10/05/2016 House of Lords

That is the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will go live to

the House of Lords. You can watch recorded coverage of all the

business in the Lords after the daily politics later tonight. We are

recognising what the Government has done and he talked about various

changes, going bankrupt and the declining footfall on our high

streets. In fact, footfall is increasing. Some high streets have

responded very well to the changing patterns of the high Street. The

ones that have responded well are seeing very good results. In my own

town of Altrincham, the market has almost completely revitalised the

town centre. The question dealing specifically with the issue of

turnover tax of online trading, what is the Government's response to that

suggestion? I think I have outlined the gamut response to the

suggestion, that high streets have found numerous ways of responding to

the different patterns on the high Street. -- government. And many

chains on the high street are benefiting from things like clip and

collect. Does the Minister agree local councils have done a great

deal to help revive local high street in that they are the centre

of communities and very important, particularly for poorer communities?

Could the Minister also say if the Government has considered giving

local councils, particularly combined authorities, more powers in

re-evaluation of and setting the business rate, as suggested in the

London Finance commission and the Citigroup commission? -- city growth

commission? The councils will be able to retain a 100% of their

business rates by 2020. And in fact combined authorities with Mayers

will be able to raise or reduce his rates in their combined authority

area. I concur with what the noble lady says. I can think of two local

authorities in Greater Manchester whether councils have been at the

forefront of that revitalisation of their local high street. Does the

Minister take on board the suggestion that in reducing the size

of town centres, taking into account online trading, making finance

available to local authorities to actually achieve that aim? The noble

Lord I think makes a very good point. One of the things that

councils observed is that we need more shoppers in local high street

and not more shops. Hence expanding into some of the excellent food

offers that markets are offering now and some of the conversions from

office into residential which help revitalise the footfall in local

high street. Particularly in the North of England where I am. My

Lords, I have been a nonexecutive director... Order. We have not heard

from the crossbenchers and I suggest we go to my noble friend. I have

been a nonexecutive director for eight and a half years. When I

started Internet sales were ?50 million. Today they have a turnover

of ?1 billion. Surely the answer is to have the high Street take

advantage of the Internet age. What is the Government doing to help

retailers take advantage of the Internet, whether it is payment,

winning customers and dealing with suppliers and the supply chain? The

noble Lloyd is absolutely right. The digital age -- noble lord is

absolutely right. I have mentioned click and collect. There is also the

point for the local high street businesses, they have got to compete

in the digital age. We have announced a digital pilot programme

across Gloucestershire working with partners in the private sector,

including Argos, IBM and Cisco. This was in close collaboration with the

business retail unit. Does the Minister think there is any

connection between the lack of customers in the high Street and the

to radical and punitive parking arrangements imposed in our streets,

which make it impossible to go to the high Street and spend money? My

noble friend is absolutely right. The government has recognised that

some of the punitive practices on the high streets have prevented, or

in fact discourage people from going shopping in their local high

streets. We have done something about it. Online trading, is it not

true online trading is going to grow, notwithstanding what might

happen in the high streets? And online trading is welcomed by many

people, but the result of the deficit would online trading, not

the least, the growth of the amount of traffic, the white vans are

everywhere now and they are creating congestion and creating poisonous

areas in the communities. What is the Government going to do about

that to at least make them papal the pollution they are creating? Whether

the car is going with its owner to the shop, or whether the van from

the distribution centre is going to the home, I'm afraid shopping does

in one way or another create use of carbon in the atmosphere. The noble

Lord is right. Online is increasing vastly. The high streets are ignored

in that and they are responding to it. They are creating different

offers, for example, leisure and markets in the high Street, these

are the high street that are doing well.

The government recognises that mass immigration can increase population

pressures. That is why we're seeking to reduce net migration to a

sustainable level from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of

thousands. The government is committed to a significant programme

of investment in our public services taken together these steps and

future measures will ensure that there is adequate provision. May I

thank the Minister for his somewhat sanguine reply. Will he also agree

that the million also refugees that Angela Merkel has accepted will soon

have the right to come here? The Turks will be the next? Adding to

the overload of our hospitals, schools, houses, greatly to the

detriment of our existing population? Is he also surprised

that the effect of uncontrolled immigration from the EU and the

stability of our nation and on the welfare of working people appears

not to be of concern in very few exceptions to the Labour Party? --

with very few exceptions. My Lords, the government is completely

reforming the immigration system, cutting abuse and focusing on

attracting the brightest and best. Since 2010, reforms have cut abuse

and the student and family these assistants and raise standards in

the work roots. In addition our recent negotiations in Europe have

brought to fruition the provision for new settlement agreements and EU

migrants. With the requirement for a seven year emergency brake being in

place. He has told us how wonderful the government 's investment in

public services is, to meet all the concerns the noble Lord said but

could he explain why that is a shortage of primary school places

for example in London, why our health service in so many areas is

in crisis, why there is a problem with social care becoming unviable?

Why is that happening if the governance policies towards the

public services have been so benign? It takes time to recover from the

experience that we had up until 2010. The major steps had been

taken, the judgment is committed to invest 7 billion in school places by

2021. To increase NHS funding in England by 10 billion in real terms

by 2020, to invest 20 billion housing in the next five years

including 8 billion in affordable housing. That's all very well but

clearly as the noble Lord has said it's not sufficient. Can you tell is

why the government is not building more new hospitals, schools and

housing using the additional income the government is receiving from

foreign workers who are paying significant sums in income tax and

national insurance? A considerable sum is being expended in these areas

and we expect to deliver 600,000 new school places by 2021.

Can you tell me whether he has had any success in establishing a

bipartisan policy towards reducing immigration to tens of thousands? Or

is the opposition dedicated to an open door to let more and more and

more migrants in? With no idea how we shall pay not just of the schools

and hospitals but the roads, the waterworks, power stations and

everything else? Whose side does he think the opposition on? The British

people or the foreigners? I believe that all manners of this

house would recognise the importance of a controlled migration system

that brings us the best and is the best in this country. Only by means

of a controlled migration system can we have an effective workable

society that is integrated and settled. Today we have had the

opportunity to hear from the authentic voice of the Conservative

Party, from behind the noble lord the Minister, but the last Labour

government did put into place a migration impact fund. Local

authorities and health trusts could apply for some share of this funding

to support efforts at reducing the impact of migration and public

services. There wasn't a panacea to solve all problems but it did help

raise new funding to support infrastructure. However the fund was

scrapped by the Coalition Government within a few months and little was

then done to ensure that support was still given where it was needed.

We've also said that EU funding should be made available to areas

impacted by rapid migration. It'll help with public services such as

schools in GP services. Is this a step that is being will be supported

by the government? This government had to wrestle with the inheritance

of 2010 so far as migration is concerned. We found ourselves with

more than 900 bogus colleges arranging for the admission of fake

students into this country in the numbers of the hundreds of

thousands. 920 of those fake colleges have been closed since

2010. That itself has relieved pressure on our services.

It is the turn of the crossbenchers but someone who hasn't yet asked the

question. My Lords, as an Iranian born citizen, I have to say that not

all the buzz are a drain on the economy. Also I would like to remind

the house that the national health would not run if it weren't for

people from abroad with high qualifications who are willing to

work in the national health and help this economy. It is important to

recognise the contribution that they make the cars the caring services

and the NHS would not function without their contribution. That

important contribution is of course recognised. The government believes

that in the long-term it is necessary to train our own nurses in

this country and consequently the Department of Health has put in

place a clear plan to reduce the number of overseas nurses each year

until 2019 when we expect that sufficient nurses to meet demand.

I beg leave to ask the questions on the my name on the order paper.

We expect all sports bodies to adhere to the highest standards of

government and to fully cooperate in taking appropriate action against

those who damage the integrity of sport as a result, the government is

introducing a new governance code for sport in the UK later this year.

The code will be mandatory for all sports governing bodies in receipt

of public spending and noncompliance with the code will mean these bodies

will lose out on that funding. I thank the Minister for that reply.

