Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am happy to reassure the noble Viscount that it is the latter. That is why it does not use the word “must”; it is purely discretionary. It is deliberately designed in that way to meet the concerns that the Government have expressed. It does not go as far as I personally would wish it to and it does not go as far as the amendment moved by my noble friend, but it is an attempt to open up the possibility of helping families in this predicament.
Let me conclude by saying that this is an exceptional measure for exceptional times. It does not seek to change the rules in perpetuity; rather, it would provide a solution for those families which have been torn apart by the present crisis. It would provide a managed route to reunite refugee families and to allow British citizens who are desperately worried about loved ones stuck in conflict regions or makeshift camps across Europe the opportunity to be reunited. It also leaves the final decision, reverting to the point made by the noble Viscount, in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that if the Government are unable to accept my noble friend’s amendment, they will respond to this amendment in the spirit in which it has been tabled.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I was going to talk about the human rights implications, but given how the time is getting on I shall simply quote from one of the many emails that I am sure we have all received imploring us to support one of these family reunion amendments. This email rather touched me: “I have a very personal reason for my concern in that my family were privileged to foster a 14 year-old boy from Afghanistan for five months. He has now moved to an area of England where there are other people who speak his language, but he became such a special part of our family and we remain in very regular contact with him. His story was truly heart-breaking. His mother had been killed and he had been injured by the Taliban when he was 10 years old, and then in recent months his village in eastern Afghanistan had been targeted by Daesh/Islamic State who were forcing teenage boys to fight for them. His father felt there was no choice but to arrange for him to leave, otherwise he faced almost certain death. We have the utmost admiration for this boy. His courage and determination are just amazing and he is trying so hard to make a new life for himself. We are extremely proud of him and know he will be an amazing asset to this country. His sadness at being parted from his family is beyond comprehension, however, and that is where I would like to appeal to you”. I replied and in the response I received the lady said: “I have never before felt moved to contact anyone in this way, but this subject has affected me hugely”.
I take great heart from the fact that there are members of the public with direct experience and who care so much. I hope that we will do the right thing if it comes to a vote.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I have one brief question for the Minister, who is going to rehearse the various stages of the resettlement schemes over the past few years going back to before he came to the Front Bench. Is it not the case that the Government dragged their feet rather with the original UNHCR resettlement scheme, which would have been very similar to the scheme before us? Could he not therefore make up the ground, because I think the Government have already made their decision?
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 123B, 123C and 123D. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for attaching their names to these amendments.
These amendments affect a subgroup of young people leaving care. I am very glad and grateful that at the last Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister chose to speak about his particular concern about young people in care. Edward Timpson MP’s work in improving security for care leavers and introducing “staying put” to allow young people to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 was a huge step forward in the coalition Government. There has been much welcome work in this area and recognition of the vulnerabilities of these young people. I am therefore not at all surprised that the Minister has paid great attention to these amendments. I appreciate our correspondence, the meeting that we and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had about this, and the Minister’s consideration and the adjustments that he has made, particularly with regard to young people who were not offered the chance to make an application for their immigration status to be regularised while they were in care under the age of 18, and to young people who have been trafficked.
These amendments ensure that young people leaving care are able to continue to access leaving-care support from their local authorities in circumstances where their departure from the UK is not envisaged. This includes young people with pending applications to remain in the UK whose long-term future may be in the UK, and young people who cannot leave the UK because there is a genuine obstacle to their removal.
This Bill creates a two-tier system of support and discriminates against care leavers on the basis of their immigration status, with damaging consequences for young people who have sometimes been living in the UK for many years as unaccompanied children, including potential victims of child trafficking and those who have no family but their foster family and their corporate parent, the local authority. It is not clear to me why a separate system is needed when the Children Act 1989 and the provision for care leavers, in particular the entitlement to a personal adviser and pathway planning, provide the most appropriate mechanism for supporting young people leaving care whatever their long-term future in the UK.
Central and local government have a unique relationship with children in care and care leavers, as they are corporate parents. That means that they have a statutory responsibility to act for young people in the way that a good parent would. The Government have indicated that very similar types of support could be provided under new paragraph 10B in the Bill, including continued foster placement, the advice and support of a personal adviser and social care support. That is most welcome. However, the Bill is drafted so that the duties to meet the welfare needs of care leavers, in line with wider care-leaving legislation, have been replaced by a power to make regulation. It is therefore anticipated that these young people will generally be prevented from staying in foster placements, continuing education, having a personal adviser and pathway plan, being supported with their health and so on.
The Bill’s provisions affecting migrant care leavers are inconsistent with government policy on care leavers generally, and fundamentally undermine the corporate parenting responsibility. Under these provisions, the Government estimate that 750 care leavers will be affected and therefore prevented from accessing the full range of leaving-care services that their peers receive. However, the Bill will also affect care leavers with pending immigration applications that are not their first application, and others whose long-term future may be in the UK. Young people caught by these provisions will include those who face genuine obstacles to removal, which may persist for lengthy periods of time, and those with non-asylum human rights claims based on having lived in the UK for significant periods of time, if this is not their first application.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the attention that he has given to the needs of these young people, and for the extent to which he has moved during the passage of the Bill. I would really appreciate it if he and the Government could go a bit further in ensuring that as many of these young people as possible have access at least to a personal adviser and a pathway plan. That is crucial for these young people at the age of 18 who have had troubled starts in life. It may also be to the benefit of the Government in their wish to create a robust immigration system. If these young people are engaging in a relationship with their personal adviser, it is easier for the authorities to have contact with them, so it should be easier for the Immigration Service to keep in touch with them and remove them when it is possible to do so.
I would appreciate it if the Minister could give a clear commitment to meeting the needs of these young people and, if he can, to move further forward than he has hitherto. If he could bring something to the House at Third Reading that would make the protections for these young people clear in the Bill, that would also be very welcome. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, to which I have added my name, for the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has been resolute in his defence of the rights of care leavers. I want to raise some issues arising from the Government’s rationale behind creating a separate system of support for care leavers who have no leave or who are appeal rights exhausted, particularly the removal of the duty to provide these care leavers with a pathway plan and personal advisers, and the dispersal of care leavers outside their local area. I am grateful to the Refugee Children’s Consortium for its briefing.
As I understand it, the Government’s view is that a separate system is needed for these young people who are appeal rights exhausted, because they believe that these young people’s future does not lie in the UK, even though in practice many young people who are ARE remain because of the barriers to their removal. However, the Government accept that in some cases additional support, such as access to social care services and remaining in foster placements, will still be needed. In his letter following Committee, the Minister stated:
“I agree entirely that they”—
that is, care leavers—
“should receive support appropriate to their individual needs”,
and that this could,
“include remaining in foster care placement”.
That is welcome, but it is very difficult to see how it will be achieved if the young person’s needs cannot be assessed because they will no longer be entitled to a pathway plan or personal adviser under the provision in new paragraph 10B, which is precisely the mechanism through which individualised assessments currently take place. Are the Government not just going to be reinventing the wheel by creating a whole separate system for this group of young people? Would it not be better to concentrate on ensuring that the current system for planning these young people’s transition to adulthood worked better by using dual or triple planning approaches to plan for all eventual outcomes for the young person’s immigration status, as set out in the guidance? Can the Minister explain whether the Government intend for young people’s needs to be assessed by new and different professionals? If so, would this not simply break the existing links that young people have with their personal advisers?
“Fees for applications made by children to register as British citizens
(1) Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 (fees) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (13) insert—
“(14) Notwithstanding subsection (9), in setting the amount of any fee in respect of an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child, the only consideration to which the Secretary of State may have regard is the cost of exercising the function.
(15) Fees regulations shall provide for the waiver of the fee for an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child and is being provided with assistance by a local authority.
(16) Fees regulations shall provide for discretion to waive the fee for an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child on grounds relating to the means of the child and anyone exercising parental responsibility for him or her.””
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The amendment would: limit the fee that the Secretary of State may charge for the making of an application to register a child as a British citizen to the cost incurred in dealing with such an application; provide that, where the child applicant is being assisted by a local authority, there shall be no fee; and, where the child and/or her parent or guardian has insufficient means, provide a power to waive that fee, because no such power exists at present.
The aim is to remove the barrier to children registering their entitlement to British citizenship and to other children applying to register at the Home Secretary’s discretion that is all too often created by the Home Office fee. The amendment follows on from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in Committee, and I am pleased to see that he is very patiently still in his place. Like him, I am grateful to Amnesty International UK and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens—or the project, for short—for drawing this issue to my attention and for their help with their amendment.
The noble Lord drew attention to the problems faced by an estimated 120,000 children in the UK without citizenship or immigration leave, despite the fact that many of them are entitled to British citizenship and many others could and would be likely to be registered at the discretion of the Home Secretary, if they were to apply. More than half of these children were born in this country. Unlike the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this one is not limited to children in care; it is concerned with all children entitled under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as British citizens, and those others who may be registered if they apply. Given the various provisions in this Bill and its predecessor concerning such matters as the right to rent, access to employment and access to higher education, the importance of registration for these children is clear.
The project has much experience of the considerable barrier to children registering as British created by the fee, which rose last Friday to a staggering £936. When I tell people about this, they look at me open-mouthed and say that they had absolutely no idea. Nor, to be honest, had I until I was made aware of this issue. Not surprisingly, many children, and their parents and carers, cannot afford it, many local authorities are unwilling to pay the fee for children in their care, and it is unclear why local rather than central government should bear the cost of these children’s registration. The overall result is that children who could and would be British miss out and in many instances later face the prospect of being removed from the country in which they have lived for all or most of their lives.
The project provided some examples, including that of Danny, who was three years old when he was brought to the UK and was in receipt of assistance from social services. He had been offered a place at drama school but had no leave to remain. He was referred to the project as he was approaching his 18th birthday, and he was able to apply to register as a British citizen. However, he could not afford the fee and the local authority refused to pay it. Had one of the project’s volunteers—and it is totally volunteer-run—not paid his fee, Danny would have lost the opportunity to be registered on turning 18. Surely it is not right that a basic right such as this should be subject to the vagaries of a kind volunteer meeting the cost of accessing it.
It is especially shocking that by far the greater part of the fee is simply profit to the Home Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out in Committee. The cost to the Home Office in registering a child was calculated to be £223 in the previous financial year. The relevant impact assessment states that this cost will rise by more than 20% in 2016 to £272, although it is unclear why. The impact on children is not considered in that assessment, and their best interests, and the Government’s statutory duty to promote their welfare, are not considered. The assessment and other government statements failed to acknowledge the fact that in many of these cases what is being charged for is a pre-existing entitlement under the British Nationality Act 1981, and that the Home Office has not been asked to grant but is merely being required to register the child’s citizenship. In any case, making any profit, let alone one of £664, as is now the case, from a child’s entitlement to be registered as British is surely unconscionable, especially when it leads time and again to preventing children from registering at all.
A recent Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, explained:
“The power to set fees that are higher than the cost of processing applications is contained within The Immigration Act 2014, which provides that the Home Office may take into account not just the cost of processing an application, but also the benefits and entitlements available to an individual if their application is successful and the cost of exercising any other function in connection with immigration or nationality. The Home Office does not provide exceptions … because the Home Office considers that citizenship is not a necessary pre-requisite to enable a person to exercise his or her rights in the UK in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. British nationality applications are not mandatory and many individuals with Indefinite Leave to Remain decide not to apply. A person who has Indefinite Leave to Remain may continue to live in the UK and travel abroad using”,
existing documentation. Again, the Home Office is failing to distinguish the registration of a pre-existing entitlement from other citizenship applications, particularly naturalisation applications. It is comparing apples with oranges. Those children who are entitled to register are not requesting some benefit from the Home Office but are requiring it to record what Parliament as long ago as 1981 determined to be their right. It is true that those who may apply to be naturalised are not in the same position, and it is correct that many of those with indefinite leave to remain—a prerequisite for applying to naturalise—do not necessarily want or need to be naturalised. Those entitled to register are entitled in the same way as those born in the UK to a British or settled parent are entitled to British citizenship.
The Written Answer seems to imply that the registration of British citizenship is of no real importance to these children, yet in his post-Committee letter the Minister acknowledged the importance of local authorities enabling and encouraging children in their care who need to do so to make a timely application to regularise their immigration status or to register as British citizens. It can be critical for some of these children, because they risk losing their entitlement if they do not register before turning 18. Moreover, the guidance on the MN1 form on which children register as British states:
“Becoming a British citizen is a significant life event. Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up”.
The project and Amnesty believe this amendment to be crucial to ensuring that children are not denied their right to citizenship because of their inability to pay. They are right to call our attention to what they dub profiteering on the part of the Home Office at the expense of children.
I imagine that the Minister is planning a response on the lines of the recent Written Answer from which I quoted. I hope I have shown why that Answer does not invalidate the case for this amendment. I would be grateful if he could take on board in particular what I said about this being a pre-existing entitlement. There is a real issue here. It may well be that we cannot resolve it today—today now being tomorrow—but I would be grateful if the Minister and his officials could look into it, ideally in discussion with the project and Amnesty, and consider coming back at Third Reading with a considered response. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said to the House. As she indicated, this is an issue I raised in Committee. It has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and me and of Parliamentary Questions which I have tabled.
If Amendment 145A is accepted, it would mean that in setting a fee in respect of an application for the registration of a child as a British citizen, the only matter to which the Secretary of State could have regard is the cost of processing that application. The amendment provides that fees regulations must provide for the fee to be waived where the child is in care or otherwise assisted by a local authority. It provides for discretion to waive the fee in other cases on the grounds of the means of the child, his or her parents or his or her carers.
In many cases where children have a claim to be registered as British citizens, no application for such registration has been made. Under a number of provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981, to which the noble Baroness referred, the power to register the child exists only while the child is a minor. After I raised these cases in Committee, the Minister wrote in reply on 3 February and described what he called—the noble Baroness referred to this—the importance of local authorities enabling and encouraging children in their care who need to do so to make a timely application to regularise their immigration status or to register as British citizens. So there is nothing between us in that sense. We both agree about the desirability of that.
However, I have had drawn to my attention, as has the noble Baroness, that in many cases the reason why no registration has taken place is precisely the size of the fee. As of 18 March 2016, the fee is £936. In these cases, where the child and/or the parents cannot afford to pay or the local authority will not pay, this money is simply beyond their means. The fee is set above the cost of registering the child, which the Home Office calculates to be £272, while in 2015-16 it was just £223. There is a massive discrepancy between that figure of £272 and the £936 that would be charged to the child in order to be able to register in these circumstances. How on earth can we justify that phenomenal difference? It seems to me like profiteering on children. It is quite indefensible and it is hardly a good advertisement for one-nation Britain.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her Amendment 145A. It is important that the Home Office is able to run a sustainable immigration and nationality system in a way that minimises the burden on the taxpayer. When the figures are spoken about in terms of the amount of money that it costs, that has to be seen in the context of our commitment to achieve a self-funded border, immigration and citizenship system by 2019-20. That raises the question: when people are using our border service, our immigration system or our citizenship, why should the resident taxpayer population be the ones who have to pay for the benefit that is falling to the individuals making the applications?
The first part of the amendment would restrict our ability in setting a fee to take account of any factor other than cost. That would cost the Home Office at least £29 million per annum over the next spending review period, mainly from lost income on current plans. Such a reduction in fee funding would have a serious detrimental effect on the department’s ability to operate an effective border and immigration system.
We recognise that families normally bear the cost for applications made on behalf of children. As a result, the Home Office already sets a fee for a child to register as a British citizen at a rate £300 lower than the overall cost of adult citizenship applications.
The second part of the amendment relates to those children receiving local authority assistance. Unaccompanied children in the UK generally seek leave to remain on protection grounds, for which no fee is charged. For a child in the care of the local authority, the Home Office waives the application fee for leave to remain on the grounds for settlement. This preserves the person’s ability to reside in the UK until they can afford to apply for citizenship.
The final part of the amendment, which would introduce a very broad provision to waive application fees, taking into account the means of applicants or parents, would be very difficult to implement in practice. It would be highly likely to lead to claims from applicants simply seeking to avoid paying, rather than those who were genuinely destitute, for whom there are already alternative and appropriate remedies that ensure that convention rights are protected. For children in family groups applying for leave to remain on human rights grounds, the fee is waived where the applicant is destitute or otherwise meets the published fee-waiver policy. Taken as a whole, this policy ensures that a person’s convention rights are protected, that the value of British citizenship is recognised and that the border and immigration system is adequately sustained and funded.
