1 Feb 2016 : Column 1625

Immigration Bill

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

5.30 pm

Clause 20: Powers in connection with examination, detention and removal

Amendment 184

Moved by Lord Paddick

184: Clause 20, page 25, line 12, out “should” and insert “is required to”

Lord Paddick (LD): My Lords, Amendment 184, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, concerns the power of immigration officers to examine the immigration status of those entering the UK. Clause 20(2) inserts the ability of the immigration officer to curtail existing leave to enter the UK. The amendment would replace the consideration of whether the leave “should be” curtailed, which implies an inappropriate degree of discretion, and substitute “is required to” be.

Also in this group is our opposition to Clause 21 standing part of the Bill. It seems disproportionate that immigration officers should have the power to search premises simply to establish whether an employer should be given a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker, or to establish whether a landlord should be given a civil penalty for leasing a property to a disqualified person. Immigration officers already have powers to search for evidence in relation to criminal offences related to these two activities. Surely it is only in the most serious cases, where a criminal prosecution would at least be being considered, that it would be appropriate for immigration officers to search premises in this way. It is rare for powers of search to be granted in connection with civil penalties in British law, and Clause 21 should not undermine such a principle.

We also oppose Clause 22 standing part of the Bill. This clause allows an immigration officer who is lawfully on premises to seize anything that he thinks may be evidence of any offence, under any legislation, if he thinks it necessary to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed. Initially, this appears a sensible approach, to obviate the need to call for police assistance when something is discovered that is not related to an immigration offence—for example, discovering what appear to be class A drugs.

Police officers receive extensive training in securing and preserving evidence, and in the questioning of suspects in relation to the discovery of evidence during searches. In addition to the need to carefully question the subject about the ownership of the items in question, since usually the owner of the premises denies that the item belongs to them, there is the question of whether photographic or forensic evidence is required in situ. I have been involved in searches of premises, and there have been many cases of police being involved in searches of premises where the very facts that the substance in question was on the premises and who it belonged to have been questioned subsequently in court. It is something of which the police have now had extensive experience, and they know how to handle

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1626

these situations. I suggest that it would take a lot of training and experience for immigration officers to reach the level of expertise necessary to ensure that convictions subsequently take place. Either immigration officers will require extensive, and necessarily expensive, training in evidence preservation and the questioning of those suspected of non-immigration offences, or there is a real danger that valuable evidence will be lost in such cases.

There is also the question of what I might call false positives, when immigration officers seize items that they wrongly believe to be evidence of an offence and then pass them on to the police, placing a significant administrative burden on the police to process, secure and subsequently return the items to the owners. With significant cuts to police resources, the last thing the police need is for immigration officers to dump innocent items on them that they then have to deal with. We therefore believe that Clause 22 should not be part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab): My Lords, Amendment 184 and the two clause stand part debates in respect of Clauses 21 and 22 give an important opportunity to explore here exactly what the intention is behind the clauses. It is important that the Minister carefully sets out what he believes are the reasonable grounds for immigration officers to conduct a search for documents in respect of illegal working or leasing premises to disqualified persons obtained in the commission of an offence. Will the Minister set out what he means by a search of the premises? At any point, would that include a search of the person? How would that be conducted?

These are very sensitive matters and I want to be satisfied that proper processes are in place, and that people are treated with respect. We often need to remember that asylum seekers have not always had a good experience of meeting officials of the state in other countries, and we must ensure that actions are taken in a proportionate manner and to the highest professional standards. I have the highest regard for the officers who undertake this work for the Immigration Service; they do a very difficult and challenging job.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point when he talked about the extensive experience and knowledge that police officers have when it comes to conducting searches and preserving evidence to secure convictions. Are we confident that the immigration officer would have this knowledge? The noble Lord makes another important point when he talks about the burden of bureaucracy arising from items taken during a search that are then passed on to police but in the end do not secure any convictions because there is no offence at all.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, before the Minister replies to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, may I add a word in support of their points, particularly the point about proportionality that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy? Why does the Minister feel we need to add to those powers that immigration officers already have, as set out in chapter 16 of the Home Office Enforcement Instructions and Guidance?

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1627

Would he also comment on the extensive powers that immigration officers already have to search without warrant in connection with a criminal offence? What is envisaged here, as I try to understand it, is to give those same officers powers to search premises without a warrant, in circumstances where they do not have any reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence has been committed. Is that the case? Is there no restriction in this clause authorising an immigration officer to act only where it is not practicable to obtain a warrant? If that is so, this is quite an extension of powers, and one that is disproportionate in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has described.

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con): I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Kennedy and Lord Alton, for their observations on these provisions. I shall begin with Amendment 184, which seeks to insert the phrase “is required to” in place of “should”, and explain why that would not be appropriate. As I observed, Amendment 184 seeks to ensure that an immigration officer’s power to examine a person for the purpose of making a decision to curtail their leave is limited to whether the person’s leave is required to be curtailed. The use of the words “should be”, which appear in Clause 20, reflects the wording already included in paragraph (2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, which refers to examination on the basis of whether a person should be given leave or refused it. It naturally follows that the power to examine for the possible purpose of making a curtailment decision is on the same basis. Indeed, it would be rather strange if one test differed from the other in that context.

The effect of the amendment would be to fetter the Secretary of State’s discretion under the Immigration Act 1971 to decide when a person’s leave should be curtailed. The basis on which leave may be curtailed is set out in the Immigration Rules. Some of these are mandatory probations and some are discretionary. An example of a discretionary ground on which leave may be curtailed is when the Secretary of State considers it undesirable to permit a person to remain in the United Kingdom in light of his or her conduct, character or associations. Immigration officers therefore need to be able to question a person to ascertain whether curtailment is or is not appropriate. I can reassure the noble Lord that immigration officers may question only people who have already entered the United Kingdom for immigration enforcement purposes where they already have some information, or reasonable grounds for suspecting, that the person is in breach of immigration law. Therefore it would be wholly inappropriate, having regard among other things to the terms of the Immigration Rules, to put in this amendment in the form of a requirement rather than a discretion.

Clause 21 gives immigration officers a power to search premises for documents that might help in determining whether a civil penalty should be imposed on an employer or landlord. This power may be exercised only where immigration officers are already lawfully on premises. I will come back to this point in the context of the observations from the noble Lord, Lord Alton; it is not a question of dispensing with the requirement for a warrant, but I will address that

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1628

point directly. A primary role for immigration enforcement activity is the disruption of illegal working and illegal renting. We believe it is fitting for immigration officers to have specific administrative search powers where they are exercising powers for a non-criminal purpose.

Immigration officers already have powers to search for evidence of the offence of employing illegal workers and will do so for the new offence of leasing premises to a disqualified person. However, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, it is often more appropriate to impose a civil penalty than to pursue a criminal prosecution. Immigration officers provide employers and landlords with an opportunity, during a visit to the relevant premises, to supply evidence that they have undertaken right-to-work checks before taking any enforcement action. If an employer or landlord is able to do this, no further action is taken against them.

While I understand that some noble Lords may have concerns regarding the reasonableness of having a power of search in the context of a civil penalty, where immigration officers have established through existing powers that a migrant does not have a right to work or a right to rent, and the employer or landlord is unable to demonstrate that they have made the appropriate checks, it does not seem unreasonable for the immigration officer to be able to search for evidence such as payslips or timesheets, tenancy agreements and letting paperwork. This is especially important in cases where a migrant claims simply to be a guest at residential premises or “assisting”, for example, in a restaurant.

While search powers in the civil penalty context are relatively rare, they should not be disregarded purely on this basis when there is a compelling case for introducing them. By equipping immigration officers with these new powers, the Home Office should be enabled to make better-informed decisions as to whether liability for a civil penalty has arisen and help to ensure that only non-compliant landlords and businesses are faced with civil penalties. To put the matter shortly, it would be rather strange if, having made provision for civil penalty, we should say to immigration officers, “You have the power to search if you intend to pursue a criminal prosecution but you have no power to search if you intend to take the lesser step of imposing only a civil penalty”. For that reason, Clause 21 is considered material to these provisions.

5.45 pm

Clause 22 provides a power for immigration officers to seize anything they may find in the course of exercising a function under the Immigration Acts while lawfully on premises where they believe that it has been obtained in the consequence of committing a crime, or where it is evidence of an offence. Clause 22 allows them to seize such an item but only to prevent it being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed, and to retain it unless a photograph or copy is sufficient. It is sometimes the case that, while searching premises using immigration powers, immigration officers may encounter quite clear evidence of a criminal offence. Presently in such circumstances they are required to contact the police and invite them to attend the premises in the hope that perhaps some further steps may be taken to retain the relevant material. In the mean time,

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1629

they have no power to prevent that material being removed, destroyed or simply taken away somehow, which seems a somewhat unusual situation for them to be left in.

This power will therefore enable immigration officers to retain such material in circumstances where they are already lawfully on premises, either by virtue of a warrant or because they have been given entry but only for the purpose of preserving that evidence. They will not be responsible for the chain of evidence through, for example, to a prosecution. They will take steps to hand that evidence over to the police at the first available opportunity. For that purpose, they will be trained with regard to obtaining that evidence. I make clear, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that there is no provision in Clause 22 for any search of the person. That power will not be conferred on immigration officers in this context.

As regards proportionality, it respectfully appears to us that it is appropriate and proportionate that immigration officers who encounter material which on the face of it is the product of some criminal act should be able to at least preserve that evidence pending its availability to the investigative authorities. I add that, in fact, some immigration officers have power under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to search for and recover evidence of a crime. However, that power is exercised only when the relevant immigration officers have gone through the full training that would also be available to police officers. Therefore we accept that that is an exceptional case. Here there will be suitable training for immigration officers for the purpose of seizing and retaining evidence of a criminal act.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the training of immigration officers. But before he goes on to the next point in his argument, does he recall that in 2014, in the case of R v Ntege and Others, his honour Judge Madge stayed the prosecution because of both bad faith and serious misconduct? He held:

“I am satisfied that officers at the heart of this prosecution have deliberately concealed important evidence and lied on oath”.

In addition, in 2010, in Abdillaahi Muuse v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal concluded that the conduct of what was then the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in the unlawful imprisonment of Mr Muuse,

“was not merely unconstitutional but an arbitrary exercise of executive power which was outrageous”.

How can the Minister, in extending the powers that already exist for immigration officers, ensure that there is not a repetition of those sorts of cases?

Lord Keen of Elie: Clearly, I will not comment on the detail of individual cases in this context. Those findings were made, and clearly they indicate conduct that was wholly unacceptable, and—let us add—quite exceptional, with two cases cited in many years. It is regrettable that those events occurred, but let us remember that they are isolated events. As regards the general powers of immigration officers, they will be provided with training and guidance on the use of their powers and are given enforcement instructions in guidance.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1630

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, on that very point, I know that the Minister cannot do it today, but would he be prepared to write to noble Lords, or to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and explain what that training and guidance will be? He said it would be very extensive, and I am sure it will be, but I wonder how long it will take, what the cost will be and how practical it will be.

Lord Keen of Elie: I should add that the guidance on immigration officers’ use of powers is set out in the enforcement instructions and guidance, which are published on the UK Government website. But I would be content to write to the noble Lord to set out an outline of the proposed training for those immigration officers who are going to have the limited power conferred by Clause 22 with regard to the preservation of evidence that they believe has been the product of some criminal act.

There was one further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the false positive, as he termed it, and the administrative burden. I respectfully suggest that that burden will be no greater than the burden imposed upon police officers in circumstances where immigration officers believe that they have encountered the product of a criminal act and then telephone or radio the police and invite them to attend a premises. So there is a question of balance here, but it is not, on the face of it, going to be a disproportionate burden when compared to the present circumstances in which the matter is, in any event, brought to the attention of the police.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for speaking to this group. I also thank the Minister for his explanation of Amendment 184. I will read with care what he said on that particular amendment.

As far as Clause 21 is concerned, which is the power to search premises simply to establish whether a civil penalty should be imposed, I am a little confused, because I am not sure how an immigration officer can establish whether a breach of the law is something that should be responded to by way of criminal prosecution or by civil penalty until the search of the premises and the necessary paperwork has been found. If the immigration officer has reasonable cause to suspect that a criminal offence has been committed, there is an existing power to carry out that search. Now it may be that in the course of that search, using the power under the suspicion of a criminal offence having been committed, the paperwork is found to show that it is not a serious breach and therefore that a civil penalty would be more appropriate. But the search can still be conducted without a specific power to search on the basis of a civil penalty.