Could however she give me an opinion about what happens when some of

these bodies reached the end of their authority and have the report

and to somebody else to achieve any action against somebody who has

broken the spirit of the code? For instance, a doping scandal that

suddenly ends out without authority. Will we undertake a review so that

action is taken across the board and doesn't end after artificial

boundaries there for historical reasons? The Lord is quite right

about the need for things to be joined up. That is why we've setup a

group Jersey called the gigs group, the government integrity group for

sport, drawing from across Whitehall departments and the key agencies

like the gambling commission and anti-doping and we will be putting

the governance code out to consultation so that the sort of

issues that he has identified are properly thought through and dealt

with. We have this week the anti-corruption Summit organised by

the Prime Minister. Will the Minister urged the Prime Minister to

put the subject on the agenda bearing in mind the news reports

we've had of government involvement in that such corruption and will she

support the aim of funding a body that is independent of governing

sports governing bodies? I can confirm that corruption in sport

will be on the summit agenda this week. It's very important that

international discussion should take place on this vital subject. As I

explained, UK sport and UK sport England are responsible for this

whole area and draw on government money which has the properly

accounted for and I'm not convinced that the direction he's going for is

the right one although having said we are looking at the whole area

including the question of criminal sanctions. Is my noble friend aware

that at the entrance to the stadium at Mount Olympus in ageing Greece

they erected a Roman statues of the great god Zeus to remind those

entering what the purpose of the exercise was? The statues were

actually paid for by fines levied on cheats. Do you think we can adapt

that idea and perhaps correct an avenue of statues of just ordinary

working men and women outside the entrance to the commission in

Brussels to remind them what the purpose of the exercise really is?

Given that its Brussels, with all that money sloshing around, they

should have too much trouble in finding the money for it but if

there's I would be happy to chip in. Our country and the whole of

European suppliers Asian has left a huge amount from the Greeks and from

the union and from the Romans. That has learnt a huge amount. I'm sure

Brussels has lots to learn. We turn to sport. Could the government say

how we as a government intervene in the affairs of these various

international sports federations where there is a could mend this

problem in autocratic countries, governments to fix what goes on and

in non-organ autocratic countries governance are more at arms length,

how is government working with British and other representatives

and such bodies just make sure that they don't go down the road that

sadly one or two have done in recent years? In Britain, we care a huge

amount about corruption in sport and cleaning things up and that is in

the mouths of all the people who represent is around the world. That

is one of the reasons the Prime Minister has put this important

issue on his agenda this week and we work I think it's fair to say they

are night through our bodies to try and clean up sport. There's always

more to do and obviously the vote to suspend Russian athletes are more

competition being unanimous was a very good move. Could not all those

in sport draw inspiration from the victors games this week? They could

indeed talk great inspiration from the games and from the Olympics and

the Paralympics and the fact that Prince Harry is involved next is all

delighted. With my noble friend take the opportunity when we send a team

to Rio to take the opportunity rather than looking at the negative

elements of sport to look at the positive side of sport and find time

either before the team goes to Rio or after to laud those who make such

a positive contribution rather than a negative contribution to society?

I think my noble friend makes a very good point. We can also lead the way

on the issue of corruption which is today's subject for debate. By

making sure that all our athletes are tested before they go and that

we have no problems or a reputational issues when we are in

Brazil. The Bishop of St Albans. I beg leave to ask the question on the

order paper. The Minister for immigration will shortly be writing

to local authorities to set out the new funding rates for unaccompanied

asylum seeking children. We are consulting with local authorities

across the United Kingdom to understand how many children they

can support and willing gauge charities with relevant expertise as

a part of that process. -- engaged charities. In all our debates and

statistics is vital we remember that the needs of the Child are paramount

but every point. A number of colleagues have signed a letter

published in the Times today calling on Her Majesty's Government to

ensure that the unaccompanied children living in the Calais camps

who have family here in the UK are reunited with them in time for the

new school term in September and furthermore calling upon the

government to act on the 300 unaccompanied children in Greece and

Italy to deal with that in the same time frame. In the light of this

profound humanitarian need, indeed crisis, with the laud the minister

assured your Lordships house of the government will act on these matters

I immediately? My Lords, the Government is already

acting upon these matters and has made provision in Calais for experts

to be present in order to help with the registration of unaccompanied

children who might have wrecked relatives in the UK and have a route

to the UK by way of the Dublin regulation. -- the wrecked

relatives. We will assist -- direct relatives. We are at the forefront

of attempts to secure as much as we can by way of relief to these

unaccompanied children. My Lords, in the last few days there has been a

BBC television programme showing seeks supporting the homeless in

London. This evening I will be meeting people to take that work

further forward. -- sikhs. May I assure the Minister that all of the

sikhs in the country will be not only willing to provide the free

food but every support and assistance to these children. What

he says, the men's the Government's effort is -- complements the

Government 's efforts. We have had an unequivocal statement that these

children coming into this country will have no pressure, or

requirement placed on them at the age of 18 to leave these shores. I

can give no such assurance. The position of these children when they

reached the age of 18 will be assessed and the right to remain

will be determined by reference to the country from which they arrived

and reference to whether or not it is fair, reasonable and safe for

them to return. Is the Government in communication with the Government of

Canada, which is working with civil society? It has private sponsorship

of refugees programmes, where sponsors can provide financial and

emotional support for a period, usually one year. As the joint

assistant programme is partnering with organisations to settle

refugees with special needs. I am not aware of direct contact with the

Canadian authorities but I will write to the label Navy -- noble

lady upon the matter. Bearing in mind the example of the community of

which we have just heard, is the Government planning an exceptional

education for the Muslims among these children? Teaching them for

example not to follow the tenets of abrogation and become leaders of

integration in our society? These children, we hope, will be fostered

along with British children. They will be educated alongside British

children and we believe that they will acquire the same outlook and

values. The question of the prelate. Will the Minister confirm that

citizen UK, cited in the letter referred to by the reverend has said

there are 157 children in Calais, in the jungle, in terrible conditions

of squalor, who do have a legal claim to come to the United Kingdom

because they have relatives here. Will the noble Lord confirm he will

speak to his officials to see that all possible things will be done to

extradite those claims and see if they have an understanding to come

to the United skin and then start the academic year in September in

our schools. -- United Kingdom. The French authorities are taking steps

to improve conditions in Calais, as your Lordships will be aware. With

regard to the number of 157, I cannot comment but I can say the

garment has made provision in Calais to make sure those unaccompanied

children who do have the wrecked relatives in the UK do follow the

appropriate part. -- direct relatives. And then they proceed by

the way of the Dublin regulation. It is no good getting these children

here two days before term stance and pitching them into strange schools.

They must have time to settle into a family, Tory home, before they

undertake that Berry stressful process. -- or a home. -- very

stressful. We must regard the capability of local authorities to

receive these children. Until Foster places are available for them and

there are suitable schools available for them, it would not the

appropriate to simply bring them here. I accept what the Lord is

saying. It was suggested in the House of Commons yesterday it could

be seven months before any chart is accepted here. How many more

children will go missing in seven months? How many more will suffer in

seven months? It is not the first time that we have said we need a

degree of urgency on this question. I believe everybody is aware of the

urgency. The government said we expected the first children would

arrive before the end of the year and not as was widely reported that

it would take until the end of the year before they arrived. Surely we

remember this proposal from Save the Children was last September? There

seems to be nothing to be said by the Government in order to make sure

these children are welcome to hear by people who have real hearts and

warm hearts, willing to welcome them. Is the Government is not

totally out of step with the thinking of caring people in the

United Kingdom? I do not accept that. This government has been at

the forefront of efforts to deal with the refugee problem, not only

in Syria but also in Europe. We are taking further steps to deal with

the question of unaccompanied children. But he will remember those

children now in Europe are in a relatively safe havens. It cannot be

suggested France is anything other than a safe country. We are taking

steps were children with a connection with the United Kingdom,

we will make sure that connection can be established properly and

these children brought to the United Kingdom, where they have direct

family links. Thousands of children have been sexually abused. They not

safe in Europe. We are talking about Europe. Where are they going and

what is happening to them? There needs to be much greater urgency

than there is currently now. We are all aware of the terrible reports

which have emanated from Europe about the condition of these

children and the fact that their whereabouts in many cases cannot now

be ascertained. It is a matter of concern. I reiterate that this

government is at the forefront of efforts to deal with these issues.

