Brexit: Identity Cards

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have assessed the value of introducing identity cards following Brexit.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in 2010 the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to scrap the identity card scheme and the associated national identity register because it was expensive and represented a substantial erosion of civil liberties. The Government have no plans to revisit that decision.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, a very interesting question was asked on 3 May by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who is a convert to ID cards. Recognising the possible difficulties post Brexit for unionists in accepting a de facto border with the rest of the UK at Northern Irish ports, would the introduction of biometric ID cards, across the UK—which includes Northern Ireland—further emphasise their identity and entitlements as UK citizens and help alleviate unionists’ concerns by underscoring their national identity within the United Kingdom? In a way, passports in Northern Ireland will not always be able to do that in the future.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. The status of Northern Ireland’s citizens will remain the same post Brexit and they will still have access to the same identity documents. The Government are committed to protecting the Belfast agreement. One of the successes of that agreement, and the peace process, was to protect the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, the last time this question came up, last year, we were told that this was 20th century stuff, not 21st century. I have never personally met a police officer who does not feel that identity cards would be more than helpful. I am of an age to remember them during the war. There is another factor which all in this House are interested in. Last week, the Office for National Statistics brought out the results of their “surveys” about what the future will be. It would undoubtedly consider that identity cards would be a huge improvement in enabling us to forecast the future more accurately. That would be in all our interests: might the Minister consider it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for that question, and for forewarning me of it. I have talked about cost and civil liberties but, in addition to the things which my noble friend talked about, I draw attention to the fact that an increasing number of transactions and interactions, including the majority of identity frauds now occur online, where documents are far less effective in proving identity. I will take back what my noble friend said, but we should recognise that there is now a thriving market in fraud with actual, physical documents.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in 2005 experts at the London School of Economics estimated that the introduction of an ID card scheme would cost up to £18 billion. Taking account of inflation and the total absence of any Brexit dividend, does the Minister agree that £26 billion would be better spent on the National Health Service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The quite swingeing costs were certainly a consideration when the coalition Government decided to scrap identity cards or take them no further. I do not know about the £20 billion figure, but abolishing the scheme saved the taxpayer at the time £86 million and removed the need for a total investment of £835 million. What the Government choose to spend the money on will be a collective matter for the Government.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, this is not a question about identity but identification. Is it not quaint that we still have people who imagine that ID cards are a threat to civil liberties, who walk around with mobile phones, which constantly give away far more information than any ID card I have ever heard of? When will the Government recognise that being able to show who one is is seriously important, matters particularly for people who may not be entirely sure about their place of birth, and is necessary for people in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I have just addressed the Northern Ireland point. However, I totally concur with the noble Baroness that with mobile phones and on forums people give away information about their personal identification that they would never dream of telling the state or their banks. That is why I pointed out the more serious development of online fraud and the importance of proving identity in a lot of different situations. Whether it is proving your age in a nightclub or proving the right to rent or work, they all need different solutions.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Has the Minister noticed, over the period of time when questions on the subject have been repeatedly raised—by, to his great credit, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—that the mood in this Chamber, if not more widely, has tended more towards recognising the necessity of ID cards? Has she noticed that no one these days defends it on grounds of principle—not even the Liberal Democrats—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I do not blame either of them. However, I do not disagree at all with the noble Lord when he says that the issue of proof of ID and identity assurance is becoming more and more important. I am making the point that different identity assurance proofs are required in different situations. One would not expect to go into a nightclub and have to prove one’s immigration’s status, and similarly, in other situations you might not have to prove other things. Therefore we are trying to get to both a proportionate and reasonable proof of identity.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the new settlement scheme for resident EU citizens and their family members.

Securing the rights of citizens has been our priority in negotiations with the European Union. We have delivered on this commitment and reached an agreement with the EU which was published in March as a draft legal text. This guarantees the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU. Under this agreement, EU citizens living in the UK, along with their family members, will be able to stay and continue their lives here, with the same access to work, study, benefits and public services that they enjoy now. Close family members living overseas will be able to join them here in future.

EU citizens make a huge contribution to our economy and to our society. They are our friends, family and colleagues, and we want them to stay. I am therefore delighted to be publishing today further details about the EU settlement scheme. This will provide the basis for EU citizens resident here and their family members to obtain their new UK immigration status, consistent with the draft withdrawal agreement.

