Small Boat Crossings

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord might be interested in the fact that the top five countries for migration are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Eritrea, and individuals come for a range of different reasons. I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my colleagues in the department who have direct responsibility for this area, who are Members of the House of Commons.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, when asked about safe routes, the Minister in the Commons yesterday said that they would not stop all the channel crossings—but all the refugee organisations argue that they would stop some of them. Following on from the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, can the department look more positively at the range of suggestions being made about safe routes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The department is open to suggestions generally. We have a triple-track approach of long-term prevention, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Deben; long-term issues on smashing gangs and people smugglers through conviction and arrest; and modernising and improving our asylum system so that we can deal with asylum claims properly. We are open to suggestions about other matters that may help to resolve this problem. We are not going to be blind to the fact that there are a range of potential options, and what we need to do for the sake of those people who are being exploited by people smugglers is to try to reduce this trade dramatically.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024, laid before the House on 30 April (SI 2024/573).

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2023-24 (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were introduced by the previous Government, so a take-note Motion seemed more appropriate than a regret Motion as there was no time to debate them before the election. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me to discuss them when he had hardly had time to breathe in his new role. My understanding is that the Government will look at them again as part of a wider review of detention matters, but I thought it important that we debate them now to ensure that noble Lords’ concerns are adequately addressed in the review.

Before I turn to the regulations, we would all find it helpful, I am sure, if the Minister could say more about the review when he comes to respond. In particular, what will it cover, what will be the timescale, will expert organisations be consulted and will both Houses be able to debate the outcome? This would also be helpful to the organisations that provided a joint briefing on the regulations—in particular, Medical Justice, to which I am grateful for its help. Here I should also declare my interest as a RAMP associate.

In effect, the regulations reduce the protection provided by statutory guidance to adults at risk in detention, which could increase the risk of the kinds of human rights violations uncovered in the Brook House inquiry. There are two main concerns. The first is the deletion of the key principle, introduced in 2016, that underlines the intention that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained in fewer instances and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary. Of course, this concerns the wider question of the role of detention, which I assume will inform the more general review.

The second concern is about the reinstatement of the Home Office’s power to seek a second opinion from a contracted doctor on detained individuals who have already received an independent medical assessment that documents the impact and risks to their health of their continued detention. The second-opinion policy was in place from June 2022 to January 2024, when it was deemed unlawful by the High Court following a judicial review brought by Medical Justice.

Three main criticisms have been made of the policy. First, it introduces an additional delay, which could result in an unnecessary prolongation of the period of detention. Secondly, it exposes an already vulnerable person to the risk of retraumatisation. This was emphasised in a witness statement to the High Court from a clinical adviser at Medical Justice. Citing the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ general concern about how detention might trigger reminders of an original trauma, she warned of the dangers to mental health of a reassessment requiring a detainee to relive their experiences yet again.

Thirdly, the policy could have a detrimental effect on the quality of decision-making. Indeed, the UN Istanbul protocol counsels against downgrading the findings from external clinical assessments. There are good reasons why a detained person might be more willing to open up to an independent medical assessor than to one contracted by the Home Office, who might not be trusted. How are Home Office caseworkers, who lack medical knowledge, supposed to decide between any differences that there may be between an external assessment and an internal one? Adopting the lowest common denominator, where both assessors agree, is no answer. If the Home Office has concerns about any particular clinician, should it not take them up with the appropriate regulatory body, as argued in the witness statement to the High Court?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the data provided by the Home Office

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

It therefore simply recommended close monitoring of its operation and the publication of the results. Can the Minister confirm that such monitoring is taking place and, if so, can he share any results at this stage?

Before turning to the Home Office’s justification for the new guidance, it might be helpful to put it in the context of the original official review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, conducted by Stephen Shaw, and the more recent official Brook House inquiry, chaired by Kate Eves. The Shaw review identified a systemic overreliance on detention and, in particular, that too many vulnerable people were being detained for too long and were not being protected adequately by existing safeguards. This led to the introduction in 2016 of the adults at risk statutory guidance, which aimed to improve protection for this group.

In addition to the statutory guidance, further safeguards are supposed to be provided by rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, but the Brook House inquiry concluded that these rules were not being properly applied, so that adults at risk continued—and evidence, including the recent report of the independent Gatwick removal centre monitoring board, and new research from Medical Justice, suggests continue—not to receive the protection promised after the Shaw review.

Extraordinarily, when questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, Ms Eves said that she found it difficult

“to decipher exactly which of the 31 recommendations to Government are being accepted or rejected”.