Third reading of the members fund Bill. Lord Naseby. I beg to move

this Bill be read a third time. The question is that this bill be read a

third time. Content? Contrary not content. The content is habit. I beg

to move this building now pass. The question is this building now

passed. As many of that opinion will say content. Not content? Content

habit. -- have it will stop -- have it. A further limit has been made

with which with a desire the agreement of the Lord. They don't

insist on another memo to which the Lortab disagreed and they agree with

MM and is made by the Lords to which a member state desire with the

agreement of the Lords. They agreed to the remaining a minute made by

the Lords to which the Commons have disagreed.

I beg to move the amendment be considered forthwith. The question

is motion a B agreed to. -- a is agreed to. I beg to move K one,

leaving out from house to end and do disagree with the House of Commons

in 84 C and insist on its amendment, 84.

With the lead of the clerks, my lords... I beg to move this House do

not insist on the at 84 and agree with the House of Commons in the

amendment 84 C and disagree with the amendment A1 in the name of Lord

Ramsbottom which seeks to reinstate amendment 80 four. I will also speak

in the name of baroness hand with which will amend 84 C and reduce the

time limit for automatic bail referrals from four months to two

mums. -- monthss. There can be no doubt that the spirited debate in

this House has added considerably to the quality of legislation. This

house has done its job and more. This is indisputably a better Bill

for it and does more to protect the interests of the most vulnerable. We

must make sure we deliver what the British public voted for last year

and pass this into law. The immigration Bill delivers important

reforms to the laws. It is right we make sure that there is proper

consideration and debate on the content. The achievement of the

House, including ensuring the detail of the important reforms in the

labour market and illegal working provide an effective mechanism to

clamp down on those exploiting vulnerable migrants. It has

delivered improvement to the provisions of criminal offences and

made sure the duty to safeguard the welfare of children is underpinning

all provisions in the Bill. It has pressed the Government with

amendments to do more to have refugee children and the Commons

yesterday accepted that amendment. On detention, the governor

recognises the strength of feeling on this issue and the need is to

make it the shortest period possible. And in particular the

proper provision is in place to make sure the vulnerable are only

detained when necessary and for the shortest possible period. On time

limits in detention, we do not agreed time limits are appropriate,

-- when we do not agree time it's our appropriate, we have listen to

concerns that some people may be unaware of their ability to apply

for bail and are not able to make an application. We have proposed an

amendment which makes sure that unless the detainee has already had

a bail hearing, there will be one after four months and every four

months thereafter. This is an important safeguard and this House

deserves credit for it. Amendment 84 places an upper limit on detention

for all those not being deported to a maximum 28 days in total. It may

only be extended by the tribunal on the basis of exceptional

circumstances. It might be hopeful to remind the noble Lords we will

only see to detain and in force the removal of those migrants with no

basis to remain in the United Kingdom, who are not willing to

depart of their own volition and if they are noncompliant. As I have

said before, the arbitrary time limit is frankly unworkable,

providing non-compliant migrants an easy target to aim for to secure

their release from detention and frustrate their removal. It would

lead to asylum claims being made, judicial review is without merit

being lodged and refusal to cooperate with the document process.

The aggregate limit of 28 days would cause difficulty if we needed to

read attain a person and a travel document is delayed or if a person

disrupts removal and needs to be taken back into detention until new

arrangements are put in place. It may help the understanding of this

House if I illustrate this with some real examples. A Visa was curtailed

when one person fails to in role at university. He was in Canada when

giving notice to a marriage of a British citizen, found to be a sham,

and he was detained. When he was supposed to be removed he is a human

rights claim and he was removed after 30 days in detention. Another

was encountered by police and subsequently detained after his visa

had expired. An emergency travel document was applied for. When he

lodged a judicial review he was released on bail. When the judicial

review was resolved he was detained again four Oval. He disrupted the

first attempt to remove him and removal had to be rescheduled for a

charter flight. -- for removal. It totalled 130 days. Neither example

is likely to qualify as exceptional circumstances, which would allow the

Secretary of State to apply for extended detention.

This would be a significant increase in the tribunal 's workload.

Perverting their work to lead leading to delays elsewhere in the

immigration system. It would also increase complexity and require a

new infrastructure to provide a process for the tribunal to be able

to review extended period of detention about requiring the

Secretary of State to make an application. In our previous debate,

the Lord Browne helpfully quoted from the recent decision of the

Supreme Court which supported a flexible and fact sensitive approach

the duration of detention. It was also noteworthy that the noble Lord

Ramsbottom clarified in response to comments from the Lord Browne and

Lord panic that I never said that immigration detention would be

limited to 28 days, what I said was that nobody would be submitted to

administrative detention, detention bites civil servants, without

judicial oversight that the tension within the time possible. The noble

lord bullies at 28 days is reasonable. -- believes that 28 days

is reasonable. We disagree. The government continues to believe that

we can best provide the required level of oversight over detention by

automatically referring cases to the tribunal at a set point which we had

initially set at six months from either the date of detention or the

date of the tribunal 's last consideration of release on bail

with referrals at further six monthly inflatables cut dilated from

the point of the last hearing. I am raked over the encouragement this

received from the Lord Browne who expressed his satisfaction that the

safeguard this provides in circumstances where detainees do not

themselves apply for bail properly addresses the problem of detainees

having to take the initiative in seeking release from detention. The

duty on this secondary state to refer a detainees case to the

tribunal for the bell consideration removes the onus from the

individual. They'll guidance issued by the president of the first to

year tribunal provides the judges will focus on several matters when

considering bail including the reasons for the tension, the length

of the tension so far, and it's likely future duration. As well as

the effect of detention and the individual and the likelihood of the

individual complying with bail conditions. This guidance explicitly

states that the tribunal will need to be shown and I quote substantial

grounds for believing that detention should be maintained. The noble Lord

also thought fully supported the governments position of a bail

hearing every six months was to use this term adequate. However, we have

taken on board the concerns expressed by a number of colleagues

here and in the other place. That six-month is still too long without

judicial oversight it is claimed. The government has therefore tabled

a motion in the other place proposing again a duty to arrange

consideration bail before the tribunal but this time reducing the

timing of the referral from 64 months. -- six to four months. The

reforms which the government is putting in place in response to the

report including the adults at risk policy will strengthen the existing

resumption against the tension of those who are particularly

vulnerable. This alongside the overall package of reforms to how

immigration detention is managed including the enhanced gatekeeper

role and the new system of quarterly case management reviews means we

fully expect to see fewer people being detained and for shorter time

periods. Nevertheless, these small proportion of people who are

detained for longer periods the government amendment ensures that

past judicial oversight may happen even earlier if a person apostle

bail themselves, for those who do not do so and do not opt out of the

process they will be guaranteed judicial oversight after at least

four months in detention and at future for monthly intervals from

their last tribunal consideration. However, we now need to press on

with delivering the important measures in this bill. The other

chamber has considered amendment 84 on two occasions now and has

rejected it. Yesterday without even pressing it to a vote. We should not

continue to insist on this measure. The government understands the

sentiment by limiting time in detention at the practicalities

involved means that amendment 84 is not realistic workable for the

reasons I have set up at length in previous debates. This is not just

of the government, Lord Browne both experienced lawyers in this field

supported the position. The other rightly pressed the government to

examine what more can be done to limit time spent in detention. The

government has listened. It is made significant concessions and

explained why it can go no further. The comment has twice agreed that

the government. I urge my laws now except that decision. Baroness

Hemingway amendment 84 D accepts the principle behind the at 84 and

automatic Bell referrals but proposes to reduce the timing from

42 months. The government has automated initial position from six

to four months except in is a case for more frequent judicial

oversight. With respect to the noble lady, I'm afraid we think any

further reduction is unworkable. In a last debate I noted that Labour

had repealed legislation for routine bail hearings at 836 days because

they were intractable. Likewise, with the frequency of referrals is

two months this was still impose a significant extra burden on the

tribunal and the Home Office diverted valuable resources away

from the consideration of asylum and human rights appeals, the management

of the removal centres and delivery of the removals programme at a time

when the effort should be focused on supporting faster and more cohesive

immigration and asylum processes. You have raised legitimate concern

to the government has listened and has made significant amendments to

this bill. The time I submit has come to implement it. I beg to move.

