Baroness May of Maidenhead
Member of the House of Lords · Conservative · United Kingdom
“First, I worry that the Bill is removing yet further the powers of the Office of Rail and Road to hold the railways and Great British Railways to account. I remember when Tom Winsor was the Rail Regulator, and a rather determined Rail Regulator he was too, but after him, things got a little mushy.”
“Not only will that cost the taxpayer money, completely unnecessarily; it is as if somebody in the Department for Transport—maybe the Minister, maybe a civil servant, or perhaps a special adviser—has suggested, “Actually if we’re going to make a change, people need to see there’s a change, so let’s repaint all the trains”.”
“My third concern is this. Last week, the new Member of Parliament for Makerfield, who it is widely assumed will soon be our Prime Minister, made a speech in which he applauded and spoke up for the interests of place, of locality, of that sense of belonging to an area, of local identity.”
“That ability is going to be wiped away by this Bill and by the creation of Great British Railways. It is an issue I argued with Keith Williams when he was producing his report, and I recognise that on this side of the House, our hands are not entirely clean in relation to the concept of Great British Railways, albeit with differences from…”
“I did so not just as shadow Secretary of State for Transport for a period, but also because a lot of my constituents were commuters and the train service mattered to them. But I had the advantage of dealing with those issues in an era of privatisation. I remember British Rail.”
“My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a member of the GWR stakeholder advisory board, ably and knowledgeably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I add my voice to the Minister’s remarks on the 21st anniversary of those terrible attacks on our transport system.”
The complete record
Every one of 941 lines we hold for Baroness May of Maidenhead, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 19.
“Far from localising, it centralises; and far from respecting local identity, it destroys it. In this Bill, the passenger interest is given less priority, the regulator’s ability to challenge is reduced, and the Government’s ability to interfere is increased. That bodes ill for the future of our railways.”
“Not only will that cost the taxpayer money, completely unnecessarily; it is as if somebody in the Department for Transport—maybe the Minister, maybe a civil servant, or perhaps a special adviser—has suggested, “Actually if we’re going to make a change, people need to see there’s a change, so let’s repaint all the trains”. People will know there is a change when their services are no longer as good as they should be. They will know there is a change when they can no longer raise their local voice, and their MP and others can no longer take that up and work with the companies to bring about a change and an improvement in their services. So, what does this Bill do? Far from prioritising passengers, it prioritises government. Far from increasing accountability, it reduces it. Far from creating independence, it creates dependence.”
“My third concern is this. Last week, the new Member of Parliament for Makerfield, who it is widely assumed will soon be our Prime Minister, made a speech in which he applauded and spoke up for the interests of place, of locality, of that sense of belonging to an area, of local identity. This Bill sweeps away the idea of local identity in our railways, because it centralises those decisions. It sweeps away the traditional historical names, regional concepts and structures from our railways. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this, because I have said it to him on a number of occasions and obviously, I am concerned about this issue. The symbolism of this is perhaps best seen in the fact that suddenly, all the trains are going to be repainted in the colours of the Union Jack, and the traditional liveries will go.”
“First, I worry that the Bill is removing yet further the powers of the Office of Rail and Road to hold the railways and Great British Railways to account. I remember when Tom Winsor was the Rail Regulator, and a rather determined Rail Regulator he was too, but after him, things got a little mushy. The teeth were drawn from the Office of Rail and Road, as it became, and I fear that the teeth are going to be further drawn in this Bill. That matters, particularly because of an aspect to which attention has been drawn by the Transport Select Committee in the other place, which fears micromanagement of the railways by the Secretary of State. The Bill gives considerable opportunities for the Secretary of State to interfere with Great British Railways and to make determinations which otherwise should be being made in the interests of passengers.”
“That ability is going to be wiped away by this Bill and by the creation of Great British Railways. It is an issue I argued with Keith Williams when he was producing his report, and I recognise that on this side of the House, our hands are not entirely clean in relation to the concept of Great British Railways, albeit with differences from the Bill that this Government are introducing. But what is being created here is not something that puts the customer first; it is a centralised bureaucracy that will determine all the issues that matter to passengers—fares, train times, and the timetable. I say to the Minister that it is not putting the customer first; I fear that it is, in fact, putting the passenger last. That relates to my second concern with the Bill, which is about accountability and interference.”