I will place in the House Library a statement of intent setting out in detail how the scheme will work, and how simple and straightforward it will be. The document includes a draft of the Immigration Rules for the scheme. We will engage with our stakeholders on the details set out in the statement of intent. These include the user groups we have established to help us develop the scheme, involving EU citizens’ representatives, embassies, employers and others. We look forward to hearing their views and will make improvements where we can.

It will be straightforward for EU citizens residing in the UK to obtain status. If they have lived here continuously for five years, they will be eligible for settled status. Those who have lived here for less than five years will generally be granted pre-settled status and will be able to apply for settled status once they reach the five-year point. Applicants will not need to show that they meet other detailed requirements of current free movement rules. This means, for example, that stay-at-home parents, retired people and students can all be eligible.

Irish citizens enjoy a right of residence in the UK that is not reliant on our membership of the EU. The Government are committed to protecting these rights and are working closely with Ireland to maintain these bilateral arrangements for our respective citizens. Irish citizens will not need to apply for status under the scheme but may elect to do so if they wish. Their family members who are not Irish or British citizens will be able to obtain status under the scheme without the Irish citizen doing so.

Negotiations on similar agreements on citizens’ rights with the non-EU European Economic Area states—Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway—and Switzerland are progressing well. While the details of those agreements are being finalised, the statement of intent confirms that we intend that the settlement scheme will be open to other EEA citizens and Swiss citizens—and their family members—on a similar basis as for EU citizens.

The scheme set out in the statement of intent will deliver on our commitments to a straightforward process. We are designing the online application form so that it is short, simple and user-friendly. It will be accessible by computer, tablet or smartphone. There will be assistance available for those who need it to complete the online application process. The views of the user groups on the support which may be needed by vulnerable groups will help to ensure that we make the right additional provision for them, through the involvement of community groups and others.

There will be three core criteria that people will need to meet to be granted status under the EU settlement scheme: proving their identity, showing that they are resident in the UK and declaring whether they have any criminal convictions. First, applicants will need to prove their identity and nationality. For those who wish to complete the application entirely online, there will be an app that will allow EU citizens to confirm the relevant details remotely, either using their own mobile phone or tablet or at a location established for them to use the app or to be helped to do so. Alternatively, they can send us their identity document by post and a dedicated team will check this and return it to them as soon as possible.

Secondly, we will establish that the applicant is resident in the UK and, where appropriate, their family relationship to an eligible EU citizen. Where possible the application process will help the applicant to establish their continuous residence here, and whether it amounts to the five years generally required for settled status, on an automated basis using employment and benefit records. This will keep any documentary evidence the applicant is required to provide to a minimum. We recognise that some applicants may lack such evidence in their own name for various reasons and we will work flexibly with applicants to help them evidence their continuous residence in the UK by the best means available to them.

Thirdly, we will check that the applicant is not a serious or persistent criminal and does not pose a security threat. It is right that we do what is needed to protect everyone who lives in the UK but we are not concerned here with minor offences and these provisions will not affect the overwhelming majority of EU citizens and their family members.

Throughout the process we will be looking to grant—not for reasons to refuse—and caseworkers will be able to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, where appropriate, to minimise administrative burdens. A range of user-friendly guidance and support, including a customer contact centre, will be in place to help applicants through the process.

Subject to parliamentary consideration of changes to the fees regulations, applications will cost £65, with a reduced fee of £32.50 for children under 16. There will be no fee for children in care. The process will be particularly straightforward for those who already hold a valid permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain document, which they will be able to swap for settled status free of charge. Those granted pre-settled status will be able to apply for settled status without paying a further fee. EU citizens and their family members do not need to do anything immediately; there will be no change to their current rights until the end of the post-exit implementation period on 31 December 2020. The deadline for applications under the scheme for those resident here by the end of 2020 will be 30 June 2021.

We plan to start opening the settlement scheme later this year. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge in successfully processing what may exceed 3.5 million applications but the Home Office already issues around 7 million passports and 3 million visas each year, so processing applications on the scale required is not new to us. As is now standard for the launch of new services in government, there will be a private beta phase from the summer to enable us to test the system and processes, followed by a phased rollout from late 2018 so we can test them at scale and ensure that they work effectively. The scheme will be open fully by 30 March 2019.