The question is that motion AV agreed to, amendment a one. I beg to

move amendment a one as an amendment to motion a from house to end and

insert jute disagree with their at age four see and do insist on its

amendment 80 four. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for

the care in which he has set out the government 's case. I've often

thought that the worst experience in life is to be associated with

something that you know to be fundamentally wrong but feel unable

to prevent. I'm experiencing that today because to our collective

shame this house could be about to section something that as a nation

we are roundly condemned and indeed fought against when practised by

others over the years, namely the arbitrary detention of innocent

people by administrative diktats rather than the due process of the

rule of law. During the passage of this dreadful bill, over 400

government amendments suggesting that it hadn't been thought through

before it was introduced, the house has twice devoted to uphold the

recommendation of a committee of the all-party group on refugees and

migration of which I am the noble Baroness is my privilege to be

members, namely that administrative detention ordered by Home Office

civil servants should be limited to 28 days after which the Home

Secretary should be required by law to seek the approval of the first

chair of tribunal for any extension. Last night, the Minister and the

other place spectacularly missed that point when alleging that to

specify a maximum time for immigration detention would be

arbitrary was not take account of individual circumstances and would

have a negative effect on the governments ability to in force

immigration controls and maintain public safety by encouraging

individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until this time

limit was reached. My Lords, over the past 19 years I have had

frequent calls to express my concern about the appallingly low standard

of casework and procedural oversight in our endless Gratian system. This

began when as Chief Inspector of Prisons I found over 20 people from

Bradford who had been in this country for over 20 years many of

them married with businesses of their own thread been arrested and

transported to Birmingham prison where not surprisingly because they

hadn't been charged with any offence they went on hunger strike against

the wholly inappropriate prison regime. Their right to remain in

this country had not been processed by the Home Office which is true

today of over 631,000 others. Whose officials saw them as easy pickings

for meeting performance indicators. I immediately complained to the

Minister responsible being asked to take on the inspection of all

immigration detention centres for my pains. This included inspecting

Campsfield house after a riot when I found that immigration centre rules

were also wholly inappropriate being based on prison rather than

detention rules. My Inspector is I set about revising them, inviting

Home Office officials to work with as. The outcome baby immigration

detention rules often quoted in this bill. Since retiring as Chief

Inspector, I have been a member of the Independent Asylum commission,

have chaired an inquiry into the unlawful killing of an Angolan Baiji

for S guard securing an enforced removal, have delivered a dossier of

deaths and injuries inflicted on others being returned and forwarded

reports on the inefficiency of the complaints system to the Home

Secretary and have lost count of the number of critical reports by

inspectors of immigration and prisons that I've read. In other

words, my 19 year experience of the immigration system entirely endorses

the view of its then titular head the noble Lord Reed who when Home

Secretary described it as not being fit for purpose. Indeed, it is these

experiences that have encouraged me to believe that only root and branch

surgery will enable it to have any hope of coping with today's

requirements let alone tomorrow's which will be exact debated not just

by civil wars in the Middle East but by other population movements and

the effects of climate change. I must admit that I was somewhat

surprised last week when my noble and loaded friends law Brown and law

panning focused on the periphery of theoretical access to the bail

system rather than the fundamental obscenity of the administrative

detention. There are intervention reminded me that over the years

successive ministers have preferred to listen to fudge presented to them

by their officials rather than facts immediately apparent to anyone who

like me has had cause to examine them in detail. As has been reported

time and again, conditions in our immigration removal centres are not

good for a whole variety of reasons, not least lack of Home Office

oversight. Four months is far too long for anyone to be condemned to

remain in such conditions, certainly when it seems to be primary for the

convenience of incompetent officials and is not sanctioned by a court of

law. I don't pretend that casework is easy, indeed one former head of

the UK border agency decreed that only graduates were to do it, but

its presence standard judging by the number of successful appeals against

it is appalling. I'm not surprised that first the noble Lord Bates and

then the noble and learned it Lord Dean should have announced new

arrangements though I must admit that having heard similar promises

many times in the last 19 years I will only believe them when I see

them. I now feel squeezed, not only is time running out before

Parliament ends but I fear that on the evidence of the amendment not

being pressed to a vote on the other place last night should the house

support my appeal to put pride in the reputation of our great nation

before party political considerations and vote for what in

their hearts they know to be right, namely that interested detention of

anyone anywhere is fundamentally wrong, it may not succeed. I'm

conscious that it easier for an independent crossbencher to speak

like that but I'm conscious to the constitutional position of this

house which I do not want to put at risk. My lords, the immigration

system in this country is so dysfunctional that even the Home

Office favourite reporter Steven Shaw has criticised it in detail. As

an optimist, I hope that the Home Secretary will read what he said and

has been said during our debates in this house before she wilfully

damages our global reputation for being a civilised nation by going

ahead with her alternative to limiting detention to 28 days. It is

with a heavy heart that I beg to move.

The original question was that the motion B agreed to, leaving out from

house on amendment 80 four. The question is the amendment A1 is

agreed to. If it is agreed to, I cannot call amendment A2 by reason

of pre-emption. Many of your Lordships will have negotiated a

variety of agreements and arrangements and been involved in

the towing and throwing of proposals and counterproposals. And will have

experience the feeling of, enough, let's move on. I do not equate that

with this issue. I am of course realistic enough to understand where

the Government has got to. But in my view it is not far enough. And from

my privileged position, compared with the asylum seekers, the subject

of these amendments today, I cannot leave it here. I do not feel, in the

words of the learned Lord, that I have done my job. I would like to

make it clear that I support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbottom. To

deprive an individual of liberty for the purposes of immigration control

should be an absolute last resort. It should be comparatively rare and

for the shortest possible time. At the last stage but one I suppose of

this Bill, the Government introduced an amendment for automatic judicial

oversight. Then we heard references to detainees still being able to

apply for bail at any time, to access legal advice and so on. That

painted a picture which is of course technically correct but it did not

accord with the reality is described to me over the years. The learned

introduced the six months automatic hearing as a proportionate response

and said earlier referral might result in work for the tribunal and

Home Office at a time when an individual being removed from the

country was planned and eminent. I was pleased last night the minister

in the Commons moved reduction from six months. I quote again, after

careful consideration is to four months to reflect the fact the

majority are detained for less than four months. At the end of last

December, the latest figures we had, 2607 people were detained. Of these,

530, roughly 20%, had been detained for less than four months but longer

than two. These are the numbers might amendment is about but they

are 530 individuals, not just faceless numbers. The impact of

immigration detention, which is not a sanction, not punishment for

wrongdoing, is considerable. Reference has rightly been made to

the particular impact on mental health. I look forward to Stephen

Shore's further work. I hope it will alleviate conditions. There will

always be a significant impact. I do not know if I can speculate on the

Government's reason for moving from the proportionate six months down to

four. But it can move I suggest it can move further. In the mix of

assessing what is proportionate, the impact of administrative detention

must be a significant factor. Let us reduce it as much as possible. That

is why I propose two mums. I would like to take this opportunity to say

that in all of this, I do not want to lose sight of the objective of

improving the whole returns process. Alternatives to detention, with case

managers who are not decision-makers, are more humane,

less costly and more efficient and there is a lot of experience of that

in other countries. My Lords, that, and improve return system, would

reduce the burden on tribunal 's and the home Office. It might be trite,

but efficiency is much of the answer. I hope your Lordships will

be sympathetic to my proposal to reduce still further, take us

further on the journey the Government has led us on, regarding

the period when there must be an automatic judicial oversight of each

individual position. In the House of Commons last night, the Minister

confirmed the Government had accepted that there should be a

judicial oversight over administrative immigration

detention. And that is why they had previously tabled a motion, the

effect of which would be individuals would automatically be referred to

the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after the detention began, or

if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the

person in the first six months, months after that consideration.