A year on from the report, she concluded in media interviews that only one recommendation had been categorically accepted.

The lack of clarity in the previous Government’s response means they did not even get to the starting point when it comes to the monitoring of accepted recommendations, as called for by the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s recent highly critical report. Ms Eves expressed her disappointment to the HAC

“that I do not have confidence that, actually, there has been a meaningful engagement with what was really found and what the recommendations really mean”.

I hope that the new Government will look at this again, including via their review of detention, and that they will now engage meaningfully with the inquiry’s recommendations. May I ask for an assurance that this will be the case?

The Brook House inquiry and numerous other reports, including one just last week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have detailed the injurious impact of detention, particularly on the physical and mental health of vulnerable groups. One aspect emphasised by many is the absence of any time limit. According to Ms Eves, it is a profound cause of distress, due to anxiety and uncertainty. I ask that the current review looks again at the previous Government’s rejection of her recommendation of a time limit, which echoed that of countless reviews and reports, including from the HAC when it was chaired by the current Home Secretary.

In her evidence to the HAC, Ms Eves made it clear that she considered the regulations that we are debating today constituted a move in the opposite direction from what she recommended, as they appear

“essentially to be moving towards weakening the protections for vulnerable detainee populations”.

The Home Office’s justification for the regulations, set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that the purpose is

“to reflect the current Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention”,

in response to the challenge of what it dubbed illegal migration, in contrast to the context and priorities of 2016, when the focus was on reducing the use of immigration detention.

Of course, the reference to the “current” Government was to the then Government and was made in the context of the Rwanda policy, which involved an expansion of detention. Happily, the Rwanda policy is no more and I believe that it is officially accepted that the seeking of asylum does not constitute illegal migration, as my noble friend in effect confirmed in Oral Questions last week.

However, regrettably, the Government have nevertheless announced that they will go ahead with the reopening of two detention centres, which has provoked widespread concern. Despite this, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention are not the same as the former Government’s and that they will prioritise the human rights of asylum seekers. I hope he will confirm that they will therefore withdraw these regulations in due course, as part of the wider review of detention policy. This would be consistent with the statement about detention made by a Home Office spokesperson last week in response to the IMB’s call for the end of the detention of families with children in the Gatwick detention unit. It said:

“We are fully committed to … providing a service which prioritises people’s safety and wellbeing”.


In conclusion, I hope this debate will encourage such an outcome. In the meantime, the SLSC encouraged us to press for further details on the Home Office’s plans for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on the changes, so I look forward to hearing what monitoring is currently being undertaken.

I finish by quoting from someone who has experienced detention: Jonah, who wrote a foreword for a recent Jesuit Refugee Service report detailing continued abuses after Brook House. He wrote:

“When I arrived in detention, the first thing I observed is that everybody … is treated like a prisoner. … I was in immigration detention for 7 months. It still affects me even today. Detention is like a war camp. They really want to break you, in the hope that you’ll leave and go back to a terrible situation. You are more or less treated like an animal … you’re just a number. In detention, nobody even knew my name … The horrendous things that the Brook House Inquiry brought to light continue to happen … Detention is a terrible place”.


We can all learn from those with lived experience of detention, so I hope that the current review will do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I warn the Minister that during the previous Session the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, gained a reputation as a terrier on these issues. Actually, a number of us were badged as terriers, and she was the leader of the pack. She was very energetic in her critiques, particularly and quite successfully on the detention of pregnant women.

It is depressing to have to have this debate. When the Brook House scandal surfaced, three of us, cross-party, met the relevant Home Office Minister. I asked why the Home Office had not terminated the contract with the provider and whether the contract gave the Home Office the right to terminate in the event of such egregious behaviour. The answer was that the same individuals would be rehired whoever the provider was. This was not a matter of TUPE; it was about who would apply. I continue to have anxiety about the terms of the contracts that the Home Office lets, but, of course, commercial confidentiality means that one cannot go further than that.