The statement of intent I have published today marks an important point in our preparations for the EU Settlement Scheme, which will enable EU citizens and their family members to continue living here in much the same way as they do now. We have engaged with EU citizens at every stage of the development process and will continue to do so. We will also continue to expand our communications to ensure that EU citizens are aware of the scheme and how it will operate and that they are reassured that they will have plenty of time in which to apply for their new UK immigration status. The EU Settlement Scheme will provide a straightforward way of enabling those who have made their lives in the UK to stay here. We want them to do so. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their very detailed questions, which I was furiously trying to write down and answer as they asked them.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, spoke about uncertainty for EU citizens. What my right honourable friend announced today will, I hope, provide further clarity and therefore less uncertainty for EU citizens, and that is precisely what we want. I hope that EU citizens will feel that there is a clear and transparent process which makes it as easy as possible for them to obtain settled status. He asked about the White Paper. We are expecting to issue it in due course. He also asked about the estimated take-up of the scheme from EU citizens. I think that it would be sensible and logical to say that the expected take-up should relate quite closely to the number of EU citizens who are currently in the UK. We think that about 3.5 million will generally apply.

The noble Lord also asked about reciprocal arrangements. As I think noble Lords will recall, when we first started bringing forward these plans, noble Lords and Members of the other place were very keen that we should start the ball rolling in good faith, and I hope that in good faith the EU will act similarly for our citizens. He asked whether what we are doing is acceptable from an EU point of view. I can certainly say that, from the point of view of an EU citizen living in the UK, it is very acceptable. As to whether the arrangements will be acceptable to the EU, I should hope so, because we are giving their citizens the settled status that is required to live here.

I have completely mixed up all the questions, but I shall go through them as I come to them. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether our plans will change in a no-deal scenario. It is fair to say that the Prime Minister has been very clear from the beginning of this process that she wants EU citizens and their families in the UK to be able to stay. She gave a personal commitment to EU citizens in October, when she said:

“I couldn’t be clearer: EU citizens living lawfully in the UK today will be able to stay”.


We are not anticipating failure and, as the Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech, we are confident that we can find a way forward that makes a success of this for all our people. We have a responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly. We have reached an agreement with the EU guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU, and we do not expect this to be reopened.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the criteria for status and who is eligible for the scheme. Any EU citizen and their family members residing in the UK before the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020 will be able to apply for settled status under the EU settlement scheme. People considered to be resident in the UK will include those here before midnight on 31 December 2020 and will include those previously resident in the UK who are outside the UK on that date but who have maintained continuity of residence here.

A close family member, which includes a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, dependent child or grandchild, and dependent parent or grandparent living overseas, will be able to join an EU citizen resident here after the end of the implementation period where the relationship existed on 31 December 2020 and continues to exist when the person wishes to come to the UK. Children born or adopted after December 2020 will also be eligible for the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the Government came to the figures of £65 and £32.50. The current fee for a permanent residence document for EU citizens is £65, and we think that the lower fee for a child is appropriate at half the price. I must add that, for a child in care, there is no fee.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether this would be a repeat of Windrush. I hope that this is the complete opposite of Windrush. People will be able to establish their status, as opposed to what happened with the Windrush generation, where, over time, some people became less and less able to establish their status, even though that status was implied when they came to this country. That is why it is crucial that EU citizens apply under the scheme, so that they will be able to evidence their status in the future.

Both noble Lords asked me about criminal records checks. All applicants aged 10 and over will be checked against the UK’s national police database and watch-list, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. Applicants aged 18 or over will also be asked about their criminal history in the UK and overseas. The assessment of suitability will be conducted on a case-by-case basis and will take account of the applicant’s conduct in the UK and overseas, including whether they have any prior criminal convictions.

Cases will be refused where the applicant has committed criminality prior to the end of the implementation period that meets the EU public policy test. Any criminality committed after the implementation period will be considered in accordance with UK deportation rules. This means that an EU citizen who, in relation to an offence committed after the end of the implementation period, is convicted and receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will be considered for deportation.