The Minister said that having the power to search on the basis of a civil liability would ensure that only non-compliant employers and landlords would have action taken against them. But surely a compliant employer will offer up the necessary documentation and a search without the consent of the employer or landlord will not be required. Therefore, again, I do not see why that power is necessary.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1631

As far as Clause 22 is concerned, if it were simply a case of restraining people who were on the premises from interfering with something that was believed to be evidence of a criminal offence while the police are called and come to investigate the matter, I might be a little more sympathetic. But the Minister kept talking about seizing and retaining property, and said that immigration officers would not be in the evidence chain. Clearly, if they seize and retain the property, they are in the evidence chain: the police cannot give evidence of the fact that the property was in the premises if the immigration officer just appears at the police station with the property and tells the police officer, “I found this”.

As I said earlier, it is very important to question people in situ about, for example, a bag of drugs. It may be necessary for there to be forensic examination of those drugs for, say, fingerprints or perhaps even DNA, or for the property to be photographed in situ. That is something that I would have confidence that only the police would think about, rather than an immigration officer who is there to enforce the law on immigration rather than to deal with these other, arguably more serious, offences.

As far as the administration burden is concerned, with property being taken and given to the police versus the time that the police would have to spend going to collect the property from the premises, with the greatest respect, I do not think that the Minister realises the administrative burden that goes with police seizing property and the problems associated with it. I say that it would be a disproportionate burden on the police were immigration officers able to seize such property. But, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 184 withdrawn.

Clause 20 agreed.

Clauses 21 to 24 agreed.

Clause 25: Search for nationality documents by detainee custody officers etc

Amendment 185

Moved by Lord Paddick

185: Clause 25, page 31, line 30, leave out “, or intends to make,”

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 185 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee. We also have Amendments 186 through to 193 in this group.

Amendment 185 relates to the power of detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers to search for nationality documents. The powers set out in Clause 25(6) can be exercised not only when the Secretary of State has made a deportation order in relation to the individual but, as stated in Clause 25(2)(b), when the Secretary of State “intends to make” a deportation order. The briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association expresses serious concerns

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1632

about the new powers to conduct searches for nationality documents, including strip searches, in the light of the concerns expressed about the treatment of vulnerable persons in immigration detention made by the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migrants. That review was conducted by Stephen Shaw and others.

On the particular issue of the amendment, if the Government mean to extend the power to include cases where the Secretary of State has fulfilled the procedural requirement to give formal notice of her intention to make a deportation order, this should be in the Bill, rather than the current wording, which is simply,

“intends to make, a deportation order”.

Amendments 186, 187, 188 and 189 relate to the circumstance where a nationality document has been seized but the person is not removed from the United Kingdom. Clause 25(13) states that the Secretary of State “may” arrange for the document to be returned, but surely she is under an obligation to return the document, so amendment 185 seeks to replace “may” with “shall”. Amendment 192 covers the same point in relation to documents seized by a detainee custody officer or a prison officer.

Amendment 187 refers to Clause 25(13)(b), which goes on to say that a document can be disposed of and not returned if the Secretary of State thinks that it would not be appropriate to do so. Can the Minister explain in what circumstances a search for a nationality document might produce a document that is not required as part of the process of deporting an individual but should nonetheless be disposed of rather than returned? For example, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association reminds us that passports, one of the “nationality documents” listed in the Bill, remain the property of the issuing authority. As such, the Secretary of State has no right to dispose of these documents as she thinks fit.

6 pm

Amendment 193 covers the same point in relation to a document seized by a detainee custody officer or prison officer in Clause 26(7)(b) and Amendment 212 covers a similar point in Clause 29(10) and (11) in relation to a document supplied to the Secretary of State by a public body. The amendment suggests that the document is returned to the person who supplied it rather than being disposed of.

Amendment 188 relates to Clause 25(14)(b), which states that if it is it necessary to return a document and it was not found on someone, it should be returned to,

“the location in which it was found”.

The amendment suggests as an alternative that the document should be returned to the person who appears to be entitled to it. It is difficult to envisage that a document seized as potential evidence of an immigration offence would not contain any information about the person to whom it belongs. As it stands, Clause 25(14)(b) could allow for a document that subsequently turns out to be stolen to be replaced where it was found. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has pointed out a flaw in this amendment in cases where someone is seeking asylum and the returning of a nationality

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1633

document to the person’s country of origin may place them in danger, but we can address this defect in our amendment at Report if necessary. Amendment 190 covers the same point for a document seized by a detainee custody officer in Clause 26(5)(b).

Amendment 189 was originally intended to challenge the inclusion of “citizenship” and documents that show where the person has come from or is going to in the definition of nationality documents, but we now accept that Section 44(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007 gives a similarly broad list of documents. However, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that in the UK Borders Act a,

“‘nationality document’ means a document showing … the individual’s identity, nationality or citizenship”,

whereas this provision defines a nationality document as a document which,

“might … establish a person’s identity, nationality or citizenship”—

a significant widening of the power.

The document that indicates where a person has travelled from could include a guidebook, personal diary or hotel receipt. Will the Minister explain how a personal diary or a travel guide could be defined as a nationality document? If the Government want to be able to search and retain any document found, they should say so on the face of the Bill. Amendment 213 is on the same point in relation to nationality documents supplied by the police, local authorities and other public bodies at Clause 29(11) and (14).

Amendment 191 relates to Clause 26(6), which states:

“The Secretary of State may retain a relevant nationality document”,

discovered during a search of a person detained,

“while the Secretary of State suspects that … a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom … and … retention of the document may facilitate the removal”.

Surely there must be a reasonable level of suspicion before the document can be retained rather than simply a gut instinct or a feeling of suspicion. I beg to move.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, during the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in introducing his amendments and talking about these clauses, he referred to Stephen Shaw’s report and I want to ask the Minister some questions about that. He will know that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration produced a pretty damning report on immigration detention, which led to the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, being asked to investigate the treatment of vulnerable persons in detention. His report was published on Thursday 14 January, so another place had no opportunity to discuss that when it was considering the Bill, but we have a chance now to ask the Minister some questions about it in the context of these clauses.

Has the Minister had a chance to read the report in detail? It criticises the conduct of searches in immigration detention centres and it gives cause for further scrutiny of these provisions. The Minister himself, in his remarks on the previous set of amendments, said that things such as strip-searching would not be permitted, but I was concerned to read a number of accounts in Stephen

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1634

Shaw’s report that involved male detention staff in searches of women, although not with the removal of clothes, and of women’s rooms in Yarl’s Wood. I am particularly interested in the situation there, as, thanks to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hylton and I have been able to arrange a visit to Yarl’s Wood on Wednesday morning. I am glad that we will have the opportunity to put some of these questions directly to the staff who run that facility.

Mr Shaw says in his remarks:

“It is of the greatest importance that the proportion of female staff at Yarl’s Wood is increased … In the meantime, Serco should only conduct searches of women and of women’s rooms in the presence of men in the most extreme and pressing circumstances, and there should be monitoring and reporting (to Home Office Detention Operations) of these cases”.

In recommendation 35 of the report, he states:

“I recommend that the service provider at Yarl’s Wood should only conduct searches of women and of women’s rooms in the presence of men in the most extreme and pressing circumstances, and that there should be monitoring and reporting of these cases”.

During that review, Stephen Shaw identified evidence that the Home Office policy of not searching detainees, especially women, in the view of other people, is not always followed. I was struck by some examples that he gave. He said that:

“As far as the practices at Heathrow, Lunar house and Eaton House are concerned, the evidence of this review is that the Home Office’s policy that detainees (especially women) should not be searched in view of other people is not always followed”.

For instance, talking about Heathrow Terminal 3, Mr Shaw says, at paragraph 3.175:

“A female detainee was searched in front of several people”

At paragraph 3.227, talking about Lunar House, he says:

“Detainees were searched in an area where they could be seen by others in the main holding room”.

At Eaton House, at paragraph 3.240, he says:

“A female detainee was searched in the holding room by the Tascor escort who had arrived to take her to Colnbrook. This was in front of a male detainee and a male member of staff”.

Clearly, given the vulnerable position of detainees, particularly women, who are held as immigration detainees, and the lack of compliance by detention custody staff with existing policies on searching detainees, it would be highly inappropriate to extend those powers of search to include searches for the purpose of identifying nationality documents, particularly where they are so broadly defined in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has already described to the Committee. When he comes to reply, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how the Government intend to respond to Stephen Shaw’s observations and recommendations.

The Earl of Listowel (CB): My Lords, having visited Yarl’s Wood several times in the past, I have noted the deep anxiety of those resident there. Anything like this will be particularly disturbing to them, so that should be kept in mind.

We must always draw attention to concerns about the treatment of these vulnerable individuals, but we must also commend the Government when they take steps to protect such individuals and treat them with respect. I take this opportunity to pay tribute once

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1635

again to the last coalition Government, which took children and families out of these settings. Many of us were very concerned at the large numbers of families who were detained at Yarl’s Wood, often for many months on end. I remember speaking to a 16 year-old girl who was there with her mother and her six or seven year-old sister for nine months. It is very much to the coalition Government’s credit that they decided to change the system.

Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to noble Lords. I shall begin by addressing the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in the context of the report from Stephen Shaw. Of course the background to this was the detailed Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was a member. That led to the appointment of Stephen Shaw, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has observed, he recently reported on this matter. My noble friend Lord Bates, upon receipt of that report, made a Statement to the House in which he pointed out that the Government welcomed the important contribution that Stephen Shaw had made to the debate about effective detention and accepted the broad thrust of his recommendations. That will be the subject of a further response in due course, and certainly I hope before the Report stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will allow me to defer any detailed comments on the points he raised until that further response is made. But what I add is that we welcome observations that he may have to make following his visit to Yarl’s Wood on Wednesday. His comments will be received in the appropriate spirit because this is a demanding area and one in which the Government are willing to seek to respond to the broad thrust of the recommendations that Stephen Shaw has made.

I turn to Amendment 185, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but before doing so I will make this observation. He spoke about strip searches. I take issue with that term. There are full searches but they are not strip searches. It may be that he wishes to come back on that, but I take issue with the term “strip searches”; they are full searches.

Lord Paddick: Can the Minister tell us the difference between a full search and a strip search?

Lord Keen of Elie: It is set down in detail, but in general it means that someone is not stripped. It means that articles of clothing are removed and returned in turn, but without them being stripped.

I return to Amendment 185, which would limit the Secretary of State’s ability to direct officers to search for nationality documents to those in respect of whom she has made a deportation order under Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, preventing its use for those whom she intends to deport. It may help if I explain that the Secretary of State, in accordance with regulations made under Section 105 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, issues a written notice to those foreign national offenders who are

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1636

liable to deportation under Section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 stating that she intends to seek a deportation order against them. Such persons may be detained by virtue of paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971. Therefore, the reference to “intends to” is simply a way to ensure that such persons are within the ambit of the new powers while in detention. Being able to direct a search for nationality documents once a person has received such a notice but before a deportation order is made reduces the risk of documents being destroyed when the person knows that deportation is a realistic prospect. That is the purpose of the provision in its present form and why we resist the proposed amendment.

Amendments 186 to 188, 190, 192 and 193 seek to limit the Secretary of State’s disposal options on nationality documents which are not used to remove a person, by ensuring that they must be returned to the person who was previously in possession of them or who appears to be entitled to them. On that last point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is of course right to say that the country which issues a passport is the proprietor of that passport, while the person to whom it is issued is the user. It is therefore that country which is entitled to claim ownership, as it were, of the passport document. That touches upon the point he mentioned about the potential risk of returning a document to an issuing authority creating a danger for a person in particular circumstances. That is a point I will take away and consider because it had not immediately occurred to me in this context.

The reason why the Secretary of State should be given the wider power indicated in the present clauses is because there may be circumstances in which she would wish to remove from circulation forged or counterfeit documents. The idea that, having identified a passport as forged or counterfeit, she should return it to the person who had been using it seems a little unusual. It is in these circumstances that the wider power is sought.