We have not got the running of detention right, if there is to be detention, especially for more than a minimum period, but that is not for today either. However, this compounds the importance of guidance. I have always thought that anyone seeking asylum or who is detained, is likely to be vulnerable—this is “and” not “or”. I had forgotten that the 2016 Act refers to people who are “particularly vulnerable”. The whole of this population is vulnerable, but not all of them are protected under the legislation and the guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered the questions put by noble Lords. If I have not, I will reflect on Hansard in good order and respond on those issues. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the concerns they have raised are being absorbed by me and other Ministers. The review is ongoing and will be completed. At the end of that review, we will produce a regime that will have been revised in some ways based on our assessment of the need to protect people in detention, the need to maintain detention and the need to ensure that we do so in as humane a way as possible, respecting the fact that all individuals—even those who have no right to stay in this United Kingdom—are human beings and deserve to be treated in a way that respects their integrity and individuality. We may come a decision that they ultimately do not agree with, but it will be done in a fair and open process.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I assure noble Lords that I do not plan to speak until 7.45 pm, as some people might have been expecting. I am grateful to everybody who spoke and who, in many cases, amplified what I was saying.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am not very good on the Bible but he said something about “a sinner who repenteth”. I would love to reread what the noble Lord said about pregnant women at the time, but I thank him for acknowledging that we have ended up at the right place on that; it is appreciated.

I take quite a lot of reassurance from what my noble friend has said. It sounds like this review will look at a lot of the issues we are concerned about and genuinely look again at these regulations. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, congratulated the Government on retaining them, but I hope they will retain them only for a limited period and that they will emerge from this review different from what they are now. I hope we will revert to the original situation.

A few questions were not answered. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about alternatives to detention. My noble friend said that we have to detain people sometimes—yes, but the previous Government had until quite recently taken seriously community-based alternatives to detention that the UN had been promoting. I hope that will be taken seriously as part of this review, and that the time limit will too. Some noble Lords agreed with me on that; not surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, did not, but it will keep coming back. I am grateful to my noble friend for, in a sense, giving me carte blanche to carry on chewing at his leg for as long as is necessary. The question of the time limit on detention will be one of those issues on which not only I but others will carry on chewing.

I appreciated everyone who spoke and—I hope other noble Lords did as well—the open way that my noble friend spoke about what is happening. It was worth while having this debate because there are a lot of things that we were not clear about which will now be on the record. I thank him for that. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migrants

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern said, legal migration is people who come to university, who come to create jobs and who bring skills to this country. We need that managed migration, and to ensure that illegal migration is cracked down on. That is the objective of the Government: to ensure that we have a sensible net migration target that we can control, at the same time as making sure that illegal migration and the criminal gangs that exploit people are tackled. This will be a difficult process—nobody said it is easy—but border control and border command have focused us on doing that. We will take action to ensure that we use migration for the benefit of the UK economy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Further to what my noble friend Lord Dubs said, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that asylum seekers are not illegal migrants and that the adjective “irregular” better recognises the humanity of migrants than “illegal” does?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say again to my noble friend that the Government accept that we have an international obligation to continue to examine and approve legitimate asylum claims. It is a core part of this Government’s task to make sure that we do that, but in a much quicker, more efficient and more productive way than the previous Government did over the last 14 years. We have had backlogs of asylum claims that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now pledged to tackle. At the same time, yes, there will be people who wish to enter the United Kingdom illegally, and that is not acceptable. There are legal routes for migration and asylum that should be encouraged and adopted. Proper decisions should be taken. I cannot stand by and allow criminal gangs to exploit vulnerable people and to bring them across the channel. That is why we have established border command and will continue to focus on that as a matter of priority.

Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we do not believe that this will induce people to go to Northern Ireland. The cohort we are detaining has been considered under existing legislation, so those who are part of that cohort can and will be removed to Rwanda. There would be no benefit to their going to Northern Ireland to avoid this removal. The NABA cohort is anyone who arrived in the UK on or after 1 January 2022 and who received a notice of intent prior to 29 June 2023, which informed them that their asylum claim may be considered inadmissible and that they may be removed to Rwanda.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, until any appeals in relation to the Northern Ireland cases are concluded, will the Minister undertake not to commence Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act, concerning age assessment, which has now been disapplied in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot make that commitment. I will come back as and when I have more to say on the subject.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That this House regrets that provisions in the Statement of changes in Immigration Rules (HC 590), laid before the House on 14 March, will initially increase the minimum income requirement for family visas from £18,600 to £29,000 without consultation or sufficient justification; will cause family separation, contrary to respect for family life, the best interests of children, and community integration; and will have a discriminatory impact; and regrets the Government’s failure to publish an impact assessment or equalities impact assessment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has produced an excoriatingly critical report of the Home Office’s handling of these regulations, which introduce what it describes as a “substantial increase” in the minimum income required—MIR—to bring a partner to the UK, from £18,600 to £29,000, with further increases to £38,700 planned by early next year. Indeed, it was so dismayed by this

“further example of the Home Office failing to provide adequate information to Parliament to allow informed scrutiny”

that it held a special evidence session with the Minister. But this did not assuage its

“doubts about the appropriateness of the Home Office’s overall approach to policymaking, which too often”

fails to proceed from

“rigorous analysis … supported by evidence”

and, where appropriate, consultation.

