Windrush Lessons Learned Review

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons. There is, of course, a marked disparity between the speed with which this review has been published and the lack of speed with which the report on—for example —Russian interference in elections has appeared, a marked disparity for which there is no obvious explanation.

We cannot overstate how damning this review has been of the Government’s

“institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race”.

The way in which individuals and families were wrongly deported and deprived of their livelihoods caused enormous suffering. Now it can only be right that the Government pave the way for a complete change in how the Home Office operates, but apparently the Government cannot say that the recommendations of the review will be delivered in full in the most appropriate timeframe possible. That seemed to be the message of the Statement. There would at least be some satisfaction if we could say that the Government had attempted effectively to make amends.

However, I believe I am right in saying that last month, new migration statistics showed that fewer than one in 20 Windrush compensation claimants had received compensation. From that, it would seem clear that the Government are still failing the Windrush victims, at least in that regard, both in terms of the number of people the compensation is reaching and the level of payouts for lives disrupted or destroyed. Can the Government say how they will ensure that further victims receive the compensation they deserve, and receive it speedily?

On the wider issue of the hostile environment, can the Government today mark a change in direction and agree to put an end to this policy, beginning by ending deportation flights for foreign national offenders who have lived here since childhood, committing that the historic case review will include those who have committed offences, and keeping open the compensation scheme for as long as necessary?

One of the more damning lines of the report was that the scandal was “foreseeable and avoidable”. Scandals which will further arise if the Government continue with the hostile environment policy are also foreseeable and avoidable. Renaming the policy, which the Government have sought to do, does not bring about the necessary culture change. Even the executive summary of the report—I am sure that the Minister will not be entirely surprised if I say that I have not read all 275 pages of it—says that

“the Home Office … must change its culture to recognise that migration and wider Home Office policy is about people and, whatever its objective, should be rooted in humanity.”

It is a fairly damning statement on the present state of affairs for that to appear as a part of this review.

We do not want similar issues arising over citizenship rights in the light of our withdrawal from the EU, and neither will a future immigration policy based on devaluing the value and skills of many people help the situation, particularly when some of those so-called low-skilled and insufficiently paid personnel are now deemed to be vital key workers in the present crisis when it comes to continuing school provision for their children.

I hope that the Government will take very seriously the recommendations in this report and the three elements into which they have been broken down in the last paragraph of the executive summary. It is disappointing that we may well have to wait some time to hear what the Government’s response is. However, clearly there needs to be a significant change in culture, and it needs to come quickly if we are to avoid further scandals—I use that word—of the kind we have seen over the Windrush generation.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that this report has now been published is of course welcome, and I thank Wendy Williams; the timing is however less than optimal. I also thank the journalist Amelia Gentlemen, without whose brilliant and dogged investigative work the report would not have happened.

In the Government’s response, which is promised within six months, we on these Benches want the assurance of a thorough overhaul of the culture of disbelief and carelessness in the Home Office, so that its attitudes, assumptions and processes around immigration are, in the words of the report, “rooted in humanity”, which is not the case at the moment. The Home Secretary surely cannot have needed this review to become aware of what the report calls the

“ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation within the department, which are consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism.”

That sounds like a very carefully negotiated sentence.

Surprisingly, the Statement says that

“we were all shocked to discover”

the insensitive treatment of the Windrush generation. That is not credible. The whole point of the hostile environment was to be brutal and send a harsh, intolerant message. As the report says, the consequences were foreseeable and avoidable, and warning signs were not heeded by officials or Ministers. It was a profound institutional failure. The scandal and the blighting of lives are not just down to staff mistakes and poor decisions, because the tone was set from the top. However, if retraining is needed then we need to hear what is happening on that front.

The Home Secretary failed to give my colleague in the other place, Wendy Chamberlain, the guarantee she sought that for the sake of public health during the coronavirus crisis no data would be passed from the NHS to the Home Office for immigration purposes, otherwise migrants with uncertain status could be deterred from seeking care or treatment. I now ask for clarity on such a guarantee. Will the Government also commit to scrapping the right-to-rent law, which, as has been shown by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, causes landlords to discriminate against people from the BAME communities and/or who do not have a British passport?