Citizenship can never be an absolute right, nor is it necessary in order for a person to reside in the UK and access our public services. A person who is settled in the UK is not required to become a citizen by a certain date: they can remain here until they can meet the criteria for doing so, including payment of the required fee. Overall, on balance, we feel that the existing arrangement strikes the right balance between fairness to individuals and fairness to all applicants, as well as to the resident taxpayer population. I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for persevering and staying up at this late hour to give me such strong support on this amendment.
I suppose I am grateful to the Minister—he did not have any option but to stay and respond—but I am very disappointed by his response. He seems to be saying that the immigration system depends on children paying this exorbitant fee to be able to carry on; that, bluntly, seems to be what he is saying. These children will become taxpayers; I find the idea that they are somehow a burden on the taxpayer terribly depressing. They have a right—I do not see why they should have to pay such fees.
I can quite see that there might be somewhere between what the amendment is calling for, which is that there cannot be anything above the cost to the Home Office, and the Government’s position, but we are talking about a difference of over £600 for a child between the cost to the Home Office and the fee. That seems to be a very large surcharge on these children to keep the wheels of the immigration system turning. It is well past my bedtime so I am not thinking very straight, but I am slightly flabbergasted by that argument. At least it is now in the open—what this has been about has been said very clearly.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not been willing to give an inch, because there is scope there for some kind of compromise between the amendment and the situation as it stands. I am also disappointed that the Government are not prepared to think about it and talk to Amnesty and the project just to see whether there might be some way of coming to some kind of agreement to make this policy slightly less harsh than it is at present. The Minister may want to say something.
Lord Bates
I will say only that, with the existing arrangements for waivers for those who are in particular need, the policy is absolutely right and we stand by it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
According to Amnesty, the waiver is limited, but I will have to look into that. The Minister talked about the right balance, but personally I do not think there is no balance there at all. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 66 in particular. It is telling that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has expressed its support for this and other amendments in this grouping because of its concerns that the Government have not complied with the public sector equality duty with reference to this clause.
I will come back to a couple of issues which I raised earlier and which I do not feel have been adequately addressed. The first is the issue raised by the late and much missed Lord Avebury, which concerned asylum seekers who live in the private rented sector but who lack the necessary documentary proof that they are entitled to be here. According to ILPA, which has been pursuing this issue, a commitment by the Minister’s predecessor to provide necessary documentation to show that they have a right to rent was not followed through.
In the Immigration Act 2014 order debate on 24 February, the Minister referred to special procedures to ensure that they are protected. However, JCWI already has evidence that these are not working, and argues that a clear policy on this is vital. From reading its latest briefing, I realise that there is a wider problem here, which also affects individuals who face barriers to removal from the UK. There is no clear policy from the Secretary of State that enables them to obtain permission to rent. The same is true of those with outstanding applications whose documents are likely to be with the Home Office, so they are unable to provide landlords with the necessary documentation.
JCWI cites a freedom of information request which elicited that the Home Office has no plans to enable individuals to obtain evidence of the right to rent. JCWI states:
“The absence of a defined process by which individuals can obtain permission to rent, or evidence it, increases the risk of discrimination and limits their access to the private rental market”.
It argues:
“A clear policy must be put in place outlining when and how permission to rent is to be granted, as well as confirmation of the ‘right to rent’ where tenants have an outstanding application, and a process through which tenants can request written proof from the Secretary of State. Where a person is made destitute as a result, this could amount to a breach of their Articles 8, 14 and even Article 3 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights”.
I urge the Minister to take this away and look at what may be a marginal issue but is very important for a highly vulnerable group. I urge him to come back, either in a letter or at Third Reading, with some assurances that the kind of policy called for by the JCWI will be established.
The other issue that I want to come back to was raised in Committee, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who I do not think is in his place, in a demolition job of the whole policy. I refer to the impact on lodgers—an even less professional group perhaps than the small landlords whom noble Lords opposite have talked about—and on those opening up their homes to lodgers, possibly because of the bedroom tax.
After raising this issue previously, I received an email from Matt Hutchinson of SpareRoom, who works with hundreds and thousands of people living in shared rented accommodation each year and with landlords and homeowners taking in lodgers. He believes that the complex issues thrown up by the legislation are not being adequately addressed. First, he is concerned about the potential discriminatory impact. He says that he has already had one request from a landlord to make it compulsory for tenants to state their nationality on SpareRoom to make it easier to discount non-UK tenants.
Secondly, he is concerned about the likely reduction in the supply of rooms just as the new rent-a-room tax threshold was supposed to encourage people to rent out rooms. How many home owners will want to carry out the necessary checks on just one individual coming into their home?
Thirdly, he is concerned about the lack of information for this sector. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that non-professional landlords, who probably do not even think of themselves as landlords, and those taking in lodgers are aware of their new duties? Mr Hutchinson raises the situation of flat-sharers. If in a group situation, say, one person moves out and the others sublet to a new tenant, are they jointly and severally liable? How can they tell? How will they be expected to carry out meaningful checks with any degree of certainty? Thinking back to my own days of flat-sharing when I first came to London many years ago, the whole thing seems totally unrealistic.
The fears that many of us raised at Second Reading about the discriminatory effects of these clauses have not been allayed. Instead, we are receiving briefings from the EHCR, the Residential Landlords Association, SpareRoom, those working with immigrants and civil liberty groups, all expressing deep concern. It is adding criminal insult to civil injury to go ahead with this clause without much better information about how the current scheme works when it is rolled out nationally.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I fully support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Paddick and other noble Lords, which would require an evaluation before the scheme is fully rolled out. The remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, certainly illustrated the absurdity of the fact that immigration enforcement might be undermined. If the top priority is to make sure that people who do not have a legal status in the country are removed, that immigration control will be completely undermined by requiring an eviction, whereby people might scarper elsewhere before the immigration authorities have a chance to catch up with them. That shows the absurdity of trying to outsource immigration control, because you end up tripping up over it. I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.
I want to ask the Minister about the practicalities. I confess that I am not familiar with all the different documentation, but I have looked at a three year-old Home Office document about biometric residence permits. I do not know the extent of the rollout of biometric residence permits, but the document says that migrants applying successfully in categories in which they do not have to enrol their biometrics will continue to receive a sticker, a vignette, in their passport. Can the Minister give us an idea of what proportion of legal migrants are getting biometric residence permits, those who still have stickers in their passports and those who do not have either, such as asylum seekers who might have an array of letters from the Home Office? I am not up to speed with the practicalities, so perhaps the Minister can give us an idea.
My underlying concern is the practical difficulties for people, such as landlords, who are not immigration specialists to know how they are supposed to recognise this. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, about the possibility of a passport having been checked but it is fake. Even without that happening, how are people supposed to recognise through the documentation and be really clear about whether someone has legal status or not?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I rise to speak to Amendment 81 standing in my name. I also support the amendments just spoken to which concern the ways in which these charges are having a serious impact on women’s lives.
The House will remember that on a previous occasion I raised the issue of access to higher education for young people leaving care who have leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. I was deeply concerned about the way in which these opportunities would be unavailable to certain categories of people. In response to my previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, very kindly agreed to set out the position in relation to home tuition fees. I was concerned that people who have leave to remain and have been in care are expected to pay the fees as if they were overseas students—as if they were Americans choosing to come to study in Britain. That, of course, is not the case. The fees are very much higher and cause serious detriment to those who want to have the opportunity to undertake education.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his rationale and that of the Government. I should make it clear to the House that the Government consider that there is already generous provision for those who have been granted refugee status. So those who have gone through the process and obtained refugee status can get home fees and access the student support regulations, which means that they can get a loan. That is also available to those granted humanitarian protection, if they can demonstrate that they have been lawfully in residence—ordinarily resident—in the country for three years.
But what came through in the reply to my concerns was that local authorities would be prevented from paying the higher education tuition fees of adult migrant care leavers who are not refugees and do not meet the humanitarian criteria. I ask the Government to think again on this, and I shall explain why. By preventing this discretion—which is used very sparsely by local authorities—to provide assistance in the few cases where this situation arises, we are blighting the lives of many talented young people.
I have mentioned before that I am the president of a foundation bearing my name which provides bursaries to very disadvantaged people, including young refugees, young people who have fled humanitarian crises and those who have leave to stay. One such person is a young man, Ade, a Nigerian, who was trafficked to the United Kingdom when he was a child of 14 or 15 for the purposes of exploitation. He managed to escape but was on the streets and was homeless. He was taken into care at the age of 16 and classified as a looked-after child by Salford local authority. He subsequently claimed asylum and was granted limited leave to remain.
As a looked-after child, Ade received full financial support from Salford. He was recognised as being a very clever high achiever and was offered a place at the University of Salford, where he successfully negotiated a full tuition waiver. He was not eligible for student finance due to his immigration status but he got the waiver. Salford local authority covered the additional costs of studying by providing his accommodation and living costs. If he had not had that support, this young man would have been unable to complete his education at university. He graduated with a 2:1 and went on to do a master’s degree. He received his master’s with a merit just last summer. He is now seeking employment. If he had not had that support from Salford local authority and the Article 26 campaign group, which has also supported him, we would not have this young graduate, who will contribute to life here in Britain. He is now applying for British citizenship, as I said.
I ask the Government to think again because there should be exceptional circumstances in which the very able are given the kind of support that Ade has had. If it had not been available, at the very best he would be seeking to embark on his journey at this stage of his life rather than when he was able to. As I said, he is an incredible young man.
I want to impress on the Government that care leavers who have had leave to remain, and whose future lies in the United Kingdom, should be able to access student finance and home fees, and should not be expected to pay overseas fees as they are now. We could, for example, apply the three years’ ordinary residence in their cases, too—because Ade had been here for three years. I really want to impress on the Government that by having a blanket rule that local authorities cannot do this we are going to visit hardship on deserving cases.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 79 and 80, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has already made a very powerful case, as has the noble Lord, Lord Alton. While I appreciate the care taken by the Minister in his letter of 3 February, I am disappointed that the Government were not willing to budge an inch on what I—perhaps naively—thought was a rather small, albeit important, couple of amendments.
In Committee, the noble Baroness was rightly dismissive of the administrative arguments to justify refusal. Will the Minister give the House some idea of what the exact administrative costs are likely to be and what assumptions the Government made in deciding that it would be too administratively costly? Will he also give some idea of how many people in a year meet what he himself has described as the “narrowly defined” test to qualify for exemption on destitution grounds? While I prefer clear, legal entitlements, in the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, I wonder whether there is room for building on the destitution exemption.
For example, if an applicant could demonstrate the difficulties that an up-front payment would cause, short of meeting the destitution test, they should be allowed to pay in a limited number of instalments. This would be clearly circumscribed. In some cases, we are talking about really large sums, but even where it is just the most basic payments, it is still a lot for someone with very limited means to pay as a one-off. That point has not been adequately taken on board.
What I am suggesting would get round the fear, expressed by the Minister, of people being able to use payment by instalments as an interest-free loan, regardless of their capacity to pay up front. We are not suggesting that anybody can come along and say they would like to pay in instalments—just those who may not fail the destitution test but who would clearly face real problems.
On the domestic violence exclusion, how many people have been exempted under the rule—brought in, according to the Minister’s letter, in April 2015—that exempts treatment needed as a consequence of domestic violence? Would it not be simpler just to exempt all those who have been a victim of domestic violence, rather than making applicants prove that any physical or mental health needs are a direct consequence of it? We know, from other contexts, how difficult it is to prove these impacts—particularly on mental health—in a way that satisfies authorities. It can also be very distressing to have to provide that proof.
I have received an email expressing support from the Royal College of Nursing, which is very concerned about the workings of the health surcharge. One of its concerns is to know what mechanisms exist, and what assurance the Government can offer, that the revenue generated is redirected back into the NHS.
Finally, I support Amendment 81, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I quote from the conclusions of a study carried out by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Europe, which adds to the strong case already made and states:
“Access to education should be better supported, including, where necessary, after young unaccompanied and separated asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection have reached the age of majority, as it plays a critical role in their transition”.
We had an example of that from my noble friend. It is important that we support these young people in such a difficult transition period.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It was such a help to those such as me who have been involved in church education for people from overseas. I hope that the House will support it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support Amendments 84 and 85 as a member of the all-party inquiry, which I came away from convinced of the case for a time limit, based on the experience of other countries and on the evidence that we have received from professionals and those with experience of detention about the impact of indefinite detention in particular on mental health. I am going to apply a self-imposed time limit on my own comments, and I am going to scrap what I was going to say about that. However, given the very broad all-party support, which we have heard about already, whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular amendment, when Liberty tells us that this is one of the greatest stains on this country’s human rights record in recent decades, surely we should do something to remove that stain.
I move to Amendment 85 and government Amendment 86. While I welcome the decision to publish statutory guidance on the new adults-at-risk decision-making procedures, I have some concerns, particularly with regard to pregnant women. Although it is welcome that they will automatically be treated at the highest level of risk, it is still not clear why the Government have refused Shaw’s recommendation of an absolute exclusion from detention. I note that the Home Affairs Select Committee has asked for an explanation of this in its recent report, and I would appreciate one, too.
Women for Refugee Women has raised a number of concerns with me and, if it is easier, I shall be quite happy for the Minister to respond to these in writing later. First, can he give some indication of how the new gate- keeper team will operate and explain why it was decided not to include an independent element in decision-making, as suggested by Shaw in recommendation 61? Secondly, it is worried as to how “imminence of removal” will be interpreted under the new adults-at-risk approach, given that this is the wording already used in the current policy. Under this policy, it says that nearly one-third of the 99 pregnant women detained in 2014 were held for between one and three months and four for between three and six months, which suggests a rather loose interpretation of imminence in the context of pregnancy. It is also worried about what is meant when the draft implementation approach states that the level of risk/vulnerability for which someone has been assessed will depend on the type and quality of the evidence available. In the experience of Women for Refugee Women and of Helen Bamber, what is understood as constituting independent or good evidence is often a real problem for survivors of sexual violence. Under rule 35, for instance, evidence such as a doctor’s report on mental symptoms has been dismissed because there is no physical evidence. Will self-disclosure be accepted as evidence, as it is by many other agencies?
I was pleased to read of there being new guidance on care and management of women in detention. That sounds like a positive step. Would the Minister undertake for the Home Office to consult organisations such as Women for Refugee Women, on its contents?
It appears that the Government have also rejected Shaw’s recommendation that the words,
“which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention”,
should be removed from references to individuals suffering from serious mental illness. Shaw states that,
“it is perfectly clear … that people with serious mental illness continue to be held in detention and that their treatment and care does not and cannot equate to good psychiatric practice (whether or not it is ‘satisfactorily managed’)”.
He concludes:
“Such a situation is an affront to civilised values”.
Can the Minister say whether the recommendation has been rejected; and, if so, why? Finally, can he explain why the statutory instrument giving effect to the statutory guidance will be subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative, given the importance of these details? Will he commit to independent monitoring of the new regime, with regular reports to both Houses? In this way, we can assess whether the new adults-at-risk policy proves to be the generally transformative approach that has been promised.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I share the doubts expressed about Amendment 84 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. We need to be clear on what is at stake here. It is not simply the number of weeks that someone is held in detention, important though that is. The capability to remove those who have no right to be in this country is absolutely fundamental to the credibility of the entire immigration system; and, indeed, the power of detention is essential to effective removal. This is fundamental in a number of respects, not just to the human rights aspects. It is fundamental to the whole immigration system.
Broadly speaking, I would argue that the system is working, although obviously it can be improved. I remind the House that in 2014 nearly 30,000 people were detained in immigration detention centres. But here is the point: two-thirds of them were there for less than 28 days. If you are going to set a limit of 28 days, what you are saying is that there are going to be 10,000 cases a year of people appealing to the immigration tribunal for release—10,000 cases, at a time when the tribunals are struggling to deal with 20,000 or 30,000, an increasing number of asylum cases. Throughout this debate, I think everyone has recognised that we need a faster and more effective system, and it seems to me that to introduce an amendment of this kind would do it very considerable damage. There may be scope for a much longer timescale of 90 days or whatever. That could be considered, perhaps, by the Government. But to set it at 28 days is, I think, quite wrong. As was mentioned in earlier debates on this Bill, it would encourage people to spin things out to get to the 28 days, they could then apply for their bail, and then—who knows?—they might disappear.
