Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 5 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(9 years, 5 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(9 years, 5 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(9 years, 5 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.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment about delaying the rollout of the pilot scheme. This seems to focus on the likelihood of landlords potentially asking all those with foreign names or accents for evidence of their right to rent. I thought that the whole point of a pilot scheme was to ensure that what was being put forward was actually working as intended. However, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that two-thirds of landlords had not fully understood the code of practice on preventing illegal immigration or indeed the code of practice on avoiding discrimination, and that 50% of those who had been refused a tenancy felt discriminated against, while 40% of tenants in the pilot area had not been asked for any identity documents. That is hardly a resounding success for the pilot scheme, yet the Government want to roll out this contentious scheme across the country next month. That cannot be the right answer.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 151 in particular. The pilot scheme has done nothing to allay all the fears that have been voiced by many organisations that the policy will have unintended, discriminatory consequences, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the JCWI’s independent evaluation. I would be interested if the Minister could tell us what view the Government take of its evaluation alongside the pilot that they have prayed in aid to suggest that everything is fine.
At Second Reading I made brief reference to concerns raised by the charity Rights of Women about the possible implications for women fleeing domestic abuse. I will quote more extensively from the briefing it sent, because it is important. Rights of Women, as noble Lords may know, is a charity which specialises in supporting women who are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing, gender-based violence, including domestic and sexual violence. It says it is,
“deeply concerned that the ‘right to rent’ scheme will place already vulnerable migrant women who have experienced domestic violence at further risk of harm as a result of a scheme that creates barriers to accessing private … accommodation … Many women, including British citizens, experiencing violence in their relationships will have been deprived of access to important documents, such as passports and biometric residence permits, necessary to prove their right to rent and therefore these provisions will have a disproportionate effect on women fleeing abusive partners or other perpetrators of abuse regardless of their nationality.
Furthermore, women with limited leave to remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a British or settled person are dependent on that relationship subsisting for the continuation of their leave; when the relationship ends their immigration leave is at risk and women need to take steps to regularise their status in another category. Women who have fled abusive partners often need time to recover from their trauma before starting to address matters such as regularising their immigration status. It is not uncommon for a woman to find out much later after the breakdown of a relationship due to violence that unbeknownst to her the Home Office has curtailed her leave after her abusive partner informed them of the relationship ending. Without receiving notice of a Home Office curtailment decision, a woman can find herself without leave in the UK, unable to work or access housing.
Many of the vulnerable migrant women we advise on our telephone legal advice line have left or are trying to leave abusive relationships. Of these women a significant proportion are presently undocumented though either have an existing right to reside in the UK under European law or have a strong basis on which they can submit an application to the Home Office for leave to remain. The ‘right to rent’ scheme places these already vulnerable women at further risk by preventing them from accessing their own safe private rented accommodation due to a lack of documentation”.
These women will then be,
“at risk of homelessness, renting from exploitative landlords, returning to abusive partners or being forced into entering exploitative relationships”.
The charity gives a couple of case studies which illustrate the very likely problems that could occur, which I will not cite now given the lateness of the hour. However, I will ask: how does this fit in with the Government’s laudable strategy to end violence against women and girls?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I lend my support to the remarks made from all sides of the Chamber in support of Amendments 151 and 159, which would provide for a proper evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme before we roll it out nationwide.
I have spent a fair amount of time volunteering with a local charity for homeless people in Wimbledon called Faith in Action. On one occasion I was asked to help a person whose documents had been stolen—an occupational hazard when you are a rough sleeper. It was a lengthy and frustrating morning and afternoon—and quite expensive to boot—and I was not successful in tracing the documents on that occasion. I say this because it is clear to me that homeless people, foreign nationals and those from a black and ethnic minority background who have a right to rent but are not in a position readily to produce the necessary documents will be excluded from the rental market as landlords inevitably become more risk-averse in the face of the harsh penalties that could be incurred.