The committee declared “unacceptable” the failure to publish an impact assessment and equality impact assessment, even though the Explanatory Memorandum states that a full IA has been prepared. In its follow-up session with the Minister, the latter acknowledged that the situation was “regrettable” and publication was “urgent”. Yet, seven weeks later, it still has not appeared. The committee pointed out that this has implications not only for Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation but for the development of policy itself, saying:

“That the Home Office may still have no accurate idea of the expected impact of its policies, even after they have come into force, is alarming”.


In response to written questions from the committee, the Home Office blamed the “complexity of analysis” for the failure to publish the IA as planned and assured the committee that it was

“working at pace to ensure this is published promptly so the impact of changes can be assessed”.

That was in March. It is now well into May and we still are not in a position to assess impact.

The same goes for the EIA, yet it is obvious that the impact is likely to be indirectly discriminatory, as submissions received by the committee warned. Whether we are talking about gender, ethnicity/race, disability, age or region, any EIA worth its salt would demonstrate the unequal impact of such a high earnings threshold. The response to a petition to the Commons on 11 March said that the EIA would be published “in due course”, which smacks more of indifference than urgency.

In the Commons, the Minister for Legal Migration simply did not answer the questions about the failure to provide either an IA or EIA. Will the Minister please explain now why, despite the SLSC’s criticisms, they still have not been published? I cannot believe the analysis is that complex. If it is, surely the policy should have been paused until it was clear what its impact would be. Call me a cynic, but my suspicion is that the impacts revealed by the assessments were so damaging that it was decided it was safer to keep them under wraps.

The committee’s concerns were

“compounded by a lack of consultation … which might have helped to shed light on the real-world impact”.

It was dismissive of the Home Office’s argument that consultation

“would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes”,

and noted that advice had not even been sought from the Migration Advisory Committee. Why was advice not sought from MAC, which, in its 2020 annual report, had advised that it was now time to look again at the MIR? Perhaps the Home Office preferred not to hear its views, given that it had suggested that, hitherto, too much weight had been placed on fiscal arguments and not enough on the benefits to families and society from partner migration. I hope the Minister can give a more lucid response to the question than that offered in the Commons to my right honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms MP.

As if that was not all damning enough, the SLSC criticised the lack of any coherent overall rationale for the increase and what it is trying to achieve. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the MIR

“is being amended as it has not been increased for over a decade and no longer reflects the … income required by a family to ensure they are self-sufficient and do not need to rely on public funds”.

Where to start? First, the point about public funds simply does not make sense, given that anyone allowed entry by this route would have no recourse to public funds for five or 10 years anyway, and the proportion for whom the condition is lifted is tiny.

Secondly, there is no real attempt to justify linking the level of the MIR to the skilled worker visa requirement if the key objective is a family’s self-sufficiency. On that basis, half of UK employees would not meet the current self-sufficiency test, and as many as seven out of 10 would not do so when the MIR is raised again next year.

Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the salary of the sponsoring partner represents a test of the contribution that the migrating partner would make to the economy and the public finances, another element of the supposed rationale, given that no account can be taken of the latter’s current or prospective earnings, even if they had a job offer in this country?

As it is, the policy is likely to cause hardship and heartbreak, even more so than it already does. Reunite Families UK reported in 2020 that the consequences

“included not just emotional impacts of separation”

from partners, and of children from parents,

“but financial, mental and physical hardship”.

The stress created by this situation often had a serious impact on both mental and physical health. One woman said she was scared of her own desperation, and another affected had attempted suicide.

In this context, the Minister’s statement in a Written Answer that

“family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense”

reads as distinctly callous and misleading, given that those seeking to bring partners here are themselves taxpayers and, by the time their partners had recourse to public funds, family life would already be well established. For the once self-styled party of the family, it would seem that only some families count. Indeed, the previous Children’s Commissioner, after the introduction of the original MIR, commented that

“the UK’s family migration Rules are among the most family-unfriendly of any of the developed countries”.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government’s family test was applied to the MIR increase? If yes, what did it conclude, and if no, why not?

Where there are children, the state is in effect creating lone-parent families, who are more likely to have to claim social security support because of sole responsibility for looking after those children, and the abolition of the child element of the MIR does not change that. The Explanatory Memorandum advises that

“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”

continues to apply. Can the Minister explain how the welfare and best interests of children, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are promoted by splitting up their parents against their will?