“I did so not just as shadow Secretary of State for Transport for a period, but also because a lot of my constituents were commuters and the train service mattered to them. But I had the advantage of dealing with those issues in an era of privatisation. I remember British Rail. I always used to say that British Rail was run for the interests of those who enjoyed playing trains, rather than the interests of passengers. Privatisation changed that because, for the companies, the service to passengers mattered. As a local Member of Parliament, I was able to work with the train operating companies—first, Thames Trains then GWR—to ensure that services were improved, timetables were changed and new trains were put on in the interests of local people.”
“My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a member of the GWR stakeholder advisory board, ably and knowledgeably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I add my voice to the Minister’s remarks on the 21st anniversary of those terrible attacks on our transport system. I also reference the fact that this is the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will be making his valedictory speech. He and I have not overlapped for long in this Chamber and did not overlap in government, but I know that he brought to this House his experience as a distinguished public servant, and he will be missed. When I became a Member of Parliament, I did not expect to spend so much time dealing with trains.”
“I hope that the Government are going to look favourably on the amendment. An effort is being made by the Government through this Bill to change the scenario for those who are the victims of domestic abuse, but there is this loophole. The Government need to look at this element, given the knowledge we now have of the forms that domestic abuse can take and the greater understanding we have of the circumstances in which people can be left that are nothing to do with their behaviour, but purely because they have been the victim of a perpetrator.”
“It is also not that long ago that we thought that domestic abuse was purely domestic violence and always had a physical violence element. As we know now, there is complexity to domestic abuse, which can include coercive control and economic control. It is in that sense that Amendment 65 is so important. It recognises that there are victims of domestic abuse who may be victims of economic coercive control and find that debt has been racked up by their perpetrator, unbeknown to them. When they are trying to leave, and trying to secure social housing for themselves, they find that that debt is against their name as well, perhaps as having been joint tenants, and find themselves in an impossible situation that has been created because they were a victim of the actions of the perpetrator.”
“My Lords, I support Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neate, who has brought to this amendment her considerable experience in dealing with domestic abuse and homelessness. It is not that long ago that the expectation was that, when somebody was the victim of domestic abuse, they had to leave their home and the perpetrator could be left in possession of the home. Thankfully, we have, in a number of ways, changed that thinking. Domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices in the Domestic Abuse Act have given powers to ensure that it is the perpetrator who leaves. I welcome Schedule 1 to the Bill and the efforts that the Government are making to provide greater stability and security to the victims of domestic abuse.”
“Given the use of crypto- currencies by organised criminal gangs and hostile state actors, will she guarantee to this House that the Government will bring forward very robust proposals in that legislation, in relation to the use of cryptocurrencies by political parties and in our electoral processes?”
“My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on her appointment, but can I upbraid her? She referenced in one of the answers that there had been an agreement between the UK Government and the Chinese Government in relation to law enforcement on people-trafficking gangs trafficking people across the English Channel. People smuggling is different from people trafficking, and I urge the Government to be precise in their language. In relation to the new legislation that the Government are bringing forward on representation of the people, she referenced crypto assets.”
“Given this combination, how will the Government ensure that we will not see national diktats completely overriding local policing requirements and, particularly, that we are not going to see the police subjected to undue influence from the Home Office and the Home Secretary? I remember November 2008, when the parliamentary office of the then Member of Parliament for Ashford was searched by the police without a warrant, reportedly because of influence from Government Ministers. How are the Government going to ensure, in this centralised police service and centralised model, that there is not going to be undue political influence that relates not to the policing interests of the citizens but to the political interests of the Government?”