A number of people have talked about the many different organisations that have put forward their case strongly and well. Crisis—a national charity for single homeless people and a member of the Home Office panel—is one of them. It states that, according to an evaluation of the Immigration Act 2014 in Birmingham, which other noble Lords have mentioned, six of the local charities surveyed said that people they represent have become homeless as a result of the scheme, while interviews with landlords found “potential” for discrimination. They, of course, are not alone in those findings. The Law Society raises similar concerns, as does Liberty. To that list I can add Shelter, St Mungo’s and the JCWI. In fact, any charity that works on the ground with homeless people or supports immigrants’ welfare will say the same.
So I can do no less than lend my support to Amendments 151 and 159. Surely it makes sense to delay implementation of the offences contained in this Bill and the rollout of the right-to-rent scheme until independent evaluations of the associated risks have been carried out.
Lord Deben
Can I come back to single rooms that are let in a house? I have said to the Minister that I am perfectly happy to go along with him if I could know that we have looked at this particular issue. As far as I understand, we have not got very much evidence about the interaction between this legislation and people letting rooms in their own house. Do we know how many people have been interviewed on this? Do we know that it does not have the effect that I fear it has? If he can show that to me I will withdraw entirely but I just want to know and I am not sure that the evidence is there.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To save the noble Lord from jumping up and down, our concern is that this could affect some people who have a perfect right to be here, such as British citizens—this is part of the point that the noble Baroness was making about people who are homeless. Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups—I talked about women fleeing domestic violence—may simply not have the evidence. A landlord who is in a hurry, and if there is great competition for space, is more likely to take the person who has all the documentation right at hand. It is not just between people who are not supposed to be here and people who are, because actually other groups are vulnerable to the unintended discriminatory consequences as well.
Lord Bates
I hear that. I am making the point that private sector landlords, in doing their due diligence on the person they are renting to, will already require a great deal of detail or proof of who they are and that they have a right to be here. It would surely be in their own interests. If they were letting out their property to someone who had no legal right to be here, they might find that that person disappears and they are left out of pocket. This is eminently sensible in terms of due diligence on the behalf of landlords, as well as being widely consistent with making it more difficult for individuals who are here illegally to operate, in terms of bank accounts, driving licences and employment. The evaluation found very little evidence that British citizens with limited documentation were experiencing problems as a result of the scheme.
With regard to the unacceptable burden of checks, landlords are being asked to take responsibility for ensuring that prospective tenants have a right to rent in the UK by carrying out simple document checks; where necessary, in a small number of cases, making a report to the Home Office. This supports the work of the Government to make it more difficult for illegal migrants to reside here unlawfully and to stop them accessing services to which they are not entitled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned domestic abuse. She said that victims who do not have documents will struggle. In August 2015 the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, announced a £3 million fund for 2015-16 to address any gaps in the provision of specialist accommodation-based support for victims of domestic abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked who should be checked. The answer is any adults who will be taking up the accommodation as their main or only home in the UK. This means all adult occupants, not just those who may be the named tenants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about evidence of stolen documents. If a document is stolen, a letter from a UK police force confirming that the holder is the victim of a crime and personal documents have been stolen, stating the crime reference number and issued within the past three months, would be acceptable.
I have covered the point on domestic violence. The Home Office will be aware of who is applying for leave to remain under paragraph (289A) of the Immigration Rules as a victim of domestic violence. It will refer to the national referral mechanism to ascertain who has been the victim of human trafficking. Permission to rent will not be denied to such persons.
In answer to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the landlords’ survey included a broad range of landlords with different sizes of properties and portfolios. Focus groups also included small-scale, informal landlords, including those renting a single room. I was asked about fees. The report noted:
“However amongst the focus groups with informal tenants it was suggested that the charging of fees by some agents was common practice. This was not due to the Right to Rent scheme, but had been a long-standing practice—especially in areas where demand exceeds supply”.