In a recent study by Reunite Families UK, even on the original MIR, two-thirds said that their child received a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition. The earlier study on behalf of the former Children’s Commissioner also found children suffering distress and anxiety as a result of separation from a parent, compounded by the stresses faced by some lone-parent families. She concluded:

“If the price of the public policy is interference with children’s rights that impact on their emotional and mental well-being, sense of stability and security, and ultimately happiness and development, then the interference is disproportionate and is not in their best interests”.


The situation will be much worse now than when she wrote that warning.

The Minister’s Written Answer also stated that

“family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life”.

Will he please explain exactly what he meant? Since when is integration measured by the size of your partner’s pay packet? If anything, keeping families apart is likely to reduce integration overall. To quote from one of the submissions to the SLSC:

“The MIR makes it harder rather than easier for mixed nationality families to participate fully in society”,


given the sacrifices that they have to make to survive. It warns that

“marginalising these families fosters societal division and tension”.

The Home Office’s response to many of the criticisms has been to point to the possibility of an exceptional circumstances application, such as under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but such an application is far from straightforward and the price for the few who succeed is a 10-year path to settlement, which carries its own problems and insecurities. Moreover, the Home Office has acknowledged that it has no idea how many successful applications there might be, so we do not even know how likely the increase is to meet its own objectives.

The SLSC asked the Home Office for its response to suggestions for the mitigation of the rules, in particular through how other sources of income are treated. Its answer was simply to say that there was no flexibility and that it was “right and fair” that the rules be

“consistently applied in all cases”,

but no one is asking for inconsistency, as potentially the mitigations could apply to anybody, nor is it explained why there is inconsistency between this group and the Armed Forces and those who are called “high potential individuals”.

My Motion to Regret was partly prompted by an email I received from the mother of a young woman in a long-term relationship with an American who had recently got a new job which meant she would finally meet the MIR after six months, only for the goalposts to be moved under her feet. Not surprisingly, the family are upset and angry about what in their view is the very opposite of a fair approach, as the Home Secretary described it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot but, for now, at least means at least.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with an apology; I should have said that I too am an associate of RAMP. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke: all more or less in favour of the Motion, apart from the Minister.

I am conscious that colleagues want to carry on with the discussion on the Bill but, frankly, I felt as if I was listening to Alice through the looking glass. Between us, we demolished the arguments that have been put forward, and the Minister simply repeated them—without convincing anybody, I think. He did not explain why the Migration Advisory Committee has not been consulted. He did not even have the courtesy to address the point I made at the end: now that there is a pause, they should now be consulted, and so should experts by experience.

I cannot believe that we were told the impact assessment will come forward. This is the scrutiny, so when are we going to scrutinise this again? What is the point of an impact assessment that comes after it has been scrutinised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will we have a chance to have another go when the impact assessment is finally published? I hope so because, otherwise, it is beyond belief.

I asked a question about the family test. Government departments are supposed to apply the family test to every policy that might affect families; this is a policy that is cutting families down the middle. Did the department apply the family test? I do not know, because the Minister did not answer the question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With respect, I did. It is all very well to lob accusations of a lack of courtesy, but I do not think that is entirely fair. I think I dealt with the House with a great deal of courtesy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Sorry, I am not saying that the Minister did not show courtesy—although he did not have the courtesy to address the soft-cop option that I offered at the end, and actually I think that was discourteous. I am sorry if I missed his answer on the family test. I will read Hansard and see what it says; if he did not answer it, I will follow it up in Written Questions.

I will leave it there because, as I said, colleagues want to carry on with the other business. Those who are affected by this, who have been listening, who will read it or who are watching will be very disappointed that the Minister was not able to answer any of the questions that we asked. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. In the last round of ping-pong, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti described her amendment in lieu as an “olive branch”. Well, this amendment is more of an olive tree, such is the compromise it represents on the original amendment passed by your Lordships’ House. In the case of an age-disputed child, the amendment would require a proper Merton-compliant age assessment to be made either by the local authority or by the National Age Assessment Board before they could be removed to Rwanda. If the assessment decided that the person was an adult, they would then be removed.

In response to the previous amendment in lieu, the Minister made much of the role of the National Age Assessment Board, spelling out in detail why it should be involved in any age assessment. The present amendment takes on board what he said and includes the board as one of two possible safeguards to prevent a child erroneously being sent to Rwanda. As such, it would help to ensure that the Government’s own intention that no unaccompanied child should be removed to Rwanda is fulfilled. The Minister emphasised this, reading out the treaty’s clear statement to that effect. He stated that,

“if an age-disputed individual requires a Merton assessment, they will be relocated to Rwanda only if determined to be an adult after that Merton assessment”.—[Official Report, 20/3/24; col. 259.]