This amendment can only help such people. We need a much faster asylum system if public support for the whole system is to be maintained. This amendment would slow it up, and it should be resisted.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 114 for two reasons. Proposed new subsections (4) to (6) seem to reflect all the experience of the practitioners on the ground with whom I have been in contact, but I was particularly keen on proposed new subsection (7), because the need for a written plan for the child resonates with the education, health and care plans which the Department of Health and the Department for Education require to be prepared for every child with speech, language and communication needs or special educational needs. So such a plan is already part of the structure for children in the United Kingdom.
I was particularly struck by a visit to a secure children’s home called Orchard Lodge, sadly now closed down, which was then run by Southwark council and provided particular help for traumatised children with mental health problems, many of whom were the very people covered by these amendments. They were immigration and asylum seekers who had suffered extraordinary trauma during the conditions that brought them to this country, and they needed help—but that help needed to be structured, co-ordinated and planned. Therefore, I particularly support the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and hope very much that, in accepting it, which I hope that the Minister feels able to do, he will reflect on the model for the plans that he calls for.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak very briefly in support of these amendments, which are very much animated by the spirit of Every Child Matters, as the right reverend Prelate says. It reminded me of some of the reports that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published when I was still a member, both on unaccompanied young children and on children’s rights. A theme that kept recurring was how often in government policy immigration concerns trump children’s best interests and rights. All these amendments are attempting to shift that balance back so that children’s best interests and children’s rights take centre stage; it does not say that nothing else matters, but they are given the due that they and children deserve.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has been said, the Government have an amendment in this group regarding the welfare of children, which would state that the Secretary of State and any other person, as set out in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, is subject to a duty regarding the welfare of children. The Government have put this amendment down following the debate on the welfare of children under the “deport first, appeal later” clauses in this Bill in Committee. The Government have repeatedly referred to the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” issue as a manifesto commitment. The amendment tabled by the right revered prelate the Bishop of Norwich states that, before a decision is taken to certify a human rights claim, the Secretary of State must obtain an individual best interests assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify with the assessment being carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional.
“Asylum support move-on period
Persons in receipt of asylum support shall cease to receive such support 40 days after receiving a biometric residence permit following the granting of—(a) refugee status;(b) humanitarian protection status;(c) discretionary leave status;(d) indefinite leave to remain; or(e) limited leave to remain for 30 months.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords who added their names to this amendment for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place because it is his birthday, and so I think he is allowed the evening off to celebrate with his family, much as we will miss him. I also want to express my support for Amendments 117 and 118.
The amendment concerns what is commonly known as the moving-on or grace period, during which an asylum seeker granted status continues to receive asylum support but after which it is expected that they will have sorted out mainstream financial support, employment and accommodation. The amendment would increase this period to 40 days.
I am grateful to the Minister and officials for the recent meeting that we had to discuss this matter and for the discussions that I believe officials have had both within government and with the British Red Cross, to which I am grateful for help with this amendment. As I explained in Committee, this is a problem that has for far too long created unnecessary hardship and heartache for those granted status. It is not the product of deliberate government policy, but a very unfortunate consequence of an inability of two government departments to sort it out. In Committee, I cited evidence presented recently to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, which called for an immediate joint investigation of the issue with the Home Office and recommended that the time allowed in the grace period be amended if necessary. I also cited a recent report from the British Red Cross and an earlier report from Freedom from Torture.
All the evidence shows, first, that asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to destitution just at the point when they are granted refugee status or leave to remain, because it so often takes longer to move on than the allotted 28 days, after which asylum support is stopped, regardless of whether mainstream social security has started to be paid. Internal management statistics show that in 2015 the British Red Cross supported 9,138 primary service users and 4,130 dependants who were destitute. It questioned around 2,500 of them as to why they were destitute, and the largest group, a quarter, cited problems with moving on. This is a measure of the level of unnecessary destitution caused as a result of extremely vulnerable people being caught in a limbo between asylum support and mainstream support.
Secondly, it is clear from the evidence that it is not just the material impact but the psychological impact of destitution that should concern us, especially in the case of those who have suffered torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status but instead are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time—not grace but a form of purgatory. Just imagine how we would feel when the moment prayed for came about, but our life was actually made more difficult than it was already. Moreover, the Home Office itself has in the past emphasised the importance of the moving-on period for the longer-term integration of refugees yet, in trying to rush rather than move refugees on, the grace period serves to impede that integration.
In his response in Committee, the Minister referred to his letter of 21 January. However, that dealt with people without status, not those who had been granted it. He made the point, understandably—although I picked him up on it at the time—that it is not just a case of extending the time period but about making sure that people apply for those benefits promptly. He cited the BRC report which showed that only three—in fact, four—of the sample of 16 had applied within the first three weeks of being granted status. I accept that that is a legitimate point, and it is in no one’s interest, least of all that of the refugees, for a claim for benefits not to be made promptly. After all, asylum support is significantly lower than mainstream social security. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties for people new to the system if they do not have the support of an organisation or friends who understand it. As my noble friend Lord Judd, who is not in his place, pointed out in Committee, sometimes mental health problems or a state of confusion can make it an unrealistic proposition. The BRC study found that the majority of service users questioned in Birmingham did not even know that they had only 28 days to complete a benefits claim after getting status. Most people struggle to understand the paperwork that they are sent.
The BRC identified 23 factors at play affecting the speed with which a refugee is able to make the transition to mainstream support. In some cases, five to 10 of those factors could hold up progress. It is a process involving multiple stakeholders and documents—daunting at the best of times.
Even when a refugee makes an expeditious claim, there is no guarantee that they will receive a payment within 28 days. Indeed, it can often take considerably longer than that from the date of the claim, as the BRC study found and the DWP’s own research indicates. So while I agree that claiming in good time is part of the solution, it is not the whole of it. On the basis of the experience of refugee organisations, I suggest that a two-part solution is needed. First, there must be an improvement in procedures, including adequate advice and support to those granted status to ensure that they make a speedy claim. I would be grateful for an indication of what might have emerged from the discussions that officials have been having about how to improve those procedures. But that on its own is not sufficient, as can be seen, for example, from the experience of the deployment of a dedicated caseworker by the Holistic Integration Service in Scotland.
Secondly, this needs to be complemented by a legal right to continue receiving asylum support beyond the current 28 days. This amendment suggests 40 days, based on the experience of refugee organisations. Again understandably, in Committee the Minister expressed the fear that simply adding days might not be enough, and of course any time limit is to some extent arbitrary. But combined with improved procedures so that, to cite the Minister, people get the care they need when they need it and the system works effectively, the view on the ground is that this is a more realistic and appropriate time period. I chose a time limit because I assumed that it would be easier to administer than a case-by-case approach triggered by the receipt of mainstream social security, but I would not be averse to the latter if the Government preferred that, and it would of course be open to the Minister to bring forward an alternative amendment on those lines at Third Reading. One way or another, I believe that we have the opportunity finally to resolve this issue. It is an injustice born of oversight, not intent, but it is none the less cruel for that.
Just as I finished drafting what to say in the debate, I read ILPA’s briefing. It cites the case of EG, a little boy who starved to death during the moving-on period and whose mother died two days later. The serious case review identified the following national issue:
“Westminster Local Safeguarding Children Board should write to the National Asylum Support Service and the Department for Work and Pensions to express its concern about the adverse consequences on vulnerable children and the resulting additional pressure on local professional agencies which are triggered in the transitional period between the withdrawal of support by the National Asylum Support Agency and entitlement to benefits”.
That was dated April 2012; four years later, I am not sure that much has changed. Shockingly, according to Still Human Still Here, if anything, things have got worse. I apologise if that appears emotive, but I feel so strongly about this. It is not a party-political issue. None of the political parties would support a policy that deliberately created destitution during this period, yet none of them has done anything about it when in government. I appeal to the Minister to use the opportunity provided by this Bill to put right such an unnecessary wrong and ensure that the period after granting of refugee status can be a time of joy rather than one of destitution and psychological turmoil. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 116 largely as a result of past involvement with UN gateway resettlement programmes in Norwich for Congolese refugees. I discovered then how long it takes asylum seekers, once granted refugee status, to set themselves up so that they can live as citizens. The transition into work or even to mainstream benefits does not come at all quickly. Applying for national insurance numbers and biometric residence permits is slow going. Completing benefit application forms, and even getting hold of the right ones, is difficult because refugees are not always given the correct advice.
As the noble Baroness has just said, the possibility of getting what was most wanted—refugee status—and then finding that it is followed up by the removal of financial support and no accommodation is not so much an irony as a tragedy. We need a bigger window before asylum support is terminated. Starting the clock only when a biometric residence permit is obtained would inform the situation. I do not need to labour the point because it has already been very well put, but it is a terrible experience for refugees in a country to which they are immensely grateful to then experience the trauma of destitution when they have experienced so much trauma already. I warmly support this very straightforward amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate for their powerful support. I am also grateful to the Minister, because we have reached a fair compromise this evening and I appreciate that.
I think I got some clarification in those last statements but I just want to be clear that I got it right. The Minister will bring a Statement to both Houses, I guess, or certainly to this House, that will let us know the outcome even if the decision is not to change the regulations. So we will have a chance to debate the decision that is made, and it will be this year, I think he said. I would be grateful if that could be clarified. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the British Red Cross in this area and there are other groups, such as the Refugee Council, which do a lot of work in this area. It would be very helpful if there could be a commitment that they could have some involvement in the discussions that lead up to the decision.
Lord Bates
To use the precise words we have agreed—obviously, we have agreed this between different government departments so I need to stick rigidly to what was said—I can confirm that if the further DWP evaluation I have referred to shows that it is necessary to increase the length of the grace period to consistently enable newly recognised refugees to begin to receive welfare benefits for which they are eligible before their Home Office support ends, we will return to Parliament with a proposal to amend the regulations to that effect. I am sure we can have an ongoing dialogue. I know that there is a very good relationship with the Red Cross in these areas. Officials meet it regularly and I am sure they will be able to share the information that comes in as it is received.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Are we talking about a timescale of this year—not the indefinite future?
Lord Bates
Yes, I did actually say that it would probably be later this year. That would give us the necessary time to gather the new information on the basis of the new changes that have been introduced to our procedures to try to address the concerns that the noble Baroness has identified.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister. I am sorry to pursue this but this feels like my last opportunity for the moment. On the understanding that if the decision is not to change it, we will be told that in some way, because otherwise we do not have any way of interrogating it—
Lord Bates
Just to clarify this point—because we are lip-reading from different ends of the Chamber here—I will write to the noble Baroness, setting out exactly how we will communicate this. But of course we will want to communicate how we are doing, not least to the DWP Select Committee, which has undertaken a report and the DWP is going to be responding to that shortly. I will set that out in a letter and I am sure it will be very clear.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I very much appreciate that. The noble Lord very kindly paid tribute to my tenacity on this issue. I am not going to give up. As he will expect, whatever the decision is, we will try to come back to it in some way. But I appreciate the fact that it sounds like finally someone has listened and heard. Certainly, from what Still Human Still Here put in its briefing to us, its assessment is that things have actually got worse, not better. But let us see what the evaluation shows. As I say, it would be helpful if there could be some involvement of the refugee organisations in that evaluation because they have on-the-ground knowledge.
On the basis that we will return to this in some form or other later in the year, I appreciate the response of the Minister and the work that officials have put into this. It is perhaps au revoir until we come back to this later in the year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
On that point, my Lords, I have had occasion under another statute to consider the phrase “without reasonable excuse” in a judicial capacity, and I found it impossibly imprecise.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 52, which would leave out Clause 32. I shall make one specific and one general point.
I am grateful to the Minister for his collection of letters. I am not sure that it is quite a limited edition, and I have visions of him scurrying around late at night delivering them. I have found it helpful because of course I had mislaid the letter of 28 January, in which he clarified that the offence of legal working will apply to asylum seekers who are not permitted to work but also to those who have been granted permission but take a job that is not on the shortage occupation list. Whatever one thinks of the clause itself, and I am opposed to it, surely it is unfair that it is applied to people who have a clear legal right to be in the country at that point. This has been presented as a clause that applies to people who have no legitimate right to be in the country, but those who are still seeking asylum have that right. I was concerned about that because it seems unfair.
My more general point is that, like other noble Lords, I fear that despite the government amendment the clause will serve to encourage exploitation. I was disturbed to read in yesterday’s Independent a report of a study of young migrant men carried out by the University of Manchester as part of a European Commission study, which found that these young men felt that they are constantly having to justify their status and made to feel that they are on the wrong side of the law even when they have done nothing wrong. I am not arguing that there is a clear cause and effect, but when we have government policies like the previous Immigration Act, this Bill and particularly this clause, which deliberately try to create a hostile environment for undocumented migrants, unfortunately they can create a hostile environment for those who have every right to be here. That impedes their ability to integrate into British society, which can be in nobody’s interests.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I wish to add to the very sound arguments put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others on the question of the resources of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Surely there are many pressures on them and demands for resources. I was reading the other day that there are 5 million frauds against bank customers every year and lax attention by the banks. Given the extent of child abuse and sexual abuse and the explosion of problems online which the CPS is trying to react to and get on top of, is it right to make this an extra priority for the CPS when we ask so much of it in other areas?
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, once again there is a balance to be struck here. On one side is the disadvantage of permitting asylum seekers to work after six months. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested, it seems inevitable that some aspiring immigrants, at least, would be encouraged by such a provision to apply for asylum and, perhaps, to prolong the process by making what they then assert to be a fresh claim. On the other side are the benefits of enabling self-support, not to mention self-respect, by allowing this work after six months—indeed, all the various benefits so eloquently outlined already in this short debate by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Here, contrary to the view I expressed on the previous issue, the balance seems to fall in favour of the amendment. Furthermore, if, as I hope, one consequence of passing the amendment were the further speeding up of the decision-making process, that would be a most welcome additional benefit. Accordingly, in this instance I respectfully support the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support Amendment 57. I will not repeat all the arguments I made in Committee in support of this most basic of civil rights—the right to be able to undertake paid work. I simply want to respond to a couple of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, made in response in Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, noted in so ably moving the amendment, the main argument seemed to be our old friend, the pull factor, which dominates policy-making in this area. Since that debate, my attention has been drawn to the only piece of research I am aware of that has explored with individual asylum seekers and refugees the factors that informed their decision to seek asylum in the UK. The report Chance or Choice? by Heaven Crawley was published a few years ago by the Refugee Council. I will quote from it in the interests of evidence-based policy-making. Her broad finding was that, contrary to the assumptions on which policy is premised,
“the choices asylum seekers make are rarely the outcome of a rational decision making process in which individuals have full knowledge of all the alternatives and weigh them in some conscious process designed to maximise returns”.
Professor Crawley found no evidence from this or other research that work acts as a pull factor. Instead, she concludes that,
“the policy change introduced nearly a decade ago to prevent asylum seekers from working whilst their claim is determined has had no measurable impact on the level of applications received”.
The report said of asylum seekers,
“the inability to work was the biggest difficulty they faced in rebuilding their lives. Lack of access to work has psychological and social as well as economic consequences”.
It quoted a woman from Zimbabwe who said:
“Sometimes I just cry. It’s like I am worthless, like I am just this piece of junk”.
Another said:
“My mind has gone rusty. I am not able to look at a meaningful life anymore. I look at it and I think, oh what a wasted life”.
It is terrible that people are having to feel this.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, cited a range of cross-national evidence that does not support the argument that enabling people to work acts as a pull factor. No doubt the Minister will respond with the other argument given twice in Committee:
“It is important that we protect the resident labour market for those lawfully present in the UK”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 850.]
But asylum seekers are lawfully present until they are deemed otherwise. To suggest they are not plays into the popular tendency to conflate asylum seekers with undocumented economic migrants.