I think that I have covered the points about homelessness and students. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that we have worked with Crisis and Shelter in developing the list of acceptable documents for the right-to-rent checks.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the opposition to Clause 8 standing part of the Bill and I also support Amendment 63. At Second Reading a number of noble Lords expressed fears about potential exploitation as a result of Clause 8, reflecting the worries of organisations working on the ground. The Minister tried to reassure us that our fears were unfounded, but the range of organisations that are worried about it must give cause for concern. Also a number of organisations, including the Law Society, have stated that the clause is unnecessary. The Law Society argues that,
“the creation of parallel criminal offences is wrong in principle and creates confusion”.
My noble friend Lord Rosser raised the point about the disparity between the defence of reasonableness that is available to employers not being available to employees who are accused of illegal working. That was a point which was raised in the Public Bill Committee by more than one Member, but as far as I can see it was not addressed by the Minister there in his response, so I hope that the Minister here will be able to say something about it today. Why is there no parallel defence for employees?
As well as the risk of exploitation, I am concerned that the state will in effect be exploiting undocumented workers when it seizes their wages. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me as a lay person that there is a distinction to be made between the confiscation of assets that are the proceeds of a crime such as stealing, burglary or fraud and those that are the result of the criminalisation of the sale of one’s labour. In support of my rather basic lay understanding, I pray in aid ILPA’s briefing. It points out, as did my noble friend Lord Rosser, that,
“the Crown Prosecution Service Guidance on the Proceeds of Crime says that it should prioritise recovery of assets from serious organised crime and serious economic crime”.
Surely we are not talking about that here. ILPA continues by stating that:
“A confiscation order must be proportionate to the aim of the legislation, which is to recover the financial benefit that the defendant has obtained from the criminal conduct … The purpose of the legislation is not to further punish the offender by fining them, or to act as a deterrent. If the confiscation order is not proportionate then it will be a violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights”.
It would appear that potentially an important human rights issue is being raised here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the experience in Italy. Another aspect of that was put by the organisation FLEX in its briefing, which states that evidence from that experience,
“demonstrates the impracticality of attempts to seize undocumented workers’ assets. Under an ‘irregular migration offence’ provided for in the ‘Bossi-Fini Law 2002’ undocumented workers could be fined for working without documents in Italy. This offence was ultimately repealed in 2014, one of the reasons for which was the heavy bureaucracy and limited success associated with gaining financial penalties from undocumented workers”.
On both principled and potentially human rights grounds, as well as practical and pragmatic grounds, I really do believe that the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made rather a good case for inserting the words “without reasonable excuse”, and I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about voluntary work. But perhaps I may raise a wider issue. Making illegal working a specific offence will fill a gap, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, pointed out in his helpful letter of 8 January. It means that those who have entered illegally or who have overstayed their visas could now be prosecuted for working in the UK.
When I gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee of the other place, a former DPP said that in practice he had not known of a case where it was necessary to have this law because other provisions could be brought to bear. However, impressions matter. The present situation must be an excellent selling point for anyone who happens to be a people smuggler. Indeed, at this very moment there are literally thousands of young men camped near Calais. They are there because they believe that if they once get into the UK they can work illegally and send home what to them are very substantial sums of money. If detected, they can claim asylum and be here for a considerable period longer.
The fact that working illegally in the UK is not even an offence sends out entirely the wrong message, as the Mayor of Calais never tires of telling us. She is right; we should change the law. This is about deterrence and it is especially important in present circumstances.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have four amendments—Amendments 65, 68, 69 and 70—in this group. I shall speak to the amendments and then come back to the very legitimate points that have been raised and questions posed. I shall respond to them in turn.
Noble Lords are familiar with the reason why the Government are creating the offence of illegal working: to address a genuine gap in the law which currently impedes our ability to address the economic incentives behind illegal work where they exist. It is against this explanation and the safeguards to ensure its appropriate use that I turn to the amendments that have been tabled.
