children aged under 18 and talked about vulnerable adults and those with cognitive impairment, or those who pass the threshold into adulthood over the course of their exploitation. Let me try to address those points. The offence is aimed at stopping adults from exploiting children, and we consider this is justified because children require special treatment and protections from harm. Vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The cuckooing offence would also seek to recognise the harm caused by the takeover of a person’s home for criminal purposes. This is often the home of a vulnerable person, such as an individual living with substance addiction or physical or mental disabilities. Cuckooing is a particularly insidious and harmful form of adult exploitation, which not only causes harm to the victim but often facilitates violence and exploitative forms of drug dealing, and drives anti-social behaviour in communities. I hope that gives the noble Lord some comfort.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I apologise for not being clear on this. If, for example, there were two members of a family and they were victims of this offence, and one was 17 and one was 19, would there be discrimination in how they were dealt with?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, I am not a lawyer and I do not have his fantastic experience in the retail sector as an alternative. But to be clear, as I understand it, we have to draw a line somewhere, so there would be a differentiation in what protection was available under which bits of the Modern Slavery Act, or the new offences, depending on whether they were 17 or 19. We are trying to make it clear that we consider that there are alternative protections for those over the age of 18. In child criminal exploitation, we draw the line of childhood as being under 18 in these cases, and the focus of that is usually children well under the age of 18. The point is taken that at any discrete boundary there will be some cliff-edge consequences, but we consider that vulnerable adults would remain protected by existing offences, including under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The whole point of the cuckooing offence is that it is about taking over a person’s home for criminal purposes, and often that could be a vulnerable person, most probably a vulnerable adult, whether through existing mental health issues, substance addiction, or whatever. I hope that has clarified the matter to an extent at least.
It is probably worth stressing before I conclude that, in trying to give the offences we are introducing in the Bill as great a utility as possible, there will be guidance for prosecutors stating that, where a suspect is a potential victim of modern slavery, in so far as is possible, a charging decision should not be made until a trafficking decision has been taken. This protects potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being charged and prosecuted until it has been determined whether they are a victim.
We are working with criminal justice partners, as outlined in the modern slavery action plan, to develop a national framework for the investigation of modern slavery. This will include guidance for front-line officers on the Section 45 defence to support the early identification of potential victims of modern slavery and prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against victims.
It is intended that guidance on the potential availability of the Section 45 defence under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for victims of child criminal exploitation will be included in the statutory guidance which will accompany the new offence. In so far as we are able, we will try to give a good framework, through guidance, as to the order in which decisions around charging should be taken, to avoid some of the consequences we have been discussing in the debate on this group of amendments.
As I said at the start of my remarks, we are all coming at this from the right place, with the right motivation. I welcome the fact that everyone who has spoken has welcomed the Government’s intention to create the new offences around child criminal exploitation and cuckooing; these are gaps we need to fill in the statute book. However, these amendments are not necessary, and nor are they the right approach. We want to avoid the unintended consequences they might well bring. Therefore, I hope, in light of this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsMonday 8th September 2025
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (4 Sep 2025)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and chairman of the Task Force Trust, which I will come on to later. I extend my best wishes to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German, who are not able to be here because of illness, and wish them well.
I support the amendments on the right to work, particularly for domestic workers and those in the NRM. I have been an advocate of this for some time. Call me psychic, but I do not think the Government will accede to this for the very reason the noble Lord, Lord German, gave: the pull factor—although that has never been proved—or whatever.
In my capacity as chairman of the Task Force Trust, we have had a very interesting set of projects through Action Asylum—I would be very happy to show the Minister an evaluation report we got from the University of Nottingham—that get asylum seekers and refugees to do voluntary work, particularly in the environment field: things such as beach cleans, tree planting and a lot of other similar things. This is so important because it has been shown that, in local communities that are not always the most keen on what they perceive asylum seekers to be, they see them as real people, they see them as families and they see them doing things. It has been great for cohesion, but also a great thing for the asylum seekers themselves, to make them feel valued and part of the community, and it has helped their mental health. I think it is something that should be looked at more. As I said, I would be very happy to pass on a copy of this evaluation report from the University of Nottingham that shows the value of it.