To avoid a budding new Windrush scandal, will the Government now commit to automatically guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens to stay? Something that the report highlighted was the lack of documentary evidence that the Windrush generation had. We have persistently and consistently asked that EU citizens should at least get documentary proof.

Lastly, my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who very much wishes she could have been here today, tells me that last week when she visited a school to talk to sixth-formers about Parliament and her work, they wanted to discuss immigration issues. She was critical of Home Office culture. A teacher who was sitting in out of interest could not contain herself: she told my noble friend and the students that, as a Canadian, it had taken her 10 years to get the right to be here and that the way she had been treated by the Home Office, especially at Lunar House, was the worst experience of her life.

I really hope that the Home Office will have a thorough transformation of its culture, so that it acts as a welcome to migrants who we wish to make part of our society, as well as exercising firm and fair immigration control.

County Lines Drug Trafficking

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Noble Lords have previously brought up in this House that the young people who are drawn into this sort of activity are not themselves criminals; they are victims of other people’s exploitation. It is very important to keep that in mind when we think about how we deal with these children and divert them into mainstream life and out of a life of crime.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, following the Government’s decision to fund an increase in the number of police officers by some 20,000, the Home Secretary told police chiefs that she now expected them to deliver a return on that funding in the form of a reduction in crime. Now that the Home Secretary has admitted through that statement that the total number of police officers available does have an impact on the level of crime—contrary to what the Government used to maintain while they were busily reducing the number of police officers over the last decade—will the Government now agree that one reason, though not the only reason, for the rate and level of expansion of child criminal exploitation, or county lines, across the country has been the reduction in the number of police officers and the resultant increasingly stretched police forces across the country over the last 10 years?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said earlier, I think these issues are multifactorial. One thing that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, would say if he were here is that it is driven by the drugs market, but the drugs market is not the only factor. It is also fair to say that at some point demands on the police, and crime, became more complex, and therefore it was the right decision to take to promote the move towards having more police officers on our streets to fight crime.

Anti-terrorism Policy

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

To answer my noble friend’s last question first, I had a brief look at the website, and it does not look like the sort of website that I would want to derive any information from. She is absolutely right in what she said about showing leadership at this time. One thing I saw on the news the other day was Muslims in, I think, Leeds, making up bags of food for older people who could not get out of their homes. On her point about those concerned with their livelihoods, we know in times of difficulty where our friends are.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In September last year, the head of counterterrorism said that far-right extremism was the fastest growing terror threat in the UK. Do the Government agree that that is the case? What action are the Government taking to address this situation, including reviewing Prevent, part of their terrorism prevention programme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord’s first point: far-right extremism is indeed on the increase at a rate that we did not think possible some years ago. In fact, it makes up 50% of referrals to Prevent. Prevent is currently being reviewed, but I think it provides a valuable tool for safeguarding very vulnerable people from the far right and any other type of extremism.

Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Missing people deemed vulnerable—a risk either to themselves or to other people—may well be the subject of LFR deployment for their own safety.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and I hope the Government will take it on board. How accurate is this facial recognition technology? I have been told that a deployment of the technology at Oxford Circus on 27 February scanned 8,600 faces to see whether any matched a watchlist of more than 7,000 individuals and that, during the session, police wrongly stopped five people and correctly stopped one. If that information is anywhere near accurate, it would suggest that the technology is not overly reliable. For how long were those apparently wrongly stopped at Oxford Circus detained, and for how long is the record of those wrongly stopped, including where they were stopped, retained?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I understand that the incident at Oxford Circus was on 20 February. I understand also—I will be corrected if I am wrong—that the machinery was not working on that date .

Immigration: Points-based System

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday in the House of Commons. In their separate policy statement, the Government said that the points system set out in the Statement the Minister has just repeated will reduce overall levels of migration, without telling us what reduction is expected. That leads one to suspect that this policy statement is a continuation of the Government’s policy of talking big, in their eyes, about reducing migration to satisfy their own anti-immigration constituency, when the reality is the exact opposite.