The Government have carefully considered the amendment to introduce the defence of “without reasonable excuse”. However, we believe that this introduces considerable ambiguity. Introducing such a wide defence risks making it very difficult to achieve a successful prosecution. The Government have also considered the amendment to remove voluntary work from the ambit of the offence. However, we believe that this is unnecessary because someone undertaking genuine voluntary work would not be working under the purposes of a contract. Therefore, genuine voluntary work is not caught by new Section 24B(9), introduced by Clause 8, and it therefore falls outside the ambit of the offence.
I share the concerns of noble Lords who want to ensure that this offence is used appropriately. The offence is not aimed at the victims of modern slavery, where the statutory defence in Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act will still apply, as will common-law defences, such as duress. The circumstances of someone’s illegal working will be taken into account by the CPS and prosecutors in Northern Ireland and Scotland when deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
I also urge noble Lords to see the creation of this offence in the context of other measures in the Bill and elsewhere to increase the protection and support for victims of slavery and trafficking, strengthen enforcement against exploitation through the creation of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and taking tougher action against employers of illegal workers.
We should remember that individuals with an irregular immigration status are already likely to be committing a criminal offence, regardless of whether they are working. The Government’s policy remains unchanged and they will continue to seek the removal of illegal workers from the UK, and prosecute only where the CPS or prosecutors in Northern Ireland and Scotland consider that their prosecution is in the public interest. This remains the right approach. The new offence, however, will serve as an important deterrent to illegal economic migrants and close a gap in the Proceeds of Crime Act powers, which do not necessarily require a conviction.
I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ concerns regarding the strict liability nature of the offence. While I am of the opinion that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the offence is used appropriately and that victims of modern slavery are protected, I can assure noble Lords that I will reflect very carefully on today’s discussions and the points which have been made ahead of Report.
I now turn to the offence of employing an illegal worker in Clause 9 of the Bill. The Government’s intention in using “reasonable cause to believe” as the test is to provide a more objective test for the existing offence of employing illegal workers and so make the offence easier to prove. The test is intended to capture those employers who have wilfully turned a blind eye to someone’s immigration status when employing them so that the employer cannot be said to have known.
Introducing a test of recklessness would not resolve the difficulties in establishing an employer’s state of mind that the Government are seeking to address in the Bill. This is because the test of recklessness would remain subjective, requiring proof that the employer foresaw a risk that the person had no right to work, yet went on to take that risk and employ them.
The test of reasonable cause to believe is not the same as negligence. The intention is to continue to apply the civil penalty sanction to those employers who are simply negligent—that is to say, who act without reasonable care and skill—in terms of not checking a person’s right to work, or not doing so correctly.
The Government’s amendment requires an employer positively to have a reason to believe that the individual cannot accept the employment. It will enable prosecutions to be brought against employers who choose not to undertake the necessary checks because they have reasonable grounds to believe that such checks will reveal that the employee has no right to work. This is in addition to the Government’s intention to continue to prosecute those who we can show actually know that someone has no right to work here, as we can do now under the current wording of the offence.
I now turn to some of the points raised during our debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the projected size and suggested that the sums that we were talking about were fairly minuscule. I refer noble Lords to my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on 8 January, to which the noble Lord, Lord Green, referred. On page 2, it says:
“In 2014-15, the courts approved the forfeiture of cash totalling £542,668 seized by immigration officers. Following criminal convictions for immigration-related offences courts ordered the confiscation of assets totalling £966,024. We expect that in-country seizure could double with the use of the extended powers enabled by the new illegal working offence”.
Therefore, I do not think that these are inconsequential amounts—£1 million is quite a substantial amount. It is twice the budget of the relevant employment agency body. As I say, these are significant sums.