6.15 pm

Amendment 189 reduces the definition of “nationality document” to those which might establish a person’s identity, nationality or citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was quite right to notice that this provision does in fact follow on from Sections 44 and 45 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007, which contain powers for immigration officers and constables to search for nationality documents, but with a wider definition than the one suggested by Amendment 189. The reason for that is that there may be circumstances in which it is important to identify the place from which a person came, or indeed the place to which they were intending to go, in the context of whether or not they should be subject to deportation. The noble Lord also asked how or why a hotel receipt, travel guide and other such documents might be considered relevant. In that context they would be considered relevant because they might disclose the first place of safety that a person had arrived at within the European Union, for example, where the provisions of the Dublin agreement apply. It is therefore entirely appropriate that one should be able to search for such documents. They could provide a trail in circumstances where a

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1637

person may have been seeking to make repeated asylum applications in a whole series of countries once they had arrived in a relatively safe environment.

Finally, Amendment 191 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State may retain a relevant nationality document only if she is reasonable in her suspicion that the person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom and that the document may facilitate that removal. All Ministers must comply with public law principles when exercising public functions. This includes the requirement to act reasonably. If those delegated to use such powers do not do so, that may be challenged in the courts by means of judicial review. It is therefore implicit that the Secretary of State will act reasonably in exercising the power to retain nationality documents. I should also emphasise that the wording used in Clause 26(6) is consistent with that used in Section 17 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 regarding the retention of documents that come into the possession of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer in the course of exercising an immigration function. There is consistency in the proposed legislation.

In light of these points, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness Hamwee (LD): My Lords, I think that some Members of your Lordships’ House are still struggling to work out how a search which is complete in bits sequentially is different from a strip search. However, what I want to say at this point is that I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House, or indeed the only Member present today, to take part in the inquiry by the all-party groups to which the Minister referred. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was also an energetic member of the group.

Lord Keen of Elie: The noble Baroness is of course quite right and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for omitting her name from the reference. Of course it is acknowledged that the report was the precursor to Stephen Shaw’s helpful and incisive report on this matter. I am obliged for that.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As noble Lords will be aware, many amendments at Committee stage are probing amendments, so the explanations given by the Minister on this occasion have been very helpful.

On Amendment 185, I mentioned that the Secretary of State has to serve a notice on people—a formal notice of the intention to make a deportation order. The Minister pointed to that as being the meaning in the Bill. I asked the question: if that is the case why is that wording not on the face of the Bill rather than the rather vague wording that is currently there? Maybe the Minister can reflect on that between now and the next stage.

As far as the definition of nationality documents is concerned, I accept that under the Dublin agreement, as long as we are a member of the European Union, it is important to establish the first place of safety in

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1638

terms of where the person should apply for asylum. I am reassured that Secretaries of State must at all times act reasonably. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 185 withdrawn.

Amendments 186 to 189 not moved.

Clause 25 agreed.

Clause 26: Seizure of nationality documents by detainee custody officers etc

Amendments 190 to 193 not moved.

Clause 26 agreed.

Clauses 27 and 28 agreed.

Schedule 5: Amendments to search warrant provisions

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con): Before I call the noble Lord to move his Amendment 194, I should point out that if it were agreed it would not be possible to call government Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, as it would be pre-empted.

Amendment 194

Moved by Lord Paddick

194: Schedule 5, page 94, line 13, leave out from “application” to end of line 17

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We also have Amendment 201 in this group.

Amendment 194 relates to Schedule 5 and amendments to the search warrant provisions in the Immigration Act 1971. We have already debated all premises warrants under Amendments 171, 172 and 173 in relation to the seizure of vehicles driven by someone illegally in this country. These provisions relate to search warrants issued to search for personnel records and nationality documents, and again allow any premises owned or occupied by the person specified in the warrant without having to specify the premises. The only thing I would say to that is that the explanation given under those previous amendments appeared to be simply to bring the Immigration Act into line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Will the Minister say whether there are other specific reasons why all premises warrants would be valuable in the circumstances?

Amendment 201 is to probe the extension from one month to three of the time during which a search warrant issued under the Immigration Act 1971 can be executed. I accept that these provisions bring Immigration Act search warrants into line with those issued, predominantly to the police, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as amended by Section 15 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. However, is this necessary or safe in immigration cases?

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points to evidence in the March 2014 report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in relation to the use of the power to enter business

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1639

premises without a warrant by immigration officers. It found that in 59% of the cases examined, the required justification had not been made out. I appreciate that this provision is to extend powers given by warrant but the chief inspector’s report indicates the need for increased, not less scrutiny by the courts of the powers used by immigration officers. I beg to move.

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. As he indicated, Amendment 194 would remove the ability for immigration officers to seek an all premises warrant where they have a power to enter and search premises for material which is likely to be relevant evidence of an immigration offence under the 1971 Act. As the noble Lord anticipated, one purpose of this is to bring the provisions on such warrants into line with those for police warrants under PACE.

In addition, Amendment 201 is intended to do the same thing, but I should perhaps explain that when the immigration warrants were originally provided for, as running for one month, that was in parallel with the time that a police warrant would run under PACE. Subsequently, the warrant under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was extended to a three-month period, so they fell out of sequence. The difficulty is that, from time to time, there are joint immigration officer and police operations which involve warrants being granted, and it is not convenient that the immigration warrant should be a period of one month while the police warrant is for a period of three months. The purpose of Amendment 201 in particular is simply to bring the time limit back into line with that which applies for police warrants.

Coming back to Amendment 194 and the use of all premises warrants, it is considered appropriate that an all premises warrant should be available to immigration officers, not only because that is consistent with the form of warrant available to police officers pursuing their own powers but because there are many circumstances in which an all premises warrant will be required for effective recovery of material pertaining to either illegal working or potential offences in respect of landlords and illegal renting. For example, where you have someone who has a number of restaurants employing persons who may be suspected of being illegal immigrants, you may have a warrant in respect of particular premises and then discover that all the records are actually kept elsewhere—in an office, a lock-up, or something of that kind. Therefore, it is appropriate that all the premises that are subject to the control of a particular employer should be available under the warrant, otherwise we would have a very long, drawn-out, step-by-step process of knocking down one domino, going from one warrant to the next one, and so on. It is in these circumstances that it is considered appropriate that an all premises warrant should be allowed in the case of immigration officers. I hope that that addresses the concerns or reservations expressed by reference to Amendments 194 and 201. In a sense, they bring immigration warrants into line with police warrants, but they were in line with police warrants before the amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In addition, there are substantive reasons why it is practical and effective for immigration officers to have an all premises warrant facility available to them.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1640

Government Amendments 195 to 200 and 202 to 209 may look rather complex, but have at their core a very simple proposition; that is, in Scotland it is not lawfully possible to secure an all premises warrant and a multiple entry warrant. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that immigration officers operating in Scotland do so within the bounds of the Scottish criminal justice system.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: I see the need for the amendments, but will the noble and learned Lord explain further how we have had to come to this stage in the Bill—I assume that it was drafted in the Home Office, checked and rechecked, and then went all through the Commons—and now we find that we have to table an amendment because these powers are not available in Scotland? I am surprised that we had to come to this stage to realise that point.

Lord Keen of Elie: It may be that the Scots only recently had a look at it. I am not in a position to elaborate, but I hope that the noble Lord will accept that as a potential explanation.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: That is very helpful, thank you.

6.30 pm

Lord Keen of Elie: I shall go on to deal with government Amendment 214B, which is not concerned with warrants per se, but to clarify that the person who can undertake the role of custody review officer under Section 24A of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 includes a police inspector and is not limited to a person of equivalent rank. In Scotland, immigration officers currently have a power to detain pending arrest, and charge for immigration and nationality offences under Section 24 of the 1995 Act, which is similar to arresting a person pending charge in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Under Section 24A of that Act a “custody review officer” may authorise an extension of the period for which a person can be held in detention under Section 24. This role has always been undertaken by a police inspector and the amendment is simply to ensure that there is no possible ambiguity in the provision that provides for this operational practice. Amendments 214C and 214D are minor and technical and simply remove redundant wording from the Bill.

I hope that these explanations will satisfy noble Lords and that they will feel able not to press their amendments, and I shall move the government amendments.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the explanations that he has given. I still have concerns relating to the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report on immigration officers’ use of powers to enter premises without a warrant. In 59% of cases examined the required justification had not been made out. Giving immigration officers similar powers to those of police officers to enter any premises owned or occupied by the person named in the warrant and to do it over an extended period where it is not a joint operation with the police still causes me some concern.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1641

I am not sure whether there is similar malpractice, so far as police officers are concerned, in the execution of PACE warrants, but the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report seems to suggest that the exercise of powers by immigration officers is not perhaps as thorough as it is by police officers. My concerns remain, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 194 withdrawn.

Amendments 195 to 200

Moved by Lord Keen of Elie

195: Schedule 5, page 94, line 14, after “(b)” insert “subject to subsection (2A),”

196: Schedule 5, page 94, line 29, after “(1C)” insert “Subject to subsection (2A),”

197: Schedule 5, page 94, line 35, at end insert—

“( ) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) A justice of the peace in Scotland may not issue—

(a) an all premises warrant under this section, or

(b) a warrant under this section authorising multiple entries.””

198: Schedule 5, page 95, line 7, after “(b)” insert “subject to subsection (3C),”

199: Schedule 5, page 95, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—

“( ) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) Subject to subsection (3C), the warrant may authorise entry to and search of premises on more than one occasion if, on the application, the justice of the peace is satisfied that it is necessary to authorise multiple entries in order to achieve the purpose for which the justice issues the warrant.

(3B) If it authorises multiple entries, the number of entries authorised may be unlimited, or limited to a maximum.

(3C) A justice of the peace in Scotland may not issue—

(a) an all premises warrant under this section, or

(b) a warrant under this section authorising multiple entries.””

200: Schedule 5, page 96, line 35, leave out “28FB(1C)” and insert “28FB(3A)”

Amendments 195 to 200 agreed.

Amendment 201 not moved.

Amendments 202 to 209

Moved by Lord Keen of Elie

202: Schedule 5, page 97, line 36, leave out “28FB(1C)” and insert “28FB(3A)”

203: Schedule 5, page 98, line 4, after “(b)” insert “subject to sub-paragraph (6BA),”

204: Schedule 5, page 98, line 17, after “(6AC)” insert “Subject to sub-paragraph (6BA),”

205: Schedule 5, page 98, line 24, at end insert—

“( ) After sub-paragraph (6B) insert—

“(6BA) A justice of the peace in Scotland may not issue—

(a) an all premises warrant under this paragraph, or

(b) a warrant under this paragraph authorising multiple entries.””

206: Schedule 5, page 98, line 26, leave out “(6AC)” and insert “(6BA)”

207: Schedule 5, page 98, line 38, after “(b)” insert “subject to subsection (3A),”

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1642

208: Schedule 5, page 99, line 6, after “(2C)” insert “Subject to subsection (3A),”

209: Schedule 5, page 99, line 12, at end insert—

“( ) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) A justice of the peace in Scotland may not issue—

(a) an all premises warrant under this section, or

(b) a warrant under this section authorising multiple entries.””

Amendments 202 to 209 agreed.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed.

Clause 29: Supply of information to Secretary of State

Amendment 210

Moved by Lord Paddick

210: Clause 29, page 36, line 2, after second “State” insert “reasonably”

Lord Paddick: My Lords, in moving Amendment 210, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I shall speak to Amendments 211 to 213 and Amendment 215.

Amendment 210 suggests the addition of “reasonably” in the power of the Home Secretary to direct public agencies to supply documents, so that she must “reasonably suspect”, rather than simply “suspect”, that someone may be liable to deportation under new Section 20A(2). Amendment 211 suggests a similar change to the power of the Secretary of State to retain such a document. Amendment 212 requires the Secretary of State to return a nationality document that is no longer required to the person who supplied it, as previously debated on Amendment 188.

Amendment 213 again queries extending the definition of “nationality document” from “a document showing” the individual’s “identity, nationality or citizenship”, to one that “might establish” the individual’s “identity, nationality or citizenship”, as previously debated on Amendment 189. I do not think that the Minister addressed in that debate the broadening of the definition from a document “showing” the individual’s identity to one that “might establish” their identity. That is a considerable broadening of the definition.

Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 30 relating to complaints and the investigation of serious concerns relating to the conduct of immigration officers. It suggests that a commission be established to,

“make recommendations about the establishment of an independent oversight body”,

for immigration officers and other authorised officers, in so far as they exercise powers available to immigration officers. My understanding is that the Independent Police Complaints Commission currently investigates complaints against immigration officers, but only relating to powers similar to those exercised by the police. There is not one overall coherent complaints investigation or recording system. Would the Minister confirm this? Even if the IPCC has a role, we believe that such arrangements may be inadequate and should at least be reviewed to ensure that they are effective.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1643

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is fighting an uphill struggle to win the trust and confidence of the public in general, and the black and minority ethnic communities in particular. Those most likely to come into contact with immigration officers are those seeking asylum and others in a very vulnerable position. The likelihood that such people will have a good understanding overall of their rights and the standard of conduct expected of immigration officers and other authorised officers is far less than among those born in this country or who have lived here for some time. Indeed, the way they may have been treated by officials in their own country may well be far below the standard expected of immigration officers and other authorised officers in the UK.

In all the circumstances, it seems that there is at least a question that needs to be examined as to whether the existing arrangements by which long-standing residents of the UK—well-versed in their rights and the conduct expected of officials—can have their concerns about the police and immigration officers investigated are adequate for asylum seekers and those newly arrived in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the supply of information to the Secretary of State and the establishment of a commission for standards for immigration officers. I was somewhat surprised that without Amendment 212 or something similar—it may need refining—it would be left to the Secretary of State to dispose of nationality documents as they think appropriate, without any further clarifications. It would be useful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would confirm that there is no question that these documents will not be returned to the person when they are no longer needed by the Secretary of State or their officials. I understand that we would not want to return the documents to someone who had no right to have them, but if they have been obtained lawfully they should go back to them.

Amendment 215 requires the Secretary of State to establish a commission to make recommendations for an independent oversight board to set standards for immigration officers. Given the sort of powers that immigration officers exercise as public officials, it is right that we should have in place a proper process to look at complaints about their conduct and standards. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord were to set out what happens at present. Is this safeguard in place with regard to certain things but not to others, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated? Does the noble and learned Lord think that the present system is adequate in all respects?

Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for their observations on these provisions.

Amendments 210 and 211 are essentially the same as those previously discussed in relation to Amendment 191 in seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State may direct a person to supply a relevant nationality document only—and may retain that document only—if she acts reasonably in her suspicion that the person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom, and that the document may facilitate that removal.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1644

Amendment 213 is the same as Amendment 189, put forward to Clause 25, in seeking to limit the definition of “nationality document”. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, observed that I had not addressed the distinction between the term “showing” and the term “might establish”. It respectfully appears to me that it is the distinction between that which is explicit on the face of a document and that which may be inferred from its terms. The terms of a document may not on their face show a particular position but an analysis of the terms of that document would lead to an implication about the source of the document, the person using it or the background of that person. So I suggest that it is the distinction between a document being explicit on its face, and giving rise to what might be termed a circumstantial evidential route to a determination with regard to a person’s nationality or route of travel.

Amendment 212 differs slightly from those previous amendments to Clauses 25 and 26 on the Secretary of State’s power to dispose of documents which she no longer wishes to retain in that it requires the document to be returned to the person who supplied it. However, to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we again face a difficulty when the Secretary of State is provided with documents which are clearly forged or counterfeit. The desire is to ensure that these should not remain in circulation and therefore be returned to someone who would put them back into circulation or use them again. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. It should be acknowledged that some of the bodies supplying documents will not be in a position to establish whether they are forged or fraudulently obtained—but, generally speaking, Immigration Enforcement personnel are able to determine that from the analysis of documents.

As we have discussed, Clause 29 contains powers that enable the Secretary of State to require public authorities, subject to certain conditions, to supply nationality documents to the Home Office for immigration purposes. Schedule 6 lists those public authorities to which the new duty applies. Government Amendment 214A is quite straightforward in terms of its effect in that it adds education bodies to that list: these are schools and further and higher education providers across the United Kingdom. This power will be exercisable only where the Secretary of State suspects that a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and that the document may facilitate the removal.

I wish to be absolutely clear that this is not a power to require education bodies or, indeed, any of those listed, to collect data or information on behalf of the Secretary of State, or to seize documents from people, as it applies only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that a nationality document is already lawfully in the possession of the relevant body—that is to say, that they hold the document for the purposes of their own functions.

6.45 pm

On the new clause proposed in Amendment 215, I fully understand the value of having standards for the actions of immigration officers, the handling of complaints against them and the investigation of serious concerns

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1645

about their conduct. It is vital that the public are able to make complaints where they feel they have been mistreated by immigration officers, and, of course, it is right that serious incidents are subject to independent scrutiny. Indeed, it is precisely because of our commitment to protecting the public that we have ensured that adequate oversight mechanisms are in place for all areas of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In England and Wales, the Independent Police Complaints Commission provides oversight of serious complaints, matters of conduct and incidents involving immigration officers exercising enforcement powers. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland’s remit mirrors that of the IPCC, enabling oversight of serious incidents, complaints and conduct matters in Northern Ireland where immigration enforcement powers are exercised.

In Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has the remit to investigate deaths and allegations of criminality in respect of immigration matters. In addition, all complaints about immigration officers who are exercising enforcement powers in Scotland may be investigated by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom’s border and immigration functions as a whole are subject to the independent scrutiny of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who was cited a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Detention staff are also subject to a number of oversight and monitoring bodies. Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons has a statutory responsibility to report on the conditions and treatment in not just prisons but all places of immigration detention in the United Kingdom; the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman can conduct unannounced inspections; and detainees may ask for complaints to be reviewed by the independent Prisons and Probation Ombudsman.

The role of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration was created by Section 48 of the UK Borders Act 2007. It has been in place for a number of years and is believed to work effectively and efficiently. Guidance on how complaints are managed and resolved by UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and Border Force is publicly available on the Government’s website. This includes information about the complaints management structure, types of complaints handled, dealing with complaints, service complaints, minor misconduct complaints, serious misconduct complaints, special circumstances, complaints from children and complaints for the purposes of financial redress. Complaints may be raised at a local level to a senior officer within the relevant immigration compliance and engagement team which conducted the search. Complaints about serious misconduct are allocated to, and investigated by, the immigration Professional Standards Unit.

So there is a wide-ranging series of bodies available to ensure that complaints from the public are properly handled and effectively disposed of. I again point to the observations made a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the use, or alleged misuse, of warrants in circumstances where they have been employed by immigration officers. That points up the fact that there is a very effective monitoring system in

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1646

place. In these circumstances, I urge noble Lords to accept government Amendments 214A and 214B and invite the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: The noble and learned Lord has gone through the various bodies to which we can complain. However, there are a lot of bodies to which one can complain about all sorts of different things. Perhaps his officials should reflect that there is a case for bringing all these things together because having all these bodies may not be the best way to run things. As regards the nationality documents, I entirely accept the point about fraudulent documents but if a document is genuine I assume that it would be returned to the relevant person.

Lord Keen of Elie: On the last point, the Secretary of State will act reasonably, and is lawfully obliged to act reasonably, so there cannot be any real difficulty about that. On the noble Lord’s first point, our complaints procedure may be so comprehensive that it is difficult for him to get his arms round it. However, I would be content to write to outline that procedure in more detail if he felt that would assist.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanations that he has given. As he said, many of them were similar to points that we had already debated. I am very grateful for his explanation about the broadening of the definition, which he did not cover on the previous amendments. I shall read with interest, and very carefully, what he has said on that issue.

On Amendment 215, I echo what the noble Lord has just said about the many and different avenues of complaint. How can somebody who has a genuine grievance against the Immigration Service possibly know which body to turn to among all that complexity? The Minister did not address the concerns that I expressed on behalf of many communities about their lack of trust and confidence in the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and the concern that those who are likely to come into contact with the Immigration Service are likely to be more vulnerable and less aware of their rights than those who do make complaints to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The Minister made reference to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. I have to confess to not knowing exactly what the chief inspector’s remit is, but if it is similar to that of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, it is purely a monitoring function—an investigation and review function—rather than a complaint-examining function. Indeed, if any complaint were made to the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration about the conduct of the immigration office, I would expect him to refer it to—

Lord Keen of Elie: I should have added that Independent Police Complaints Commission’s remit was extended to investigating complaints and serious conduct matters relating to the exercise of immigration enforcement powers by Section 41 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 and the UK Border Agency (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2010. I had omitted to mention that.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1647

Lord Paddick: I am very grateful to the Minister for that.

As I was saying, I expect that we would find in practice that complaints made to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration would just be passed on to the many and various organisations and bodies that the Minister highlighted.

I am therefore still unconvinced that there is no need to review whether the current procedures for making complaints against immigration officers is user-friendly to people who are going to find it very difficult to navigate all these different systems. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 210 withdrawn.

Amendments 211 to 213 not moved.

Clause 29 agreed.

Schedule 6: Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State: persons to whom duty applies

Amendments 214 and 214A

Moved by Lord Bates

214: Schedule 6, page 100, line 9, leave out “Licensing” and insert “and Labour Abuse”

214A: Schedule 6, page 100, line 23, at end insert—

“Education bodies

The proprietor of a school or 16 to 19 Academy within the meaning of the Education Act 1996 (see sections 4 and 579(1) of that Act).

The governing body of an institution within the further education sector within the meaning of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (see sections 90 and 91 of that Act).

The governing body of a qualifying institution within the meaning of Part 2 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (see sections 11 and 21 of that Act).

The proprietor or governing body of a school within the meaning of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (see section 135(1) of that Act).

The proprietor or governing body of a post-16 education body within the meaning of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 (see section 35 of that Act).

The proprietor of a school within the meaning of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (SI 1986/594 (NI 3)) (see Article 2(2) of that Order).

The governing body of an institution of further education within the meaning of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (SI 1997/1772 (NI 15)) (see Article 2(2) of that Order).

The governing body of a higher education institution as defined by Article 30(3) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 (SI 1993/2810 (NI 12)).”

Amendments 214 and 214A agreed.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed.

Clause 30: Detention etc. by immigration officers in Scotland

Amendments 214B to 214D

Moved by Lord Bates

214B: Clause 30, page 37, line 27, at end insert—

“( ) The Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 is amended as follows.

( ) In section 24A (extension of period of detention under section 24) for subsection (7) insert—

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1648

“(7) In this section and section 24B, “custody review officer” means—

(a) an officer who—

(i) is of a rank at least equivalent to that of police inspector, and

(ii) has not been involved in the investigation in connection with which the person is detained, or

(b) in relation to the detention of a person under section 24 by an immigration officer, a constable—

(i) of the rank of inspector or above, and

(ii) who has not been involved in the investigation in connection with which the person is detained.”

( ) In section 26A(2) (power of arrest of authorised immigration officers) omit “or immigration enforcement offence”.”

214C: Clause 30, page 37, line 28, leave out “of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995”

214D: Clause 30, page 37, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“( ) Omit the definition of “immigration enforcement offence”.”

Amendments 214B to 214D agreed.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 214E

Moved by Lord Bates

214E: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—

“Powers to take fingerprints etc. from dependants

(1) Section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (powers to take fingerprints from certain persons and their dependants) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (7) for paragraph (f) substitute—

“(f) any person (“F”) who is—

(i) a member of the family of a person within any of paragraphs (a), (b) or (ca) to (e), or

(ii) a dependant of a person within paragraph (c)(i).”

(3) In subsection (8)(f) after “person” insert “of whose family he is a member or”.

(4) In subsection (9)(f) after “person” insert “of whose family he is a member or”.

(5) After subsection (13) insert—

“(13A) For the purposes of subsection (7)(f)(i), a person is a member of the family of another person (“P”) if—

(a) the person is—

(i) P’s partner,

(ii) P’s child, or a child living in the same household as P in circumstances where P has care of the child,

(iii) in a case where P is a child, P’s parent, or

(iv) an adult dependant relative of P, and

(b) the person does not have a right of abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.

(13B) In subsection (13A) “child” means a person who is under the age of 18.”

(6) In subsection (14) for “(7)(f)” substitute “(7)(f)(ii)”.”

(7) Section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (attendance for fingerprinting) is amended as follows.

(8) In subsection (2) for “a dependant of” substitute “a member of the family of, or a dependant of,”.

(9) In subsection (2A) for “a dependant of” substitute “a member of the family of”.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1649

(10) Until the commencement of the repeal of section 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (destruction of fingerprints) by paragraph 17(2) of Schedule 9 to the Immigration Act 2014, subsection (9) of that section has effect as if after “the person” there were inserted “of whose family he is a member or”.

(11) In section 144A(2) (application of regulations about use and retention of fingerprints etc to dependants) after “the person” insert “of whose family F is a member or”.”