Over the last decade, we have been told by the Government of their determination to reduce net migration. For many years, their objective was to bring it down to the tens of thousands. Net migration actually went up under Conservative Governments over the last decade, even though the Government had control over non-EU migration which, in each and every year since 2010, has been in excess of net migration from EU countries. In 2018 non-EU net migration, over which the Government have control, was in fact three times the rate of net migration from the EU.

Are the Government now telling us that EU net migration—which I believe was about 75,000 in 2018—was made up of large numbers of people who we really do not need in this country? How many people are the Government now saying came into this country in 2018 and 2019 who they now want to stop coming in, first from EU states and secondly from non-EU states, and who will no longer be allowed in under the points system referred to in the Statement?

We have been told that a distinction will be drawn between skilled and low-skilled workers, and that points will be awarded only if a laid-down salary level, skill level and level of ability in speaking English are achieved. The idea is apparently to keep out those whom the Government deem to be low-skilled workers, who appear to include most of those working in care services, retail and hospitality, construction and agriculture, for example. What percentage of jobs in the UK do the Government consider fall into the low-skilled category referred to in the policy statement? Perhaps the Government could tell us in their response.

The Government do not really believe that the jobs they deem to be low-skilled can be filled from people already in the UK, particularly since their claim that 20% of people aged between 18 and 65, who are not in full-time work, are currently available to do these jobs has been somewhat demolished by the facts. Presumably this is why in the Statement there are significant loopholes, such as declaring shortage occupations, to get around the criteria referred to for when the Government inevitably find that labour shortages are damaging the economy and they still need those so-called low-skilled workers, just as we have up to now.

The Statement is less than clear on, for example, the detailed application of the salary thresholds, the position of the families of those coming into the country, the position of those who wish to be self-employed and the criteria for acceptance of degrees under the points system. Presumably, these are issues on which the Government intend to say more later. What is clear, though, is that this points system does not have as its primary objective bringing into the country the people needed to fill the vacancies and shortages that we need to address, as should be the case. Instead, in order to draw this distinction between skilled and low-skilled, an elaborate admissions system will be created in a short time to be administered by a resource-stripped Home Office—a recipe for error, confusion and unfairness, while many people feel somewhat dismayed by the Government’s view of the lack of importance or necessity of the much-needed jobs that they currently undertake.

I suspect the Government will soon learn that posturing with their changed immigration policy will no more work than their earlier posturing over getting net migration down to the tens of thousands. Even this Government will eventually have to recognise that the economic and social needs of the country must take priority in immigration policy. It is for that reason that the evidence suggests that a declared objective of reducing net migration by amounts as yet unstated and unknown will not be achieved by the Government’s intended points-based immigration system, any more than was the commitment to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. Only a reduction in the necessity of recruiting people from outside the UK will do that—something that I have no doubt the Government, in their heart of hearts, already know.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which included the claim that the points-based system will provide “simple and flexible arrangements”. Can they be both? To me, “flexible” suggests some sort of discretion. Or is that about the tradability of points—something on which I for one reserve judgment?

We may understand just how workable this will be when we have details, so I would like to check with the Minister whether the new arrangements will be incorporated in primary legislation, or will they be part of rules? In other words, will Parliament be able to have a good say on them? Indeed, will it mean primary legislation with wide ministerial powers to make changes? I am just checking; your Lordships understand.

Yesterday in the Commons, the Home Secretary said the Government

“will look at the labour market as a whole across key sectors.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/20; col. 44.]

Was that not done before arriving at the points-based system?

What assumptions have been made about emigration? Can the Minister confirm that there is not a pool of economically inactive people available to take up the low-skilled jobs, about which there has been much discussion? Employers have been told they will have to adjust how they operate. How have they responded?

Much has been and will be said about carers. One of those who have spoken is my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, who is in hospital at the moment but emailed me this morning saying that she is “absolutely incandescent”, so I said I would quote her email. She says:

“I am absolutely incandescent about the stupid lack of flexibility for care workers … What may not be realised is the extent to which refugee families settled here (for example from war-torn Somalia) have family members scattered all over Europe who now can travel freely here. They are hard-working carers and often regard those they care for as part of their own family. It is just so shaming that we are turning our back on such caring people, labelling them as ‘low-skilled’.”