There is a slight sense that we were looking at destitute, highly vulnerable people, and that they would be the target of these initiatives. We are talking here about people who have on their person a significant amount of cash in excess of £1,000.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt but I meant to mention that because I saw it in the noble Lord’s very helpful letter. But where is it in the legislation? I looked for it but I could not find any reference to a £1,000 limit or anything. I wondered whether I had missed it.
Lord Bates
It comes under the Proceeds of Crime Act. What we are doing here is simply drawing that element into line. The accusation appears to be being made that somehow the Government are targeting people who are here illegally. Of course, if they are here illegally, they should not be here and they should rightly be removed. However, it is odd that under the legislation to which I referred, we can currently prosecute those who have permission to be in the UK and are working in breach of their conditions. We can confiscate the relevant sums under the Proceeds of Crime Act for those who are legally here in breach of their conditions. However, if someone is illegally here, or they have overstayed, we cannot do that. Noble Lords will need to comment on that themselves. However, if they believe that this provision is too punitive for people who are working illegally in this country, they ought also to say—I am not inviting them to do this by Report—that people who breach the terms of their existing stay in the country, such as students who work beyond the hours legally allowed, ought to be exempt as well. The fact that there is one rule for people who are legally here but breach their conditions, and another for people who are illegally here, seems to me wrong as there is a gap. We are trying to close that gap.
Refugees: Eritrea
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, there was, on 15 July last year, a response from the Government, by my noble friend Lady Anelay, to that specific report. One of the problems with that report was that the rapporteur, disgracefully in our opinion, was not given access to Asmara and could not go to Eritrea to engage and find out for herself. That is why the dialogues that have been undertaken by Foreign Office officials and James Brokenshire are so important in establishing what is happening on the ground and in holding the Eritrean Government to account on the commitments that they have given.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, can I go back to the Question of my noble friend Lady Kinnock? The proposal to resettle 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children is not a new one. On 2 September, the Prime Minister said that the Government would discuss it further. On 2 December, he said that they would think about it some more. Yet here we are, a further month on. I plead with the Minister to inject some urgency into these discussions. Every day that a positive decision is not taken, more children are left vulnerable to trafficking, to the cold, to disease or even death.
Lord Bates
When we hear about this situation, as when the Prime Minister heard about it, the immediate instinct is to think that there are, somewhere, 3,000 unaccompanied children waiting to find placement. Of course, 3,000 is an estimate of the total number, and where they are in the system is clearly a matter to be defined. We think that the way to do that is through the Dublin regulations and by making sure that they are properly recorded when they arrive in the UK. It is worth noting that the conclusion to that report said:
“We strongly commend DFID for setting an exemplary standard in its commitment to funding humanitarian assistance to address the Syrian crisis”.
That is part of the solution, but there is more to be done, and the Prime Minister will make an announcement on his review when he has examined all the facts.
Immigration Bill
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it feels like déjà vu all over again. Not only are we faced with a very similar set of measures to those in the 2014 Act, but also the Bill includes a second savage cut in asylum support this year and, yet again, a parallel consultation is taking place on charging migrants for healthcare, including some emergency treatment. We still await time limits on detention. As if the 2014 Act did not create a hostile enough environment for so-called illegal migrants—a term that bodies such as the General Assembly of the UN committed not to use; I will refer instead to “undocumented” migrants because no person is illegal—organisations on the ground warn that this Bill will make Britain an even more hostile and suspicious place for all migrants and their descendants.
I am grateful for the bumper bundle of official information that appeared on my desk last week, but the sunny picture it paints bears no resemblance to that detailed in the copious briefings we received, for which I am also grateful—though I will not be able to do them justice. Instead, they point to a Bill that spells discrimination, exploitation and destitution.
A number of provisions could give rise to discrimination. As the Conservative MP Richard Fuller warned,
“the problem is that it is very difficult for someone to see that a person is an illegal immigrant. What they see is someone who is different”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/15; col. 196.]