There are other projects I have been aware of. For example, the Marylebone Cricket Club has a foundation which has been getting asylum seekers to play cricket. The Saracens Foundation has also involved refugees and so on into sports. I cannot help feeling that this is the way forward—at a time when we know full well that there are frictions out there in our communities—to make sure that they realise we are talking about actual people.
It is a lateish hour and there are plenty more speakers. I just say to my noble friend Lady Lawlor, on her amendment, I think the question of driving licences for these people is a valid one, but it is slightly discriminatory to say it is just for overseas people. There are plenty of other people around. It may be that she thought it was a cunning way to get the issue raised, but I do not think this is really part of this. With that, I will sit down, but I am very happy to meet the Minister, or pass him this report, because I think it is a very valuable idea in terms of community cohesion.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer Green group support for all the amendments in this group, except for Amendment 154A, and to express the greatest sympathy with those who are not able to be with us when we would like them to be. It is also terribly disappointing given that this is such an important group of amendments for addressing essential issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as a result of our immigration law.
I will address two related amendments: Amendment 151 from the noble Lord, Lord German, and others, and Amendment 155A, both of which address points on what is known for short as the “lift the ban” campaign. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on this. Indeed, last week, I spoke with the Minister in Oral Questions about suggestions from the Refugee Council to allow people who are most likely to be given asylum status the right to work. This is a broader step.
Giving people the right to work as they seek asylum would, of course, empty the asylum hotels. That is one way of doing it, but the arguments for it extend beyond that. I note that the Global Compact on Refugees—a UN agreement that we do not hear much about these days, but undoubtedly should—says that refugees should be included in communities from the very beginning, meaning as soon as they arrive. What better way is there to include people in communities than to allow them to work? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was just saying that voluntary work is great, but to enable people to support themselves, support their families and contribute to societies is surely better.
I will just draw on a little history. I am coming up to six years in your Lordships’ House, which makes me not quite a newbie any more by House of Lords standards, so I can go back to the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2022. I just point out that what we are presenting here is something that the House more or less supported, voted for and sent back to the other place. Amendment 30 of the Nationality and Borders Bill on Report was to change the Immigration Act 1971 to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. It was proposed and the vote was called by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Meacher. Ten Conservatives and 32 Labour Members voted for that amendment, so we are not really going out on a limb here with these suggestions to allow people to work after three months or at least to review the possibility of six months.
A Times leading article from 16 December 2021 also called for—I emphasise that this was the Times—asylum seekers to be given the right to work after six months. I may not say this terribly often, but I entirely agree with the Times where it says:
“Enforced idleness is a waste of initiative and wealth”.
It notes that, at the time, the Migration Advisory Committee opposed the ban on asylum seekers working and the leading article suggested that they should be able to work in shortage occupations. This Times notes that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said:
“Britain’s policy is more restrictive than that of EU member states”.
As the noble Lord also said, it
“would have no impact on the aggregated numbers of people granted asylum”.
I finish by quoting the Times’ conclusion:
“it would help the economy, reward enterprise and better integrate migrants into British society. A policy that is humane and beneficial for all concerned ought to be grasped”.
When we think about the way in which our immigration debate is going at the moment, it is worth thinking about how far we have moved in the wrong direction. Let us head back in a humane, just and sensible direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has set out an overwhelming case for Amendment 154, on the fishing industry. It is worth going back to some research from the University of Nottingham Rights Lab from 2021. I do not think there is any evidence that the situation has improved since then. Some 35% of fishers reported experiencing regular physical violence, including racial abuse and sexual violence. Their average pay was £3.51 an hour—one-third of the minimum wage; 19% were working in conditions comparable to forced labour; and 60% reported shifts of a minimum of 16 hours. When we think of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred, one in three were working more than 20-hour shifts, and 100% from outside the EEA were on the visas we are talking about.