The problem is that, under the current provisions, it is all too likely that an age-disputed child will be sent to Rwanda without any possibility of a Merton assessment, so the age assessment board will be redundant. As it stands, the Bill allows for the decision to be made by immigration officers on the basis of a quick visual assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, acknowledged to be unreliable by the Home Office—not a high threshold, as the Minister claimed. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that

“we continually see immigration officers deciding a child is an adult on arrival and placing that child in the adult system. It is only after that age decision is challenged and a further determination is made that the child is correctly assessed to be a child”.

That is the same practice that the Minister has repeatedly said will act as a safeguard against wrongful assessment and removal.

I dealt with the other arguments put forward by the Minister at the previous stage. The key issue facing us today is whether we are prepared to ensure a genuine safeguard against a child being removed to Rwanda because of the failure to provide a proper, holistic, social work led age assessment that is as accurate as possible.

Asylum Claims

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister does not claim any credit at all for removing the backlog, but I applaud the department for having done so. The situation, as the noble Lord will be aware, has changed very dramatically in the world over the last 13 years.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the sacked chief inspector has expressed concern that clearing the legacy backlog at all costs has led to perverse outcomes. This includes a soaring in the number of claims deemed to have been withdrawn but counted as outcomes without proper quality assurance, which he declared was not acceptable. Will the Government now publish data showing the reasons for this big increase in the number of claims deemed to be withdrawn, as called for by the British Red Cross?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I remind the House that the previous inspector was let go because he broke the terms of his contract, so I would argue that he has been somewhat discredited. Withdrawals can happen for a number of reasons, for example where somebody has already left the UK before their claim was concluded or where they fail to comply with the asylum process. There is a large number of reasons why withdrawals are made.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 7B in lieu—

7B: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Age assessment of unaccompanied children
In section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Decisions relating to a person’s age), insert after subsection (6)—
“(6A) If a person is to be removed to the Republic of Rwanda, subsection (6) does not apply and in this section “relevant authority” means a local authority, within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which has conducted an age assessment of the person under section 50(3)(b) of that Act.”””

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my starting point is the treaty, which makes it clear that it does not cover unaccompanied children, as emphasised by the Minister for Countering Illegal Migration on Monday. My sole purpose has been to ensure that, in so far as it is possible, this treaty intention is upheld: that no unaccompanied child is removed to Rwanda because they have been mistakenly assessed as an adult. Wrongful age assessment happens all too frequently, given that the only safeguard, referred to repeatedly by the Minister, is that two immigration officers independently determine age on the basis of a brief assessment of physical appearance and demeanour, which the Home Office itself concedes is notoriously unreliable.

The original amendment would have ensured the status quo ante: that no age-disputed child would be removed to Rwanda until any legal challenge through domestic courts and tribunals was exhausted, and it would have enabled such a challenge to be made on the basis of the facts, not just the law. This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority. This would ensure that a Merton-compliant assessment is undertaken, and it is only at this point that so-called scientific methods would come into play.

It was clear that MPs including Dame Priti Patel and Mrs Elphicke, who argued against the original amendment by lauding scientific methods, did not understand that age-disputed children would be sent to Rwanda without any use of scientific methods, never mind the existing Merton-compliant methods. Yet as the Minister in the other place himself acknowledged on Monday,

“assessing age is inherently difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; col. 666.]

In this House, the Minister stated on Report that this is “a challenging task”, and that a

“combination … of … methods will deliver more accurate age assessments”.—[Official Report, 6/3/24; col. 1584.]

However, without this amendment, there could be no combination of methods, just a brief, visual assessment that belies the challenging and difficult nature of the task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this little local argument. I thank noble Lords who have supported my Motion E1 with very strong arguments. I thank the Minister for reading into the record Article 3(4). I did not do that because I wanted to save time, but he makes my case for me: the treaty makes it clear that we should not send underage or age-disputed unaccompanied children to Rwanda. That is what this amendment is about.

However, the Minister has shifted his ground, because in previous iterations, he talked just about the two independent immigration officers who were going to provide the assessment based on appearance and demeanour. Now, he is talking about social workers, but how many of those poor children get that far? I do not know whether he can answer that question; I suspect that he cannot. I have not heard anything from the Minister that undermines the case that I and others have made on behalf of these children. I therefore wish to press my Motion and seek the opinion of the House.