This leads to my final point. A number of noble Lords and organisations outside have expressed the fear that by denying asylum seekers access to legitimate paid work, sheer need and desperation will push them into the shadow economy where they are prey to exploitation. I raised earlier my concerns that they could now also be caught by Clause 32, which will criminalise them.
To conclude, like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I do not believe that the Government have made their case that current policy is, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, “fair and proportionate”. On the contrary, it is unfair and disproportionate when compared with the position in most other EU countries, and in its short-term and long-term impact on asylum seekers and refugees whose subsequent integration into British society is impeded by it, as we have already heard. As Ian Birrell, former speech writer for the Prime Minister, wrote earlier this week:
“The key is to let refugees work legitimately, so they can build a fresh start—wherever they are. After all, what human being wants life trapped in limbo … Refugees may have escaped hell, but that does not mean we force them into purgatory”.
It feels as if, too often, we do just that. This amendment would help asylum seekers out of the purgatory of enforced idleness and impoverishment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I frequently find myself addressing immigration issues at public meetings because these issues are in the public’s mind and attract a lot of attention, particularly in relation to law. As soon as you draw the distinction between economic migrants and those seeking asylum, the public always recognise the importance of the ability to work, and support it. There is a misconception among politicians’ and public commentators’ understanding of the public mood on this issue. The public generally think it is right that those seeking asylum should have the opportunity to make a life, to work and to have that dignity which everyone has spoken about. They do not see this as just a compassionate issue but as one of good sense in relation to this country and its needs. I urge the Minister to look at this issue carefully, especially given the speed with which these applications are now being dealt with, as the Labour Front Bench mentioned, and which we commend. This is one of the ways in which we can show that we are capable of making a distinction between economic migrants and others; that we will not allow this confusion to arise in the public’s mind; and that we recognise the public’s desire to ensure that those seeking asylum, to whom we are giving a home, should have the opportunity to live among us, work, and thereby make a contribution to their own lives.
Immigration Act 2014 (Commencement No. 6) Order 2016
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as joint chair of the right-to-rent private landlords consultative panel at the Home Office. I jointly chair this panel with the Minister for Immigration, James Brokenshire. We have been meeting to discuss the right-to-rent measure every month or two since September 2014, with sub-groups meeting between the main panel meetings.
I was very critical of the right-to-rent proposals in your Lordships’ House before they became part of the Immigration Act 2014. I tabled nine amendments, all relating to the practicalities of requiring landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. The House received a number of reassurances from the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for which I was grateful, including arrangements for a pilot scheme in the West Midlands.
The panel, which continues to meet, includes representatives of landlords, tenants, property agents, all the relevant local authorities, three government departments and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. From this perspective, I hope, therefore, that I can provide some answers to the questions arising on this issue.
First, has the Home Office taken the whole process seriously? I can say definitively that this exercise has been taken very seriously by the Minister and the army of civil servants working on its implementation. I cannot claim technical knowledge of research methodologies, but I have been impressed by the Home Office team responsible for the evaluation of the West Midlands pilot, led by Andrew Zurawan. As far as I can tell, the different techniques deployed by the in-house and external researchers—surveys, focus groups, mystery shopping, comparisons with a control area where the right to rent was not in force—have all been conscientiously carried out. I fully recognise the limitations of any pilot evaluation process: it may take years, not months, for effects to work through; larger-scale surveys or surveys at different times of the year could produce fuller results; and so on. However, within the obvious constraints of this exercise, I think the team did a pretty good job.
Secondly, what has been the outcome of these efforts to date? It was never to be expected that the critics of this measure would reverse their opinions and accept the right to rent as a good idea. Nevertheless, I detected that the arrangements, even in the pilot, were not proving massively onerous for landlords or property agents. With the subsequent improvements to the approach—revision to the guidance, clarification and simplification of requirements for documents—the position for the rollout from 1 February certainly seems to be generally, if somewhat grudgingly, accepted. I am simply not convinced that the right to rent is causing huge anxieties for landlords; I have talked to landlords and agents who are far more concerned about tax changes and other regulatory measures affecting them.
No respectable landlord would wish to be letting to someone who is here illegally, not least since that tenant might be apprehended and removed and leave suddenly with unpaid rent, so already, of course, there are referencing procedures for those applying for a tenancy. Now that it is possible to view the pictures of the required documents for those who do not have a passport, their legal status should actually be easier to check.
I raised the question at the panel with those representing managing and letting agents: would it be best to use a professional specialist company to handle this aspect of the vetting of your potential tenants? The response was that this would be a waste of money and quite unnecessary as the whole exercise was now straightforward enough. I wonder how many landlords do not seek proper references or carry out checks on the identity of people to whom they grant tenancies. I strongly suspect that the landlords who will be affected by this measure know very well the illegal status of the tenants and are taking advantage of them in extracting exorbitant rents for abysmal conditions. The great benefit of the Home Office’s interest in enforcing the right to rent in the West Midlands was shown to be in bolstering the efforts of local authorities to weed out some pretty unpleasant elements in the private rented sector. I make no secret of the fact that my own interest in this matter is based on the increased opportunities for prosecuting those who exploit people in overcrowded slum conditions.
Thirdly, what about the continuing anxieties that innocent landlords may unwittingly, through ignorance rather than malicious intent, still fail to identify an illegal migrant before allocating a tenancy to them, and, as a result, end up with a hefty fine? The panel has received a very clear message on the ongoing role of the Home Office in advising and supporting landlords and agents. Mostly people will go online and should now find the necessary information relatively easy to access. However, sometimes landlords or agents could encounter a lack of any documentation or have queries about the documents they do see. They will want a definitive decision from the Home Office itself. It is important to note that when Home Office officials are asked to check the identity of a potential tenant, they must respond within 48 hours. If the landlord or agent is not told that the individual has no right to rent within this period, the letting can go ahead. Based on experience from the pilot, the Home Office has geared up its staffing to meet its extended commitments. In addition to this checking service, everyday inquiries about the whole arrangement can be discussed with trained operators on an expert helpline.
Ministers have constantly reiterated the point that any prosecution requires a high standard of proof, demonstrating that a landlord actually knows, or has good reason to believe, that they are indeed letting to an illegal immigrant. Ministers have underlined the point that no one will be prosecuted for failing to identify a cleverly forged document or false passport, let alone be held liable if an illegal migrant moves in with a legitimate tenant unbeknown to the landlord. The Home Office will ensure that the CPS is fully aware of the policy intent. The object is to target the real rogues, the criminal landlords who knowingly and repeatedly flout the law. Nevertheless, if the Minister wishes to offer additional reassurances tonight to this effect, I am sure that would be appreciated.
Fourthly, is the Home Office investing enough in communications to ensure that landlords and tenants are alerted to the new requirement on them? The panel has received very regular reports on the many efforts being made to get the message across and I am confident that there can be no managing and letting agents who are still in the dark. Whether every one of the 1.8 million landlords in the UK is yet aware of the arrangement, I would not be so sure. However, I fear that some of these landlords are ignorant of a good many other responsibilities they should understand. This problem may be more to do with the way we organise rented housing in this country, with such huge numbers of “amateur landlords” who may have no expertise in property matters, rather than a problem with the Home Office. Of more concern is the issue of communicating with tenants who sub-let or owners who take in lodgers. These may well be harder to reach, despite the Home Office’s efforts, and it may take time for word to get around that checks are needed. In the early stages of the right to rent, tolerance will be needed if mistakes are made, and I note that the fine for a first offence, if it goes all the way to being prosecuted, is set at £80.
I fully accept that once the communications efforts have succeeded and most people are aware of the right- to-rent arrangements, there is the danger of discrimination against those who are in this country perfectly legitimately but might be thought to be illegal immigrants. Sadly, discrimination on grounds of race and ethnicity has not been stamped out in the private rented sector. It was discerned as much among landlords in the control area, where right to rent was not an issue, as in the pilot area. Whether the problem will get worse or whether the raising in the right-to-rent procedures of the profile of discrimination as an issue will counterbalance it, I cannot tell. Right to rent could get the blame for suspected discrimination when in reality the problem lies elsewhere.
Today I hosted the launch by Crisis of an excellent report on the obstacles to renting privately for people who are on low incomes or have been homeless. We heard how few landlords now accept anyone in receipt of housing benefit. Indeed, 82% of landlords said they were not willing to house those who are homeless or about to become homeless. Many people face enormous difficulties in getting a rented home, quite outside the considerations of right to rent. Ministers have promised to continue to monitor the position in relation to discrimination in particular.
Bearing in mind that the right to rent was introduced in 2014 and that, after evaluating a pilot that did not demonstrate any insuperable problems, negative impacts from this measure have been addressed by Home Office Ministers and officials as conscientiously as could be hoped for, I cannot conclude that the rollout of the right to rent should be the subject of that most draconian of measures possible in your Lordships’ House, a fatal Motion of annulment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I have opposed these provisions from the outset, primarily because of the potential to increase discrimination in the housing market, but what is at issue now is whether full rollout of the scheme at this stage is consistent with the commitments made in both your Lordships’ House and the other place during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014. Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said then that the Government’s intention was that the provision would be,
“subject to a phased implementation on a geographical basis. This will allow a proper evaluation of the scheme to ensure that it delivers its objectives without unintended consequences such as discrimination”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1648.]
Later, he promised a “carefully phased” approach to the implementation. I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who understood that to mean that there would be a series of pilots in different geographical areas and of different kinds to get a representative picture of its effects—not that it would forge ahead, after a single phase in a single geographical area, involving a quick and not completely representative pilot, with no proper public debate about what we have learned from it and just some changes to the code of practice, which ILPA argues,
“do not appear to constitute a substantive response to the concerns identified in the evaluation”.
I believe that sufficient concerns were raised to cause us to pause rather than steam ahead regardless, as urged also by the Residential Landlords Association on the basis of research that it has carried out. The only reason that we are having this debate is because of the Motions in front of us.
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Best, so what I am about to say is in no way casting aspersions on his role. I am sure that he will have brought the greatest integrity and expertise to overseeing the pilot scheme, but forgive me if I am cynical. A number of noble Lords have referred to this already but when the Prime Minister declared in May, five months before publication of the conclusions of all the hard work that went into the pilot,
“now we’ve got a majority, we will roll it out nationwide”,
surely it rather gave the game away. It suggested that the pilot would turn into something of a charade. It was as if all that important and serious work did not matter because a decision had already been made that it should be rolled out. All right, there have been some improvements to the code of practice but they do not amount to an awful lot.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, much has been said about the part played by modern communications in the current conflict. Part of that is that we cannot claim ignorance of what is happening. The media, NGOs, colleagues and friends—I, too, have friends who have undertaken voluntary work in northern France—make so abundantly clear what is happening that we cannot escape that information.
I want to pick up on a couple of points that are used as arguments in this debate. One is the idea that children should be kept in their own region and culture, among people from similar backgrounds. Leave aside the variety of people who are volunteering to help children, is it better for children to stay in the region or to be alive, with shelter, not being abused or trafficked, and with access to food, education, health services and so on? Do we keep children in the region so they can be reunited with their families?
I am not persuaded that the administration and the records that will be available if they stay in the region will be better than they would be if the children were brought to this country through a government scheme. I am sure the records will be kept very carefully. I have seen somewhere that the UNHCR regards the chances of relocation if children are brought to this country as still being high. On the question of family reunion—children who are refugees in their own right have rights—it is said that this is, in fact, an underhand way of getting the rest of the family into the UK by sending the children on ahead. I simply do not believe that that is likely except, perhaps, in a very small handful of cases. In any event, the children have rights.
In previous debates I have acknowledged the difficulties in finding foster parents. I know what is said about all the volunteers: there is a general shortage of foster parents for British children. Maybe this will break some sort of logjam. I acknowledge the support that will be needed for foster parents and for local authorities. It is very important to recognise all that because people who are dealing with these children will be dealing with very sensitive, difficult, delicate situations and children who, almost inevitably, will have been damaged. We hope that this is an exercise in not damaging them further.
Like other noble Lords, I have been fascinated by the extracts from Hansard from 1938 and 1939. Not only are the arguments those that are being used today but the ancestors of a number of current Members appear in them. The then Earl of Listowel pointed to a precedent on which Her Majesty’s Government had acted before: the work of the International Red Cross in the south of France. Our shared heroine, Eleanor Rathbone, said:
“We are apparently willing to abandon them”—
the refugees—
“to the danger of being handed over to their deadly enemies rather than risk a few thousand pounds in bringing them over. I know that the Under-Secretary has sympathy in this matter, and I appeal to him to do something to speed up the mechanism and to relax these regulations … Cannot we risk a few thousand pounds rather than abandon these people to the terrible fate that may possibly await them? I feel that in this small matter we may appeal with some hope of success for the Government to adopt a more farsighted and generous policy than heretofore”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/1939; col. 151.]
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, has been very clear about our party’s stance on this and has been a part of the call for the Government to enable this number of children to be brought here. He has done so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, it is right. However, this is not a party-political issue. What is most important is that this has caught the public mood of the moment and we should go with it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend. The Government are to be applauded for the aid they are giving directly to the region and their recent statement regarding resettling some unaccompanied children, mainly from the region. However, as Heidi Allen MP said on the “Week in Westminster” on Sunday, no amount of such aid can help those in Europe now. In a recent Commons debate on child refugees in Europe, Sir Eric Pickles—not someone I normally quote in support of an argument—said that while the Government are quite right to keep children in the region,
“we are where we are. There are children at risk, and I urge the Government to look carefully at that”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/16; col. 41.]
Perhaps, more accurately, we should say these children are where they are. Refusing to help them is not going to result in them returning to their homelands. Instead, they are stuck in appalling conditions. The International Development Committee took up Save the Children’s recommendation that we should take 3,000 unaccompanied children. It made a very strong recommendation in support of that and called for urgent action from the Government on it. The committee warned that children are prey to exploitation by people traffickers—the very thing that the Government say they want to avoid by supposedly not encouraging children to make the perilous journey to Europe.
Ministers rightly say that any action to assist unaccompanied minors must be in the best interests of the children and that this is their primary concern. But how can it be in the best interests of unaccompanied children to be left to fend for themselves in the camps of Calais and Dunkirk without hope and, as we have already heard, at the mercy of hunger, cold, exploitation and people traffickers? Like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I am not totally clear what the Statement of 28 January promised. In particular, can the Minister confirm that, as Save the Children says, it is intended to try to reunite lone child refugees who are already in Europe with families in the UK? If so, that is welcome, but can he say exactly what is intended and how many children he expects will be helped in this way?
Finally, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister about a report in the Independent on Sunday that the Council of the EU is discussing measures that could have the effect of criminalising individuals and charities that help Syrian refugees, including children, when they arrive on the European mainland—in particular, on Greek islands. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about what we owe those people, who are doing amazing humanitarian work. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Home Secretary will oppose any such measures? The very suggestion that such humanitarian action could be equated with people smuggling is, frankly, quite abhorrent. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the report is unfounded—I do not necessarily believe everything that I read in the newspapers but this is an opportunity to check it out—and, if it is not unfounded, that the Home Secretary will vigorously oppose any such move.
In the mean time, I hope that the Minister—I agree with what has been said; I know that he is a Minister who listens and cares—will be able to give hope to children who need it. I hope, too, that, even if it is not a final response to my noble friend, he will be able to give a response that at least leaves the door ajar.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment and I have just one question for the Minister. I wonder whether he has noticed a statement by a small and rather obscure English NGO that has a database with the names of 10,000 would-be English foster carers. I apologise for not having the name of the organisation with me but, even if that figure has become inflated or if, when those volunteers are vetted, not all of them are suitable, surely there must be enough to cope with the 3,000 children mentioned in the amendment. Taking up those offers would greatly ease the burden that presently falls on the local authorities in, for example, Kent and Sussex, and it would spread the load much more evenly around the country.
Finally, I urge the Government not to insist on deporting children who reach the age of 18. They may once have entered this country illegally but they have been here for a considerable number of years. They have been to school in England and have made friends in England, and they should not be deported.