I am sure she could have gone on, and I am sure other noble Lords can and will.

It is not possible, obviously, to mention today all the sectors that will be affected, but I want to mention the creative industries—performers and so on—because we are told there will be no change to existing routes. However, many agents and promoters have previously engaged EU performers only. They will need to get into the bureaucratic world of certificates, sponsorship and so on, and they are asking: what will be the “right talent”? I put that term in quotes, as it is the term the Government use and want to encourage. All this and more is very relevant to our economy. How easy will it be for UK creatives to work elsewhere? It will be quite reasonable for there to be reciprocity between nations; if we are negative about people coming in, it will not be surprising if others are too.

There has been much discussion about the lack of time to get the new arrangements in place. Is there any confidence, outside Government, that the changes can be coped with by the end of the year?

Finally, the Migration Advisory Committee has been very forceful about the need for good data. Its recent report says:

“Good data and evaluation are vital to ensure that effective monitoring is in place and necessary adjustments are made in a timely fashion. Without it, there is a danger that the UK, unable to learn from the past, continues to lurch between an overly open and overly closed work migration policy without ever being able to steer a steady path.”


Can the Minister comment? Good evaluation is certainly needed if the Government are to begin to counter the criticisms of what I saw yesterday in the press described as the Government’s

“self-defeating tunnel-vision, exceptionalism and xenophobia.”

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. However, these are very serious matters. As the Minister just outlined, this measure can interfere with people’s human rights. Therefore, I have to ask: can she tell us any more about the four organisations being proscribed? I understand that the first group has been involved in attacks in Bahrain and is suspected of financing terror in Qatar; the second group has also been involved in attacks in Bahrain; the third group has been involved in attacks in Egypt; and the fourth group has been involved in attacks on the army and the police in Egypt. However, clearly, this order primarily has effect in the United Kingdom. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any evidence that these groups are active in, or have supporters in, the United Kingdom that would require such draconian steps to be taken? However, I understand that it may not be possible to give those details for security reasons, as she said.

As regards the group being de-proscribed, again it is good to see that the Government are actively considering groups that have been proscribed in the past, and are prepared to de-proscribe where the evidence suggests that is merited. My only concern is that the reasons the Minister gave for de-proscribing the organisation to which she referred raise questions about the amount of evidence available to support the proscription of the other organisations, bearing in mind the alternative measures that can be taken against individuals, in particular, who might be supporting terrorism in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of, and reasons for, this order, which we support, and which proscribes four groups based in Bahrain and Egypt, and removes one group from the list of proscribed organisations. Fortunately, I do not have to go to the same lengths as the Minister in giving the full names of these organisations.

The order, which is the 22nd proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, went through the House of Commons two days ago and will come into effect tomorrow, subject to it being passed by this House today, as the noble Baroness said.

The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK, with it being a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation. The assets of a proscribed organisation can become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. As I understand it, some 51 people have been charged with membership of proscribed groups and 32 have been convicted.

I also thank the Minister for the letter she sent to me at the beginning of this week setting out the reasons why the Home Secretary had come to the conclusion that each of the four groups is concerned in terrorism. As the noble Baroness said, having reached that conclusion and belief, the Home Secretary then has to decide whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe each organisation, which she has decided to do in each case. One of the factors that the Home Secretary takes into account in considering whether to exercise that discretion is the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. There are, however, four other factors the Home Secretary has regard to in deciding whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities; the specific threat it poses to the UK; the specific threat it poses to British nationals overseas; and the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I think they will absolutely understand that the information I have given at the Dispatch Box is the information I can give, and that obviously, for national security reasons, I cannot go into further detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the deproscription mechanism, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also alluded. Two other groups have been deproscribed under the Terrorism Act since 2000. On deproscribing, under the legislation, any group must be considered for deproscription following the receipt of a valid application—which we received for the deproscription of the HIG. In addition, on proscribing, the noble Lord asked about the various criteria. I would also not like to say under which specific criteria these groups were proscribed; suffice it to say that the Home Secretary takes the various criteria into account, and that one may significantly outweigh another in her determination. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will understand that I am not being particularly forthcoming at the Dispatch Box.