Amendment 214E agreed.

Amendment 215 not moved.

Clause 31 agreed.

Clause 32: Immigration bail

Amendment 215A

Moved by Baroness Hamwee

215A: Clause 32, page 38, line 13, leave out “bail” and insert “temporary admission”

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have a number of amendments in this group, and we have added our names to other amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy.

With this amendment we come to another big issue, starting with what may appear to be a triviality, although I do not regard it as such. The clause, of course, is about bail. The law as it currently stands is that if a person cannot lawfully be detained under immigration powers—for instance, because there is no prospect of removing her or him within a reasonable period, or at all, or because it is contrary to policy to detain because the person is a victim of torture or trafficking or is seriously mentally ill—that person must be released from immigration detention and cannot be subject to bail because the powers to grant bail and to impose bail conditions can apply only if there is a power lawfully to detain. Bail is not liberty, either conceptually or practically, because of conditions which may be applied.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson—I appreciate he may not be the flavour of the month in the Government’s eyes, following evidence to the Justice Committee—recently referred to the long-established common law position that,

“The power to grant bail presupposes the existence of (and the ability to exercise) the power to detain lawfully. … It would be extraordinary if Parliament had intended to confer the power to grant bail where a person has been unlawfully detained or could not lawfully be detained”.

But we have Clause 32 and Schedule 7, which say that a person may be granted bail,

“even if the person can no longer be detained”,

which left my head spinning—but not spinning so much that I do not think that the language is important.

In this debate, we will all refer to “bail” because that is the term used in the Bill, but Amendments 215A and 216A would replace it with the term “temporary admission”. Language should be accurate and should not imply what it is not. We are not wedded to the term “temporary admission”. It used in at least three immigration statutes which I have come across, and

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1650

indeed there is a Government amendment using the term. But if the Government wish to propose an alternative which does not suggest that detention is the norm, and that is accurate and does not carry connotations—in particular, that does not suggest that persons seeking asylum are criminals—I would of course be happy to entertain it.

I am spending a little time on this issue because it is not just me and the other noble Lords concerned who are nodding. Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention expressly protects those who claim asylum from being treated as criminals, and I am advised that the UNHCR and other international guidance recognises that detention must always be the exception—a point I would like to emphasise.

In the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that the language was chosen deliberately because it is commonly understood by practitioners, but the point, surely, is how it is understood by others. Anything that risks designating an asylum seeker or someone who is seeking to register his status as an asylum seeker, who is not illegal, as a criminal—instead of, as he often is, as a victim—should be avoided.

7 pm

Moving on to the other amendments, the language is not new but the restrictive provisions of the Bill are. We have added our names to Amendment 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, because it gives a role to the judiciary, not the Executive. That is probably the most important issue in this part of the Bill. It highlights the importance of regular and frequent reviews of detention in every case. It is implicit in that, certainly as I read it, that detention should not be automatic nor roll on automatically.

We have also added our names to Labour’s Amendment 220 and to Amendment 221, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. It was originally shown as being in his name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. I respect the noble and learned Lord’s views and I wondered why my noble friend had done a little exercise of his own. It was only on Thursday that I discovered that he had not, when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, called me and asked me to speak, since neither he nor the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Judge, could be here this evening—so the unlearned gets to go first on this. I predict the weight of learning might come to bear at the next stage if the Government do not concede on this point.

Paragraph 2 of the schedule deals with conditions of bail and the sub-paragraphs allow the Secretary of State to override the decisions of the tribunal about residence conditions and electronic monitoring. The organisation Justice—at this point one might say Justice without adding “the organisation”, I think—describes the power of the Secretary of State, who will have requested the First-tier Tribunal to impose conditions, which the First-tier Tribunal will have considered and refused, then to overturn the decision as,

“a direct affront to the rule of law”.

The Constitution Committee asks whether it is compatible with the rule of law for the Executive to be able to override the decision of an independent judicial body, and quotes a number of comments from the

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1651

noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in the recent Evans v Attorney-General case regarding freedom of information, when he said that,

“it is a basic principle that a decision of a court is binding as between the parties, and cannot be ignored or set aside by anyone, including (indeed it may fairly be said, least of all) the executive”.

The Constitution Committee also says in its recent report:

“It is also worth noting that, unlike the matter at stake in the Evans case, electronic-monitoring and residence conditions engage considerations of individual liberty—something that arguably renders the prospect of executive intervention more constitutionally dubious”.

The Constitution Committee goes on to express concern about the provisions being,

“in tension with the principles of the rule of law”,

and says:

“The usual process, should a Minister have concerns about a judicial decision, would be to appeal against it. The House may wish to ask the Government”—

which is what I am doing now—

“to clarify how their proposals comply with the rule of law. The House may also wish to ask the Government why, if the intention is to ensure the use of certain bail conditions for particular offenders (such as satellite monitoring for foreign nationals), they do not simply propose new criteria for the First-tier Tribunal to take into account when setting bail conditions”.

In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the Minister said that the powers would be used “very rarely”. That hardly requires a response other than, perhaps, as I commented earlier, if one is not afraid of something, why not provide for it?

Our Amendments 221A and 221D address matters to which the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal must have regard when determining the grant of bail or bail conditions. One of these is that the person might cause a danger to public health. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why incarceration would be applied in this case. For instance, would treatment not be more appropriate? If someone is not in the group of people who are seeking asylum and who might be subject to immigration bail—you or me, I might say—but causes a danger to public health, they would not be incarcerated. Other public health provisions might apply but they would not be subject to bail conditions.

The other matter I wish to raise this evening is,

“whether the person’s detention is necessary in that person’s interests”.

My concern is whether this could be used in the case of mental illness and whether it might be open to abuse. It is a very wide provision and there are a number of cases in which the courts have found that the use of immigration detention to protect a person from himself is unlawful. In view of the time I am taking, I will not quote them now, but I have them to hand.

Amendments 221C and 221D are about electronic monitoring and related arrangements, which may require the person to communicate,

“in a specified manner and at specified times”.

Amendment 221C would insert reasonableness. This comes from evidence that a number of your Lordships will have heard during the period when control orders were being applied that controlees were often required to report at times and in places which were very

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1652

unreasonable and precluded them from normal activities. It seemed to me that, in another context requiring reporting, reasonableness would be appropriate.

The arrangements in the Bill would allow the exercise of functions by persons other than the Secretary of State or First-tier Tribunal, and my Amendment 221D would insert “on behalf of” those. I assume that is what was meant, or has outsourcing crept even further? Certainly, if it has, whoever exercises the functions should be subject to the supervision and control of the Secretary of State or tribunal in this context. I beg to move.

Lord Keen of Elie: My Lords, I hope it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I observe that, with regard to Amendments 220, 222 and 223, which raise the question of bail conditions and the Secretary of State’s proposed power to address conditions already set by the tribunal, I recognise the important constitutional issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised. Given the proposed amendments from all sides of the Committee and the concerns expressed by the Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights with regard to this matter, the Government will think again about this. We anticipate bringing forward before Report a suitable amendment to Schedule 7 with respect to bail conditions. I hope that this assists the Committee.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: Very briefly, I support Amendment 215A because I absolutely agree that this is not a trivial matter. I am not an expert on these issues but a social scientist who knows the importance of language. Some years ago, it was quite common among the media and politicians to talk about bogus asylum seekers. That did immense harm, so I absolutely agree that language which has connotations of criminality when applied to asylum seekers is totally inappropriate and could be very harmful.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and previously the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made about the importance of the language we use. When the Minister comes to consider this issue again between now and Report, I wonder whether he will look at the nomenclature that we use here and whether “immigration bail”, with its connotations of criminality, really is the right language for us to use at all. In particular, people seeking asylum are not criminals when one considers that they will include refugees, children, survivors of torture and trafficked people. It is quite wrong to imply that they are necessarily people who are therefore trying to break our laws.

I hope that the Minister will also return specifically to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about our duties under international law, especially Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which expressly protects those who claim asylum from being treated as criminals. The UNHCR and other international guidance recognises that the detention of persons seeking asylum must always be the exception, so let us at least start from the basis that those seeking asylum will be among people who are genuine. They will be trying to escape from the most appalling situations

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1653

in their own countries and are not criminals. We therefore must have some regard for their well-being and status.

I would like to raise one other brief issue in relation to Schedule 7, which is not covered by these amendments but on which I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarification. It appears that the introduction of a restriction on studies as a condition either of temporary admission or bail for those subject to immigration control is a new provision. I would be grateful if the Minister would spell that out. No reason for the restriction is given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, so I wonder whether we could take this opportunity in Committee to find out what that reason is. Breach of a condition of immigration bail is, as we have just discovered in these exchanges, a criminal offence and therefore has serious consequences. Those lawfully present and in touch with the authorities should not be restricted from undertaking studies. All those subject to immigration control will be on immigration bail, not just persons released from detention. The condition could potentially be applied to children and young people, preventing them accessing further education and even attending their school. I am sure that that is not what the Government had in mind but I hope they will clarify what the consequences of this provision might be.

7.15 pm

Lord Hylton (CB): My Lords, for a long time I have been concerned about immigration detention and I have therefore visited two, if not three, of the detention centres. It is very important for us to take full note of the fact that the Shaw review was not available to the other place when considering the Bill. I emphasise that that review said that the length of detention should be reduced, whether by better screening, more effective reviews or a formal time limit. We also have to recall that this country makes more use of immigration detention than other, comparable western European countries, almost all of which have time limits for it. I also emphasise the extreme vulnerability of some of the people who get detained. I notice that my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham will speak to a specific amendment on this point later.

However, to reinforce that approach, I shall quote from a case detailed by the Detention Forum, which is a large consortium of voluntary organisations. A man whom the consortium code-named Jacques was, it said,

“detained for the purposes of removal to Denmark where he had previously claimed asylum. He had a traumatic history as a child soldier and was severely”,

affected by post-traumatic stress disorder. The forum said:

“Despite being visibly unwell, and despite anecdotal evidence of staff feeling unable to manage the situation, he was detained for over two months before being removed to Denmark. During detention, Jacques suffered periodic blackouts and dizziness, which at least once led to injury. He was unable to communicate with staff or other detainees and exhibited erratic behaviour, at times running naked out of his room or speaking what was understood by staff as gibberish. In response, Jacques was regularly placed in isolation, which appeared to exacerbate his confusion and paranoia. The local visitors’ group made efforts to raise concerns with the

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1654

detention centre staff, but got no response from the healthcare centre. Attempts to support Jacques were made by a fellow detainee who spoke the same language as well as a solicitor who was willing to represent him for a temporary admission application and for unlawful detention. Jacques’ paranoia made him unwilling to enter the room with the solicitor, and so it was impossible to represent him. Communication was so difficult that his fellow detainee was unable to do much to support him either”.

That surely is the kind of situation which we should do our level best to avoid.

The Earl of Sandwich (CB): My Lords, my noble friends have been tempted to move into the next group of amendments. I can see why, as bail and detention are so inextricably intertwined, but I will try to resist that temptation. I would say that the question of bail has been raised on successive immigration Bills, and many of us remember that historic repeal by Labour of the clause that would have brought in automatic bail. This issue has a direct bearing on the next group of amendments and the old problem of the inadequacy of initial decisions.

I will simply quote here the words of the highly regarded Detention Forum, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hylton. It said:

“Given the lack of automatic bail hearings for individuals who have been detained, and without the initial decision to detain being sanctioned by any kind of legal proceeding, the lack of effective case-working has serious and damaging consequences”.

I have had some experience of visiting detention centres where there are a lot of patient and courageous visitors who, just like the inmates themselves, have become frustrated with the system. There are some who have committed serious offences but there are genuine migrants and asylum seekers in their hundreds, anxiously awaiting either sentences or appeals for crimes that they have not committed. I understand that in 2014, more than 30,000 individuals were detained but only 12,000 removed. I support the later amendments on the need for a time limit to detention but I will not mention that now. We have already heard the example of Yarl’s Wood and of the work of the Shaw report, so I will leave that for later.

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: My Lords, the intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is helpful in respect of this group of amendments. It starts with Amendments 215A and 216A in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. These amendments seem practical and proportionate. I concur with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: a person must be released if there is no power to detain and they cannot lawfully be detained, and it does not seem right to use the term “bail”. I particularly agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords that language must be accurate. People seeking asylum should be seen as victims and not treated as criminals. That is an important point.