Baroness Neuberger
Could I add to that? The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has put the specific number of 3,000 children in his amendment, and we know that these are very troubled children. The situation is particularly ghastly right now and we know that some of those children are disappearing. That sounds alarm bells for all of us.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
That 3,000 figure is the figure that Save the Children calculated specifically in relation to children who are already in Europe. That does not, of course, make it inviolable, but I am sure it considered the arguments because, clearly, it will know that those are the arguments that the Government have used. The Save the Children number was accepted by the all-party International Development Committee.
Lord Bates
That is possibly the case. The Prime Minister announced on 28 January that we are going to continue the discussions. He also said that it is absolutely critical for people’s safety that, when a child or anyone sets foot on a Greek island, in Italy or in any of the reception areas, they are properly recorded via biometrics at that point. That is supposed to happen under the Dublin regulations. However, it was not happening and Europol was deeply concerned about the risk of a lot of people going missing and not being able to be tracked. We have given the European Asylum Support Office additional support, which is then directed to—it is an awful name—hotspot centres, which are reception centres. We have established a £10 million fund to help, particularly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The Home Secretary has asked the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, to go to each of those centres and, as a former police officer and someone who is leading the modern-day slavery initiative and the implementation of the legislation, to evaluate the situation and see what more can be done in that area, and then to report back to Ministers. We have established similar funding for people to search out the most vulnerable in the camps at Calais and Dunkirk.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the situation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, particularly in Kent. I totally accept that many people are willing to foster children. The generosity of the British people is as alive and well now as it ever was in 1938, but often they are not sure how to help. Following the exchanges that we had yesterday, I was inspired this morning to get a letter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. I have not asked his permission to mention this but I shall take the risk and ask his forgiveness if I have it wrong. I had mentioned that, sadly, despite widespread support among people who are saying, “We are prepared to help and to be foster parents”, only a very small number of local authorities—about six or seven—had come forward to offer support. The right reverend Prelate said that he would be prepared to write to diocesan bishops across the country saying that this might be something that they could raise with their local authorities to see whether they could do a little more to help during this acute crisis. There is much more that can be done, but I wanted to take the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach for noble Lords.
Perhaps I may answer a couple of specific questions that were asked of me. In terms of the Dublin regulations and reuniting families, there is no limit on the number. If someone qualifies under the Dublin regulations and claims asylum, they will be admitted to the UK. Of course, the point of difference between us that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned is that the Dublin regulations are—again, this is an awful word—triggered at the point that a person claims asylum. If people in camps in Calais and Dunkirk do not claim asylum there—of course, they do not want to claim asylum there, because they want to get to the UK and claim asylum here—they do not get the protections afforded by the Dublin regulations. That is a problem and we need to work through it, but that is how it arises.
The French have set up 96 welcome centres across France and 2,500 individuals have chosen to go to one of them since October. Some 80% of them then decided to claim asylum or take voluntary return.
I say to the noble Lord and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that I totally get where they are coming from and I empathise very much with the position. There is a huge amount going on, perhaps not seen, and I have tried to lift the veil on a little bit of what is going on at present. Suffice it to say, I have no doubt that we will come back with further announcements on progress, particularly on the issue of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, over the next weeks and months, as we should and as the Prime Minister has stated. I hope that, in that spirit, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I asked the Minister a very specific question about the Independent on Sunday report. If he cannot reply now, will he undertake to write to me? He has been very good at following up our sessions with full letters.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we are grateful for the consideration of the devolved Administrations and the interest in the other place of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland in relation to this part of the Bill. We have listened, and government Amendments 241B to 241E, 242A, 242B, 242D to 242F, 242H, 242K and 245B represent our response. They are many in number but they have a simple purpose: to apply to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a uniform basis the duty to ensure that all public sector workers who work in customer-facing roles speak fluent English; save that, in Wales, the duty will be fulfilled by fluency in English or Welsh. It will apply only to public authorities that exercise functions in relation to matters which are not devolved. At present, the Bill provides for the duty to apply to public authorities exercising any functions of a public nature in Wales. The respective Governments have since agreed that it will apply to public authorities only to the extent that they carry out functions in relation to matters which are not within the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly.
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Bill does not yet provide for the duty to apply to Northern Ireland. In the other place, a commitment was made to reconsider that position in this House. Our amendments now provide for the duty to apply only to public authorities that carry out functions in relation to excepted matters in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords will have noted that the Bill already provides for the duty to apply in Scotland only to public authorities exercising functions in relation to reserved matters, so there are no further amendments affecting this region. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 242, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have added their name to it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Clause 47 does not lead to discrimination against public sector workers in a consumer-facing role whose first language is British Sign Language by explicitly exempting them from the provision.
In his letter of 19 January to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster-General stated:
“The most significant additions to the Code”—
the code of practice, that is—
“will come from organisations strengthening the content with guidance and practical examples—notably in areas of interest to Noble Lords during the Second Reading debate; avoiding discrimination and providing clarity in how the duty applies to those who communicate using British Sigh Language. We strongly support the use of British Sign Language”.
It also said that one of the main findings of the consultation was:
“Further guidance, clarity and practical examples could be added to support authorities’ understanding and practical application of the duty to reduce any discriminatory impact. Business Disability Forum and Signature will provide case studies for inclusion in the Code to clearly demonstrate application of the duty and the responsibilities of public authorities towards members of protected groups and to advance equality”.
This is very welcome and suggests that the Government accept the spirit, if not the letter, of the amendment.
Nevertheless, Sense, which alerted me to this issue, believes very strongly that writing an exemption into the Bill would remove the possibility of misinterpretation by any authority, which might still occur if clarification were in only the code of practice. Failing that, I wanted to ensure that the Minister’s assurance in the letter appears in Hansard, because it is crucial that we ensure that the Bill cannot be said to discriminate indirectly against deaf and deafblind people, for whom British Sign Language is their first language in either its standard form or as adapted for deafblind people. I am told that its grammatical structure is different from English, so it is possible, on the face of it, that someone might argue that someone using it is not speaking fluent English.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing to look again at the possibility of writing a clear exemption into the Bill so as to remove all doubt and therefore reassure organisations such as Sense. If that really is not possible for some good reason, I would at least welcome a clear statement on the record—based on but perhaps going beyond what is in the letter of 19 January—of what the code of practice is intended to say regarding how Clause 47 should not discriminate against users of British Sign Language.
Lord Keen of Elie
In circumstances where there is provision for British Sign Language to be available, there will also be an English language interpreter available. Where a member of the public wishes to use or employ British Sign Language, they will, in circumstances where it is available, be able to do that, and the person communicating with them in a customer-facing role will, of course, be perfectly entitled to employ British Sign Language. The provisions of the Bill are not prescriptive. They are not saying that the only language that can be employed is English or Welsh. In circumstances where there is the ability to communicate in a customer-facing role by means of a different language, be it British Sign Language or otherwise, then it may perfectly properly be employed. Whether it will be available on each and every occasion when somebody arrives and is faced with a customer-facing role is a different matter altogether. Clearly, at present it is not invariably available.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am not a lawyer, so I rise with some trepidation, but the Bill states:
“A public authority must ensure that each person who works for the public authority in a customer-facing role speaks fluent English”.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the very clear statement he has made that this will not apply to British Sign Language. It may be that he is going to explain this, but why can that not be put in the Bill to remove all doubt?
Lord Keen of Elie
Our position is that that is simply not required. Where you have somebody in a customer-facing role who communicates by way of British Sign Language, they will have a British Sign Language interpreter available. It is the interpreter who will be required by the employer to be fluent in English. That is the situation that will apply.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 227, which has been so comprehensively and well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, will recall that, prior to Second Reading, I chaired a meeting in your Lordships’ House organised by the Refugee Children’s Consortium and the Children’s Society. Some of the issues raised by the noble Lord today were raised then, and I know that they have been on the mind of the Minister.
The position of children was brought home to me by a report that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Monday last, reiterated in the Observer on Sunday, which stated:
“At least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared in Europe, the EU’s criminal intelligence agency has said, as it warned many could be in the hands of traffickers.
Brian Donald, Europol’s chief of staff, said the children had vanished after arriving in Europe and registering with state authorities”.
He went on to say:
“It’s not unreasonable to say that we’re looking at 10,000-plus children”.
We should take the rights of children, which are at the heart of the amendment, very seriously within our own jurisdiction, as well as recognising that children are suffering outside our jurisdiction as a result of this massive crisis of migration.
The seriousness of this question and of out-of-country appeals was also brought home to me this morning when, with my noble friend Lord Hylton and as a result of the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and Mr James Brokenshire in organising it for us, we visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre. I was deeply impressed by a lot of what we saw there. We were able to talk at random to people at Yarl’s Wood. I spoke to a lady who is 33 years of age. She has lived in this country for 26 years. She has three children, aged 17, 14 and 12. She was born in Somalia. Because she has some minor convictions, including things such as shoplifting in the past, this lady will be deported from this country to Mogadishu in Somalia. “Needless to say”, she said, “Every night, I sleep with my heart pounding”. I do not know, but will this woman have to launch an appeal from Mogadishu? Is this the sort of thing that could arise as a consequence of this legislation?
That is why the amendment that the noble Lord moved is so important. I have three very brief reasons why I support it. First, thousands of children, including British citizens, will be at risk of being separated from their parents or being removed from the UK before any judicial scrutiny of the Home Office’s decision and without adequate consideration of the best interests of the child. Secondly, given the consequences of inappropriate certification and the cost and obstacles to challenging certification—the only means of doing so being by judicial review—surely it is wrong to extend the existing provisions. Thirdly, Clause 34 could see more cases involving unaccompanied children or young people aged over 18 who claimed asylum alone as children, or who arrived as children and have lived in the UK for most of their lives, being certified for an out-of-country appeal and being removed to their countries of origin without a sufficient assessment of their best interests being undertaken.
The Children’s Society tells me that the provisions risk children being deprived of their parents or forced to leave the country that they grew up in before any judicial scrutiny of the Home Office’s decision and without adequate consideration of the best interests of the child. It says that this provision could see more cases involving unaccompanied children or young people aged over 18 who claimed asylum alone as children and/or who have lived here for many years and have built their lives in the UK being certified for an out-of-country appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was right to remind us of the implications, following the changes made under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, of the consequences of removing legal aid. I was struck by a report, again by the Children’s Society, that estimates that 2,490 children would be out of scope in a post-LASPO context. Clearly, without legal aid these children, including those in care, are unable to resolve their immigration issues, often resulting in a crisis for the child as they turn 18.
I have only one other point, which is a question to the Minister. Given the difficulties that children and families face making immigration applications because there is no legal aid for immigration claims, how will the Home Office be sure that it has all the information it needs to make a comprehensive, best-interests assessment before allowing an appeal only from outside of the United Kingdom? Before we agree the provisions of the clause or reject the amendment, we need an answer to that question.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of opposing the question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill and in support of Amendment 227, to which I added my name. In its two reports on the last Immigration Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was then a member, raised serious concerns on human rights grounds about out-of-country appeals. It questioned reliance on judicial review to challenge certification. I note that the Select Committee on the Constitution suggested that we may wish to bear these concerns in mind. Indeed, I see that the current chair of the JCHR has written to the Home Secretary to raise concerns about how extension could result in families with meritorious Article 8 claims being subjected to extensive separation.
A wide range of human rights and immigration organisations have raised concerns on human rights and rule of law grounds, as access to justice is likely to be impeded, as we have already heard. On the rule of law question, ILFA notes that the Government point to the decision in Kiarie, R v the Secretary of State for the Home Department as support for its view that an out-of-country appeal is adequate. However, ILFA responds that a decision that the Secretary of State is entitled to proceed on the basis that an out-of-country appeal will meet the procedural requirements of Article 8 in the generality of criminal deportation cases, where she is balancing the individual’s right against the public interest of deporting someone with a criminal conviction whose presence, it is asserted, is not conducive to the public good, does not necessarily mean that it will meet those requirements in the wider generality of cases covered by Clause 34.
Concerned organisations, including Amnesty, also point out that the consequences of being removed from the UK may be profound and long-lasting, even if removal is for a short time only. Despite the equality statement’s assurance that no adverse impact on grounds of gender are anticipated, as I said at Second Reading:
“Rights of Women is worried about the implications for women migrants who have left abusive partners but who do not qualify to remain under the normal domestic violence rules because of their status, which is a common occurrence. Rights of Women fears that:
‘A mother seeking to remain in the UK as the parent of a child who is wrongfully refused by the Home Office faces the prospect of leaving her child in the UK with an abusive father or taking her child with her forcing them to leave behind a network of friends and family, abandoning their schools and communities and being forced to live in a country where in many instances they have no ties, no understanding of the language or culture’.
It points out that this upheaval could last for months or longer”.—[Official Report, 22/12/15; col. 2491.]
Potential family separation is a concern raised by a number of organisations. Will the Minister confirm that the family test was applied to this provision and, if not, why not? If the answer is yes, would he be willing to publish the conclusions reached, as, to its credit, the Home Office did, in the equality statement Reforming Support for Failed Asylum Seekers? In particular, what impact do the Government believe the policy will have on all family members’ ability to play a role in family life—one of the questions in the family test? The fact that the DWP guidance suggests that this question is aimed mainly at work/family life balance issues should not allow the Home Office to ignore this clause’s potentially much more profound impact on the ability to play a role in family life where families are separated as a consequence of it.
This brings me to Amendment 227. In its recent note on this clause, the Home Office acknowledges its duty under Section 55 of the Border Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to,
“have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in the UK who will or may be affected by any immigration decision”.
It continues,
“where the decision maker is aware that there is a child who is affected by her decision, the decision maker will have regard to the best interests of that child as a primary consideration in deciding the human rights claim and also in deciding whether to certify the claim so that the appeal is heard after the person has left the UK”.
This is clearly meant to be reassuring but it does not reassure members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, whose experience is that children’s best interests are not systematically and comprehensively assessed within immigration decision-making. Its briefing reminds us that the,
“UNHCR’s audit of the Home Office’s procedures highlights that, at present, there is no formal and systematic collection or recording of information that will be necessary … to a quality best interests consideration. This includes a lack of any mechanisms to obtain the views of the child”.
As the JCHR concluded in its final report of the last Parliament on the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
“The Home Office seems still to prioritise the need to control immigration over the best interests of the child. This is unsatisfactory. The Government must ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount in immigration matters”.
In contrast, the Home Office note emphasises:
“While the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, they are not the only or an overriding consideration”.
Of course they are not the only consideration but established case law makes it clear that decision-makers must first understand what course of action would be in the best interests of the child before going on to take account of other considerations, including immigration control.
Lord Keen of Elie
I quite understand the noble Lord’s point. That is why the Secretary of State retains discretion over certification—this is not an absolute. In circumstances where there is a risk of serious irreversible harm because of conditions in a particular country or part of a country, there will not be certification. In circumstances where that would amount to a breach of an individual’s human rights, there will not be certification. There is that safety net. It may not be as large as some noble Lords would wish but it is there for these very cases. It is not dissimilar from the instance cited by the right reverend Prelate of a child being exposed to the very real risk of sexual violence or mutilation. Again, this is why the provisions of Clause 34 are not absolute and compel the Home Secretary to take a reasoned decision that has regard to a primary issue being the interests of the child.
A further point was raised by the noble Lord about whether and when the Secretary of State for the Home Department could be sure that she had all the information. Of course, there can be no absolutes. However, in a situation involving children, individuals—parents and carers—readily come forward to explain that there are children. Where the existence of children is identified, that matter is explored, as it is bound to be, pursuant to Section 55 of the Act I cited earlier.
My experience of being involved in the Kiarie and Byndloss cases before the Court of Appeal involved my examining the decision letters issued by the Home Office. These are not glib, one-paragraph notices, but very detailed and considered letters that were sent out, giving not only a decision but a reasoned foundation for that decision. I cannot—and would never dare to—assert that they are invariably right in every respect, or that they are exhaustive in every way. On the face of it, however, it is the practice, subject to the guidance given, to send out truly reasoned decision letters in these circumstances, with particular reference to the interests of the child or children who may be affected.