Anti-social Behaviour and Shoplifting
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope I can reassure my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that poverty is an important issue for this Government. If there are trends in the type of theft that is occurring, such as theft of baby milk, that will indicate some element of poverty-related theft. But we have to tackle poverty holistically, looking at a range of measures on social welfare, housing and the support we are giving through minimum wage increases and other things to ensure that we can help raise people out of poverty. The Government have a target to lift the poverty level. But that still does not excuse theft, which has to be at the heart of this Government’s approach. Shop theft is a key responsibility of mine at the Home Office and we will bring forward legislative measures, if supported by both Houses, to tackle it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, having spent most of my working life working in a shop, I welcome the protections for shop workers and the Minister’s comments about the seriousness of shoplifting and crime. What encouragement can he give to law enforcement officers to also take this seriously?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The 2014 Act that changed the threshold and put a £200 threshold on shop theft did not change the law, but it changed the approach that law enforcement officers took: thefts under £200 were seen as thefts that we did not need to respond to or go out to. I regard that as unacceptable, which is why we are changing the law to abolish that £200 threshold to allow police to focus on the issue. Neighbourhood policing will help that. The shop workers’ defence and the aggravated offence of attacks on a shop worker are there to protect shop workers who are upholding the law in shops as the first form of defence. I have been a member of the shop workers’ union for 44 years. This is an important issue to the union—it has campaigned on it for 20 years—and it is an important issue for both Houses to recognise. I look forward to taking legislation through this House in due course.
Modern Slavery National Referral Mechanism: Waiting Times
Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
These are discussions that we have had at considerable length over the past few months. When the IMA is commenced, its modern slavery provisions will strengthen the UK’s continued efforts to mitigate risks to public order by withholding modern slavery protections from those who enter the UK illegally and who therefore put themselves and first responders at risk and place acute pressure on public services. Where someone has entered the UK illegally and is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, we will ensure that they are either returned home or sent to another safe country, and away from those who have trafficked them.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Home Office figures for 2023 include bad faith disqualifications, where someone has been disqualified from protection because the referral or claim was made in bad faith. As it appears that there were zero bad faith disqualifications last year, can my noble friend the Minister say what the evidence is for the claim we hear that the NRM is being abused?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The public order disqualification is part of the Nationality and Borders Act, which has also been discussed extensively from this Dispatch Box and over a number of debates. It provides a definition of public order which makes it operationally possible to withhold the recovery period in certain circumstances, in line with Article 13 of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. All decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
Illegal Migration Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsWednesday 12th July 2023
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 159-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (12 Jul 2023)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Motion P, to which the Minister referred. I should refer to my interest as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Perhaps it should be called not the Human Trafficking Foundation but the “modern slavery foundation”, because there is a difference with human trafficking, which is what I think stop the boats is all about. By dint of modern slavery, everybody who is enslaved and arrives in this country has come in illegally. Nobody comes in legally for modern slavery.
I am very disappointed with this Bill. However, I am a pragmatist. Years in retail taught me that sometimes you cannot have everything you want. So when my right honourable friend Theresa May spoke so eloquently and voted against the Government—and I can say as a former Deputy Chief Whip that that was only the second time she has ever voted against the Conservative Whip, which tells you something; you could not wish for a more loyal person—she did so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said, it is not a great Bill in respect of modern slavery.
However, my noble friend and my right honourable friend down the other end in the other place made some concessions about what they would put in the guidance. My Motion basically asks that those concessions, that guidance, be put in the Bill. I would have preferred my original words—I would have preferred all sorts of things—but in order to make sure that we can get something done for the victims of this horrendous, heinous crime, if the Minister does not have a damascene conversion, when the time comes, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I cannot express strongly enough our huge disappointment about what is happening with the Modern Slavery Act. I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. The Minister talked about “opportunities to misuse”, when it is the Home Office which approves the first responders who have to get possible victims of slavery into the NRM in the first place. He talked about enabling co-operation but, with what most of the people in this situation will have gone through, 30 days is simply insufficient for them to be able to bring themselves to co-operate with an authority figure in a foreign country when they are still worried about what their trafficker might do when he finds them and about what they will do if they have to try to get away from the system. It is simply not enough.
To co-operate requires support. That, in turn, requires trust, and that, in turn, requires time. Statutory guidance will of course be welcome. But only today I and other noble Lords received a briefing from the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham on government commitments relating to Part 5 of the 2022 Act—the modern slavery part—analysing whether they had been met, partially met or not met at all. It did not make for very happy reading. It is a shame that one has to say that. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. We wish that there were more coming before the House tonight that we could support too.