Amendment 217, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick and me seeks to add an additional clause that sets out a process whereby somebody detained has a clear procedure to go before the First-tier Tribunal within eight days, then after 36 days and then every 28 days for it to determine whether they should

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1655

be released on bail. This is an important role for the judiciary, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. The amendment makes provision for detention not to be indefinite and for a proper review process. Depriving somebody of their liberty is a serious matter. It is right that the reasons for detention should be vigorously tested and that the tribunal should be satisfied that there is no other reasonable course but to detain the person. We support this amendment.

Amendment 219 seeks to remove from the Bill the power for the Secretary of State to detain an individual granted bail by the tribunal without just cause. Amendments 220, 222 and 223 would remove the provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to override the decisions of the tribunal with regard to electronic monitoring or residence conditions on immigration bail. Amendment 224 would require the Secretary of State to make provide accommodation facilities for a person released on bail. This is an important provision under the heading:

“Powers of Secretary of State to enable person to meet bail conditions”.

Ensuring that a person has a roof over their head should be a primary concern.Amendments 221A and 221B in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seek to remove the words,

“causing a danger to public health”,


“in that person’s interests or”.

I particularly look forward to the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made an excellent point.

Amendment 221C clarifies that the arrangements to communicate must be reasonable. It is important requirement. These are difficult matters and the emphasis on the word “reasonable” is very welcome. Amendment 221D makes clear that the functions are exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State. The remaining amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I looking forward to an explanation of them.

Lord Keen of Elie: I am obliged to the noble Baroness and to noble Lords for their observations on this part of the Bill and on bail. I notice that we have all referred to “bail” throughout the debate. Going back through various parliamentary reports over many years, the references are consistently to “bail”. It is a term that we understand in this context. That is important because, as the noble Baroness observed, the use of language is significant in this context. It is as well to bear that in mind.

I shall look first at Amendments 215A and 216A on the use of the term “immigration bail”. Let us be clear: no one is seeking to criminalise immigration or to treat immigrants as criminals. It so happens that the term “immigration bail” has come into common parlance in this context. Clause 32 and Schedule 7 are intended to simplify the current powers on bail and temporary release contained in various Immigration Acts, effectively reducing six different forms or statuses to one. The description “immigration bail” was chosen

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1656

because it is a well-understood concept. The statutory underpinning for criminal bail and immigration bail are in entirely different pieces of legislation. The naming of immigration bail is not about criminalising people. It is about being clear about an individual’s situation. The term “temporary admission” could have been chosen, but it is a less accurate way of describing the status as it would not capture, for example, the circumstances of individuals encountered in the UK without leave or those who had leave but are subject to a deportation order. In these circumstances, we resist the suggestion that “immigration bail”, which is widely understood by those who engage in this debate, should be replaced by “temporary admission”, which is less exact and less accurate as a means of describing the relevant status.

Amendment 217 is on automatic bail hearings. It would require a bail hearing in the tribunal after eight days of detention, then after 36 days and every 28 days thereafter. The Government take matters of liberty seriously and have made clear in the recent Written Ministerial Statement by my right honourable friend the Minister for Immigration that changes to policy and the operational approach to detention should lead to a reduction in the number of those detained and in the duration of detention before removal, especially for the most vulnerable. However, the Government do not consider that introducing mandatory and scheduled bail hearings will aid these reforms. There is already well-established judicial oversight available. Individuals detained under immigration powers have unrestricted opportunity to apply to the tribunal for bail at any time. They can also apply for a judicial review of their detention or for a writ of habeas corpus to the High Court, again at any time.

The current system is flexible by design, both in the interests of justice and in allowing the detainee ready access to the tribunal. Introducing automatic bail hearings at set periods in all cases would be a significant resource burden on the tribunal at the expense of the taxpayer and would take valuable judicial time that could be spent on other matters, potentially prolonging the time spent in detention and denying other appellants timely access to justice. Mandatory bail hearings at set intervals were placed on a statutory footing, as a noble Lord observed, the last time the Opposition formed a Government, being legislated for in Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, they were never brought into force and were repealed in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. What was the reason for the repeal? The plans were unworkable in practice and would have been a significant resource burden. That remains the position today, so we resist the amendment.

Amendment 221A would remove the requirement to consider the public health implications of bailing an individual. It is not about incarceration. In order to detain pending removal, there must be a realistic prospect of removal in a reasonable timeframe. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 sets out a number of factors that the bailing authority must have regard to when considering whether bail is appropriate and the conditions of bail that should be imposed. Naturally, risk to the public and community is a paramount consideration, whether that is the likelihood of the person committing an

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1657

offence, the likelihood of the person absconding or the likelihood of the person’s presence in the UK being a danger to public health. This would, for example, be a consideration if there were a pandemic and an individual were infected and detained pending removal. Clearly it would not be possible to detain under immigration powers if the sole consideration was protecting public health and there was no underlying immigration justification for the exercise of the detention power. It is a justifiable power in the context of protecting public health.

Amendment 221B would remove the requirement to consider whether it is in a person’s best interests to be detained before being released on bail. I understand the reason why this amendment has been laid, as when could it ever be in anyone’s best interests to be detained? First, let me be clear on a point of principle. It is the Government’s policy that there is a presumption of liberty and that immigration detention should be used as a last resort. This is long standing and will not change. It is important to put that on the record and I am sure that the whole Committee will agree that this is right.

7.30 pm

The thinking behind this provision is simple. When detaining under immigration powers, normally for examination purposes, there will be a very limited number of cases where the Home Office’s duty to safeguard individuals at risk—both adults and children—will mean that a very short period of detention may be justified while arrangements are made for an individual to be transferred to appropriate care. For example, a very short period of detention may be necessary for safeguarding reasons where an unaccompanied child arrives at a port, especially late at night, with uncertain or no care arrangements. At present there would be no lawful basis for detaining the child for their own benefit and their own protection.

I want to be clear to the Committee that detention under immigration powers to ensure that an individual is not put at risk and is safeguarded should be used in only a limited way, for the shortest period possible and only when there is a lawful underlying immigration power to detain. We are talking about a period of hours, not of days or weeks. Again, we resist this amendment.

Amendments 221C and 221D would make changes to the arrangements in support of electronic monitoring conditions and how they operate. These amendments are not necessary. The language on electronic monitoring in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7 is virtually a word-for-word reproduction of the current electronic monitoring power in Section 36(6) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It is simply a case of importing the existing provisions into the new bail power.

Amendment 224, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, concerns accommodation and support provided to anyone released on bail. This would be an unnecessary provision. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 7 provides a power for the Secretary of State to ensure that a person can meet bail conditions by paying for the costs of their accommodation and travel expenses

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1658

in appropriate circumstances. It is not right to mandate in statute that the Secretary of State must pay for accommodation and travel costs, particularly in these times of austerity.

The arrangements in the Bill are designed to replace Section 4(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is repealed under the Bill but which to date has been used to provide accommodation for persons released on bail in the limited circumstances where it is felt that that would be appropriate. The repeal is part of the wider changes to support provision for failed asylum seekers and other irregular migrants. The power is deliberately drafted in a narrow way because it will not generally be necessary to arrange accommodation for those on bail or to pay for travel expenses. The individuals will usually be expected to accommodate themselves—for example, with friends or relatives. This is not any different from the way in which Section 4 is currently used. If the person really is unable to arrange their own accommodation, the powers can be used to provide it on a case-by-case consideration of the particular circumstances, including whether they are able to avoid the consequences of being left homeless by returning to their own countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, made a point with regard to restrictions on studies and the provisions in Schedule 7. This existing power is used only in the context of a terrorism-related issue which is subject to SIAC provisions. I would be content to write and elaborate on that in due course. I had not anticipated that the point would be raised, but I emphasise that this is an existing power used only in the most exceptional circumstances pertaining to terrorism. If the noble Lord wishes me to write further on that, I would be glad to do so.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that clarification. It would be a convenience and a help to the House and to those who have made representations about this if further clarity could be given. If the power is to be used only in circumstances relating to terrorism, that seems a reasonable and justifiable provision.

Lord Keen of Elie: I am most obliged to the noble Lord and I undertake to write on that point.

The government amendments that arise here are essentially consequential amendments. Amendments 224E to 224K are consequential amendments to legislation to ensure that the provisions in Schedule 7 work as they should, by bringing existing legislation into line with Schedule 7, removing references to provisions which have been or are being repealed by Schedule 7 and, where necessary, inserting references to the relevant provisions in Schedule 7. Amendments 229ZA and 230ZA are consequential amendments to Schedule 8 to the Bill to reflect the amendments and repeals made in Schedule 7.

I am conscious that your Lordships had in mind not only the question of bail but the question of detention. However, as that is going to be addressed in a further group of amendments, I will come to that when we address that further group. I hope your Lordships will support the amendments standing in

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1659

the name of my noble friend Lord Bates, but I ask that noble Lords withdraw their amendment—I say noble Lords, but I address that to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I think we are all Lords, whether Lords or Baronesses. I am obviously pleased to hear that the Government are considering the issues around the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary raised in the three amendments, although I am not entirely surprised, as I felt that the arguments—they were not mine—were irresistible. I was also interested to hear the response on the restriction of studies. It will be very helpful to see the detail of that.

I said when I moved my amendment that I would use the term “bail” in the debate because that is the term used in the Bill, although “temporary admission” is in fact used in a government amendment later. When we are bringing six statuses into one, it seems the perfect time to change the terminology. It does not necessarily have to be temporary admission—I heard what the noble and learned Lord said—but any ideas will be gratefully received on this. It is clearly something that other noble Lords feel as strongly about as I do.

I will just pick up two other points. On safeguarding for a very short time, I would be much happier if I saw that short time limit reflected in the legislation. After all, we are talking about detention here, and it is particularly ironic if it is applied to people who are on their way to care and support, which are the categories referred to. As regards public health, I suspect that if one holds a visa and comes in through a recognised route, but is found at Heathrow or wherever to be suffering from a communicable disease, one’s destination is hospital not detention.

We will wait to see the amendments on the central issue of the Executive’s power in this regard—or otherwise—and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 215A.

Amendment 215A withdrawn.

Clause 32 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.38 pm.

Neglected Tropical Diseases

Question for Short Debate

7.39 pm

Asked by Lord Trees

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effects of Neglected Tropical Diseases in impairing social and economic development in developing countries in the light of the publication of the third progress report of the 2012 London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Lord Trees (CB): My Lords, it is a great pleasure to open this debate on neglected tropical diseases, which I will refer to as NTDs. This is the third debate we have had on this subject in as many years. I thank my noble friend Lady Hayman for her leadership in initiating

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1660

the previous two debates. Certainly this House cannot be accused of neglecting these diseases. Nor should we: they are of huge global health and socioeconomic importance, as is now being recognised. Coincidentally, this Wednesday former US President Jimmy Carter will give a talk in this House convened by the Lord Speaker about one NTD, guinea worm disease, and its eradication.

NTDs are a group of infections associated with poverty in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Some, such as rabies, have a high mortality rate but most are characterised by their chronicity and high levels of disability such as gross disfigurement, blindness and inability to work. As such, sufferers are unable to be productive within their already poor communities and instead become a burden on the very limited healthcare resources of their countries. More than 1 billion people are affected in 149 countries worldwide. It is estimated that some 300,000 deaths per year are caused by NTDs.

However, until recently, in comparison with for example HIV, TB and malaria, these diseases received very modest international attention and support. The bundling and aggregation of these diseases and their branding as “neglected” was a masterstroke of public health communication. In 2012, WHO published its road map laying out targets for the control, elimination or eradication of 17 NTDs by 2020. Momentum gathered pace, with the London Declaration on NTDs in 2012 enshrining further commitments. Last year, the UN sustainable development goals to 2030 included NTDs within goal 3, aimed at “healthy lives” and “well-being for all” people.

This progress is substantially contingent upon the massive commitment by the pharmaceutical industries to donate key drugs essential for many of the control programmes. Donations worth a staggering $3.8 billion per year are a massive gesture of corporate generosity. While there is still some need for research to develop drugs for some NTDs and situations, there is available now a free toolkit of drugs for many NTDs.