I turn to the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who also mentioned the Kiarie and Byndloss cases. She suggested that ILPA took a slightly different view of that decision from the one I have expressed. I would cleave, however, to the ratio of the unanimous decision of the Bench of the Court of Appeal: it is quite clear what it was saying with regard to this matter. It is not tied to the fact of criminality; it is tied to the facility for an out-of-country appeal and the ability for that appeal to be discharged in such a way that we can be satisfied that it is fair to the appellant. In other words, it may not be the most advantageous form of appeal but it does meet the essential requirements of effectiveness and fairness. That is not affected in one way or another by the pre-existing criminality, or alleged criminality, of the relevant appellant. To that extent, I am afraid I have to differ from her on that matter.
The noble Baroness mentioned the matter of a family test. However, a family test does not immediately arise in this context. I understand that the family test is designed to ensure that the Government’s policies overall encourage and support family life in the United Kingdom. We are dealing here with someone who is not entitled to be in the United Kingdom, and the policies that concern removing persons from the United Kingdom will therefore not always engage the family test.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My understanding of the family test is that it is to apply not to the generality but to any policy proposal in law that might impact on families. One of the big concerns raised by many organisations giving evidence and briefing us is that this will have very serious implications for families because of family separation. Therefore, it seems appropriate to apply the family test to this proposal.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not immediately apparent to me that it is applicable to this proposal, but in this context one has to bear in mind that a primary consideration is the interests of the child or the children. To that extent, what might be regarded as an aspect of the family test is being applied. That is always a primary consideration. There are circumstances where it may be appropriate for the children to accompany a person out of the United Kingdom, and there may be no difficulty about that. There may be circumstances in which it is appropriate for the children to remain with a parent or carer within the United Kingdom. If there are circumstances where they will have no parent or carer within the United Kingdom and it would not be appropriate for them to leave the United Kingdom, again, there is the safety net of the certification, dealt with in Clause 34, as there is under the existing legislation. To that extent, it appears to me that the matter is dealt with.
The noble Baroness went on to mention again the interests of the child and to ask how many children would be affected by this. It is not possible at this stage to say. On the basis of unofficial and informal figures, I understand that no child has been certified for an out-of-country appeal under existing legislation. Of course, the present amended legislation has been in force for only a short time, since 2015, so it is difficult to discern figures from that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich referred to particular cases. I hope that I have addressed his concerns. If there was such a serious risk to a child as he alluded to, it appears to me that, with respect, the safety net in Clause 34 would apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to difficulties in producing evidence in the context of an out-of-country appeal. I do not accept that it would be materially more difficult to produce evidence in these circumstances. We are talking about an appeal to a specialist tribunal that is well equipped to decide the form of evidence it requires in a particular case. As I mentioned, when dealing with a case that is going to arise largely on the basis of Article 8 of the convention, if there is to be a convention appeal, one is concerned with family links with the United Kingdom, which are going to be spoken to by persons within the United Kingdom. In so far as there is any factual issue to be addressed by an appellant, it can be done in writing, by video link or even by telephone. That may appear less satisfactory than taking oral evidence but, as the noble Baroness may be aware, it is far from exceptional for appellants not to give evidence in such appeals before a tribunal. It is certainly far from exceptional for appellants not to give oral evidence in such proceedings.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I oppose the Questions that Clause 37 and Schedule 8 stand part of the Bill and support Amendment 230. I note in passing my support for Amendment 230ZB—I was going to say that the history of vouchers and the Azure card is not a happy one, but that is exactly the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am a bit worried after the confusion about who said what on the previous group that we are somehow seen as interchangeable; I hope not—from both sides, I am sure.
At Second Reading, I warned of the exploitation that could result from Clause 37 and Schedule 8. To show destitution will not now be sufficient on its own to qualify for assistance. It is clear from past research conducted by organisations such as the Children’s Society and the Centre for Migration Policy Research for Oxfam that destitution can all too easily lead to exploitation—notably of women and children—of various kinds. In particular, it can lead to economic exploitation, which the Bill is supposed to reduce, as destitute asylum seekers are pushed into the shadow economy, sometimes earning as little as £1 an hour in deplorable conditions, and sexual exploitation. This can involve both commercial sex work and transactional sex in return for shelter and basic subsistence.
Children’s Society practitioners report that they see many such ambiguous and all-too-often abusive transactional relationships. As one practitioner observed:
“These women are absolutely at the mercy of other people because they are powerless and have nowhere else to go”.
Previous Children’s Society research revealed how destitute children and young people, too, are vulnerable to abuse and sexual exploitation.
Prospective destitution is in effect being used to incentivise voluntary return—the language of incentives is the Government’s, not mine. The thinking that it betrays was challenged by a Centre for Social Justice working group on asylum a few years ago, and by evidence from many organisations working with asylum seekers—at Second Reading, I cited that from Women for Refugee Women. Not one of 45 women it spoke to in a 2012 study felt able to contemplate return, despite facing destitution. That still held true when they spoke to 30 of those women a year later. It concluded that parents who fear for their own and their children’s safety will not be swayed to return to their home countries by the threat of being made destitute or actual destitution.
Back in 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made it clear, with reference to piloting of the Section 9 scheme, that,
“using both the threats and the actuality of destitution and family separation is incompatible with the principles of common humanity and with international human rights law and … it has no place in a humane society”.
Serious human rights concerns about the proposals in the Bill have been raised by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with reference to the ECHR and the UNCRC, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has deemed them retrogressive concerning rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The only real concession in response to the consultation, other than to local authorities, has been to extend the grace period for families to 90 days, as we have heard. This extension is very welcome. However, there seems to be a sting in the tail, as it now appears that an application for Section 95A assistance will normally be possible only during the grace period while already claiming Section 95 support, and that 90 days will represent an absolute cut-off point. This has caused considerable concern among organisations working with asylum seekers.
Two particular questions arise. I apologise if I am repeating questions posed by my noble friend Lord Rosser, but I am not absolutely sure that they are the same questions because I did not quite take it all in. I do not think that there is any harm, because it is important that these questions are addressed. I should be grateful if the Minister would do so when he replies. First, will he provide an assurance that the regulations that permit applications outside the grace period will include changes of circumstance such as when asylum seekers who were previously supported by friends or family become destitute or encounter a barrier to return after the grace period is over? If the 90 days prove to be too short for families to complete the family returns process—we heard already that the Home Office’s own evaluation of the process shows that three out of five families take longer than three months—what discretion will there be for support to be extended for families still going through the process?
Welcome as the Home Office’s recent note was in providing more information, it is deeply unsatisfactory that it does not contain the level of detail about the regulations that we need to scrutinise these provisions properly. Nor does it indicate the level of support that new Section 95A will provide. Will it be the same as that provided by Section 95? Given the savage cuts to support for children that we debated last year and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, already referred, surely there can hardly be less than that level of support. What is the Government’s response to the Delegated Powers Committee’s recommendation that the regulation should be subject to affirmative not negative procedures?
On Amendment 230, it is simply not credible to maintain, as Ministers do, that an appeal is not necessary because whether or not there is a genuine obstacle to leaving is a straightforward matter of fact. As Still Human Still Here legitimately asks, if such decisions are really so straightforward, how come the Home Office so often gets them wrong? As it points out, the reality is that these types of support decisions are complex, with caseworkers having to assess both whether someone is destitute and faces a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. During 2014-15, it represented 168 asylum seekers deemed not to be destitute and in 70% of cases the Home Office decision was overturned. A similar proportion of cases was overturned or remitted in the 89 cases it represented where the appeal was on grounds of fitness to travel or reasonable steps being taken to return.
Such statistics demonstrate that facts are not just facts but have to be interpreted and evaluated, and a judgment made. All too often, it would appear that the Home Office is making an erroneous judgment. Yet in future there will be no tribunals, either to ensure justice or to provide some kind of check on Home Office decision-making, which is likely to become even worse as a result. The Home Office contends that appeals win only because of the late submission of evidence, but that is not supported by the analysis conducted by ASAP. Has the Minister seen that analysis and would he care to comment on its findings?
Important human rights and rule of law issues are at stake here. It is not good enough to say that judicial review remains as it would be very difficult to use JR in such cases. The tribunal system provides a more practical, efficient and fair means of enabling vulnerable people in pretty desperate straits to challenge decisions they believe to be wrong. The stakes are so much higher now than even under the present system. It would be a grave injustice if we were to allow the decision to remove basic appeal rights to stand.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who spoke with such sincerity. I support these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning absconding again. I hope we will get an early answer on that.
Amendment 230 would include a right of appeal against the decision not to provide support. There is a small army of campaigners on this matter out there, some of them in the House of Commons where this was a major issue in the last debate on the Bill. One of the campaigners was called Iain Duncan Smith. The Minister may already know that in a 2008 report, Mr Duncan Smith said that the then Labour Government were using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily. He said that it was a “failed policy”; only one in five left voluntarily. The same Home Office is again aiming to squeeze Section 95 and Section 95(9A) on support and to narrow down the eligibility of families of so-called refused asylum seekers, although I have never liked that term. That may even prevent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, local authorities supporting children and families under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We were debating this in October, as the noble Baroness said, under the Motion to annul, and arguing whether £5 was enough for a person to live on. If you take into consideration food and clothing—shoes, for example—it is not. There are some sad examples of mothers and children facing destitution, and worse. These are taken from serious case reviews, which I shall not relate now, but they convinced me that the Government have to think again.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Before the noble Lord moves on, when he says that they will be supported in the same way, does he mean that it will be with the same level of cash?
Lord Bates
The short answer to that is yes.
Amendment 233 would require the Secretary of State to provide failed asylum seekers with a caseworker, a named contact and legal advice. It would also require the appointment of an independent person to report on the financial assistance available to failed asylum seekers who leave voluntarily, and on contact with welfare organisations in the country of return.
I agree as to the importance of these issues but not as to the need for this amendment. We provide generous financial assistance to incentivise returns and assist with reintegration in the country of origin. This can be up to £2,000 per person for families and up to £1,500 in support for a single person, in addition to removal expenses and their travel and transport costs such as flights. We also provide help with travel arrangements and resettlement needs. Some 143 families comprising 435 people and 469 single failed asylum seekers left under the assisted voluntary return scheme from 1 April to 31 December 2015, which suggests that the arrangements are working.
I will address some of the specific questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the no right of appeal. I made the point that the wider facts will have been contested in the earlier appeals and examined by the Home Office caseworker, and that therefore a genuine obstacle would be easy to understand —in other words, that there is medical evidence that the person is not fit to travel or that they do not have the necessary travel documents to do so.
Lord Bates
It is certainly not a tick-box exercise. Of course, a statement that someone is medically unfit and unable to travel is a fact that can be proved by a medical practitioner and which can be evidenced. The fact that the documents are not in place for travel can be evidenced by the absence of those documents; therefore we contest that the key facts can be established as to whether there is a genuine obstacle to the person leaving, without necessarily reopening the whole case for review.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, was generous enough again to recognise in connection with the Azure card, on which he has faithfully spoken over many years in this place, that we have made some improvements. I will refer back the comment on the specific chain he mentioned, the easyFoodstore—or is it the easyJet store?—which has food for low prices, because that ought to be considered. The list is not an exhaustive one: it can be changed and added to, provided that the companies themselves are willing to join the system. I will certain explore that further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked whether the 90-day grace period would be extended if there is a change of circumstances. The person must genuinely ensure that there is an obstacle to return. An example might be if they did not receive timely notice of the asylum refusal or a failed appeal. The 90-day grace period for families will enable us to work effectively with families and local authorities to encourage and enable returns. Assisted voluntary return for families is a scheme for families comprising a maximum of two adult parents and at least one child under the age of 18. Families who leave the UK under this scheme can qualify for up to £2,000 per family member. A key difference between that scheme and the previous one— the test that was done under Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act—is that that was a dry, correspondence-based exercise, whereas with family returns we are talking about a family returns engagement officer, who works with them to ensure that provision is in place for them and their family both while they are in the UK and in the country to which they will return to.
On the regulations and whether they will be affirmative, we are very conscious as to what the committee has said, and of course we always tend to show great deference to that committee. However, I will have to come back on Report to confirm how we will deal with this. It simply requires a process we need to go through as regards consulting other people with interests across government to get approval or not for that type of thing. I feel as though I am letting my poker face go again—I have never played poker, and now I am probably figuring out why. Noble Lords have guessed it. In any case, we take the committee seriously and will come back with an amendment to—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I will not start to play poker with the Minister. Will there be more details about the contents of the regulations before Report?
Lord Bates
More details will come out. We are working very closely with the local authorities and the Department for Education on what the guidance should be on this. We have to get that joined-up system there to ensure protection, particularly for the families, and work out how it will work. That process is ongoing. As set out in my letter of 21 January and in the substantial document, the review is current. I realise that we had a significant debate on the level of asylum support on 27 October. On page 2, paragraph 6 states:
“As Lord Bates confirmed in the House of Lords on 27 October 2015, we continue to keep the support rate under review”.
We have engaged with a number of stakeholders, including Still Human Still Here, Refugee Action, the Children’s Society and Student Action for Refugees and we will study the results carefully. The review should report in March or April and will provide detailed reasons for the conclusion when it comes through.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the reduction in the number of migrants will be. An impact statement is attached, where the noble Lord will see that we anticipate that an estimated 20% of the failed cohort will return. That is the assumption we have used in the impact assessment. It is not an easy estimate to make, however, for the reasons the noble Lord gave. It cannot be judged on just this one measure but needs to be judged by the wider measures in the Bill, which will make it more difficult for people to rent accommodation, drive or gain employment if they have no right to be here. It is part of the package but that is the assumption.
I come to discontinuation of support. If there is a genuine obstacle, support will continue. If a pregnant woman is not due to give birth within six weeks of the expiry point of the 90-day grace period, she will generally be fit to fly and therefore not eligible for new Section 95A support. If that were not the case, there would be medical grounds to cite a genuine obstacle to being able to travel.
“Asylum support move on period
Persons in receipt of asylum support will cease to receive such support 40 days after receiving a Biometric Residence Permit following the granting of—(a) refugee status;(b) humanitarian protection status;(c) discretionary leave status;(d) indefinite leave to remain; or(e) limited leave to remain for 30 months.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 228 and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have added their name to it. This concerns what is commonly called the “moving on” or “grace” period, during which an asylum seeker granted status continues to receive asylum support but after which it is expected that they will have sorted out mainstream financial support, employment and accommodation. The current period is only 28 days. The amendment would increase this to 40 days.
As I said when we discussed the previous group, I applaud the Home Office for listening to the concerns expressed about the grace period proposed in the consultation on asylum support for failed asylum seekers, but I was disappointed that the same document stated:
“There are no plans to change the grace period arrangements for those granted asylum or other status here”.
I hope that we might be able to persuade the Minister to look again at this also, particularly given that the grace period for failed asylum seekers will now be 90 days.
I was prompted to table the amendment as a result of reading the recent Work and Pensions Committee report Benefit Delivery. The report referred to the research evidence suggesting that,
“28 days is insufficient time for refugees to make the transition from Home Office support in many cases”.
This includes the DWP’s own research which,
“showed it takes on average 32 days from receipt of claim to first payment for a claimant with a National Insurance number and 35 days for a claimant without”.
The Committee asked why only 28 days is allowed, when it is clear from the research that,
“it is in many cases insufficient”.
It recommended that,
“the DWP conduct an immediate investigation into the ‘move-on’ period and work with the Home Office to amend the length of time if necessary”.
I realise that this amendment goes further, but I do not believe further investigation is necessary, given the evidence that already exists, including from the British Red Cross, as cited by the Work and Pensions Committee—and I am grateful to the BRC for its help with the amendment—and also an earlier report by Freedom from Torture.
It was in fact that report, on the poverty barrier faced by survivors of torture, that first alerted me to this issue. I tried in vain to find out who had responsibility for this matter in DWP and, to my shame, when I did not find out I let it go. But the publication of the Work and Pensions Committee report, following the recent research report from the British Red Cross, convinced me that we must use the opportunity provided by this Bill to address what is a very real and unnecessary injustice.
The Red Cross research identified 23 factors at play affecting the speed with which refugees are able to move on to mainstream support. For some people, five to 10 of these factors could be holding up progress. The research documents the complexities of the transition period, involving multiple stakeholders and the issuing and management of multiple documents. During a one-month data collection process, the study found that 14 out of 101 people helped by the BRC refugee support service in Birmingham were in the moving-on period, and two out of 55 people in Plymouth. All 14 participants in Birmingham were destitute, with neither financial support nor adequate accommodation. All 11 for whom it had sufficient information had been without support for more than 15 days, five for 15 to 35 days, and three for more than 75 days. In Plymouth, both had been without support for between 15 and 35 days.