That was not accepted in this House, which again carried a motion

providing for a 28 day period of administrative immigration

detention, after which the Secretary of State could apply to extend

detention in exceptional circumstances. The House of Commons

again rejected this amendment from this House and has instead passed a

government amendment reducing the timing of the automatic rail

referral from six down to four months as apparently the majority of

persons are detained in less than four months. Can the Government

confirm that bail hearing after four months will be automatic and will

not be dependent on the individual in a detention having to initiate

the application? This is an issue on which this House has already sent it

back to the Commons on two occasions. Consideration has to be

given to the role of the unelected house in the legislative process as

a revising chamber, inviting the House of Commons to think again. In

this situation, the elected House of Commons and the Government have made

some movement, albeit not enough to meet the views of this House, on the

length of administrative immigration detention without automatic judicial

oversight. Lord Ramsbottom made a powerful speech. May I just say a

word in response? I am sorry the noble Lord thinks Lord Browne, the

noble and learned Lord and I were focused on the periphery, as he put

it. And supporting a fudged state of affairs last week. Your Lordships

needs to focus on Lord Ramsbottom's amendment. What it does provide is

after 28 days, there would be no possibility of detention of a person

for immigration reasons, other than in exceptional circumstances. And I

found last week that was not something I could support. I still

cannot support it. The reasons for that is that a person can only be

detained for the purpose of removal and can only be detained for a

reasonable period of time for that purpose. There is nothing

exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days to remove a person who

has been detained for immigration reasons. There has to be discussion

with the country to which the individual is going to be removed.

And often persons being removed do not cooperate with the removal.

There is nothing exceptional about it taking longer than 28 days. Of

course, the individual concerned is also entitled at any time to require

a judicial assessment of whether it is appropriate for them to continue

to be detained for immigration purposes. I am pleased the

Government has moved to a four months hearing. I think that is the

right result. I also support motion letter a. I will make some brief

points. First has already been made plain, the Government has already

removed from the earlier proposal of six months down to four. Yesterday,

those who had read the debate in the other place, there was hardly a

voice against that proposal. Lord Ramsbottom has few greater admirers

than I am in this chamber. His amendment goes, as I have suggested,

too far. One defect on which I mentioned at report, but did not

think it necessary but I rather regret it in the last round, is that

it is internally inconsistent. On its face it refers sub-clause one up

to the detention under any of the relevant powers, these are defined

in sub-clause six, and they include, amongst other powers, two which are

dealing with the tension pending deportation. -- detention. And you

look at the sub-clause for the proposal, 84, it does not apply in

cases where the Secretary of State is determined that there should be

deportation. That is just an internal inconsistency in end. Four

months, I suggest, properly protects against what could seriously be

called arbitrary detention. It is a safe guard over and above the

intrinsic ability of those who are detained to seek bail. It is a

safeguard which I acknowledged to be appropriate and necessary in the

case not least of those with mental problems. The proposal in Lord

Ramsbottom's men and four exceptional circumstances justifying

detention beyond 28 days, he gave illustrations and again by Lord

panic today, it is just unworkable. It is a shorter period proposed by

the noble Baroness, who I greatly admire, frankly the impact on

tribunal is, they are already very busy and overworked and they really

must not be overworked. As a member of the all-party enquiry I would

like to voice my support for A1 and A2. The House of Commons only had

one how yesterday. Quite understandably they spent most of

that our teasing out the implications of the amendment. I do

not think we should read too much into that not much was said about

these amendments. -- into the fact that not much. I am obliged after

the current abuses with this debate. We have spoken about the detention

and the revising of the detention rules but I must take issue with

with the suggestion that an access to bail is nearly theoretical and

that there is an absence of judicial oversight. -- nearly. -- only

theoretical. A tribunal must be persuaded that their rather

substantial grounds for believing detention should be retained. It is

not a theoretical right. It is an obligation on the part of the Home

Office to persuade tribunal detention should the Britain. As far

as the period of detention, -- should be retained. After a period

of detention is extended into four months, which is very unusual, they

will be an somatic bail hearing. In these circumstances I renew my

motion to the House. -- automatic bail hearing. I'm grateful to all

those who have spoken. Not least to my noble friend 's, Lord Browne and

Lord Panic. It is rare for me to find myself in a disagreement and I

bow to their superior legal knowledge in this case. But my

Lords, I feel we have probably gone as far as we are going to be able to

go. I am pleased that in the passage of this will we have been able to

raise so many issues which I sincerely hope the Home Secretary

and her officials will focus upon. Not least when they concentrate on

the report they commissioned from Stephen Shaw. And the report which

they have subsequently commissioned from him and the report that they

get on the mental health arrangements which were commissioned

by NHS England. I am afraid the writing is on the wall as far as my

further hope of getting any further with this amendment in the passage

of this Bill is concerned. And with a heavy heart, I beg leave to

withdraw the motion. Is it your pleasure that amendment A1 is

withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. A2, Baroness? Not move. The question

is that motion baby agreed to. As many as are of the opinion say

"content." To the contrary, "not content". Content as it.

I beg to move that the house to agree with the comment in their

amendments 85 D to 805I. The government has continued to listen

carefully to the concerns expressed in both houses on the issue of the

taming pregnant women. Last night the other place agreed a member to

Jamaica clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purposes of

removal only if they are to be shortly removed from the United

Kingdom or if there are exceptional circumstances which justify the

detention and which place an additional duty on those making

detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard to

their welfare. The additional measures we are putting in place

alongside the 72 hour time limit on the detention pregnant women will

act as extra statutory safeguards which will complement the government

's wider package of in the early area of detention of honourable

people. This includes the new adults at risk policy which is given a

statutory basis in this bill. It includes a new crosscutting

gatekeeper function to help provide consistency in decision-making

across the business. It includes new safeguarding teams which will

provide an extra level of scrutiny of the cases that detained

vulnerable people. And as we previously announced we also intend

to ask Steven Shaw to carry out a short review in order to assess

progress against the key actions from his previous report. I hope the

noble Lords will accept the suite of measures is a clear and positive

demonstration of the government is absolute commitment and desire to

ensure that pregnant women are detained only when it is absolutely

necessary and as a last resort. With their health and welfare being a

foremost consideration, whenever a decision is made in respect of their

detention. These are solid measures which will have a practical impact

but which will also give life to the governments desire to end the

routine detention pregnant women as were set out in the written

ministerial statement on the 18th of April. The 72 hour time limit

announced in that statement was a clear exposition of the government

intends moving to a position of which in no circumstances will

pregnant woman be knowingly detained for longer than a week. That is a

major shift from a position in which theoretically at least and

occasionally in practice detention could persist for a longer period.

This will be backed up with the new duty, the clear statement pregnant

women will be detained only for the purposes of quick removal or in

exceptional circumstances. I reiterate that even when there are

exceptional circumstances detention will still be for only the limited

period set out in the bill. It will also be backed up with other

measures as I've described. All of this represents a new level of

safeguarding for pregnant women which was not going as far as

providing absolute exclusion from detention insures that it will occur

sparingly and only when it is absolutely necessary. Turning

specifically to amendment 85 J, table by the noble lady, the adults

at risk policy will effectively be replacing chapter 5510 of the Home

Office enforcement and instructions and guidance which is where the

existing policy is set out. They will represent a different and

better way of assessing circumstances that apply in any

given case of Abe honourable person including cases of pregnant women.

The amendments table in the other place automatically plays pregnant

women and a separate footing making it clear that particular

consideration least be taken in those cases. The 72 hour time limit

by virtue of its brevity will insure that detention is used as a last

resort. On that basis, I am of the view that the current formulation of

the bill combined with the other measures we are putting in place

provides a high level of safeguard for pregnant women. I beg to move

the motion be is accepted by this house. The question is that motion

BB agreed to amendment the one baroness Lister. I beg to move

amendments P1 as an amendment to motion be and insert anti-proposed

amendment 85 J as an amendment to amendment 80 5p. I wish I could

warmly welcomed the government amendments 85 D2 I given that they

go a small way towards meeting the concerns lodged in the house on the

26 of April but it is only a very small way and as I will come on to

explain the word very have some significance. I should firstly thank

the Lord for his attempt to reach a compromise that will satisfy both

sides last week, alas apparently it was not possible. It was the very

last attempt I therefore tabled this very modest amendment which would

mean that the circumstances justifying detention have to be very

exceptional rather than simply exceptional. This does no more than

mirror current Home Office enforcement instructions and

guidance which refer to very exceptional circumstances and we

have just learned that those guidance to be replaced. Indeed the

Immigration Minister in the Commons last night assured MPs that the

guidance also make it clear that they detention powers should be used

in very exceptional circumstances underlining our expectations and

regard the use this power. Surely if the government wants to underline

those expectations they should do so in the bill itself. Otherwise it

could be sending out entirely the wrong message. My fear is that as

welcome as the new time limit is unless the legislation states very

exceptional some might interpret the softening of language as a signal

that it doesn't have to be quite so exceptional now that it subject to a

time limit and I would remind noble Lords that in practice were public

talking about 72 hours plus because the clock starts ticking not that

the actual point of the Secretary Secretary of State is satisfied that

the woman is pregnant if that is later which it probably will be.