He asked whether the Home Secretary accepted that within this law there was the potential for discrimination to be increased if this was pursued too aggressively. The Home Secretary’s reply provided no reassurance. In the name of combating exploitation, some of the Bill’s provisions are likely to increase it, as we have heard, and, as has been argued, the withdrawal of the asylum support from appeal-exhausted families with children will without doubt mean destitution for all too many of them.
It was my original intention to speak solely about asylum support as I feel so strongly about this, particularly following the shabby and shameful cut in support for children that we debated in October. However, I am increasingly alarmed by other provisions, particularly the likely implications for children, whose best interests would appear to be far from paramount, and for women. I shall flag up some of these other concerns.
First, I shall speak on Clause 34, known as “Remove first, appeal later”. 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. This provision now goes further. As we have heard, Justice is one of numerous organisations warning about the human rights and rule-of-law implications as access to justice is impeded. There are also concerns about family separation and fears that the best interests of the child will not be given primary consideration as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, despite the Minister’s reassurances.
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.
I and other noble Lords raised fears about the potentially discriminatory impact of the right to rent scheme during the passage of the 2014 Bill. The Home Office’s gloss notwithstanding, I am not reassured by the findings of the pilot, which in my view do not allow us to conclude that our fears were unfounded, particularly in the light of JCWI’s independent evaluation, which reinforced those fears. Rights of Women warns that its extension and intensification could disproportionately affect women fleeing abusive partners, regardless of their nationality.
With regard to discriminatory effects, will the Minister give an assurance that the new language requirements for customer-facing public sector workers will not be used against those whose first language is British Sign Language, and commit to include a clear statement to that effect in the code of practice, as requested by Sense?
Turning back to the right to rent, there are also fears that it would make undocumented migrants more vulnerable to exploitation by rogue landlords. Similarly, as we have heard, the criminalisation of undocumented workers who undertake paid work makes them more vulnerable to exploitation in the workplace, thereby undermining one of the Bill’s aims. Exploitation can also be one result of the removal of asylum support from appeal-exhausted asylum seekers unless they can demonstrate destitution and a genuine obstacle to leaving the UK. The danger is that, counterproductively, adults and children disappear into the shadow economy or even are subject to sexual exploitation. Despite widespread opposition to the use of prospective destitution to incentivise voluntary return, the Bill steamed ahead with the original proposal just six days after the consultation closed.
The language of “incentives” is constantly used as justification, as if asylum seekers personified economically rational man in their decision-making. Such thinking was challenged by a Centre for Social Justice working group some years ago, and the overwhelming evidence from organisations working with asylum seekers shows just how misplaced it is. For example, Women for Refugee Women writes 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”.
Not one of 45 women that WRW spoke to in a 2012 study felt able to contemplate voluntary return, despite facing destitution. That still held true when it spoke to 30 of those women a year later.
Women can face particular problems in getting their need for protection recognised when it arises from sexual persecution. My concern about this provision is heightened by the absence of any appeal rights, as we have heard, which again raises serious human rights and rule-of-law issues. It has been justified on the grounds that whether or not there is a genuine obstacle to leaving is a straightforward matter of fact, but judgments have to be made on facts pertaining to both this and the other criterion for destitution. ASAP’s analysis of decision-making on destitution under the existing scheme suggests that serious injustices could result.
More detail about what constitutes a genuine obstacle will be contained in regulations, as will the level and type of support to be provided for those who qualify and the length of the grace period, although I am pleased to say that the Home Office has recognised the strength of representations that 28 days is just too short in family cases. When will the draft regulations be published? Can the Minister give us a firm reassurance that at the very least an Explanatory Note of the contents will be published before Committee?
The Home Office has been more willing to respond to local authority concerns by severely restricting access to local authority support. The result is graphically described by ILPA as,
“a series of tatty ‘safety’ nets, each full of holes”,
through which it would be all too easy to plummet. There are also limitations on support for care leavers subject to immigration control, who are referred to as “adults” as though somehow the vulnerabilities faced by care leavers who turn 18, long recognised in law and policy, will magically dissolve.