BRC has provided me with a case study that was not part of the research. Hagos is a 19 year-old from Eritrea living in Stoke on Trent. He was granted status on 16 October and claimed jobseeker’s allowance on 29 October. In case anyone is wondering why there was a delay in claiming, let me remind noble Lords that claiming benefits can sometimes be difficult for people at the best of times. In his oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Fabio Apollonio of the BRC explained:
“It is clear to us that at a particular stage when a person is just coming out of a trauma, perhaps, they are thinking of what to do next and they are bombarded with a lot of things to do and very often they do not even start the process until very late. It is very difficult to engage with a benefit agency at that stage unless you are prepared and you have been receiving advice from someone who can explain to you clearly what you should do without delay”.
Anyway, back to Hagos. His asylum support was terminated on 19 November. His first JSA payment was not made until 7 January—held up in part because of incorrect advice given by Jobcentre Plus staff—so this young man, still in his teens, experienced destitution for a period of 50 days.
Another example provided in the West Yorkshire Destitute Asylum Network’s submission to the Work and Pensions Committee was of a woman with severe mental health problems, with two children, who was told that her claim for benefits could not be processed until two days before her asylum support was due to end. It then took over a month for the first payment to be made. The family were left in temporary accommodation without any subsistence support for a number of weeks and had to rely on food parcels and hardship payments from a member organisation of the network. As the network points out, many new refugees lack the safety net of savings or social networks able to support them through this difficult period.
The researchers concluded that:
“Our findings show that moving from asylum support to mainstream benefits and employment is a real ordeal for new refugees—and usually takes much longer than the … ‘grace period’ given by the government”.
I do not believe this is hyperbole, and even though it is a small study, it is consistent with the other available evidence.
In particular, the psychological impact of the ordeal that new refugees face is documented by the Freedom from Torture report that I mentioned. It observes that:
“The relief of gaining security of legal status can dissipate fairly quickly as the reality becomes apparent, while at the same time the survivor may be particularly vulnerable psychologically, as the full impact of torture and the loss of their former life may begin to be fully felt at this time of transition”.
Clinicians interviewed for the research said that it was at this time of transition and great psychological vulnerability that clients were most likely to experience destitution. They commentated on the devastating impact that this could have as, in their experience, when survivors of torture are effectively made destitute, it can lead to a deterioration in their mental health and/or to an increased risk of suicide. It can also have a long-term impact on their ability to recover from their past trauma, even after they are no longer in destitute circumstances. As one clinician put it:
“There’s nothing worse for our clients than thinking all your problems have ended because you get ‘status’ and then becoming homeless”.
If we stop and think how we would feel in that situation, it is all too understandable.
I do not believe that this is what anyone in the Government wants. It is a policy of neglect and bureaucratic inertia rather than of deliberate intent, but it is no less cruel for that. A number of practical reforms that could help are detailed both in the BRC report and in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee—for instance, to start the clock of the grace period ticking only once a refugee has received key documents such as an NI number. But this problem has been going on for years. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee recommended in 2013 that,
“asylum support should not be discontinued until the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that the recipient is receiving mainstream benefits”.
I am afraid that I do not have confidence in the statutory agencies to ensure that measures are implemented effectively without legislative change. Of course, the sooner a refugee can move from asylum support to mainstream support, the better, but in order to ensure that they do not drop into a horrible limbo in between, the time has come to extend the period to 40 days as a basic safeguard against destitution.
I am sure that the Minister is not comfortable with this situation. Therefore, would it be possible to arrange a meeting involving representatives of the Home Office and the DWP together with interested Peers and representatives of key organisations supporting refugees through the moving-on period to look at what might be possible before Report? I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, put the case eloquently and persuasively. She and I attended a briefing with the British Red Cross and she then tabled the amendment. I added my name as a signatory because it puts, as she said, a real and unnecessary injustice right. It is a basic safeguard against enforced destitution.
The Minister needs no convincing about the merits of the British Red Cross. He has not only raised significant sums for the organisation in a voluntary capacity but I know that he has huge admiration for the work that it does. Representatives told us in the briefing that we had with them that they had helped to reunite 300 refugee families last year in the UK. They also illustrated from their own experience that destitution in the asylum system is a worsening and deepening problem. They supported 9,000 refugees and asylum seekers who were destitute in 2015, compared with 7,700 in 2014, which is an increase of some 15%. That included people granted refugee status but not given enough time to transition to mainstream benefits in the way that the noble Baroness just described.
Nearly 44% of destitute refugees and asylum seekers supported by the Red Cross last year were from Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria, all of which are among the world’s top refugee-producing countries. Although I agree with what the Minister said earlier about people seeking better lives from countries such as Albania—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his intervention—we must never lose sight of some of the hell-holes from which people are coming.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I were at Yarl’s Wood today, two men had just arrived off the back of lorries from Iran. Another had arrived from Mosul in Iraq. The situations they had come from were such that any noble Lord in the Chamber tonight would have attempted to escape from too. We have to be clear that these are not economic migrants or people who are just coming for a better life. Some of them have come from the most perilous and appalling situations.
If the Bill is left unaltered, it could plunge thousands more people in those kinds of situations into poverty, including families who are unable to leave the UK through no fault of their own, for example due to a lack of identification documents to provide their nationality or because they have no viable or secure place to return to.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the interests of time, perhaps I may first draw the attention of the Committee to my letter of 21 January and in particular to the accompanying document, Reforming Support for Migrants Without Immigration Status: The New System Contained in Schedules 8 and 9 to the Immigration Bill, and specifically to pages 10 to 12 which deal with the handover situation of people on support from the Home Office and moving them on to a local authority, and how that system can be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I respect enormously for his humanitarian instincts, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to the British Red Cross report. It was published on 13 January, I think, which is fairly recent in terms of government decision-making. We are engaging with the charity and we will have more to say on the report in due course.
At the heart of what the noble Baroness wants is whether we will agree to a meeting to look specifically at this issue. The next group of amendments is a significant one about children leaving care. I was going to suggest that we should have a meeting on that issue, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will probably find very helpful. I am happy to incorporate this specific point into that wider meeting, given that we already have five meetings coming up before Report. If that is helpful to her, I shall restrict my remarks to drawing attention to the document I have just mentioned and agreeing to combine this issue with those to be addressed in the meeting as a result of the next group of amendments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so helpfully and the noble Lord for that positive response. I am happy for this to be taken as part of another meeting, although I hope that we will be able to include representatives of the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council since they both work with people who are in the moving-on period. I think that I referred to an earlier British Red Cross report rather than the one which has just been produced. I know that there are two reports which are relevant to our discussions so it is possible that I have muddled them up, but I was referring to a different report from that cited by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Anyway, that does not matter because the important thing is that we should sit down and talk about this. As I have said, I do not think that there is really any difference between us, but this has been going on for too long. I do not know what the answer is. It may be a longer time limit or it might be something else. If we can sit around a table, that would be very helpful.
Lord Bates
I should make one specific point that I need to put on to the record. It is not just a case of extending the time period, it is also about making sure that people apply for these benefits promptly. One of the figures cited in the 2014 British Red Cross report showed that of its sample of 16 individuals, only three had applied for welfare benefits within the first three weeks of being granted status. Part of the issue is getting people to apply earlier.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My noble friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. As I said in moving the amendment, it is easy to say that people should apply earlier. However, they are in what is still a strange country to them and are accessing a strange system. Even for people who are brought up here it can be difficult to claim benefits. If these people do not have the support of an agency like the British Red Cross or the Refugee Council, is it surprising that there is a delay? I know that it is not what the noble Lord is doing, but it does sound a bit like blaming the victim to say, “If only they would apply earlier”. I know that it is not what he meant.
Lord Bates
I cannot let that stand. I certainly would not be guilty of doing that. I am simply saying that when there are delays in the system we need to look at all the parties to explore why. The one fact I presented was that only three out of 16 applied within the first three weeks. That could contribute to the need to examine why, and what extra help they need. I certainly was not blaming the victims. It is not about simply adding days on in the end and finding that even that is not enough, as we were talking previously about the grace period going up from 28 to 90 days. We need to look at the whole system so that people get the care they need when they need it and the system works effectively. That is what we are about.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am grateful for that. As I said I did not really believe that that was what the noble Lord meant. It might have sounded like it, so I am glad he has made it clear.
The Work and Pensions Committee said that 28 days is really very little time. It may be that the answer is not another fixed time limit, but I absolutely accept that we need to look at all the different aspects—the DWP, the Home Office and how people engage with them. On the basis that the Minister has very kindly offered to extend the meeting he was offering anyway, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I support Amendments 234B, 234M, 234N and 235A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to which I was pleased to add my name, not least as he has been such a consistent champion of the rights of care leavers. I am also supportive of other non-government amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 230D and 239B.
On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, spoke about the deeply unsatisfactory way that this Bill has proceeded, with amendment after amendment having been tabled by the Government since its initial introduction in the Commons. It is particularly inappropriate that amendments concerning an issue as important as the treatment of care leavers should have been introduced in this way, leaving a host of unanswered questions as to how the new provisions affecting such a particularly vulnerable group—as the noble Earl emphasised—will work in practice.
This vulnerability cannot be magicked away by constant referral to this group of young people as adult migrants, as if, miraculously, the vulnerabilities that were recognised at the age of 17 years and 11 months have evaporated overnight on their 18th birthday. As the Refugee Children’s Consortium and the Alliance for Children in Care and Care Leavers point out, it is long established in law and policy that those who have been in care need continued support on turning 18 in light of their vulnerabilities. Indeed, leaving care and children’s legislation is predicated on an understanding of the need to provide additional support beyond just accommodation and subsistence needs after the age of 18.
Likewise, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner points out:
“For the purposes of the Commissioner’s primary function, a person who is not a child is to be treated as a child if he or she is aged 18 or over and under 25, and a local authority in England has provided services to him or her under”,
the relevant sections of the Children Act at any time after she or he turned 16. As the commissioner explains,
“the intention of the Children’s Act was to establish that leaving care responsibilities apply by virtue of the authorities’ position as good ‘corporate parents’ irrespective of the care leaver’s particular circumstances and in recognition that turning 18 does not result in overnight independence from those who have cared for you previously”.
By removing these young people from the protection provided by the Children Act, Schedule 9 also takes care leavers with unresolved immigration status out of the remit of the Children’s Commissioner, thereby overturning a provision introduced for good reason by Parliament as recently as 2014.
Once again, immigration control trumps the well-being and protection needs of children and young people—a more general tendency observed by the JCHR, of which I was then a member, in its report on the human rights of unaccompanied children and young people in the UK. As the Refugee Children’s Consortium and the alliance argue, it is creating a two-tier discriminatory system of support for care leavers based on immigration status. One consequence is that a young person on turning 18 could be torn from their foster parents with whom they may have developed a strong and loving relationship. Think what effect this might have on a young person who had suffered earlier trauma as a result of separation from her or his parents. This really is disgraceful and it makes me both sad and angry to think what we might be doing to this particularly vulnerable group.
Many young people in this position do not even understand that they have no leave to remain after the age of 18. Amendment 230D is particularly relevant here. The JCHR inquiry concluded:
“Discretionary leave to remain is used too readily at the expense of properly considering other options”,
and recommended that decisions should be,
“made about their future on robust evidence as early as possible”.
That this should happen will be all the more important once Schedule 9 takes effect. The JCHR report made clear that:
“The duty towards an unaccompanied migrant child does not end at 18”,
and argued that it is right that local authorities’ duties,
“continue to apply to vulnerable children who may continue to require support as they face fundamental decisions about their future”.
It notes that the Government, in their written evidence to the inquiry:
“stressed that unaccompanied migrant children were supported ‘in the same way as any other child in need’, throughout and beyond the care system”,
but no more, my Lords.
We were highly critical in that report of how effectively existing duties towards migrant young people were fulfilled. But that is not a reason for absolving local authorities of these duties. We recommended that:
“Unaccompanied migrant children must be properly supported in the transition to adulthood”,
and that,
“bespoke and comprehensive care plans”,
that,
“take full account of the wishes of the child … remain applicable up to the age of 21, or 25 if the young person remains in education, to enable children to realise their maximum potential”.
The Government responded:
“We agree with the Committee that children should be properly supported in the transition to adulthood”.
It would seem that they believe, in the face of all the evidence, that that transition ceases on a child’s 18th birthday.
Schedule 9 raises all kinds of practical questions that must be clarified before it becomes law. We have heard some from the noble Earl and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She referred to questions raised by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Has the Minister met the Children’s Commissioner to discuss these matters? If not, will he undertake to do so before Report, or to include her in the meeting that he has very kindly already offered, because she is charged with protecting the rights of this group? As it is, Schedule 9 will remove rights established to protect some of the most vulnerable young people in the country, as we have heard. I have said this before and I will say it once again: this cannot be right.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I have a question which comes up in parallel to this huge group of amendments. It is as follows: if a young person or adult has been in this country for more than seven years without committing any serious offence and is therefore in a position where they would be eligible for British citizenship, if they applied for it, is it the intention of the Home Office to deport them? I will just explain that this question arises from the visit that my noble friend and I made to Yarl’s Wood today. I quite understand if the Minister does not feel able to give me an answer now but if he does not, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who has added his name to Amendment 234, cannot be in his place, but I am glad to speak on my own behalf and, I hope, for him, too, since we are of one mind on this matter.
One of the great privileges of being a bishop in the Church of England is found in the many connections we have with Anglican dioceses overseas. The diocese of Southwark has very long-standing links with Zimbabwe, while my own has an association with Papua New Guinea that has gone on for 60 years. I was last there in August and September, visiting the remoter parts of the western highlands, which was a challenge. The welcome is amazing and humbling, but what one learns is about the huge significance of family and kinship roots in such societies. They make all the difference for individuals between flourishing and destitution. They provide the practical and emotional bonds through which people make sense of life. They are the source of social and financial security, elder care, childcare and so on.
I reflected while I was there on the atomistic character of many British social and family relationships, which seem very limited and limiting by contrast, and certainly unthinkable to them. Consequently, when states fail and insecurity becomes unbearable, as we have already heard, families do shift, but they do not fracture even if the world around them does; mutual obligations hold. When one flees terror and ruin, there can be no better way to do it than with those with whom there exist bonds of affection and mutual obligation. It may seem to us to be an organisational and financial necessity to break up family units or kinship groups, but to those within them in such situations, it seems like madness.
I appreciate that rules already exist to provide for a degree of family reunion, but the sentiment behind the amendment is that they are too restrictive. What sort of family life do we believe in if a minor is admitted to the UK and granted asylum status but there is no basis in the Immigration Rules for parents or siblings to join him or her—or, in reverse, if a Syrian father is granted asylum but not his 19 year-old daughter left in a refugee camp? I realise that the Minister may argue that such cases can be considered outwith the Immigration Rules, but the number of these visas is dropping rapidly, down to just 11 in 2014, which suggests that this is a route that is now very little trodden indeed. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reflection on that tiny number in this context.
The problems and issues underlying our net migration figures do not subsist in family reunion, nor are they caused by them, and hence I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to Amendment 234.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 231, to which I have added my name, but I would be more than happy if Amendment 234 were to be accepted because I acknowledge that we need to act as quickly as possible to enable family reunion. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws talked about the experience of her husband’s family in the 1930s. It was very similar in my own family. My father came as a young man to this country from Nazi Germany in the early 1930s and his parents, my grandparents, were allowed to join him in the late 1930s having escaped to Palestine and then coming to this country, so the question of family reunion has great personal significance for me.
ILPA has provided us with extracts from parliamentary debates in the 1930s and 1940s, and I was particularly struck by a speech by the then Earl of Listowel, who said in 1939:
“There is a common assumption underlying this debate … that these refugees are a common responsibility of every civilised nation, and that each country has to play its part, according to its economic resources and according to its opportunities for offering temporary asylum or permanent refuge, in providing the means of life for these helpless and persecuted people. The question surely that is before our minds first and foremost this afternoon”—
they probably did not go quite as late in those days—
“and is naturally one that confronts every member of the British Legislature is: Is this country really making its rightful contribution?”.—[Official Report, 5/7/1939; col. 1026.]