Given that too many pregnant women are already detained in far from

exceptional circumstances in contravention of the guidance was

made clear by Shaw and the all-party inquiry into detention this would be

highly regrettable. Experience shows we can't rely on the guidance alone

to underline expectations regarding degree of conditionality. I turn to

some questions raised by the government amendments. With regard

to amendment 85 the, I will repeat that in the Commons, to quote we

need to ask about the small word or in amendments be to the Lords at 85

C. Why does it make the distinction between the sector of state is

satisfied that the woman will shortly be removed from the United

Kingdom or there are exceptional circumstances which justify the

detention? Surely pregnant women should be detained on the hour if

there are exceptional circumstances and they can be removed shortly. We

distinguishing between the two? Game detention is to remove people that

attention should be a last resort given this news on the two hour

limit and attention when will detention not be exceptional and

removal forthcoming? It is important the government clarify that. He

expressed the fear that the measure leaves the door open for the

excessive detention of pregnant women. That is my fear to, my laws.

Given it wasn't possible for the Immigration Minister to answer him

yesterday I trust the Minister will be able to provide an answer now.

Second, for the record, could the noble lord the Minister clarify the

purpose of the qualifying phrase in the second sub-clause of amendment

85 E apart from this section, fears have been expressed by those more

expert than myself that it would appear to be saying that the

Secretary of State doesn't have to have regard to the woman's welfare.

I'm sure that cover the case. I can't do why anyone should be

allowed to authorise detention without having regard to the woman's

welfare and of course I welcome the fact that that clause having regard

to the women's welfare is now in the bill. I hope that he can provide

reassurance. I turn out to the key sections of amendment 85 see that

the government has rejected out of hand. These aim to incorporate key

elements of the family returns process which successfully uses

engagement, try to resolve cases about the use of detention.

Ministers have repeatedly explained that in the words of the Immigration

Minister we are using precisely that model and approach to pregnant

women. Yet there rejection of this part of amendment 85 see out of hand

suggest an mindset that is not choose to the family returns process

in which it's not assumed that removal requires prior detention. I

asked the noble and learned it Lord if the government are using

precisely that model and approach why have they refused to countenance

writing key elements of it into the legislation? Will he commit now to

drawing up guidance that will ensure that the treatment of pregnant women

does indeed follow the family returns process model? Otherwise we

have no way of ensuring that this model will be followed. Hopefully

this will then reduce the need for the tension but where it does still

take place clear guidelines following the model will at the very

least ensure notice is given so as to minimise the stress involved in

the process of being taken into detention which can have a damaging

effect on the mental and physical health of pregnant women. My lords

it simply not good enough to talk about modelling the approach and the

family returns process without giving parliaments any idea of how

it plans to operationalise this. On the 26 of April the noble and

learned it Lord stated that as a matter-of-fact and practice all

persons who are subject to removal are given notice of liability for

removal and vulnerable women including pregnant women receive a

further notice by removal direction. That sounded reassuring but the

notice of liability for removal can be three months in advance of

removal and the further notice is sent after detention. There is no

notice sent of removal into detention as opposed to removal out

of the country and I fear that we been talking at cross purposes on

this. Will the Minister now commit to a full review of the process of

removal into detention including how the woman's medical and welfare

needs are taken into account during that process? When we last

discussing this I cited some dreadful examples of how pregnant

women were in effect treated like animals during the journey into

detention. Serious implications for potentially physical and mental

health. On the 20th of April the Minister seem to suggest that some

of our concerns were in effect resolved because only one pregnant

woman is currently held in detention. For those of us including

Steven Shaw and the all-party Parliamentary inquiry who believe

that pregnant women should not be detained on principle, one pregnant

woman in detention is one too many. Leaving that aside, the number of

urgent women in detention have always fluctuated and we don't know

the total number who are being detained so far this year. I find it

worrying that the Home Office is refusing to comply with FOIA request

submitted by women for refugee women for the publication of this at this

takes on the numbers detained, the length of detention and... On the

Commons debate on the 25th of April the Immigration Minister said he

reflect on how best to create greater transparency. I then the

jest it that one way would be commit to now making the statistics on the

detention of pregnant women available for public scrutiny on a

regular basis as called for by bodies such as women for refugee

women and the royal College of midwives. The noble Lord did not

respond on that point and I'll be grateful if he could do so now. I

know there's a reluctance to extend the process too far but when your

Lordships house passed amendment 85 C despite the technical and other

objections raised by the noble and learned it Lord the minister I took

that as acceptance of the need to write into the bill safeguards

necessary to ensure the protection of the welfare of pregnant women

would -- whatever our view of their principal of detention. I don't

believe those safeguards are strong enough. This is a much more modest,

even minimalist amendment. I hope that the government will be able to

accept it as it simply does what the Immigration Minister says is their

intention but with the force of primary legislative hacking. I beg

to move. -- backing. The original question was that it BA agreed to.

Since then amendment B1 has been moved as set out on the revised

list. The question therefore is that amendment B1 the agreed to.