I have received many emails from organisations and individuals asking me to speak today because of their concerns, particularly around asylum support. One of them, a Quaker,
“saddened by the increased dehumanisation”,
of policy-making in this area, wished me,
“strength in maintaining your opposition to the Bill in its present form”.
We owe it to them and, more importantly, to all those who stand to be affected by this wretched Bill to improve it and prevent the discrimination, exploitation and destitution that it threatens.
Domestic Violence
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
There is a particular group called Imkaan which works in this area with BME communities and they are represented on the national oversight group which the Home Secretary set up to advise her on improving her response across government to domestic violence.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Justice Select Committee found that more than a third of the victims of domestic violence were unable to get legal aid because they could not provide evidence that such violence occurred within two years of their application. The Government responded with only a very minor reform. Will they now review the situation with a view to extending the time limits and, if not, why not?
Lord Bates
Certainly in relation to legal aid there is a merits test to go through. I understand that in cases of domestic violence there is a more generous provision than in other areas. There is an important new provision coming out in which we are going to refresh the cross-government strategy on tackling violence against women and girls. That will include some elements of new legislative responses which are available and being considered by the Government.
Asylum Support (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2015
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Rosser. I apologise if I cover some of the same ground. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for having moved so quickly to ensure that we were able to debate these regulations. I believe that your Lordships should oppose them on two main grounds: the manner in which they were introduced and the impact that a cut of £16 a week in the allowance for each child will have on a particularly vulnerable group of children and families, as is spelled out in the regret Motion.
As we have already heard, these regulations replicate regulations that were originally laid on 12 March, just a fortnight before the end of the last parliamentary Session. To my knowledge, no Statement, oral or written, was made to Parliament that the regulations had been made, despite the significant change in asylum support policy they represent and despite the considerable interest in that policy that had been expressed, particularly in your Lordships’ House. As I understand it, the stakeholder forum of voluntary organisations working with asylum seekers was informed on 23 March, just two weeks before the regulations were due to come into force. I learned of the regulations the following day by pure chance. No other parliamentarian whom I contacted, Front Bench or Back Bench, knew anything about them. It is thanks only to the behind-the-scenes intervention of the former MP Sarah Teather, who was a great parliamentary champion of asylum seekers, that they were withdrawn as they had not been agreed by the coalition partners.
It was shoddy behaviour on the part of the Home Office to sneak out controversial regulations in this way at a time when Parliament could do nothing about them. I do not address this criticism to the Minister, because I am quite sure that he personally would not have countenanced such behaviour. However, I hope that he will relay to the Home Office our dismay at it.
Although the official reason given for the withdrawal of the original regulations was “further reflection”, the suspicion was that they would be relaid in the new Parliament, so I tabled a Written Question to ask whether the Government planned to do so. The response on 8 June was that:
“The matter is under consideration”.
Five weeks later, identical regulations were laid just a week before the House rose for the Summer Recess. Therefore, once again there was no time for them to be debated before they came into effect in August. It is difficult not to conclude that this was deliberate.
Not surprisingly, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as has already been referred to, was pretty scathing. It found “unconvincing” the explanation given for an instrument containing such a “controversial policy change” being laid “so close to a recess”. It expressed its disappointment that,
“gaining an understanding of the … background”,
to the policy change required such,
“persistent questioning of the Government”.
One aspect of the background to the policy change that was not addressed is the consistent picture painted by organisations working with asylum-seeking families of the severe poverty and hardship they have experienced living on the existing allowances. As we have already heard, these were set in 1999 at 70% of income support rates. However, since 2011, they have been frozen, resulting in a cut of nearly 7.5% in their real value.
Income support rates are far from generous. A study of the cost of a child for the Child Poverty Action Group by Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Social Policy—I declare a double interest as the honorary president of the CPAG and emeritus professor at Loughborough—concluded that,
“a family on benefits is left well over a third short of being able to afford a socially acceptable minimum”.
