| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord says that there would be no greater congestion if the use of the tunnel was free of charge. Does he not think that people now travelling on the bridge would instead go through the tunnel, thereby increasing the traffic flows?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I agree that that may happen. However, the majority of the traffic on the Runcorn bridge would be travelling to and from work in that direction at peak hours, and those of us who are familiar with the area know that they are not people making what is a 30-minute detour from Birkenhead and Liverpool to go over Runcorn bridge and back again. I therefore do not believe that it would make a significant difference, but I have to acknowledge that the noble Lord may be right; there may be some difference. Interestingly, over the past 10 to 15 years the volume of traffic has gone neither up nor down. The total number of vehicles was 25.1 million in 1995 and 25.2 million in 2001–02.
If any noble Lord wants to make any further comment on my instruction, I shall be happy to give way. However, I hope that when noble Lords vote on the instruction, they will see it as a mechanism for highlighting to the committee the points of concern.
I know that the committee will carefully read Hansard and consider some of the points. By stressing them in the way that I have, I hope it will give the
Committee an opportunity to recognise the main areas of concern and to deal with them before the Bill comes back before your Lordships again. I beg to move.Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that it should consider—
-
(a) whether the power of the Secretary of State to increase all or any of the tolls by order is justified; and
(b) whether the provisions of the Bill provide an adequate mechanism for taking into account the views of the five district councils on Merseyside (the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley and St Helens) in respect of:
(ii) the use of surplus tunnel toll income to improve public transport services on Merseyside; and
(iii) the desirability of repaying the existing debt on the tunnels before applying surplus toll income to other projects.—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 27.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Harrison, L.
Henley, L. [Teller]
Hooper, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Inge, L.
Jones, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Montrose, D.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northesk, E.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L. [Teller]
Wilcox, B.
Addington, L.
Berkeley, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Dixon, L.
Eatwell, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L. [Teller]
Gale, B.
Haskel, L.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Liverpool, Bp.
McNally, L.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Pendry, L.
Rennard, L. [Teller]
Roper, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Walmsley, B.
Whitty, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 25 [Grants for assisting victims, witnesses etc]:
Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 101B:
The noble Lord said: I welcome the fact that in the immigration rules there is already recognition of the problem of domestic violence. However, it is my contention that that recognition is somewhat limited, and these two amendments are intended to broaden the scope of the provision. I am enormously grateful to a number of organisations that support the thrust of the amendments, particularly the Southall Black Sisters, which has been extremely helpful in giving me information and background data. Other organisations which support the amendments are Women's Aid, Imkaan and Amnesty International UK.
It is my wish that the domestic violence immigration rule, which currently allows some women, subject to immigration control and domestic violence, indefinite leave to stay in the UK, should be extended to all women in that position. I also propose that the "no recourse to public funds" rule be reformed, so that all victims of domestic violence are entitled to the financial support and safe accommodation they require to leave an abusive relationship, irrespective of their immigration status.
Women who do not have full immigration status are in an appallingly vulnerable position if subjected to domestic violence. I have some examples which I could give later if that is helpful. Secondly, even if they are secure in this country, they are invariably in a destitute situation because they cannot have recourse to public funds. That means that they may have to return to the man who subjected them to violence or leave the country which, in some circumstances, can be extremely difficult for them. In either event, the man who subjected the woman to violence gets away with it.
Let me spell this out in a little more detail. What sort of situation are we talking about? The one that is at present covered by the immigration rules concerns spouses and unmarried partners of persons with British citizenship or with indefinite leave to remain. That leaves a number of other categories—for example, women who may be regarded as overstayers, possibly for technical reasons, and women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK as the fiancee of a person with British citizenship or with indefinite leave to remain. There may be women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK in a variety of capacities—as visitors, students and workers—or who have temporary admission as asylum seekers. There may be women who have leave to enter or remain in the UK dependent on their remaining in a relationship with a partner, spouse or relative who also has limited leave to enter or remain in the UK—for example, as a student or worker—or who has temporary admission in the UK as an asylum seeker. There may also be people in other situations.
It may be asked what evidence there is that anybody is suffering from domestic violence. I believe that that evidence is easier to demonstrate than in some other cases where people apply to enter the UK. It is even more straightforward than the case of asylum seekers. What sort of evidence might there be to show that we are not opening the doors to vexatious claims? For example, there may be abusers who have court orders and convictions. There may be police cautions; there may be police prosecutions; there may be court hearings. There may, indeed, be other acceptable evidence of domestic violence—for example, a medical report from a hospital doctor or a letter from a family practitioner. The perpetrator himself may have given an undertaking to the court that he will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the violence. There may be a police report confirming attendance at the home of the applicant, or a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence, or a letter of support or report from a women's refuge. So there are many ways in which the allegation of domestic violence can be demonstrated as having a very high probability of being accurate. We are talking about small numbers of people, but there is an important principle involved.
It is estimated that, for all the categories that I hope will be covered by the amendments, one might be dealing with some 500 to 600 applications a year. According to the Home Office figures for the more limited situation already covered by the immigration rules, for the years 2000 to 2002, of the 119 women who applied for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence concession, 60 per cent were granted settlement.
There is another factor that is relevant. If the provision were to apply, there is a possibility that the Government could recover moneys from sponsors of the abusers concerned. I believe that would be possible and would go some way towards dealing with the financial position.
The Government have indicated informally that they will consider ring-fencing to cover refuge spaces for some 200 to 300 women a year. However, there is a shortfall of such spaces, particularly in black and ethnic minority refuges. Would those people be entitled to other emergency accommodation? How would they cover their living costs, food, clothing et cetera, especially if there were dependent children? The Government have said that they will fast-track applications so as to shorten the period during which an individual does not have recourse to public funds. The question then is, how fast will the fast-track application work? With the best will in the world, we are talking about a number of weeks. This is not something that can happen instantly and overnight.
Evidence indicates that the experience of the first few days or weeks of leaving an abusive relationship will determine whether the woman feels that she has no alternative but to return to the home where the abuse took place. Women with children are especially vulnerable. Returning to an abusive relationship may be preferable to exposing children to uncertainty and destitution.
I believe that the case for these amendments is strong. I of course realise that, whereas Amendment No. 101B is spelt out in some detail, Amendment No. 103A is rather vaguer; it had to be to fit in with the Long Title of the Bill. It is rather vaguer in terms of the intended outcome, but I believe that I have spelt out the outcome which I consider would be desirable, and the outcome which would help a small number of women in an extremely vulnerable situation for whom, on human rights grounds, we need to do more than is being done at the moment. I beg to move.
House adjourned at five minutes before ten o'clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may exempt victims of domestic violence and their dependants who are subject to immigration control from the restriction on public funds to enable them to access emergency accommodation and living costs, and may recover such funds from the sponsor (as defined by section 113 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) of the victim."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page