I would like to express my support for the noble Baroness. There are

rules about transporting animals. In the House of Commons, as the noble

Baroness said, the Minister referred to the guidance providing for very

exceptional circumstances. To meet the expectations, as she has

mentioned, they have relied on it. Guidance can of course be changed

much more easily than primary legislation. Or more easily not

followed. I share the noble lady's concerns. The legislation must not

weaken the process. I was also puzzled to read that in the

Government amendment that the person who authorises the detention, I will

come back to that, must have regard to the woman's welfare. Not as was

said at the column last night, June regard for her welfare. As we have

heard, the current guidance, the equivalent guidance, if you like, is

not effective enough. I do not myself see that there will be any

impact from putting pregnant women into a separate category in the

guidance. I agree with the point made by David Rose and the noble

lady about a hand B and I had two points of concern about

interpretation. -- David Burrows. We referred to the phrase, apart from

this section. I read this as applying to the person with power to

authorise. But I do not know what that means either. A person apart

from this section. I hope the Minister can help. The other

question is the term" shortly" in paragraph a of 85 E. The Secretary

of State needs to be satisfied the woman will be removed from the

United Kingdom. My Lords, in this House, we are accustomed to the term

"Shortly". It is something of an Alice in Wonderland term. It needs

what it is meant to mean on the occasion when it is mentioned. -- it

means what it is meant. Can we have greater precision on the term in the

amendment? I wonder if I could detain the House for a couple of

minutes. I am most concerned about this issue. And I am afraid the

Government has completely overlooked a very important point. You're not

just detaining a pregnant woman. You are detaining the foetus inside. And

the effect is something science is increasingly concerned about. The

recent science tells us the foetus at certain stages in pregnancy is

very vulnerable to the environment of the mother. It is an area of

research in which I have been involved at Imperial College. I

would like to quote briefly research at Imperial College and also the

University of Singapore which I will be visiting later this week and

McGill University in Canada among other places. It turns out in

particular that at certain stages in pregnancy if a woman's stress

hormones are raised, the effect on the foetus may be profound. Michael

Meaney, working after the ice storm in on Taree oh years ago showed

subsequently on tests on infants at the age of five after effectively

being interned in their houses because of the darkness and lack of

electors do for a period of time, he found significant cognitive

impairment. -- in on Taree oh. Massive stepdad in Canada. It might

-- in Canada. It might become more aggressive. Unfortunately the signs

at this stage is not clear. -- science. The increasing evidence in

human work is really very much that stressing out a woman at certain

stages in pregnancy, for example, when the Peters can be identified in

the uterus, usually at around 22-26 weeks, that is a particularly

vulnerable time. That is when we may have the most severe effects. I

think the Government needs to recognise it may be responsible for

an effect on that child and possibly even on the grandchildren of the

mother. Until that is firmly worked out, I take the Government to

reconsider this need, if it must be done at all, it must be done under

the most serious circumstances. We cannot go back on women who have

been detained in prison in other places in the past. But in the

future we must make sure we make law which is humane and assessable to

the possibility of an amendment so we caused minimal damage to future

doom generation -- future generations. I support the amendment

and I have supported her on numerous occasions when we have debated these

issues. I am pleased to follow Lord Winston who has returned to an

aspect we did discuss at earlier stages. Members may recall the

remarks of the noble Baroness in the earlier debates where she focused

upon the effects of the unborn child as being detained in stressful

circumstances and I referred to work by the late eminent psychiatrist,

Professor Mccole, who has described the effects. The effects later in

life of children in the womb affected by traumatic events which

they had experienced. On the other side of that of course, the

world-famous violinist said that he believed that he had learned his

love of music in the time that he was in his mother's womb. The

Imperial evidence may need to be extended and more work needs to be

done. But probably common-sense and row knowledge of human development

does take us in that direction. It is not just about concerns for the

unborn child. The Baroness rightly reminded us about the

recommendations of Stephen Shaw which were at the heart of the

debate when we looked at it earlier in proceedings. He recommended there

should be an absolute ban. It is a long way short of his

recommendations. The noble Baroness Lister, I think in her phrase, very

exceptional, she is reminding the governed it cannot be right for us

to have rendered women in detention in this way. -- government. I read

the remarks of the Conservative member, David worries, the member of

Parliament for Enfield Southgate. He spoke so well in the other plays

yesterday. I hope when the learned and Lord replies he will respond to

the concerns he raised and will respond to the Barack 's at the

Royal College of Midwives referred to earlier by the Baroness, --

respond to the remarks at Royal College of Midwives. What kind of

accommodation is going to be made available when a pregnant woman is

being held? Will he say anything about that? Will he talk about how

needs will be met? Can he please assure us that pregnant women will

not, as has happened in the past, be picked up in dawn raids and put in

the back of the van is and taken miles away into accommodation, with

appalling consequences for women in these circumstances. Accounts of

nausea, vomiting, people being incredibly distressed by these

experiences. This should be in very exceptional circumstances, has the

noble Baroness has said. I would like to underline finally the point

made by the noble Baroness and way and Lady Lister, referring to 85 E

and subsection B. This odd phrase has been included at this late stage

where we say a person who, apart from this section, as the power to

authorise detention and must regard the woman's welfare. The words,

apart from this section, are at best ambiguous and I cannot see what

point they have. Campbell murmured Lord in light on us when he replies?

-- can be learned Lord enlightened us? I hope the Minister will not

only respond to the questions which have been raised in this short

debate today in this House, but be doubly determined to do so, because

I find it extraordinary that when the amendments were discussed in the

House of Commons last night, although apparently they have a not

surprising procedure, that a government minister opens the

debate, there was no reply by a government minister at the end of

the debate. Although the judgment questions raised in that debate

after the minister had finished speaking were not answered at all. I

know very little about House of Commons procedures. That is quite

obvious. But it is certainly remarkable to have a debate where

questions are asked of the Government and no government

minister replies at the end. I hope that is a defect in the noble and

learned Lord will be able to rectify when he comes to reply to this

debate and the points that have been raised. We have accepted the

Government have moved on this issue into a position of not allowing

detention of pregnant women beyond 72 hours or up to one week with the

Secretary of State's approval. This has wanted the garment to go further

with additional safeguards reflected in the amendment sent to the House

of Commons. -- government. They said they had tabled amendments making it

clear pregnant women would be retained for the purpose of removal

only if they are shortly to be moved from the UK or if there were

exceptional circumstances justifying detention. The minister went on to

say that the guidance would also make it clear that the power to

detain must only be used in very exceptional circumstances. Why does

the Government amendment passed last night in the House of Commons refer

to exceptional circumstances and not very exceptional circumstances,

which is and continues to be used in the guidance? What in the view of

the Government in this context is the difference between exceptional

circumstances and very exceptional circumstances? It is the Government

that has decided not to use the same wording in the Bill as there is and

will continue to be used in the guidelines. And through her

amendment, my noble friend Baroness Lister is seeking a credible and

reassuring answer to that question and I hope the Government can

provide it. My Lords, can I begin by answering the question which was

opposed by the noble Lord? The provision does refer to exceptional

circumstances. The guidance as it exists today talks of only very

exceptional circumstances applying for the detention of pregnant women.

That will continue to be the policy applied in the context of this

provision. I reiterate, as was said in the other place last night, it is

only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be

considered appropriate for this provision on the detention to be

employed. Can I move on to deal with... I am sorry to into Rob.

There was a specific question. -- interrupted. White is it not very

exceptional circumstances put into the Dell? -- the Bill? It was not

considered that words such as most, much, or buried, would add to the

proper construction of the provision. -- or vary. -- very. In

the other plays it has been said the policy will apply in the contest of

very exceptional circumstances. -- context. It is a matter of English

language. There is the word, exceptional. It is perfectly clear.

What is the difference, in your mind, between exceptional and very

exceptional? I think the noble Lord makes the point for me. It is

questionable whether there is any distinction to be drawn between

exceptional, very exceptional, almost exceptional. That lies behind

the manner in which this has been drafted. In order to dispel doubts

in the mind of others, it has been said in guidance, but as a matter of

policy, the term very exceptional may be applied when approaching the

application of this provision to the detention of pregnant women. I would

like to pursue this issue with the leave of the House. There must be a

difference, otherwise it would not be necessary to use the distinct

phrases. Is the Government not in danger of falling foul of it own

legislation by applying policy, guidance, which is different from

the legislation? I do not accept that. The purpose of policy guidance

is to emphasise the test applied. That is what it is happening -- what

is happening here. The reference to the welfare of a

pregnant woman. In the sub-clause that was referred to. I just want to

emphasise that this provision is there is an additional safeguard.

I'm not going to claim that the trust midship of this particular

clause is distinguished by its elegance but its effect ultimately

is clear. In circumstances where it is thought that a pregnant woman may

fall to be detained, the party who may be exercising the right to

detain will also have the have the regard that pregnant women before a

final scissors made so for example in circumstances where the pregnant

woman has arrived at a remove the port and there is nowhere in the

passivity that could properly be utilised to detain her when she's in

a state of pregnancy that'll be a factor which must be taken into

account and indeed the determining factor in deciding whether or not to

detain her. You might have somebody who is in a state of pregnancy

arriving say at Heathrow who can and should be detained because of

circumstances are exceptional and whether where there are facilities

to detain her giving her state of pregnancy, and the other hand you

might have somebody arriving at a remote port in circumstances where

it is felt there were circumstances that are justified attention but

where there was no suitable place for her detention and therefore have

no regard for help welfare did tension would not take place. I hope

that assists in expended purpose of the provision. It is an additional

safeguard. Can I turn to the question of and or which was raised

in the context of whether or not detention should take place. Of

course the intended effect of these provisions so far as pregnant women

are concerned is that they will like all detainees only be detained for

the purposes of removal. Because there will be a time limit on the

detention of pregnant women all cases of the of the detention of

pregnant women will be necessary short some of these cases will have

exceptional circumstances attached are by definition not many. For

example, cases of the border are quite likely not have exceptional

features. The causes drafted therefore allows the detention of

pregnant women only when they can be removed quickly or when they can be

removed and exceptional circumstances pertaining to. It is

merely to allow for the two circumstances namely that they can

be quickly removed or that they can be quickly removed and exceptional

circumstances pertaining. I hope that goes to explain the way in

which that particular provision is drafted, the noble Baroness Lister

asked about the question of the further review but with respect we

have already had the review from Steven Shaw and he is going to be

instructed to carry out a further short review about the

implementation of these provisions. No additional or alternative view is

contemplated. Indeed, with respect to guidance, the policy guidance we

have is of course addressed already and no additional guidance is

contemplated. The noble Baroness also referred to in FI FOIA request

and I cannot reply directly with respect to that request or the

mothers matter of the relevant statistics but there is a process

that can be followed through to a conclusion in order to determine

that the FOIA request is responded to in shoe time and inappropriate

terms. -- Jew time. -- Jew time and appropriate terms.