Finally, the activity of deproscribed groups, just as that of proscribed groups, is kept under review, as noble Lords would expect. If the test for proscription is met in the future and it is appropriate for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion in favour of proscription, she will lay an order to reproscribe the group, and the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also talked about the loss of human rights when proscription is enacted. He is absolutely right. That is why, in the round, proscription should be a proportionate response, given the restrictions it places on people’s human rights.

[Lord Rosser]

I do not want the noble Baroness to regard this as a challenge to what she has just said; I am merely asking for confirmation. Is it really regarded as a security issue to give any indication of which of the five factors set out in the Explanatory Memorandum weighed with the Home Secretary in her decision? I ask that in the context of the noble Baroness’s opening statement, when she referred to supporting international partners in the fight against terrorism, which is one of the five factors. One could take it as a pretty good hint that that was a factor, but that would then be inconsistent with the noble Baroness’s statement that she cannot say which of the factors weighed in the mind of the Home Secretary on this issue.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, perhaps I can assist. I do not know whether it is beyond my pay grade to suggest something to the Minister but perhaps she could consult after today’s proceedings and, if there is any other information that she can possibly put into the public domain, perhaps she can write to us.

Immigration Control (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws on introducing her Bill, for which she has been so rightly praised, and which has so far had the support of all speakers in this debate.

This Bill enables the refusal of entry or leave to remain in the UK to a non-UK or non-EEA national who is,

“known to be, or to have been, involved in gross human rights abuses”.

Clause 1(2) defines conduct constituting a gross human rights abuse or violation as that in which,

“the three conditions referred to in section 241A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (gross human rights abuse or violation) are met”.

As has been said, Section 241A of the Proceeds of Crime Act as it stands was inserted into that Act as a result of an amendment to the then Criminal Finances Bill, now an Act, during its passage through the House of Commons. The amendment was referred to as the “Magnitsky amendment” after the Russian lawyer, accountant and whistleblower of that name who died in prison in Moscow in 2009. He had uncovered an alleged $230 million dollar theft from the state budget by Russian tax officials who siphoned off money paid to settle tax bills to senior Russian government officials. After going public in 2008 with his claims, he was arrested by those whose crimes he had uncovered, imprisoned and tortured prior to his death in prison, which I think was shortly before the end of the one-year term during which he could be legally held without trial. The amendment to the then Criminal Finances Bill in 2017 made provision for asset-freezing for those involved in gross human rights abuse. However, as we know, there is still no primary legislation that deals with visa bans for perpetrators of human rights violations.

In 2012, the United States Congress passed the “Magnitsky Act”, which enabled the US Government to impose visa bans and asset freezes, including being barred from using the US banking system, on individuals connected with the case. In 2016, the US Government approved the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which extended the scope of the Magnitsky Act from Russian citizens to individuals who have participated in or benefited from corruption or human rights abuses in any country. Similar legislative provisions have been adopted in the last two years in Estonia, Canada and Lithuania, and are apparently under development in other countries, including France and South Africa.

Questions here in Parliament have asked the Government what action they were taking to reform our Immigration Rules and laws to address, for example, the situation where those in positions of power in Russia are stealing money in that country and are able to come here to spend or hide it through the purchase of expensive property in London, or through having their children in the UK for their education.

The Government’s response to date has been that the current Immigration Rules provide adequate scope to deny entry to perpetrators of human rights abuses on the basis, apparently, that if there is evidence to show that their presence would not be considered conducive to the public good, an individual can be denied entry to the UK, as they would have brought themselves within the scope of the general grounds for refusal in the Immigration Rules. Part 9 of the Home Office Immigration Rules sets out the general grounds for refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter or remain in the UK. The rules state that entry should be refused to a person who is,

“the subject of a deportation order; or … has been convicted of an offence for which they have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment”.

The rules also make provision for refusing entry to a person on grounds that their conduct, character and associations make their exclusion conducive to the public good either on the direction of the Secretary of State or by an immigration officer. The Home Office guidance to immigration officials states that entry should be refused if a person is suspected of crimes against humanity:

“If it is conducive to the public good not to admit a person to the UK because of their character, conduct or associations you must consider refusing entry or leave to remain … Refusal of entry clearance, leave to enter and leave to remain is mandatory where … a person is suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity”.