Back in 2010, before the rates were frozen, Still Human Still Here analysed the basket of basic goods used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for its minimum income standard research but stripped it down to include only goods needed to avoid what it termed “absolute poverty”. It concluded that 70% of income support was the absolute minimum necessary to meet asylum seekers’ basic needs.
We have already heard about the research conducted by Refugee Action. Respondents to that research expressed deep concern about the impact that deprivation was having on the health, well-being and physical development of their children. The point was made that, whereas income support recipients might be able to turn to family or social networks for help in getting by, this was rarely an option for asylum seekers. Overall, its conclusion was that the support system,
“fails to meet essential living needs or ensure a dignified standard of living for those in its care”.
In 2013, I sat on an all-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, chaired by Sarah Teather and supported by the Children’s Society. We were shocked by some of the evidence received of the hardship faced by asylum-seeking families. We took evidence from a range of experts, social workers, local authorities and families themselves and concluded that the current levels of support provided to families are too low to meet children’s essential needs. Furthermore, these rates do not enable parents to provide for their children’s wider needs to learn, grow and develop, especially if they have a disability.
It is difficult to square all this evidence with the Home Office’s conclusion that the previous levels of asylum support for families with children,
“significantly exceed what is necessary to meet essential living needs”.
This conclusion is based primarily on ONS expenditure data for the lowest 10% income group, supplemented by various other data on the cost of essential items. But taking expenditure data for the lowest decile begs the question as to whether people at that level of income are able to spend enough for a healthy and decent life—a point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We know that many of those living on a lower income are not able to afford an adequate diet. It therefore does not provide an appropriate benchmark for costing a healthy diet. Also, I am not convinced that the adjustments made to the ONS data take adequate account of the extra costs involved for people new to the country, often living in poor accommodation.
The advice that I have received from Donald Hirsch, whose evidence was cited in the 2014 High Court judgment on asylum support, and from Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, both respected experts who work on minimum income standards and the costs of children, is that it is not good enough to rely on multiple strands of evidence to corroborate the questionable figures taken from the ONS data, when each of the strands is, in their words, “flimsy and selectively chosen”. They focus in particular on the evidence used to argue that the food budget is adequate, pointing out that it provides little more than half of what has been calculated is required to achieve a minimum income standard deemed necessary for decent living by the general public. That is in the context of greater access to kitchen facilities and transport than is likely to be the case for asylum seekers on the Government’s assumptions.
One piece of evidence is misrepresented hearsay taken from quotes from a nutritionist. Another is based on the spending habits of a member of the Home Office team. The example for one day is: “breakfast: cereal; lunch: garlic baguette; dinner: pasta with peppers”. That does not sound like a very healthy diet for a growing child. Would it not have been more appropriate, when determining the level of support for a particularly vulnerable and sometimes traumatised group of families for whom, as we have heard, paid work is not a committed option, for the Home Office to have employed a nutritionist and to have made a proper scientific costing of a weekly menu, as done by proper academic research in this area?
Lord Bates
Our position is that we have gone into this in exhaustive detail, as my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, set out, probably in too much detail. It set out right down to the last penny where we felt that these amounts had come from. We clearly believe that we are complying with our international obligations. If this is shown to have a real detrimental effect, and evidence can be provided to us, then of course we will consider that very carefully next year, when this comes to be reviewed.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
It should not be up to other organisations to provide the evidence. The Minister very honestly said at the outset that these people will be living on an income barely above the level of destitution. I asked if he would give an undertaking that the Home Office would monitor the impact. Will he now do that please?
Lord Bates
We will, of course, continue to monitor the impact. We will continue to work through the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum with other groups. We have set out our position, and if people challenge that position and have data that show that there is unintended hardship as a result of these regulations, they should come forward with them. They should make the data available to us, and we will then consider them.