“My Lords, the bedrock of British policing is the office of constable. That is an office under the Crown. The Government are now going to introduce the licence to practice, given by the Government. At the same time, it appears that the Government are going to reintroduce targets for policing. The experience under the Blair Government was that policing targets distorted police behaviour and meant that, all too often, local policing priorities were ignored. The Government are also going to introduce a huge national bureaucracy in the national police service, and we read of a “hands-on Home Office” and greater powers for the Home Secretary.”
“If they do not accept it, then that suggests that they are not as serious about their intentions on violence against women and girls as they are claiming.”
“My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, and I wish to echo two points. The first is that it is so important to victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse that they do not fear that their abuser, the perpetrator of those crimes, is somehow automatically going to be back in their community. The reassurance that they would get from knowing that the custodial sentence is available is important to those victims. The second point is, as my noble and learned friend has raised, the issue of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls and the strategy for violence against women and girls that is being brought forward. May I gently suggest to the Minister that, if the Government are serious about that, then they should accept this amendment?”
“It is one of the issues that I know the Government will still have to deal with in making sure that the police, prosecutors, judges and probation officers all understand the panoply of issues that constitute domestic abuse. It is important that, if the Government are not willing to close this loophole by accepting these amendments, they work with experts in the field to make sure that those who are being trained to risk-assess perpetrators are able to do so in the full knowledge and understanding of what constitutes domestic abuse.”
“I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about his conversations with the Minister and his expectation, or concern, that perhaps he might not immediately leap to his feet and accept these amendments. I want to pick up one of the points about working with those in the field who are experts on these issues. It is only because of the Domestic Abuse Act that we have a single definition of domestic abuse that is now used across the whole of government. It is a comprehensive definition of domestic abuse, because domestic abuse comes in many different forms. Sadly, many of those in the criminal justice system do not yet fully understand all forms of domestic abuse.”
“This aspect of the Bill—the fact that a perpetrator who has been released, breached their licence by making contact with the victim and is then recalled, could then be automatically released after 56 days—is such a potential loophole, because that individual is highly likely in those circumstances to go back to the victim and potentially further abuse them. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are time-limited. It is recognised that the Government are increasing the capacity of the system to make risk assessments of individuals, but those programmes are not entirely in place at the moment. There is the potential for the Government, by accepting these amendments, to close that loophole and further enhance the ability to prevent violence against women and girls.”
“My Lords, I support Amendments 82, 83 and 86, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I start, if I may, with a point that I made earlier in the debate on Amendment 25. The Government have a strategy on violence against women and girls. They have a clear commitment to reduce violence against women and girls. It seems to me, therefore, that the Government should be looking to make sure that they in no way inadvertently increase the risk of violence against women and girls.”
“Once again, I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had, and I would just like to be clear on these points.”
“So my questions are, will the review ensure that it also looks at the evidence given to the review that reported in 2014, which, among other things, showed that 93% of paramedics agreed with extending the Sections 135 and 136 powers to remove a person to a place of safety to other professionals, provided that they are trained and equipped? What is the timeline for the review and consultation? I would like it to be something like six months. Which department will be running the review or be responsible for it? I think it should, again, be a joint Home Office and DHSC review. What happens at the end? If it identifies a need to extend these powers or to add healthcare professionals to the list of authorised professionals, will the Government guarantee to undertake that, and what vehicle would they use to do so?”
“How can I excuse calling the police to my department to assist in mental health care? … We want to reduce the involvement of police in mental health care, not invite it”. I am sure we are all agreed that we want to ensure the best possible pathway and experience for the person with mental health problems, we want to reduce the use of police resource, and we want to improve the policing of communities, because the police officer required to attend unnecessarily a mental health patient is a police officer taken off the policing of their local community.”
“It is not that the police are needed; it is just that they are the only people who have the power at the time. There is not necessarily a need to restrain somebody; they are just the only people who have that power. The other circumstance might arise in an accident and emergency department, where a patient is identified as requiring hospital admission for mental health care, but the individual attempts to leave before an approved mental health professional or a second assessing clinician is available or a bed is found, the emergency department staff have no statutory authority to prevent the individual’s departure, and they ring the police for assistance. In the joint Home Office and DHSC review, which reported in 2014, there was evidence of this. Dr Beale said: “A police officer has more power in that situation than I do.”