Former Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration: Reports

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, since the two ICIBI inspections, in 2022 and 2023, we have closed all seven hotels used to accommodate unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It goes without saying that the safety and welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is a priority. The multidisciplinary wraparound care provided in the hotels, including access to nurses and social workers, ensured that children were supported around the clock.

On whether they were of primary school age, I am afraid I do not recognise those numbers. I can update the House: as of 5 March, 118 children are still missing; 104 of those are Albanian, all of them are male, and the vast majority were aged 16 and 17 when they went missing. Only about 18 are still under the age of 18. It is not quite the picture that my noble friend painted.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the chief inspector was due to start an inspection on the age assessment of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children shortly. What will happen to this now that he has been sacked? If an interim inspector is appointed, as was suggested by the Minister in the Commons, could he be encouraged to look at this, given all the accumulating evidence of the wrongful age assessment of children?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

This is obviously a subject to which we will return a bit later, but as I said, a new chief inspector will be appointed following a full and proper process in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The Home Secretary is considering appointing an interim chief inspector to cover the period of recruitment. What his remit will be I do not know, but of course we will come back in due course.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has said, as well as, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti; I signed her Amendment 19. This House should try to insist that, if the facts change, a mechanism is provided to the courts to reassess the situation. Anything else is profoundly unjust. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, moves his amendment, I will support him.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, as well as supporting the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I rise to speak to Amendment 16, which seeks to minimise the risk of torture arising from the Bill and to safeguard torture survivors. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and my noble friend Lord Cashman for their support. They will speak to the first part of the amendment, while I will focus on the second. We brought it back because of our dissatisfaction with the response from the Minister in Committee. We hope that we might do better now, given the existential importance of torture, which represents one of the most serious of human rights violations.

We know from the work of organisations such as Freedom from Torture and Redress, whose help I am grateful for, that a good number of the asylum seekers in line to be sent to Rwanda will have survived torture. We also know, including from a recent report from the Mental Health Foundation, of the high incidence of mental health difficulties among asylum seekers, the risk of which is increased by traumatic experiences such as torture. These difficulties can only be exacerbated by removal to Rwanda.

In Committee, the Minister pointed out that an individual could challenge removal on the grounds of their “individual circumstances”. But Freedom from Torture warns that providing, in the time available, the necessary “compelling evidence” to meet the exceptionally high bar set by the test means that this does not offer torture survivors an effective safeguard. Indeed, the Minister himself admitted that successful claims on this basis are expected to be “rare”. That might have implications for some other amendments.

In response to my questioning about what mental health support will be available to torture survivors in Rwanda, the Minister referred me to Article 13 of the treaty, but that refers only to the special needs of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. I can find no reference to the needs of torture survivors.

My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws interjected that the mental health situation in Rwanda is very poor, with high levels of mental illness but very few suitably trained medical professionals. Since then, I have been referred to WHO’s 2020 mental health profile for Rwanda. This confirms the low level of provision and seems to show that there are no out-patient mental health facilities. If this continues to be the case, would traumatised torture survivors have to be admitted to a mental health unit to obtain any support? As was noted in Committee, civil society remains weak and therefore is unlikely to be able to step in.

More recently, last October, a press release from Interpeace, while commending the efforts that the Rwandan Government have made in this area, warns that

“the country still faces challenges such as the scale of mental health needs that outstrips the capacity of available professionals, low awareness and knowledge of mental health issues”

and “poor mental health infrastructure”.

From the Minister’s responses, it would appear that the Government simply do not know what support will be available and have made no attempt to find out, yet they are happy to condemn this highly vulnerable group to a life in a country that, with the best will in the world, is ill placed to provide that support. Of course, ideally, I would want the Government to accept the case for not sending torture survivors to Rwanda. At the very minimum, I ask the Minister to take this issue back to the Home Office—although I am not quite sure which Minister will respond—and give an undertaking that he will ask his colleagues to talk to the Rwandan Government about support for torture survivors and, if necessary, provide the necessary resources to ensure that support is available, perhaps earmarking part of the enormous sum to be paid to Rwanda identified by the NAO.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, what needs to be said about the risk of torture and inhumane treatment has already been set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I simply emphasise the credibility of the reports of ongoing torture of even mild political dissenters, which continues to this day in Rwanda. Nor do freedom of expression and association exist there, however narrowly the terms are defined. However, the genocide ideology law is broadly defined and now carries criminal sanctions. The criminal code has recently been expanded to include

“creating a hostile … opinion of Rwanda”

by criticising the Government. These irrefutable reports indicate that Rwanda does not comply with the international obligations under various UN conventions, including the convention against torture. This can only add to the evidence that, at present, Rwanda cannot be regarded as a safe country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. I will find out and come back to the noble Lord on whether it has been agreed and where we are.