Notable among these drugs is ivermectin, the mass administration of which to populations in Africa and Central and South America has massively reduced the incidence of clinical onchocerciasis—river blindness. Noble Lords may be aware that the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 was awarded partly for the discovery and development of ivermectin by Campbell and Omura. Noble Lords may not be aware that this drug was in fact developed and initially marketed for veterinary use in 1981 as a wormer for cattle and other species. It was so successful commercially that the parent company, Merck, was able to commit to donate ivermectin for the control of onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis or elephantiasis for as long as needed. I mention this not only because of its significance in NTD control but to highlight the connectivity between human health and veterinary science—the so-called “one health” concept. That relationship is particularly close with respect to human tropical diseases.

That brings me to another NTD which exemplifies the “one health” approach—rabies. I am not an expert on rabies but, of all the lectures I had as an undergraduate veterinary student, one I particularly remember was

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1661

on rabies. From nearly 50 years ago, I still remember the main message: the key to controlling human rabies is to control dog rabies. Human rabies was endemic in Britain until late in the 19th century. We eradicated it by stopping dogs biting people. Worldwide, 99% of human rabies is still contracted from dogs. Rabies is a horrible disease. It is still endemic in many countries in Asia and Africa. It is estimated that about 60,000 people die of it a year, of whom nearly 50% are children. During the nine minutes of this speech, someone somewhere will have died of rabies. Once clinical signs appear, death is inevitable; it is a very unpleasant death and you know what? It is entirely preventable. We have all the tools we need: a vaccine for humans, a vaccine for dogs and post-exposure treatment for humans.

The cheapest of these interventions and the principal means of control is to vaccinate dogs. By vaccinating 70% of the dog population, the transmission cycle is stopped. I am pleased to say that there is now a growing movement to tackle this problem, catalysed by the awareness that the elimination of nearly all human deaths from rabies is achievable. A number of campaigns at national, regional and local level in South America, Asia and Africa, conducted by health authorities, NGOs and charities, are starting to control rabies through control of rabies in dogs. I am pleased and proud that many British scientists and vets are active in this area. Late last year, WHO and the World Organisation for Animal Health, in collaboration with the FAO and the Global Alliance for Rabies Control, organised a conference in Geneva which agreed a framework of actions to achieve the WHO goal of eliminating dog-mediated human rabies by 2030. Later this month, my noble friend Lord Crisp and I will host in this House the launch of the End Rabies Now campaign from the global alliance.

For rabies and many designated NTDs, real progress is being made. I am sure we will hear further examples in today’s debate. However, in spite of the donation of many of the drugs needed, there are still significant challenges. These relate more to the delivery of existing drugs and interventions than the development of new ones. Professor David Molyneux, a leading world expert on NTDs, argues that the availability of drugs is no longer a barrier to achieving universal coverage for most NTDs. It is estimated that there is an annual funding gap of $200 million to $300 million a year to ensure effective delivery of interventions and drugs we now have and that are given free. This funding gap should partly be met by the endemic countries themselves. Although extremely poor and with limited resources, it would only require a tiny percentage of their healthcare budgets to fund delivery of the free drugs available for NTD control.

The developed world could also do more. The UK’s leadership in this area through DfID is commendable, but globally only about 0.6% of donor governmental financial aid for healthcare is provided to tackle NTDs. Our affluent neighbours in Europe and some other countries could do more. Action against NTDs will benefit the poorest of the world’s poor. A recent study showed that tackling NTDs is highly cost-effective in

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1662

terms of return on investment. The third progress report of the London declaration on NTDs said:

“This makes NTD programs a pro-poor best buy”.

I commend DfID for its commitment and support for the control of NTDs, reinforced by the recent announcement of the Ross fund. Is the Ross fund additional money to that which the UK has been committing for NTD funding? Secondly, what are the Government doing to urge other affluent nations to follow our example? Collectively, we need to close the funding gap and ensure that the great progress to control NTDs achieved in the last few years will be sustained so as to permanently eliminate these infections and the terrible diseases they cause.

7.49 pm

Lord Sheikh (Con): My Lords, I take a great interest in this subject, as I was born and brought up in east Africa. It has now been four years since the launch of the historic London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases. We cannot underestimate the importance of eliminating these diseases. They affect over 1 billion people across the world. Many of them are among the very poorest and in the hardest-to-reach areas, and they lack adequate sanitation. These are neglected diseases affecting neglected people. The personal suffering affects families and communities, resulting in greater economic hardship for all. In short, these diseases cost developing economies billions of dollars every year. Eliminating them will help to eliminate poverty. More widely, it will also greatly assist in achieving many of the new sustainable development goals. It is therefore crucial that work on eliminating NTDs forms part of wider initiatives on tackling poverty. I commend our Government’s continued commitment on that front.

I am very proud that we have enshrined into law our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid every year. We are the first G7 country to meet this target and can now set an example to other countries around the world. I was very pleased last week to see the Chancellor pledge £3 billion of our international development budget towards combating malaria. I will shortly be leading a delegation of parliamentarians to Sudan, where tackling malaria will be very high on our agenda.

I am pleased that, on the whole, progress on neglected tropical diseases continues to be very positive. The most recent report states that a growing number of endemic countries are achieving their elimination goals and that more people are being reached through these programmes. This is due mainly to the increasing number of domestic programmes and greater political and funding commitments at a national level. For example, Bangladesh now funds 85% of its own NTD programmes. The Philippines provides 94% of its own funding. Honduras has been highly commended for becoming the first Latin American country fully to finance its own NTD programme.

I want to mention specifically the creation of the Addis Ababa commitment in December 2014, when 25 African countries pledged to increase their contributions to tackling NTDs. This is extremely significant, not least because many of these diseases are most prevalent on the African continent. I visited Addis Ababa in

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1663

October last year as part of a wider visit to Ethiopia, and I learned about the good work that is going on with its vaccination programmes and its attempts to tackle these diseases. I am pleased that these diseases are now high on the global agenda. Despite all this welcome news, it is crucial that the international community continues to drive forward and keep up momentum.

7.53 pm

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab): My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others, that we must keep up the momentum in combating these awful diseases if we are to meet the World Health Organization road map targets. It is still shocking that so many of the world’s poorest men, women and children suffer from avoidable infections that, where they do not kill, bring deformity, disability, blindness, and stigma. Virtually all the world’s absolute poorest, those existing on barely more than a dollar a day, have one or more of the most common NTDs, such as river blindness, roundworm or hookworm. Adults with these diseases cannot work to support their families, and children affected by them cannot attend school. Families struggle to afford food and basic services, including healthcare, and communities blighted by these diseases are forced deeper into poverty, with few prospects for the future.

Combating NTDs is one of the best paths to cutting this cycle of poverty and enabling sustainable social and economic development. Indeed the third progress report of the 2012 London declaration confirms that NTDs provide one of the strongest returns on investment in public health. It suggests that, if countries achieve the WHO’s 2020 goals for NTDs, their healthier citizens would generate some $623 billion in increased productivity between now and 2030. If these NTD goals are reached, the ongoing health benefits up to 2030 would be comparable to those achieved for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Yet, compared to those “big three” diseases, the cost of reaching the WHO targets for NTDs is relatively modest.

Clearly it is vital that we do not let up in our collective attempts to combat any of these diseases, so I was pleased to read in the report that progress is being made. However, the report also makes it clear that progress is not being made fast enough to meet key milestones. To reach them, we need greater collaboration across countries, between development organisations and across government departments and sectors. One welcome recent announcement has been the £3 billion from the UK and the Gates Foundation for the Ross fund, to support R&D and work towards the eradication of malaria. This is good news, especially in light of the disturbing spread of the Zika virus. By understanding the prevention and treatment mechanisms for mosquito-borne diseases, such as the development of genetically modified sterile mosquitoes, the global community will be much better prepared to respond to, and prevent, diseases such as Zika. I mention this because I understand the Ross fund will also encompass work that targets neglected tropical diseases, where the need for more partnerships, greater collaboration, new approaches and better preparation continues. What further steps can the UK take to continue to lead the

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1664

world in R&D and, in particular, to encourage more product development partnerships and support the research to deliver such products where they are most needed?

A few weeks ago we heard the welcome news that the WHO has declared Liberia free of the deadly Ebola epidemic, which claimed some 11,000 lives in that country in 2012. Of course, I am aware that neither Zika nor Ebola are neglected tropical diseases, but I was struck by comments made by Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust. I believe they are just as relevant to any discussion of NTDs. He outlined the lessons that need to be learned from the Ebola epidemic, stressing the need to change structures and strengthen health systems around the world. He called 2016 a pivotal year by which changes of global governance of health and preparedness need to be effected. He also said that if we do not change now we never will, but I am more optimistic. For our continuing work to combat NTDs there is hope, and there is political will. The progress report shows us that controlling NTDs can make a greater contribution to endemic countries’ health and economies than any other investment. Getting more health for less money is a target we must continue to pursue.

7.57 pm

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD): My Lords, I recognise the importance of tackling neglected tropical diseases, for the reasons that other noble Lords have already identified. I do not have specialist knowledge of this subject, but I had the good fortune to have on the International Development Committee Jeremy Lefroy, chairman of the all-party group, who focused on it and kept me informed of the importance of it. It is no accident that the all-party group focuses on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, because their eradication is clearly linked. That is part of the theme that I would like to take forward. There should be no conflict between the silo approach to tackling specific diseases and ensuring that other diseases that impact on the same communities are tackled as well. For example, when evidence was provided about treating and preventing HIV/AIDS, it became obvious that malaria, TB, hepatitis and other diseases are linked to immune deficiency. It quickly becomes apparent that to tackle these diseases requires strengthened health systems, which can then provide the infrastructure for diagnosis, treatment and prevention and, equally important, health education.

I have seen at first hand, on successive visits to Ethiopia, the valuable impact of community health workers, who are recruited from their local communities and trained to offer informed advice on a range of public health matters, basic treatments and referrals. This can make a huge contribution to tackling, preventing and treating diseases. The British Government have been a major backer of the fight against high-profile diseases and, in particular, the quest to eradicate malaria. The announcement last week of the partnership with the Gates Foundation is of course welcome. The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, with which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is very familiar, is a world leader in its field and can make a contribution to the challenge.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1665

I ask the Minister to give us a little more information on how the £200 million identified within the Ross fund for NTDs will be spent, and how the spending on NTDs, malaria and other major diseases can be interlinked in ways that will give a synergy in tackling them.

I was aware of the fact that, prior to the Ebola outbreak—I take the point that Ebola is not one of these diseases, but this is instructive—the UK Government were planning to reduce spending on health systems in Sierra Leone and Liberia, but in the event ended up spending five times as much as they had been planning to in order to tackle the outbreak. Although they were late in tackling it, there was a very good example of cross-government co-operation when they finally addressed it.

What must be hoped for after such an event is that the health systems of affected countries have been strengthened so that there is a legacy and they have the ability, in future, to tackle these things much more effectively. We cannot just zoom in and zoom out; there has to be a continuing capacity to deliver. The Global Fund and other targeted funds have been criticised, not for failing to deliver their objectives but for not always leaving that legacy behind. I suggest that the Government consider, in their engagement with the Global Fund and their own substantial initiative, that the Global Fund should also address NDTs. It is logical to do so at the same time. These diseases cause death and disability to hundreds of millions, and people who are sick or disabled inevitably compromise development. They cannot work and their children suffer, missing out on education and having to work to help the family income, as well as being at risk themselves.

In my maiden speech in this House, I broadly welcomed the Government’s development strategy but warned of the dangers of short-term changes in priorities. We have just heard that the demands of the Syrian refugee crisis have put pressure on DfID’s development budget. It is therefore important that we get maximum synergy and that the Government co-ordinate everything they do on all these diseases, because in that way we can eradicate them much more quickly.

8.01 pm

Lord Patel (CB): My Lords, I am going to concentrate mainly on strategies to develop treatment for neglected tropical diseases. I am a doctor by background, as everyone knows. I was born in Tanzania and I visit there often in relation to charity. Last year, I was bitten extensively by the flies that carry sleeping sickness and every time I doze off I wonder if I caught it, so I am concerned about finding treatments.

Effective control against NTDs can be achieved if several public health approaches are combined, guided by local epidemiology and the availability of appropriate detection, prevention and control measures. Due to the nature of many of the parasites that cause NTDs, it has proved very difficult or impossible to develop vaccines that are suitable for mass administration. Other approaches are therefore required, and we are familiar with them, including: vector control, such as spraying to kill insects; strategies to reduce contact with insect vectors, such as bed nets; improved hygiene, housing and new drugs; and, more recently, as the

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1666

House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report suggests, the genetic modification of insects, and today’s news about gene editing, which can also apply to insects.