“Often, people go to the situation in which there is a real threat—a risk of violence or of danger to those exercising powers of restraint—but actually there are other issues. In moving the government Motion, the Minister referred to the fact that there are indeed some concerns among healthcare professionals, as well as among police, about the exercise of these powers. One situation might be if a patient presents to a GP in an evident mental health crisis, the clinician determines an urgent assessment is needed and the patient is advised to attend hospital voluntarily, but they are unwilling to do so and there is no other available alternative statutory pathway, so the police are contacted in order to exercise their powers under Section 136.”
“My Lords, first, I am very grateful to the Minister and her officials for the interaction and the many discussions we have had on the matters posed in the amendments I originally put down to the Bill on the powers of the police and the possible extension of some of those to authorised professionals, including healthcare professionals. I am also grateful to the Minister and the Government for agreeing to the review and consultation in relation to the exercise of powers, not simply those in Sections 135 and 136 but the general exercise of powers between police, healthcare professionals and other authorised professionals. I have a number of questions about that review, but before I come to them, I hope I can crave the indulgence of the House just to cite a couple of examples of what is concerning me about the powers.”
“The Government have a national suicide prevention strategy. We bemoan the number of young people who are lured into committing suicide by social media and by what they read on the internet. This week, we had World Suicide Prevention Day. Suicide is wrong, but this Bill, in effect, says that it is okay. What message does that give to our society? Suicide is not okay. Suicide is wrong. This Bill is wrong. It should not pass.”
“I worry about the impact that it will have on people with disabilities, with chronic illness and with mental health problems, because there is a risk that legalising assisted dying reinforces the dangerous notion that some lives are less worth living than others. Again, as we have seen in other countries, once a law like this is passed, the pressure grows to extend the scope of it. I also oppose the Bill because I believe that, by dispapplying the default of a coroner’s report, there is a danger that this could be used as a cover-up for mistakes made in hospital or for a hospital-acquired infection which has led to an increased likelihood of death. I have a friend who calls it the “Licence to Kill Bill”. This is not an assisted dying Bill but an assisted suicide Bill. As a society, we believe that suicide is wrong.”
“My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador for Thames Hospice, but the views that I express today are my own. I recognise that across this House there will be very firmly held views on both sides of this argument, some coming from personal experience, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Forsyth. However, I oppose this Bill and wish to set out my main reasons. First, I do not believe that the safeguards in the Bill will prevent people being pressurised to end their lives, sometimes for the benefit of others. I worry that, as we have seen in countries where there is such a law, people will feel that they must end their lives simply because they feel that they are a burden on others.”
“It is of course normal practice—as I discussed the other day with my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, who has a police background—that police keep evidence and should protect that evidence, but I think we should be absolutely clear that such articles should be capable of being protected, and should be protected, by the authorities, so that the person who may be under duress of slavery can, if necessary, rely on that item in the case that they provide to the national referral mechanism. This is about the protection of those who are being enslaved. Fifty million people around the world are in slavery of various forms. We want to ensure that we do not aid those who wish to bring people across this border into slavery. I urge the Government to specify the under duress of slavery issue on the face of this Bill. I beg to move the amendment.”
“Amendment 49 is of a slightly different order because it refers to the holding of items that have been picked up as a result of action under Clause 14. It is just to make sure that where a relevant article is held by the authorities, they ensure that they maintain it and protect it, so that if the individual from whom it has been taken wishes to use that relevant article as part of their case to the national referral mechanism to be considered to be subject to modern slavery, that item is protected.”
“The Minister may say to me that Sections 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 talk about somebody knowingly having a document or whatever that they know is in breach of immigration law, and I would be interested if he used that as his defence for not specifying—no, the Minister is shaking his head. If we are all agreed that people who have been enslaved should not be caught up by this Bill and be charged with these offences, then I urge the Minister to accept that that needs to be specified on the face of the Bill. He has just, in response to the noble Lord, Lord German, indicated, more or less, that he does not intend to cover those people who are under duress of slavery. I say that it would be far preferable if we made that absolutely clear on the face of this Bill.”