“(3A) If the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person—
(a) for a period of 30 days following the making of the decision referred to in subsection (1)(b);
(b) for a further period if the Secretary of State deems it necessary for a victim to establish cooperation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation; and
(c) on expiration of the period in paragraphs (a) and (b) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation for the duration of those criminal proceedings thereafter.
(3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—
(a) section 22,
(b) section 23, and
(c) section 24.
(4) In this section—””
Illegal Migration Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsMonday 3rd July 2023
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
“(3A) Subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person if the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom. (3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—(a) section 22,(b) section 23, and(c) section 24.(4) In this section—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them from being provided with support during the recovery period or being granted limited leave to remain.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Illegal Migration Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsMonday 12th June 2023
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly, but I hope strongly, to support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to oppose the question that Clause 21 stand part of this Bill. We have had a very long debate and incredibly powerful speeches, particularly, if I may say so, from the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Carlile, spelling out the immense importance of all the amendments in this group. I do not need to repeat any of those arguments.
I want to mention Frank Field—my noble friend Lord Field. I saw him today; we know he is dying. He was incredibly important in the passage of the modern slavery legislation, along with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and the former Prime Minister Theresa May. He said to me today, “Please explain and set out that if all the amendments in this group are passed, yes, they would indeed provide important protections for the victims of modern slavery and trafficking; but please spell out that this would not be sufficient. There will be the most appalling abuses of these most vulnerable of victims unless Clause 21 does not stand part of this Bill”.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the deputy chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I will say that the first time I investigated this matter was when I served on a committee with the noble Lord, Lord Field, when he was in the other place, as was I, as well as with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss; so my interest in this goes back 10 years. I apologise to noble Lords for my absence during Second Reading because of ill health. If there was ever an incentive to get back to health, it was so that I could speak on this part of the Bill.
I will speak in particular to Amendment 86 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord McColl of Dulwich, Lady Helic and Lady Stroud, to whom I am grateful. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to allow modem slavery victims exploited in the UK to continue to receive temporary support and protection from removal under current laws, enabling more of them to engage in prosecutions. It does this by exempting victims exploited in the UK from the Clause 21 disapplication of the statutory recovery period and access to temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims.
If we do not amend Clause 21 we will be restricting access to modem slavery support, but it will not stop the boats. It will remove support and protection from many genuine slavery victims who have been exploited on our shores, and will make prosecuting criminal gangs harder, as we have already heard. Human trafficking is distinct from people smuggling and its victims are first and foremost victims of crime.
Few modern slavery victims arrive by small boat. As I think we have already heard, only 6% of small boat migrants were referred to the modern slavery national referral mechanism; that is, 2,691 individuals in 2022 compared to a total of 12,753 NRM referrals for non-UK nationals. A majority of potential victims referred to the NRM are exploited in the UK in full or in part, and most of those are non-UK nationals—58% in 2022. Modern slavery is happening in communities up and down the UK. Thousands of men, women and children are victims of labour exploitation—whether, for example, in agriculture, manufacturing or nail bars—as well as sexual exploitation and criminal activity such as county lines drug dealing.
Many of these people are likely to have arrived in the UK illegally within the terms of this Bill, whether by small boat, by lorry or with leave obtained through deception such as false documents—including deception by their exploiter. Instead of being given temporary protection in the UK, these victims will now be subject to removal and detention under this Bill and will be denied access to the statutory 30-day recovery period of support for modern slavery victims. Victims will simply be driven even further underground by the fear of deportation and trapped in the arms of their abusers. Criminal gangs will be free to continue exploiting these people and the job of the police and prosecutors will be made far more difficult, as victims’ vital evidence will be lost.
Why is this amendment needed? Victims of modern slavery experience inhumane torture and abuse. They are deprived of their liberty and dignity. Those exploited and abused on British soil, whether UK citizens—an increasing number of UK citizens are victims of modern slavery—or foreign nationals, deserve care and a chance to recover. We cannot leave them to suffer exploitation and abuse in the hands of their traffickers just because they were brought into the UK illegally. I ask my noble friend the Minister: has he ever met a victim to hear their harrowing tales? I say to my noble friend that, when I have had the opportunity to meet some of these people—it is not easy, for obvious safeguarding reasons—you realise what a terrible crime it is and what a terrible thing we are potentially doing with this clause.