The question of the treatment of pregnant women and the effect of

stress on them. Who can doubt how stressful it will be Fred person who

travels unlawfully to the United Kingdom in a state of pregnancy and

then a tense unlawfully to secure entry to the United Kingdom session

mark that alone is a source of stress. The question is how we deal

sympathetically and effectively with such persons particularly when we

find that they are either vulnerable or pregnant and what we have

developed here is a rational and reasonable approach to that very

difficult question. Finally, could I address the

question of facilities in the context of planned departure. Our

continuing view is that immigration removal centres remain the most

appropriate place to detain pregnant women. The Isles would provide a

high level of care for pregnant women, it has national health this

midwives available, general practitioners and nurses can be

accessed seven days a week. There are strong links with the local

maternity services and there is support provided by pregnancy

liaison officer. In addition, there is now a new care staff by new firm

female member of staff to tend to women who are pregnant. Very few

pregnant women are detained in the circumstances but suitable and

sufficient facilities are available and as I observed earlier where they

are not for some reason available the welfare of the pregnant woman

will be paramount. In these circumstances, I beg to move this

house. I'm grateful to him but you will recall he has been asked by

three others about those words that appear in the final section in the

penultimate line of the amendment apart from this section and I

wondered if he could tell is why they have been included and what

they add to this. I did say that the relevant provision was not

distinguished by its elegance but if you read the causes a whole it is

intended to refer back to the person with the detention in terms of the

bill. The way in which it is drafted at that point is the tainted by the

way in which that is described in an earlier clause of the bill. Forgive

me for intervening once more. I don't feel at all confident about

the question of incarceration. The difference between arriving on these

shores illegally and then being incarcerated is very different from

arriving on the shores with hope and what the evidence of the model shows

in Canada is that the incarceration in their own houses even that causes

distress to these women which resulted in the changes to the

foetus which was subsequently inherited. I beg the Lord to

consider that point when he finally at sums up. I had rather summed up

but if I can say this of course there are elements in the journey of

such a person that would cause stress, detention may be a factor in

that, but in the round we have to come to a reasoned conclusion as to

how we deal with unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. Can I make the

noble Lord on offer. He is obviously as uncomfortable as I am with the

drafting of this section, can we find a way of getting it to mean

what whether we don't like it or not he is telling us we ought to

understand it to mean early in the next session. Lets packet onto

something that will come to us fairly shortly. -- tack it on. It

means what I say, it doesn't say what I mean. Maybe her lying but

that is one that which take into consideration. -- maybe her lying in

the. Thank you to all the noble Lords. It

has reinforced the sense that this house is very concerned about this

issue and is not convinced that the welfare of pregnant women and the

foetus inside them is being protected by the concessions that

the government has made. I'm grateful to the noble and learned it

law the Minister for addressing all the questions that were asked. I

have to say that I don't think it was a question of elegance, it's a

question of content ability and I have to say I didn't understand a

word of one of his answers. -- comprehensible must. I will try and

understand it when I read it in Hansard. It does have residents of

that Humpty Dumpty and words saying what I say they mean and the

question is who is to be master and that is all and unfortunately it is

the government that is a master and who has the power to decide these

issues. Thee and I did understand from the Bernard Lord were very

disappointing. I still have not heard a good reason as to why the

word very was not... If it's good enough for the guidance and it means

something in the guidance I still have not heard a proper reason as to

why it's not good enough to be in the legislation and I'm still

worried that someone looking at both of them will think oh, well, the

legislation, the government has gone backwards to that extent. I'm very

concerned... I wasn't asking for a whole new review, I was asking for a

very focused review of the process by which a woman is taken from her

home into detention and as I understand it is already been a

commitment to look at the question of transport and I'm asking that

that is broadened to the whole process. It's not a big thing, I'm

very concerned that there is no... I'm still not heard any explanation

as to how this is going to be modelled on the family returns

process. The noble and learned it law the Minister has said there will

be no further guidance and that's so it is an empty claim unless someone

can show is otherwise. I hope that the noble Lord will take this away,

I hope that Immigration Minister will take this away that the Home

Secretary will take it away, will read what has been said in this

house and also the points made by my noble friend Lord Ross that the

really strange Commons procedure that don't allow the Minister to

respond to perfectly good questions put so that we at least have a

chance to do that in this house so I hope that the people in the other

place will all read what has been said in this house and will go away

and think about it and think how we can within the constraints of the

legislation as tears make this a more process than it is at present

because as we've heard there is a lot at stake here and my noble

friend Lord Winston talked about could be responsible for a affect on

the child. That is a very serious thing so I do hope that this will be

looked at further even if it can't be in the context of actual

legislation. That said, like the noble Lord Ramsbottom I recognise

when we're coming to the end of the road and so like him with a very

heavy heart indeed I beg leave to withdraw amendment B1. Is it your

Lordships pleasure that amendment B1 be withdrawn? The amendment is by

leaf withdrawn. The question is that motion be be agreed to. As many

years that will save content. The content habit.

I shall not repeat as a statement the answer to an urgent question

given today by my right honourable friend the Minister for immigration

and child refugee resettlement from Europe. The statement is as follows.

Mr Speaker, as I said last night, the government is at the forefront

of assisting and protecting vulnerable children wherever they

are and as the house is aware last week the Prime Minister said that we

will work with local authorities and plans to resettle unaccompanied

children from France, Greece and Italy. We have said we expect the

first children to arrive before the end of the year. We have not said

that it will take until the end of the year for them to arrive. As a

clear to the house, are working hard to see isolated children reunited

with family and children at risk of exploitation and abuse, to the UK as

quickly as we can. We have to be satisfied that they will be able to

receive appropriate care and support when they arrive. The revised

amendment to the immigration bill obliges us to consult with local

authorities, we must ensure we fulfil our obligations to children

who are already in the UK as well as ensuring we have the right support

for those who may be brought to the UK from Europe. The provisions in

the bill by their nature mean we have to consult others before

finalising our plans but that is not imply that we will delay getting on

with this. We will be contacting council leaders in the coming days.

I have already spoken to the local government Association on this

matter. We've all always been clear that we will do nothing that

inadvertently create a situation in which families see an advantage in

sending children ahead, putting their lives at risk, by attempting

perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those present in the EU

before the 20th of March will be eligible for resettlement and even

then only when it is in their best interests to come to the UK. This

will avoid creating a perverse incentive for families to entrust

their children to people traffickers. We've already started

consulting relevant NGOs, Unicef and other member states and how best we

implement this legislation. Last Friday I met the Greek government in

Athens to discuss how best we can make progress quickly. Were already

working to identify those who we can help.

We have an ongoing plan with France to improve joint response to

children in Calais, accepting more than 30 transfer request since they

break, with more than 20 already arrived. We will be working with

France in the coming days and weeks to increase the identification of

children in France who have family here so we can bring them over. In

addition, the UK has played a full part in supporting European

neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived. We have

provided nearly ?46 million of funding for the European wide

response to halt the most honourable, including children and

infants. -- help. The ?10 million fund in addition announced on

January the 28th will support Save the Children and International

Rescue Commtitee 's to work with authorities to care and assist

unaccompanied, or separated children. Of course this is on top

of the Syrian resettlement programme and the Rhys Evans scheme designed

to resettle up to 3000 children from the Middle East and North Africa. --

resettlement scheme. We are committed to making a full

contribution to the refugee crisis. We are already acting to implement

the amendment. We have started discussions with local government.

We have begun work with European partners and NGOs to support

effective implementation. We will bring refugee children to the UK as

quick as it is safe to do so. I am proud the commitment of this

country, this government, to help those in need in and outside of

Europe stands comparison with any other country in the world. That

concludes the statement. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the answer

to an urgent question earlier in the Commons today. We welcome the steps

the Government are taking. In the Commons yesterday the Government

confirmed they were accepting the amendment passed in this House, in

the name of my noble friend, Lord Duns. They said they would bring

forward more detailed proposals and there would be a meeting scheduled

for later this week. It appears ten Downing St has told the Daily

Telegraph the first children will be arriving by the end of the year,

which is a different tenor of response to that given in the

Commons, which was all about urgency and getting on with it as quickly as

possible. Can the Government tell us what the estimated timetable is for

implementing my noble friend's amendment, which they have accepted?

Can he say if it will be an objective to take in at least the

first 300 children before the start of the school year in September? It

will not assist the position of children if they had to join well

into the start of the school year. Finally, 157 children have been

identified by citizens UK as being in Calais and having family

collections here. -- connections here. I appreciate the Minister