Can the Minister say how many people have been refused leave to enter and leave to remain in this country, with anonymity, on the grounds that they had committed gross human rights abuses or violations under the terms of the current Immigration Rules, which refer specifically to war crimes or crimes against humanity?

The suspicion is that this power under the Immigration Rules, with its anonymity for those who could be refused entry, which the Government—as I understand it—claim is effective, is not being used to any purpose, even though a 2016 report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee referred to £100 billion being laundered through the UK’s banks each year. That indicates that the present Immigration Rules are not fit for purpose—or not as much as they might be—on the issue of denying entry or removing perpetrators of gross human rights abuses and naming such abusers, and that the need for specific statutory provision against human rights abusers in the form provided for in the Bill is both overdue and clear cut.

We need to show in very specific terms, through a clear, primary statutory provision, that those who commit such abuses and violations of human rights will not enjoy the freedom to enter and remain in this country, including for the purpose of spending their stolen money from criminal activities with which such abuses and violations, as in the Magnitsky case, are so often associated.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Lord Rosser Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 15th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on her Bill, the purpose of which is to provide for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to the family members of refugees and to refugees who are family members of British citizens.

In her opening speech, the noble Baroness explained the provisions of the Bill, including the extension of the list of eligible family members who can be sponsored in an application for refugee status or humanitarian protection. The Bill also provides for the reinstatement of the provision of legal aid in respect of refugee family reunion cases, which can be complex and lengthy. The current position under our Immigration Rules is that individuals making an asylum application may include in that application only a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner or children under the age of 18, with those dependants being granted leave to enter or remain in the UK for the same duration as the sponsor if the principal application is granted. Child asylum seekers in this country are not able to sponsor a parent or carer to join them.

As has been said, an objective of the Bill is to reduce the incidence of the separation of family members in the light of the significant adverse impacts this can have, and so address the issue of the vulnerability of unaccompanied children and the exploitation many experience. Eighteen months ago the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee issued a report which, among other things, called on the Government to amend the Immigration Rules to allow refugee children to act as sponsors for their close family. The committee argued, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, that it was perverse that children granted refugee status in the UK were not then allowed to bring their close family to join them in the same way as an adult would be able to do, and that the right to live safely with family should apply to child refugees as it does to adults. This was not a view shared by the Government, who argued that the current family reunion policy met our international obligations and said that there was provision to grant a visa outside the rules, which could be used in respect of extended family members, including parents of children recognised as refugees here, in exceptional circumstances.

However, we are one of only two EU countries that have neither opted in to the EU directive on family reunion, which sets out that unaccompanied child refugees are entitled to be reunited with their family members, nor provided for this in their own domestic law. When she responds, can the Minister provide some information on the number of visas that have been granted outside the rules in exceptional circumstances since July 2016, when the updated guidance was published, and the number of those that were in respect of parents of children recognised as refugees here? Can she also provide information on the terms on which leave to remain has been granted outside the rules in exceptional circumstances, and the extent to which those terms differ from those that would apply in respect of individuals joining relatives in the UK within and through the applicable rules?

I hope the Government will feel able to give a supportive response to the Bill, even though that would be contrary to their approach to date. If they do not intend to be helpful—I am conscious of the way in which they failed to deliver on the spirit of the Dubs amendment—the least they can do is spell out their reasons in some detail, and the hard evidence to support those reasons, bearing in mind the devastating impact, both short-term and long-term, about which we have heard today, that family separation can have on those affected, not least on children and young people.

What impact on the net migration figure do the Government think the terms of the Bill would have? What is their hard evidence to support their conclusion? I ask that in the context that the net migration figure has fallen not inconsiderably recently following the decision to withdraw from the European Union and the hostile climate that that provoked, and in the context that the Government do not apply existing EU rules on movement of people as firmly as they could within those rules and as some other EU countries do. Indeed, apparently the Government do not even know the impact on the net migration figures of not applying those EU rules as firmly as they could. I also ask the question in the context that we have found out only recently that—to put it politely—the Government have been working under a misapprehension about the number of students who stay on in this country beyond the time for which they are permitted to do so. I also ask that question in the context that the Government have no idea of the number of people in this country illegally and focus only on making it harder for this unknown number of people to live in this country illegally.