Victims hold the key against their perpetrators. Failure to support victims not only increases retrafficking rates, but also hinders our ability to dismantle the criminal networks managing the abuse because their vital evidence and intelligence is lost. We cannot allow unscrupulous criminals to get away with impunity, poisoning our own communities.
Prosecution and conviction rates are stubbornly low. In 2022, there were just 194 convictions for Modern Slavery Act offences in England and Wales on an all-offence basis. Yet since 2017 there have been thousands of NRM referrals every year for modern slavery occurring in the UK. In 2021, the National Crime Agency’s threat assessment said:
“It is likely that at least 6,000 – 8,000 offenders are involved in the exploitation of people in the UK”.
Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care shows that, with appropriate, consistent support, more victims engage with investigations and prosecutions, providing vital information that brings criminals to justice. But support needs to come first to create stability and confidence. We need to ensure that victims of slavery exploited in the UK can continue to receive support and protection from removal during the temporary, statutory recovery period. This will ensure that victims can still have the confidence to come forward.
In response to a similar amendment tabled in the other place by my right honourable friend Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and supported by my right honourable friend Theresa May, the Immigration Minister said:
“we will look at what more we can do to provide additional protections to individuals who have suffered exploitation in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23, col. 781.]
Can my noble friend the Minister give us some more information about the intended additional protections? I could perhaps suggest he just accepts my amendment. Have the Government consulted the Crown Prosecution Service and the police about the likely impact of Clause 21 on investigations and prosecutions and the burden it will place on their staff?
My noble friend the Minister may come up with some points. He will possibly say that people will make false claims of being exploited in the UK to bypass deportation. However, as we have already heard, a victim cannot self-refer with a claim of modern slavery. Referrals can be made only by official first responders who suspect the person is a victim. In 2022, 49% of referrals were made by government agencies, most from UK Visas And Immigration and from Immigration Enforcement. Only 6% of referrals were made by NGOs. The rest were from other statutory services. Training and guidance for the staff making referrals, particularly those in Home Office agencies, should prevent inappropriate referrals being made.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend would consider my invitation. If I can arrange it, will he come with me to meet a victim of modern slavery, so he can actually see the people we are talking about who would be potentially affected by this?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord, with or without such a victim, to discuss his amendment. I would be happy to do that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I asked the Minister whether he would meet a victim of modern slavery.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsMonday 15th March 2021
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 171-III Third marshalled list for Report - (10 Mar 2021)
“Criterion that may not be used in deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons
(1) In deciding what classes of persons are not qualifying persons under section 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) (allocation only to eligible and qualifying persons: England), a local housing authority in England may not use the criterion set out in subsection (2).(2) The criterion is that a relevant person must have a local connection to the district of a local housing authority.(3) A relevant person is a person who— (a) is, or has been, a victim of domestic abuse within two years of the date of their application for an allocation of housing under Part 6 of the 1996 Act; or(b) has recently ceased, or will cease, to reside in accommodation provided by a local authority in an area in which they have been subjected to domestic abuse and where—(i) the victim of domestic abuse has fled, or will flee, their local area; and(ii) the purpose of fleeing was, or is, to escape domestic abuse.(4) In deciding upon the allocation of housing to a relevant person, a local housing authority may not consider the location or whereabouts of the perpetrator of the domestic abuse.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, when we finished our proceedings last Wednesday, I had just spoken to a previous amendment that raised the issue of acknowledging local connection for those victims of domestic abuse who require housing. As we finished—it was rather late—I thought that my Amendment 66B, which I tabled subsequently to address the issues that my noble friend raised about social housing, was not going to be reached. However, by some quirk of luck, I find myself able to talk to it now.
Previously, I raised the potentially discriminatory way in which local authorities use local connection restrictions when responding to victims of domestic abuse who present as homeless or at risk of homelessness. My noble friend’s answer the other evening, and indeed in Committee, again focused on the fact that existing guidance should prevent this happening. However, evidence from domestic abuse services shows, sadly, that this is just not the case. I am particularly grateful to Women’s Aid for helping me and showing me examples of where this does not work. The guidance is exactly that and it is not producing the results that I think we all would like.