The answer today has to be no. We are not playing our part according to our economic resources when compared with poorer countries in the region on the one hand and richer countries such as Canada and Germany on the other.
While I very much welcome recent government concessions, I fear that they do not go nearly far enough. This is the message of, for example, a statement made by more than 300 eminent lawyers last autumn who, among other things, called for the establishment of safe and legal routes to the UK from both within and outside Europe. One element of that, they argued, would be humane family reunion policies such as allowing child refugees in the UK to be joined by adult family members. This would help avoid the tragedies that continue to occur in the Mediterranean where already this year 149 people have died trying to cross, according to Save the Children. Just this week over 120 leading economists have sent a similar message in an open letter to the Prime Minister.
The British Red Cross writes of heart-breaking cases it encounters of separated families not covered by the existing rules, such as the two Syrian brothers who wanted to be reunited with their mother stuck in a camp in Iraq, having been recently imprisoned in Syria. She was alone with no family and in a second country but did not qualify for family reunion. I know that the Government’s argument is that if refugee children were entitled to bring their parents into the country, it would act as an incentive to send children on ahead to secure leave. But as ILPA points out, these children are given leave to remain not because they are children but because they are recognised to have a claim as refugees. While parents understandably prioritise getting their children to safety, surely it is cynical to believe that they would deliberately put their children in the hands of smugglers to make such a dangerous journey alone as a ploy to get entry themselves. As Save the Children put it, we are talking about:
“A terrifying push, not an enticing pull”.
It reminds us of children’s rights under the UNCRC to remain with or be reunited with their family.
The Government claim to be the party of the family. In the guidance on the family test, the list of,
“relationships at the heart of family life”,
as it puts it, includes a wide range of family relationships, including extended families. Yet the Government take the most narrow and exclusionary approach to family relationships when it comes to the reunion of a particularly vulnerable group of families. I believe that if the Government were to accept one or other of these amendments, or bring forward their own amendment on Report, this would be widely welcomed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as my name is to Amendment 234, I will give my story of doctors—I am thinking of the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—who left the country because of our family visa restrictions. I did some work on family visas in 2013, a year after the current rules were introduced. I felt as if I had almost physically been hit between the eyes when I realised that these rules were applying in situations which noble Lords have described. It is possible for the Government to grant visas on the basis of exceptional, compelling or compassionate circumstances outside the rules. The Minister will recall his Written Answer to my Question that disclosed that the number of applications granted outside the rules was 77 in 2011 and by 2014 had declined to 12.
The basis of these amendments, and the fact that we do not believe that this would be a pull factor, has already been covered. I shall try not to repeat too much of what has been said. I am very aware that it is not sensible to seek to make too many arrangements on the basis of anecdotes and very individual circumstances—hard cases, bad law, and all that. But there are so many stories. The Guardian published an article about two British citizens who had been granted refugee status and then become citizens, but could not bring their family members to the UK because of the income threshold that is part of the family visa rules. They are actually living with their wives and children in a camp in Dunkirk. Those who have seen the conditions in that camp will be appalled that that has come about.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to these amendments. They strike me as being reasonable and modest, and a very strong case has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. ILPA also makes the case for allowing payment to be made by instalments:
“The sum at stake, the £200, £150 for students may appear modest. It is not. Factor in that it is a payment per year, that there will be a levy for each family member and then consider average earnings in different countries and exchange rates with the UK and it acts as a bar to entry … Any health levy payable prior to arrival risks presenting a barrier for those nationals of countries where earnings are low and currencies weak relative to the UK. Similarly if a person must pay the levy for their entire period of leave up front: to do so exacerbates the effect of existing disparities”.
The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit has provided a case study which again illustrates the difficulties that upfront payments can create for low-paid workers:
“F is a domestic worker from South Asia. She has leave to remain granted under the rules for domestic workers in place before April 2012. In 2015 she sought to extend her leave to remain. She faced an application fee of £649 and a health surcharge of £200 so a total of £849 to pay up front. This was more than her monthly wage of £800. From our experience, someone working in a minimum wage job is virtually certain to have their application for fee remission refused, even when human rights is the main focus of the application, which is not the case for domestic worker visa extensions who could not therefore hope to be given a fee waiver. F had to borrow the money from her employer which on this occasion was possible. Not all employers would be willing to assist in this way”—
I suspect that rather few employers would do so. It continues:
“For a domestic worker to find that much money up front inevitably necessitates borrowing, which can put a vulnerable person further at risk. To save that much money each month can be a huge task for someone on a minimum wage income but is more manageable than an upfront payment. The fee for such applications will go up to £811 in 2016 in addition to the health surcharge”.
I suspect that all of us in this House live pretty comfortably, so for us to make a payment like that upfront is something that we probably do not even think about. It might just be a slight nuisance. We must put ourselves in the shoes of someone for whom making such an upfront payment is a huge burden, and something that seems impossible to comprehend. The difference it would make to them to be able to pay in instalments is enormous. It is important that we try to think what it means to the people for whom we legislate.
The exemptions also seem to me very fair. I was going to make reference to the UNCRC, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already made it. There are questions about whether charging children is compatible with those provisions. To exclude victims of domestic abuse would simply build on the existing exemptions under the destitution domestic violence concession, without introducing a new principle. On the question of destitution, the briefing that I had from the Caritas Social Action Network gave the example of someone who was not considered destitute for this purpose because they had £60 in their bank account, but they were homeless. Perhaps I should know the answer, but will the Minister tell us the criteria for destitution when deciding on such cases? I hope that he will look kindly on these very reasonable, very modest and very just amendments.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I support these two amendments—in particular, where they deal with exemptions for children who cannot be expected to have large earnings and for victims of domestic violence. May I suggest to the Minister that he consults on this his noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns? After all, she has worldwide responsibilities for protecting women in particular but also, no doubt, children against violence, whether domestic or arising from wars and civil conflicts. It would be paradoxical for us to go to considerable lengths to get better worldwide protection while diminishing it or removing it from people here.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I may have misinterpreted what the noble Lord said, but I think that he used the phrase “simpler than requiring instalments”. However, it is not the intention of the amendment to require instalments but rather to allow them to be used in what may be a very small number of cases—I do not know whether that is the case—of people who simply cannot pay upfront. Has he made any estimate of what proportion of people are likely to ask to pay by instalments, because I do not think it is assumed that that would be the default position?
Lord Bates
If you offered interest free credit in the commercial world, I guess that probably most people would take advantage of it. Therefore, the cost might be quite significant, unless the noble Baroness is proposing an additional charge for accessing the system through an instalment process, which I do not think she is. The points I made earlier related to the current system. I have not just arrived at this point, as it were. When the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised this issue with me—the week before last, I think—I checked with officials and looked at the system. I was told that it is very difficult because at the moment everything is up front—the costs and everything—and the boxes have to be ticked in order to move on to the frame. As I say, we are not making a spurious objection to the measure. I have more to say on that, but I will now address Amendment 177.
Amendment 177 seeks to exempt children and victims of domestic violence from the charge. Following extensive debates in Parliament during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014, the Government put safeguards in place to protect vulnerable groups. The Immigration Act 2014 provides the Secretary of State with the power to exempt certain categories of applicant from the requirement to pay the immigration health charge. These categories are listed in Schedule 2 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order. Current exemptions include children who make an immigration application or who are looked after by a local authority and a person who applies for limited leave under the Home Office concession known as the destitute domestic violence concession. In the case of the latter, these are individuals who are here as partners of British citizens who are settled here, and can consequently apply for settlement. Individuals who are in the UK for less than six months or who have not paid the charge can still access NHS services, although some of these might be chargeable. However, a key principle of the NHS is that medical treatment which is urgent or immediately necessary in the judgment of a clinician is never withheld from anyone, irrespective of their chargeable status.
Furthermore, since April 2015, treatment that is needed as a consequence of domestic violence is exempt from charge to all overseas visitors, regardless of whether or not they have paid the immigration health charge. This includes both physical and mental health needs. The only stipulation is that the visitor has not come to the UK for the purpose of seeking that treatment.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
Well, they come in on a tied visa and then they do a runner and go and work for somebody else. The employer then goes back to his home country and puts in a visa next year for a new servant; he will claim, no doubt, that the servant has been working for a year, because that is one of the requirements, and come with his next servant. So the numbers will certainly increase. If you produce a loophole in these matters, they will increase very fast.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that we are not moving from waiting for Ewins to looking for loopholes. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at the time of the legislative scrutiny of the 2014 Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton said, this is a matter of human rights. Not only did we say that the removal of the right of overseas domestic workers was a backwards step but we noted that the 2012 regime had been cited internationally as good practice.
I am not going to make a great speech, because I think the case has already been made admirably by other noble Lords. But my noble friend Lord Rosser pointed out that the Minister in the Commons towards the end of the last Government, but a member of today’s governing party, said as a statement of intent that whoever was in government would implement the review’s recommendations. I simply do not understand why this very important report, which we were all waiting for and for which everything had to be suspended to see what it said, was presented to the Government nearly three months ago with a sense of urgency to it, yet we do not yet have the Government’s response to it, even though we have started Committee stage of this highly relevant Bill. Why do we not yet know the Government’s response and how quickly will we know it—and will it be in the spirit of the statement made by Karen Bradley in the Commons last March?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
I add one more voice from these Benches in support of the amendment. My noble friend Lord Hylton has already reminded us that the amendments in some form have already been won in this House. The Minister will already understand the strength of feeling on these Benches—with, obviously, some notable exceptions. The Ewins recommendations have sharpened them up, recommending the three-month temporary visa. I tend to support my noble friend’s wider amendment. The evidence being already on the record from Kalayaan and others, I shall not repeat any of that, but has the Minister seen the evidence from Justice for Domestic Workers, in its survey of last August, I think, in relation to the ILO convention 189? I shall give some brief illustrations: 72% of these—mainly—women feel that they have been required to work while they are unwell, while 94% say that they are injured while they are at work, by falling over and so on. One has to appreciate the depth of the suffering of these individuals—but I shall not go on about that. Case studies show how vulnerable they are and how wary they are of seeking help from any authorities, including consulting the NRM, where they should be going. I suspect that the Home Office, like my noble friend Lord Green, sees these amendment as holes in the dyke, carrying risk. But we have to give these domestic workers a way out of their situation in such a way that it will not open the gates to more migration. That is where the Ewins recommendations come in: the workers have to pass the test of exploitation. I see no reason why their case cannot be singled out from the rest.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 134, which I wish to support, is simple, just and proportionate in its aims. I accept that Home Office officials must, in the discharge of their duties in this area, deal with barriers of language, emotional distress, the fear of authority, the complexity of people’s lives and, on occasion, deceit. All this takes time. However, it is far from unknown for applicants for asylum to wait months or even years for a substantive decision in their case. This subjects them to a fearful limbo, with limited means of support and the background anxiety of not knowing for a very prolonged period what the outcome will be. Furthermore, we know from the experience of our own citizens the deleterious effects of prolonged inactivity on their emotional and physical well-being, and how this can erode an individual’s skill base.
The European Union’s reception conditions directive, which came into force last July, recognises this and requires of all EU countries—except Ireland, Denmark and the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying—that asylum seekers waiting nine months for a decision may work. Germany has responded, interestingly, by legislating for a three-month threshold.
It is the policy of the Church of England, by resolution at its General Synod in February 2009, that all asylum seekers should be granted permission to seek employment. If the Government brought forward their own amendment with a threshold of nine months rather than six, as here, I could accept that. What is manifestly unfair is excluding such individuals from the world of work for an indefinite period, as at present. This amendment, with its threshold of six months, is not an invitation for migrants to enter the UK job market by an easy route. It could not be, with that sort of threshold. It is a measured and fair response to a manifestly unfair and damaging exclusion. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and others.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. Indeed, I, too, am delighted that this is now my party’s official policy.
The right to work—or, perhaps more accurately, the right to be allowed to undertake paid work—is a human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporated into human rights law as part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises,
“the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work”.
After the Second World War, TH Marshall wrote that in the economic field, the basic civil right is the right to work. More recently, in 2007—long before I came to this place—the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the denial of the right to work as part of a deliberate policy of destitution, in breach of asylum seekers’ human rights.
The all-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—of which I was a member—talked about how asylum seekers who are not able to undertake paid work lose skills and are unable to provide a role model for their children, and about the impact on their self-esteem, self-confidence and mental health. All this has a damaging effect on their children. A Freedom from Torture report on poverty among torture survivors states:
“Many questionnaire respondents, and most participants in client focus groups, highlighted the importance to them of having permission to work while their asylum claim is decided as a means of supporting themselves and being self-reliant. Indeed, the lack of permission to work for asylum seekers was a major theme of discussion and the key change that focus group respondents called for, although they also recognised that many torture survivors”,
may not be “well enough to work”.
A letter to the Independent at the end of last year asked why asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK. It pointed out:
“We have skills to contribute: some of us are doctors, nurses, carers, teachers, builders. But these skills are wasted and deteriorate while we wait for a decision on our asylum applications. We want to contribute to the UK economy and to be part of this society”.
Much of government social policy, whichever party is in power, is premised on the principle that paid work is the primary responsibility and the most important contribution that people make to society, summed up in the rather tired mantra of “hard-working families”. Why should asylum seekers be denied the opportunity for a whole year of joining the happy ranks of hard-working families in the labour market—and even then joining only on very restrictive terms? The evidence shows that this impedes integration. The Home Office’s own research shows that delayed entry into the labour market can cause problems even when refugee status is then granted, leading to high levels of unemployment and underemployment.
We have already heard about what happens in other European countries. My understanding is that most of these countries have fewer applications for asylum than are received in the UK, which does not support the argument that providing the right to work acts as a pull factor. The lack of impact on the number of applicants is confirmed by a study of OECD countries. Indeed, after our last debate on the issue, the then Minister acknowledged the paucity of hard evidence to support the Government’s case. Moreover, as Still Human Still Here argues, it is not very likely that economic migrants would draw themselves to the attention of the authorities by making an asylum claim, so that they might be able to apply for permission to work in a whole six months’ time.
The danger is that asylum seekers will end up in the shadow labour market, facing the kind of exploitation we discussed earlier in the context of undocumented migrants. Indeed, can the Minister say whether, if they do take paid work, they could be caught by Clause 8 —criminalised for working illegally even though they are legally in the UK awaiting a decision on their asylum claim?
I fear that Governments are often timid with regard to the rights of asylum seekers, for fear of public opinion. However, surveys by the IPPR, and the British Social Attitudes survey, show that there is public support for allowing asylum seekers the right to work. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, in an inquiry into destitution among asylum seekers a few years ago, said:
“Overwhelmingly, giving asylum seekers the right to work was the favoured solution identified”,
by those who gave evidence.
As has been said, we have debated this issue a number of times in your Lordships’ House, even in just the five years that I have been here. Since the previous time we debated it, the financial position of asylum-seeking families has worsened because of the savage cut in asylum support for children. So the cost to them of not being able to undertake paid work is all the greater now, with damaging implications for their mental and physical health and that of their families. I urge the Minister to take this amendment away and think about whether the time has not now come to concede this most basic of human rights.
Baroness Ludford
I, too, welcome the support of the Labour Party and its conversion to this cause. It is hugely important and significant. All the considerable benefits of a change in policy have been cited, and I do not need to enumerate them. They are so powerful, and there are only benefits—there are no costs, quite honestly, associated with this policy, except possibly a political one. That is no doubt what the Government fear. So I want to propose a rebranding exercise: to position this not so much as the right to work as the obligation to work—a requirement to work, except for asylum seekers who, for reasons of age or health, cannot do so. We could reframe it in those terms, as we do in the field of welfare. Indeed, a Liberal Democrat policy document from two years ago did exactly that. Why not talk about an obligation on fit asylum seekers to use their skills to benefit themselves, this country and the taxpayer? I think that you would also see a different approach and a different perception from the public, as well as, one hopes, from the Government, if that rebranding were to take place.