My final question is about the Government’s estimate of the impact on the net migration figure of the Bill. The Government have had control over the size of the net migration figure for people from outside the EU since 2010 and have had no issue since then with that figure consistently being way above their claimed target of it being in the tens of thousands. This contradiction is no doubt the case because, whatever their publicly declared net migration target, the Government know only too well the benefits that immigrants have brought and continue to bring to this country.

I hope that in the light of all these factors the Government will not try to argue or imply that we do not have the capacity to take into our country the additional people, under humanitarian family reunion principles, who might come here under the provisions of the Bill, unless they are going to provide hard evidence that the figure would be way above what anyone might have anticipated. That would be totally contrary to the Government’s overall approach to net migration, which in reality has been somewhat different, as far as the overall figures are concerned, from the public impression they seek to give, for electoral purposes, that their policy is to bring that figure into the tens of thousands as a matter of priority.

Islam: Tenets

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for providing the opportunity to discuss government strategy against terrorism. It is on that issue rather than Islam and its meaning that my contribution concentrates. Listening to the general tone and tenor of what the noble Lord said I do not know whether he regards, for example, Members of this House and the Commons who are Muslims, along with Sadiq Khan as the Mayor of London, as stealthily working towards a future Muslim takeover of this country, to which he made reference, or as fellow law-abiding and peace-loving British citizens—full stop.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, framed his Question for Short Debate around one specific area rather than more generally. As the briefing from the House of Lords Library for this debate reminded us he raised almost the same Question, only orally, at the beginning of this year. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, replied then that:

“The Government’s strategy for tackling Islamist terrorism is firmly based on strengthening our partnership with communities, civil society groups and faith organisations across the country”.—[Official Report, 24/1/17; col. 552.]


I assume that when she comes to reply, the Minister will indicate not simply what actions the Government may have taken this year in pursuit of that strategy, but what the hard evidence is to show that whatever the Government have done since the beginning of this year, it has had a positive impact on strengthening partnerships, civil society groups and faith organisations across the country. Actions are not the same as impact; it is the impact of their actions on which I seek a government answer.

I presume that the Minister will also indicate in her response that the Government are seeking to tackle terrorism across the board, including from supporters of the kind of organisations in this country that now appear to have a surprising degree of unwelcome support from the President of the United States of America.

It has been helpful to have it confirmed in the recent report by David Anderson QC that our security and intelligence agencies seek to ensure,

“consistent assessment and investigation of all terrorist threats, regardless of ideology”.

Questions have been raised in a number of quarters about the effectiveness of the Government’s Prevent strategy. Home Office statistics apparently show that only 5% of the 7,631 people referred to the Prevent counterextremism programme in 2015-16 ended up with specialist support to turn them away from terrorism. What lessons do the Government draw about the effectiveness or otherwise of the Prevent strategy, and the way it is being applied and implemented, from that figure of just 5%? The Government must have a clear answer to that question, since the Minister told this House last January that “we regularly review Prevent”.

Are the Government really satisfied that they are allocating sufficient resources to combat the threat of terrorism, whether through preventive programmes or through the work of our security and intelligence agencies, including the police? In his report this month on the attacks in London and Manchester, David Anderson QC quoted the director-general of MI5 as saying in describing the work of his staff that:

“They are constantly making tough professional judgments based on fragments of intelligence”.


Mr Anderson then went on to say:

“The reason why the judgements can be ‘tough’ is that they are made against a background of imperfect information, and yet frequently require staff to choose which of a number of current and potentially deadly threats is most deserving of scarce investigative resource”.


What do the Government read into the use of the word “scarce” by Mr Anderson? Is it that sufficient resources have been made available or that sufficient resources have not in reality been made available? In that context, let us remind ourselves that we are talking about national security and the safety of our citizens.