“That is where the focus is, and there are some elements of this Bill that are specifically related to people coming across the water from France, Belgium or Holland. But, in fact, immigration crime can be committed in a number of different ways. People can be brought across the border in a number of different ways. It may very well be that somebody who is being brought under duress of slavery, who is being trafficked into sexual exploitation, for example, may in effect be committing an immigration crime. I believe that they should have the ability to use the fact that it was under duress of slavery as a reasonable excuse for a defence.”
“It is on that issue that I have specifically put down Amendment 47. My concern is that in the attempt to smash the gangs, the Government may inadvertently catch up within the requirements of this Bill those who are acting not in order to make money or simply for themselves but because they have been forced to do so by their traffickers or slave drivers. They are acting under the duress of modern slavery. That is why Amendment 47 would add to Clause 14(4) proposed new paragraph (c) so that one of the reasonable excuses that somebody has for an offence under this clause is that they were acting under the duress of slavery. If I may just say so to your Lordships, it is very easy in today’s world to think that when we are dealing with aspects of border security and immigration crime, we are thinking only about small boats.”
“My Lords, as I rise, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that I both set up and chair the Global Commission on Modern Slavery & Human Trafficking. I wish to move Amendment 47 standing in my name, and in my remarks I would also like to address Amendment 49. As I have been listening to the debate that has taken place so far, I have to say that I think there is absolute agreement across the Committee that we want to smash the gangs and deal with the criminals who are making money out of other people’s hopes and misery. The Minister has made that very clear, and others speaking from across the Committee have supported that intention. I also noted the remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord German, in moving Amendment 46, in relation to the issue of modern slavery.”
“Supply chains are also an area we need action on.”
“My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and, in his absence, to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, not just for supporting these amendments but for the many years of commitment they have given to tackling modern slavery and supporting the victims and survivors of modern slavery. I am also particularly grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for bringing her legal mind to bear to the interpretation and use of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Minister was very kind in saying that that Act stood the test of time rather better than some think. It has in large measure stood the test of time, but there are aspects of it, certainly around prosecutions, that are perhaps not being used as well as they might be.”
“But I say to noble Lords that if we are genuinely concerned that slavery exists in our world today, in 2025, and that people are being brought into our country into slavery—that they are being trafficked by criminal gangs which make money out of their expectations, hopes and misery when they face exploitation and slavery—and if we feel that that is wrong, we should do something about it. We draw our legislation up carefully so that we do our best not to create loopholes. But we cannot simply say that we abandon those in slavery, or those who are being exploited, because we are worried about a loophole. Having said that, I heard what the Minister said about other pieces of legislation. I will go away and reflect on those, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.”
“There are a number of ways people will be trafficked illegally into this country and into exploitation and slavery. My attempt is to cover all these aspects. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his kind remarks. There are issues around this question, and we are balancing the need and desire to do something for the victims of slavery against avoiding encouraging others. Of course, through the NRM there is a process for assessing if someone genuinely has been enslaved and trafficked into exploitation. That should, if the process works well, weed out criminal gang members who claim such modern slavery. That addresses the loophole point that my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower raised. It is very tempting to say, as has been said to me by some colleagues, that all of this just creates loopholes.”
“They believe they are being brought across to a good job, and then they find they are in exploitation when they get here. They are unlikely to do that or want to do that. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower mentioned the speed of the NRM. That is indeed an issue. I know the Government have put some extra resources into it, but it is a deep concern that a process that was originally intended when introduced to last 45 days can now take 300 to 500 days, which is the period normally quoted, although I think somebody referred earlier to someone being in the NRM for four years. We need to get that down because people deserve to have decisions rather quicker than that. I recognise that that is an issue. The Minister spoke about what was being held. He referred to documents but, again, we must realise that this is not just about small boats.”