This new amendment addresses this issue of victims being denied social housing allocations because they have no local connection. Often, women who have escaped to a refuge need to resettle in a new area or a neighbouring one as they are still at risk in the area they fled. Women’s Aid estimates that
“over two thirds of women resident in refuge services in England had come from a different local authority area.”
Again, there is government guidance. It makes clear that
“those who have fled to a refuge in another local authority area are not disadvantaged by any residency or local connection requirements”
when accessing social housing. However, I contend that domestic abuse services continue to report that local authorities require a woman to have a local connection with their area to apply or be prioritised on letting systems.
The Government already require local authorities, when allocating housing, to make exemptions for certain groups from these local connection requirements or residency tests; this includes members of the Armed Forces and people seeking to move for work. I remember well from my caseload as a constituency MP that these exemptions exist. I am asking the Government and my noble friend: why is the same exemption not in place for victims of domestic abuse relocating for the purpose of safety? I acknowledge that there is guidance, but there is not the requirement.
It is also critical to recognise that, when women and children escape to a refuge, they start to build connections and support networks in that new area; these are vital for their ongoing recovery. After experiencing unimaginable trauma and the uprooting of their lives, children will have started to settle into nursery and school. The inconsistent way in which these survivors are then treated when seeking to access long-term housing leads to further disruption and insecurity. Again, the guidance is not doing enough in this area, I am afraid. It is vital that this law sends a clear message that local connection rules or residency requirements must never apply to allocations of social housing for victims of domestic abuse.
I want briefly to draw attention to a case study from a Women’s Aid member service that highlights the urgency and importance of my amendment:
“A has experienced domestic abuse for the last 10 years from two partners as well as witnessing domestic abuse perpetrated by her father against her mother growing up. She has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD. After fleeing her abusive partner with three children, she moved into a refuge in a London borough to be near her mother, who was her main source of support. She was only able to find a refuge in a different borough to her mother, and after six months she was required to leave that refuge. She presented to the borough her mother lives in, but she was informed she was not entitled to be housed there as she did not have a local connection. The local authority stated she had a local connection to the borough she had been living in for six months. This is despite her being a survivor of domestic abuse, having no option other than to live in the first borough where a refuge space was available at the time of fleeing and the fact that she felt at risk from the perpetrator’s extended networks there.
The borough her mother lived in then housed A and her three children, who were all under 14, in one room in mixed-sex temporary accommodation. This was extremely distressing for her. She describes feeling retraumatised from the experience of being forced to live alongside men she did not know. She also felt scared for her children, who did not feel safe in the mixed-sex hostel. The room was highly unsuitable as the entire family lived in it and were required to cook in it, which is of course unsafe for a toddler. Another child had ADHD, so A struggled to provide them with any quiet time and appropriate support. This experience also exacerbated her PTSD, depression and anxiety, and she reported feeling low and stressed regularly due to feeling unsafe in the accommodation. She is now having to live there indefinitely while the boroughs have been assigned an arbiter to decide who has a duty.”
I do not think that anybody could agree that this is a satisfactory situation. I urge my noble friend and Her Majesty’s Government to seek to put an amendment such as mine in the Bill to ensure that these sorts of examples do not occur again.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 87C, which I may press to a Division.
Last week, public discussion following the tragic death of Sarah Everard tended to emphasise that it is not for women to limit their freedom because there are violent men around—rather, that it is men who should change their behaviour and be educated into civility.
This amendment has a similar bent. It too is about shifting the burden of suffering from abusive behaviour away from the victim and on to the perpetrator. We are all agreed on the principle and I am grateful to the Minister for meetings and correspondence. The principle is that of ending the tenancy enjoyed by the perpetrator in social housing and leaving the victim in occupation, with that tenancy vested in her—if it is “her” because obviously this works both ways.
The only remaining issue is how best to draft this. It is common sense to leave the victim, possibly with children, in her home and make the perpetrator leave. It is cheaper too because rehousing the abused parent could cost from £3,000 to £11,000. We know that women’s refuges are overcrowded and short of funding. The pressure on them would be infinitely less if the woman could stay at home and not have to run away. This scheme is being tried out in Scotland and already operates in several Australian states. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 provides for the transfer of the interest from one joint tenant to another. The amendment says that if the victim applies to the court, the perpetrator may be removed as a joint tenant, provided that the tenancy is affordable for the victim. The tenancy shared by the victim and the perpetrator would be severed and the perpetrator’s tenancy would vest in the victim and any other joint tenant. The tenancy would continue in the name of the victim, but the perpetrator would remain liable for rent arrears incurred before the eviction.