One of the three considerations that Mr Anderson chose to mention in his report in saying,

“no responsible person could offer a copper-bottomed assurance that terrorists will always be stopped”

was,

“current CT resourcing of around £3 billion per year”.

In her Statement to Parliament on Tuesday the Home Secretary said,

“We will shortly be announcing the budgets for policing for 2018-19, and I am clear that we must ensure that counter-terrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threats we face”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/17; col. 915.]


In his report Mr Anderson, referring to CT policing, says,

“the indicative profile of their grant allocation over the next three years sees a reduction of 7.2% in their budgets”.

What parts of policing activity and what numbers of officers and staff do the Government include in their definition of counterterrorism policing, in respect of which the Home Secretary has said the Government will ensure they have the resources needed? Which police activities do the Government not consider to have a role in countering terrorism and are therefore not covered by the Home Secretary’s statement about ensuring the provision of the necessary resources? Does the Home Secretary’s commitment about resources, which she gave on Tuesday, cover, for example, community policing, or is community policing not considered by this Government to play an important role in countering terrorism?

I would appreciate clear answers from the Government to these questions, not least because the executive summary of the Anderson report states that MI5 and CT policing recommendations,

“include commitments to better data exploitation, to wider sharing of information derived from MI5 intelligence (including with neighbourhood policing) and to the consistent assessment and investigation of all terrorist threats, regardless of ideology”,

which some might not unreasonably conclude means that community and neighbourhood policing have an important role to play in countering terrorism.

I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for providing me with the opportunity to raise the points and questions I have raised.

Randox and Trimega Laboratories

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question in the other place. Perhaps she can explain, when she comes to respond, why the Police Minister chose originally to make his announcement in a Written Statement on 21 November, and why it has taken an Urgent Question to get an Oral Statement from him. One would have thought that what we are hearing about was sufficiently serious to justify the Minister in the Commons coming to the Dispatch Box without being summoned there through an Urgent Question.

Regrettably, the 2010 Government abolished the Forensic Science Service. Perhaps this is one of the chickens coming home to roost as a result. Randox Testing Services, one of the companies involved, has been quoted as saying:

“We are now well advanced in developing a foolproof testing system which would enhance the security of our operations in the future, to provide the necessary level of confidence”.


Surely a fool-proof testing system being in place would have been part of the terms of its contract to do this work. Will the Minister confirm that that really is not the case, as the statement from the company seems to imply?

Randox has also said that it will be paying the cost of retesting. What about the cost of the police investigations that have been taking place for some time, of the local authority investigations referred to in the Statement and of the costs of obtaining legal advice? Who is going to be paying these? Is it the company, the police, local authorities or the individuals affected? The Police Minister’s Written Statement of 21 November said, in relation to the other company, Trimega—which is now part of Randox:

“The number of Trimega’s customers affected … is unknown. It may never be possible to identify them all, due to poor record-keeping practices”.


Is Trimega in breach of its contract, as a result of having poor record-keeping practices? If so, what are the potential penalties?

Finally, the information that has been given indicates that most drug tests from the current company, Randox Testing Services, between 2013 and 2017 are being treated as potentially unreliable. Will Parliament be told of the extent to which such drug tests—and those done by Trimega in the years before 2013—are found to have been unreliable and the precise impact this has had on individuals? That is the least that the Police Minister now owes Parliament.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He is absolutely right: it is indeed a very serious matter and the Government do not take it lightly. He will have noticed that the WMS of 21 November was a fulsome Statement and there is now an investigation going on which will take some time. He questioned the abolition of the FSS. The alleged manipulation predates the closure of the FSS, which was never involved in family cases—that was Trimega. He talked about Trimega being part of Randox. I must make it clear that at this point Trimega was not part of Randox. Trimega closed and Randox set up: yes, the two individuals were employed at Randox, but Trimega was not part of it.

The noble Lord also asked whether the numbers would ever be known. They may never be known accurately, but we think that approximately 10,000 tests were affected. The nature of what allegedly went on here means that we can never make this fool-proof because, as the regulator herself said, no reasonable set of quality standards could be guaranteed to prevent determined manipulation by skilled but corrupt personnel.