To reduce the burden of NTDs using drugs, we must address three main urgent issues. First, many current drugs to treat NTDs are extremely toxic and difficult to administer. Secondly, many drugs now simply do not work because parasites have become resistant, for a variety of reasons. Thirdly, disease diagnosis remains challenging. Additionally, the development of new treatments for NTDs is hampered by a historic lack of systemic drug discovery, due to the lack of a commercially viable market for drugs and insufficient understanding of parasite biology, resulting in a lack of validated drug targets—that is, good approaches to develop drugs.

Three years ago my university, the University of Dundee, made a commitment that by 2020 it would try to find cures for some of these diseases. To tackle those issues, the university has combined renowned scientists with expertise in NTDs with professional drug discovery within its drug discovery unit, mainly recruited from pharmaceutical industry and led by Professor Paul Wyatt. I declare an interest: not only have I been an associate of the university since I went there as a medical student, but I am now chancellor of the university. With support from organisations like the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, Dundee has been making good progress across the areas. A new and exciting antimalarial compound has recently been developed, with the potential not only to cure but to prevent and block the transmission of malaria with a single dose, and it is now going to clinical trials.

These are some examples, but the main thing is that, with support from the Gates Foundation, the university has made available a set of 70,000 compounds to initiate new drug discovery programmes for multiple NTDs. The new team is using cutting-edge technologies to determine the mechanisms by which drugs kill parasites. I hope that such strategies will lead to finding cures for many of the NTDs. To quote Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet, in praising Dundee University’s effort:

“Something very special is taking place in Dundee … a drug discovery unit for parasitology … has torn down disciplinary walls to put chemists next to biologists, industry scientists beside academics. The result is a portfolio of promising new medicines for malaria”.

I hope that the Ross Fund will be used to fund clinical trials when the time comes, because there will be no other way of doing so.

8.06 pm

Lord Crisp (CB): My Lords, I welcome this debate and the continuing attention that it gives to neglected tropical diseases, at a time when they are becoming more prominent and well known. After all, as my noble friend said, it was only a few years ago that some UK academics coined the phrase, in a masterstroke of marketing. It is very good to see that NTDs are now mentioned in the sustainable development goals, great foundations and indeed great NGOs are tackling them—here I declare an interest as a recently retired chairman of Sightsavers—and there are great efforts in that regard by the UK Government.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1667

This is an area, like much in development, where the UK is a world leader. As an example, DfID funded the mapping of blinding trachoma globally, with Sightsavers as its lead co-ordinating agent. I am delighted to say, although I claim no personal credit, that Sightsavers delivered the mapping on time and on budget. Arguably, this is the largest ever public health mapping exercise, and is now bearing results as we can target the right areas globally to tackle the disease.

My noble friend Lord Trees draws attention to neglected tropical diseases in impairing social and economic development. This is two way—they do not occur in prosperous countries. He mentioned rabies, but trachoma was a major problem in 19th-century Europe. There are strong links between prosperity and these diseases, which are, as has already been mentioned, the diseases of neglected people, who are certainly excluded from prosperity. They impact most heavily on women because they are generally the care givers, and on their children, because they are most likely to come into contact with dirty water. My noble friend also makes a strong point that some things are associated with neglected tropical diseases as a class, not just with individual ones: poverty, dirty water, low levels of education, high birth rates, and much more.

My noble friend Lord Trees references the third report on progress since the 2012 London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases. It points out that there has been pretty good progress: NTDs provide one of the strongest returns on public health investment, and points to the extraordinary levels of partnership here, between the public, private and voluntary sectors, and globally, nationally and locally. It is a terrific example for elsewhere.

However, here is the rub: it is now all about implementation: chasing down—as I suspect President Carter may say to us—the last guinea worm. As the report says,

“Coverage is increasing, but the pace is too slow to meet key milestones”.

We all know what will happen if the pace is slackened or people slow down. It happened with polio a few years ago, when it was eliminated in a number of countries but came back because people did not chase it down to the last moment. The paradox is that catching those last few microbes or worms is very expensive, and it is very important that we keep up the political will here in this country and elsewhere. The biggest risk for many of these diseases is that we do not finish the job properly; that is still an issue, for example, for polio. Like others, therefore, I urge the Government to keep up and even increase their current commitments.

Finally, I have two questions, which relate to the point made by my noble friend Lord Trees about the social and economic impacts, and which largely follow what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, have already said, on integration. We know that successful and sustainable elimination of these diseases will depend on many other developments, including provision of clean water, economic development and the education of adults and children. I therefore ask how the Government, through their wider development programmes, are integrating their support

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1668

for eliminating NTDs with these wider programmes. I also note that this depends on surveillance and the provision of even basic health systems. How, therefore, are the Government both supporting the development of health systems in the poorest countries in the world and ensuring that these will be able to address NTDs?

8.10 pm

Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab): My Lords, it is a shame that we have to use the term “neglected”, but yes, ever since I joined the advisory board of the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative—SCI—I have found that whenever I mention schistosomiasis to friends and acquaintances they say, “What? What’s that?”. First, I explain the scale, that over 260 million people in the world need treatment for schistosomiasis and 120 million of these are of school age, and then, as noble Lords all know, that schistosomiasis causes malnutrition and anaemia in children and blood in their urine; if untreated, it goes on to cause liver fibrosis and bladder cancer; and female genital schistosomiasis increases the risk of HIV. I can only think that the world neglects such diseases because over 90% of these cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. However, wherever these diseases exist, their effects are appalling.

I myself come at this not as a medic, an academic or someone working in an NGO but as a businessperson seeing the numbers and the cost-effectiveness of compassion. Reaching out to treat these young children before the worms cause this extensive damage costs less than 50p per treatment per child per year. However, the recent “scorecards” show that schistosomiasis is lagging behind in coverage, and programmes targeting the intestinal worms still have a long way to go to reach the World Health Organization’s target of annual treatment with 75% coverage of children at school age. This can be rectified. We have had generous help from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, philanthropists such as Luke Ding through Prism the Gift Fund, the END Fund and, of course, DfID.

Along with this, SCI, which is centred at Imperial College, provides the drugs, microscopes, training materials, vehicles and other transport and ensures that the programmes are managed efficiently. As has been said, the pharmaceutical companies Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Johnson & Johnson have generously offered to donate all the drugs that are needed to treat 100 million children with praziquantel every year against schistosomiasis and 600 million with deworming pills.

Where, then, is the problem? As was said, it is in delivery that there needs to be help. To treat children in schools, working with local governments, SCI has built a network in 11 countries. This network is set up, but in many of these countries many of the children are simply not at school. Delivery to these outlying children is vital.

The world can afford to help. The economics of the case are that, each and every year, 50 million years’ work is lost through people’s disability resulting from NTDs. Were these people well and able to contribute fully to their society, even at just $1 a day, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, in each of these countries, this would mean an extra $18 billion a year for the African economy.

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1669

I urge the Minister to follow up this excellent debate with a meeting of DfID with the expert people working on this at Imperial College, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and Sightsavers, so we could see how we might allocate more money to those who are already implementing treatment to millions of children so that they may treble their coverage in the next five years to have a chance, as was said, of eliminating these diseases in many more countries.

Dealing with these NTDs in this way could change the world immensely for the better. It would give these young girls and boys a better future, help their countries begin to thrive and thence would add $18 billion a year to the wealth of their continent and, therefore, to the world’s economy. I thank noble Lords.

8.14 pm

Baroness Hayman (CB): My Lords, I am delighted to follow other noble Lords in today’s debate, and I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register. I am delighted, too, not to be introducing the debate tonight but speaking last from the Back Benches, because so many other speakers have dealt with the basics around NTDs. That includes the devastating effects that they have, not only on individuals in terms of debilitation or disfigurement and people often being excluded from their own society because of the effects of the diseases, but also the later effects on child development, educational attainment and pregnancy outcome, and of the interrelation of NTDs with other diseases such as HIV or malaria. All these things together are not only the results of the poverty in these communities but in themselves engender that poverty again. So NTDs are both the result of and the cause of poverty. We have done a great deal to recognise that and much progress has, as has already been stated, been made through the WHO road map, the London declaration, the announcement of the Ross fund and the inclusion of NTDs in the sustainable development goals. But there is much still to be done.

The funding gap, even for the provisions that we know about, has been pointed out tonight, but it goes wider than that because, as other noble Lords have pointed out, we need to tackle this problem not in individual silos. The public health measures that will defeat these diseases are to do with water and sanitation, public health education and the provision of basic services; without those, we will not get very far, and those are expensive items.

In the minute or so that I have left, I want to concentrate on the issue of vaccines. We know that we need to improve the toolbox that we have already. We know that we need better diagnostics, better medicines and better insecticides, and that is something that may become much more important in terms of Zika. But also, we need vaccines. There is some evidence that although for many diseases mass drug administration is extremely effective, for other diseases it is not so effective. Therefore, we need to not take our eye off the ball of vaccine development. We saw this in relation to Ebola, a different sort of disease that has already been mentioned tonight. Zika, I think, is a neglected tropical disease, but it is so neglected that it is not even included with dengue and chikungunya as one of

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1670

those insect-borne diseases of the poor. It is not one of the 17 top priorities for the WHO. However, that is changing. It changed tonight by the declaration of an emergency. We need vaccines as well as all the other measures, and we know that product development partnerships are very important in getting round the failure of the market often to provide. So my question to the Minister is: what consideration is given within the Ross fund to extending its remit so that it would also cover vaccine development?

8.18 pm

Baroness Barker (LD): My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, in the last two hours the WHO has declared the Zika outbreak in Latin America a global public health emergency. A silver lining may be that, as a neglected tropical disease, Zika may now receive the attention that it perhaps should have done already.

As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie made clear, public health is now a global issue and we have, in the last 20 years or so, because of the HIV/AIDS crisis and others, developed ways in which we can globally address those issues. The Global Fund brought together the private sector, Governments and the research community, and has made a major impact not only in the development of new treatments but in the new ways to get those treatments to people as quickly as possible. The Global Fund is due for replenishment this year. Will the Minister say whether the UK will remain committed to its level of contributions to that fund and encourage other international donors to do the same? As my noble friend said, the co-incidence of these diseases on the world population makes it important for that reason.

Many noble Lords referred to the announcement in the spending review of £1 billion for the Ross fund. Will the Minister indicate whether that will be additional to the funding previously made available for neglected tropical diseases and HIV? Can she tell us about the structure of that fund and whether the research findings that it funds will be made publicly available? How will access to any medical tools produced as a result of that fund be ensured?

As many noble Lords have indicated this evening, our current model of R&D for medicines is failing. If we continue to rely on a solely market-led R&D, the discovery of new medicines and, crucially, the access to those medicines by neglected populations will be hampered severely. Will the UK Government consider commissioning an economic paper to analyse the economic impact of our current market-oriented R&D model and a future model for R&D development in which the cost of research into drugs is decoupled from potential profits to companies? Much of the basic research on which the drug companies base their work is already publicly funded by Governments through academic institutions and so on. It is time that we moved to do that.

Will the UK Government, strong leader and advocate as they have been on public global public health issues, initiate a dialogue with the pharmaceutical industry and civil society to see whether it would be possible to reach agreement over a new R&D treaty in the run-up to the World Health Assembly? Noble Lords will

1 Feb 2016 : Column 1671

know about mechanisms such as product development partnerships. They have proven to be instrumental in making sure that the poorest people on earth get access to the best medicine in the world, much of which is produced by our academic institutions.

8.22 pm

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab): My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for initiating this important debate on neglected tropical diseases. Although the most common infections among the world’s poorest communities, they receive little public attention. As we have heard from many noble Lords, while not always fatal, their effect on individuals and communities can be devastating, the brunt of which is often felt by women and children, and act as a serious impediment to economic development in many countries.

The third progress report on the London declaration highlighted the dramatic health and economic benefits from investing in combating NTDs. The positive returns of relatively inexpensive programmes are significant, with an economic rate of return of 15% to 30%. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, highlighted, NTDs are now recognised in the SDGs through Goal 3, which relates to healthy lives, and are explicitly included in Target 3.3. This is a major step forward for the profile of NTDs and a global commitment towards ending these diseases. Continuing this momentum through to national implementation strategies and national action plans will be critical to achieving the WHO NTD road map targets.