We therefore believe that there is no need for this to be considered when making individualised assessments as to the safety of Rwanda.

The treaty also enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which we discussed on the previous group. The monitoring committee will provide real-time, comprehensive monitoring of the end-to-end relocation and asylum process, ensuring delivery against the terms of the agreement and in line with both countries’ international obligations. This will prevent the risk of any harm to relocated individuals, including potential refoulement, before it has a chance to occur.

Rwanda is one step closer to ratifying the treaty, as discussed, which has passed through its lower house in Parliament. Once ratified, the treaty will become law in Rwanda. It follows that the Government of Rwanda would be required to give effect to the terms of the treaty in accordance with its domestic law, as well as international law. Those in genuine need of safety and security will be provided with it in Rwanda.

Turning to Amendment 16 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, we do not accept that individuals relocated to Rwanda would be at risk of torture or any other form of inhumane or degrading treatment. The Government’s assessment is that Rwanda is a safe country that respects the rule of law. Rwanda is a signatory to the United Nations convention against torture, the convention on refugees and other core UN human rights conventions. It has also signed the treaty with us which guarantees the welfare of all those relocated under the partnership. The enhanced monitoring committee will be in place to robustly monitor adherence to these obligations. Should somebody with a particular vulnerability be relocated to Rwanda, there will be the necessary treatment and specialist support available, with safeguarding processes in place.

Furthermore, Clause 4 preserves the ability of individuals to challenge removal due to their particular individual circumstances if there is compelling evidence that Rwanda is not a safe country for them. That is the appropriate mechanism to ensure that an individual’s circumstances have been considered.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt. What investigations have the Government made of whether that support is available in Rwanda? This is not a criticism of Rwanda but an acceptance of the fact that it is a country that has poor provision, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others. On being able to say that it is not safe for an individual, as the Minister’s colleague said in Committee, the Government expect this to be successful very rarely, so that is no safeguard, really.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I was about to answer the noble Baroness’s questions, because safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedure on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, which states that, at any stage in the refugee’s status determination and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate that a person is vulnerable. The SOP sets out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team.

Screening interviews to identify vulnerability will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process. Where appropriate, the protection team may refer vulnerable individuals for external support, which may include medical and/or psycho-social support or support with their accommodation. Where possible, this should be with the informed consent of the individual.

As regards capacity, of course it will be in place. The policy statement sets out at paragraph 135:

“In line with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and to ensure compliance with international human rights standards, each Relocated Individual will have access to quality preventative and curative primary and secondary healthcare services that are at least of the standard available to Rwandan nationals. This is provided through a comprehensive agreement between the Government of Rwanda and medical insurance companies for the duration of 5 years and through MoUs with hospitals in Kigali”.


I also say at this point that it would be in the best mental health interests of those seeking asylum who are victims to seek asylum in the first safe country that they come to. Why would they risk their health and mental health crossing the channel in much more grave circumstances than they need to?

Noble Lords will know that over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers have already successfully found safety in Rwanda. International organisations including the UNHCR chose Rwanda to host these individuals. We are committed to delivering this partnership. With the treaty and published evidence pack, we are satisfied that Rwanda can be deemed a safe country through this legislation. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wanted to make a couple of brief points in support of Amendments 20 and 21. In Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, quoted at length the Lord Chancellor’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to justify breaching the universality of human rights. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor did not convince the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its majority report concluded that the provision

“threatens the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and should be protected for everyone”.

I still do not understand, given the concerns expressed by the JCHR, as well as the EHRC, the Law Society and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, why this Government continue to try to argue that disapplication does not affect the principle of universality, which the noble and learned Lord waxed lyrical about in his speech.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord promised to write to me in response to my concerns about the implications for the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement—following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ request for a full explanation before Report as to why the Government consider Clause 3 to be consistent with these agreements. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter but, to echo what the noble Lord, Lord German, said earlier, I gently point out that it was sent at 3.24 pm this afternoon, after Report began. That really is not good practice, and it does not meet the JCHR’s request that a full explanation should be published before Report. It seems that the actual full publication will not be until some time on Wednesday, when we will be finishing Report.

I am not convinced that the answers to my questions would satisfy the JCHR, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Consortium of Northern Ireland. I am also not clear why the letter was not copied to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, given that she originally challenged the Minister on this point at Second Reading. I am not going to pursue the matter here, except to point out that I do not think we yet have a satisfactory explanation of the interactions with and the implications for these agreements.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.