Social housing providers can support the victim in managing debts, and they might even consider it right to rehouse the victim immediately in other suitable property. In the rare case where there are other joint tenants, their interests need to be considered, for their share of the housing costs might rise. The change in tenancy should have no effect on the landlord, but he or she could make representations to the court during the application process. No objections have been received so far from landlords who have been consulted by domestic abuse support organisations. Indeed, this amendment has been welcomed by the domestic abuse commissioner, the Local Government Association, Women’s Aid and related organisations.
The drafting needs to ensure that the perpetrator retains liability not only for rent arrears before he loses his tenancy but, for example, for damage he might have caused to the property. I respectfully disagree with the Minister’s concern that common law stands in the way of reassigning the property and the liabilities, because the statute would override common law. There are no human rights concerns as mentioned by the Minister. Protocol 1 of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects property enjoyment, is subject to the right of the state to interfere when necessary in the public interest. Indeed, it is the property enjoyment rights of the victim that would be interfered with if she is driven out by the violence of the perpetrator. Article 6 provides that there should be a hearing before deprivation of a civil right, and so there will be, because the perpetrator has the right to representation in the court proceedings.
Moreover, it has been possible for a long time for an English court to act ex parte; that is, on hearing only one side where there is an urgent case. When no-fault divorce comes into force this autumn, one of life’s most important civil rights, that of staying married, will be terminated at the will of one party with no right for the other to defend or have any say in it. That has been accepted as legitimate—rather surprisingly. A rather lesser upheaval, in this case eviction, can be managed safely without any infringement of human rights, as can any fears about Article 8—the right to a private and family life. It is the victim’s rights that have been disrupted and that article goes on to say that the right may be interfered with in order to protect other people’s rights or in the public interest.
I will give noble Lords chapter and verse. Article 3 of the human rights convention prohibits “degrading treatment”. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the state had failed to provide the victim with immediate protection against a husband’s violence in a case concerning Slovakia, and that offended against the prohibition of degrading treatment. On Article 8—the right to family and private life—the European court held that this had been breached by Bulgaria and Ukraine, among others, because the state had not helped the victim. It is the victim’s right to family life which the perpetrator has destroyed. In a 2010 case involving the United Kingdom—JD and A v the United Kingdom—the court held that the victim’s property rights were violated and that she should stay put. This was about Protocol 1—the right to property. The Government themselves do not consider that there is any Article 6 breach, covering the right to trial, in their Explanatory Memorandum. That is because the perpetrator has the opportunity to make representations at a subsequent hearing. That was in a case called Micallef v Malta. All human rights as listed are subject to interference in the public interest and proportionality, so there need be no concerns at all about human rights. Let us remember that it is the victim’s human rights that have been violently disrupted.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank those who spoke in support of my amendment, particularly my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt of Solihull and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. In particular, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his careful and considered reply. I am satisfied that the Government have listened and will take some action. Therefore, I am delighted to say that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Lord Randall of Uxbridge ExcerptsMonday 8th March 2021
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 171-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Report - (8 Mar 2021)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate on these amendments so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and subsequent speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
I feel in many respects vastly underqualified to speak on these amendments. Reading the Committee stage debates, I understood the idea of whether we wanted to extend “personally connected”—I had been putting down something about domestic servants in this regard. However, from listening to the speeches that we have all been privileged to hear, it is apparent that the relationship between a carer and the person for whom they are caring is extremely special and, in many instances, very intimate. It must come under the domestic category. In many cases, probably all cases, it will be happening inside the home, which is the definition of domestic.
The Government may well say that there is sufficient protection elsewhere in the law, but victims of domestic abuse find it difficult to escape, in every sense of the word, from their abusers. Surely for people with disabilities it is impossible to escape. They are often at the mercy of a carer if that carer is abusing. I will listen carefully to the rest of the speeches and of course to my noble friend the Minister, but I find it difficult to understand why these amendments cannot be accepted. I hope that if not now, then by Third Reading, something along the lines of these amendments can be put into the Bill.