“I am very conscious that the supply chain issue has been around for some time. I put it to the Minister that, at the time, what was put into the Act was going to receive sufficient support across government to enable us to have something on supply chains in the Act. If he reads the report of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, he will see that we are urging mandating action on supply chains, which he may be pleased to support. I would like to address a number the of points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about somebody being trafficked across the border having some sort of sign that enables them to start a conversation. One of the challenges is that, very often, people do not realise they are being trafficked into exploitation.”
“The Minister will recognise that there is a theme in all the amendments I have tabled, which is recognising that there are circumstances in which people are forced to take these actions as a result of their being in slavery, as opposed to it being a decision that they have taken for their own economic reasons. There is a small group of people to whom this might refer, so this is a probing amendment to see where the Government might stand on the issue and how they will want to address this very specific case of somebody who is forced by their traffickers or slave drivers to look after somebody else on a boat.”
“My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my chairmanship of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. I want to address Amendment 67, which my noble friend Lord Davies has just referred to. I tabled this with a very specific issue in mind—I hope the Minister will be able to address it in his closing remarks—which is those circumstances where somebody who is in slavery is put on to a boat but is forced as part of their slavery to take charge of a child and therefore is potentially endangering that child, but they are doing so because their slave driver has required them to do it. It is a very specific point, and I hope that the Minister can address it.”
“The Minister, in responding to Amendment 49, referenced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I think he would accept that there have sometimes been incidents where the police’s retention of evidence has perhaps been less than perfect. Therefore, it would be helpful to put this requirement in relation to the retention of information, so that it can be used by potential victims of slavery in national referral mechanism cases, on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.”
“My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 84, I also wish to speak to Amendment 90. I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. The principle—sorry, I am looking at the wrong Minister—behind these two amendments is the same as that behind Amendment 49: namely, the circumstances addressed in Clause 21 concern the search of a person and the circumstances addressed in Clause 23 concern the retention of material information that has been copied as a result of that search. In both those circumstances, the material should be so protected on its retention that it is available to the individual should they wish to use it in a court or particularly in a case before the national referral mechanism, so that anybody who is potentially in slavery has access to the information they need to be able to support their case.”
“My Lords, I am not at all surprised by the response the Minister has given me. I continue to be concerned to make sure that people have access to this information and these articles for their national referral mechanism cases to be considered. I will reflect further on what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.”
“Modern slavery and human trafficking is the greatest human rights issue of our time. That alone should make the Government reconsider those elements of this legislation. But more than that, if it is harder for us to identify the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking; if it is more difficult for those victims to come forward because of lack of support; if it is easier for the slave drivers and traffickers to use government legislation as a threat to hold people in exploitation, then it will be harder to smash the gangs—and I thought the Minister said, in his opening speech, that smashing the gangs was one of the aims of this Bill. As regards the impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, the Government need to think again.”
“The main point that I would like to refer to is one that has been raised by a number of other speakers in this debate—namely, the impact of this legislation on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Despite all the protestations from the then Opposition Benches about the impact on the victims of slavery and trafficking of the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act when they were passing through Parliament, the Government have retained aspects of those Acts, which will have an impact on the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Indeed, they have introduced new measures in this Bill which will make it harder for us to identify those victims and harder for us to provide support for them, and therefore less likely that they will come forward.”
“I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Harper on his entertaining and eloquent maiden speech. In his opening speech, the Minister said that one aim of this Bill was to provide a properly functioning immigration system. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that there is no abuse of the system. One way of making sure there is no abuse is to ensure that the Government do not operate a rigid points-based system but allow discretion to immigration officers. I have raised that point in this Chamber with the Minister before, and he—inadvertently, I am sure—failed to respond to the issue when I raised it. But I would like the Government to consider this as an important aspect of the immigration system.”
“My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about modern slavery. One way to bring down net migration is to ensure there is no abuse in the visa system. The White Paper touches on this, particularly in relation to student visas. A key way to ensure there is no abuse is to move away from a strict points-based system and give greater discretion to immigration officers. Are the Government doing that? If not, why not?”