The other point raised was about people who had committed crimes decades ago being refused. As I have said, conduct before the end of the implementation period will be considered against UK deportation thresholds. We think this is a sensible approach and one that will not affect the overwhelming majority of EU citizens and their family members.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the consequences of not applying. It is important to take a pragmatic approach in respect of people whose individual circumstances have prevented them applying, an example of which might be a mental or physical health condition. Over the coming weeks, we will be discussing with stakeholders what assistance we can give to people who might require it.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also made a point about Irish citizens. As I said, they do not need to apply for settled status to protect their status and rights in the UK. However, the arrangements for existing close family members to join EU citizens resident in the UK are provided for by the withdrawal agreement and not by the UK-Ireland bilateral arrangements linked to the common travel area. Irish citizens might want to consider applying for settled status now to support future applications by family members. A successful application by an Irish citizen to the settlement scheme will make this process smoother for any family member applying in the future. However, the system will not prevent applications being made after the end of the implementation period by close family members seeking to join Irish citizens protected by the withdrawal agreement who do not have settled status.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked which family members are affected, given his own situation, which others might find themselves in. I think I answered that question earlier, so I hope that will suffice.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked who will staff the contact centre. Further details of this will be confirmed, and we will be discussing with stakeholders what the right service is and who will provide it.

Finally, the issue of landlord checks was raised. Landlord checks and the right to rent are not specific to EU or non-EU citizens; it is a requirement for all landlords to carry out such checks. Therefore, it does not matter where in the world you are from, as long as you have the right to live here.

I hope I have answered all the questions. If I have not—and there were quite a few—I will write to the noble Lords.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate]

My Lords, I was trying to ask a question of my noble friend when she answered the initial questions. As someone who has had some experience as a Minister of schemes of one kind or another where the Home Office has been involved with developing ID arrangements or helping people with passport applications and so on, I welcome the fact that something is being put in place here, but I urge her to look carefully at the logistics. Is she satisfied that enough resource is being made available for this extra duty? One of the proposals is that applicants can send their passports or ID documents to the Home Office, but I am sure she is aware that, when we are dealing with EU citizens, they tend to be much more mobile on a more regular and frequent basis, going backwards and forwards from here to Europe. Can she be sure that we will make certain that we have a better level of efficiency than, sadly, we have had in the past in turning round documents quickly and in dealing with the matter as speedily and with as little complication as possible?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend will have heard in the Statement that we will start to roll out the process in the summer and towards the end of the year. I would not call it a trial run, but the “private beta” phase—which I had never heard of before—is apparently a dry run, using real people who will get real documents. That is a good way to test how the system is working.

I also mentioned earlier the delivery of the settlement scheme and the Treasury’s allocation of £170 million for the further development and delivery of the settlement scheme. As my noble friend alluded to, we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge and we want to get it right. Every year, we process millions of visa and passport applications, but that does not undermine our wish to get it right. Our passport service has a good customer service record and I can tell my noble friend that, over the past year, the average turnaround time for passport applications was approximately seven days. I might add that the Institute of Customer Service ranks HMPO in the top 50 high-scoring organisations across the public and private sector.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that we have discussed this matter across the Floor on a number of occasions, and I am very grateful for her lucidity today. I have been arguing that, for those European Union citizens who have been successfully granted permanent right of residency, the right should be continued. As I understand it, that is what the Minister, in a rather roundabout way, has announced today. But, in view of the pressure in the Home Office, what is the logic of requiring European Union citizens who have acquired the right of permanent residency in this country to reapply—adding to the burden—for settlement? Why do we not simply grant that without them having to go through the process, as it has already been cleared by the Home Office?

I come to my last point. As the Minister knows, my main driver in this has been the National Health Service. If I am right in saying that most of those who have five years’ residency can stay in this country, will the Minister write to National Health Service trusts to point that out and to ask them to communicate it to all European Union residents who are working in the health service and are still very confused about their status?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for making that point. Permanent residency status was afforded to EU citizens when we were—as we still are—in the European Union. That will change, but their settled status will not change once we leave the EU. They will move from the status we had when we were in the EU to one that we will have when we are outside the EU—settled status—and they will not be charged for it. I know that it is not ideal and that they should automatically have it. However, that is the reason for the change.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about working with stakeholders, and I believe that the Immigration Minister’s recent meeting with the organisation the3million was, according to its website, very successful. I think we should be grateful to the3million for its forensic analysis of the position. For instance, one of its 150 detailed questions is how a stay-at-home parent—one of the examples used in the Statement—can prove his or her residence. When will the Home Office be able to give answers to all those questions, as I understand it has agreed to do? Secondly, I believe that the withdrawal agreement states that the process is to be monitored by an independent authority. Can the Minister give the House details of that? Finally, on the point about British citizens in Europe, I wonder whether she is aware that the organisation British in Europe suggests on its website today that the Home Secretary is asking the wrong questions, because the current registration systems across the EU 27 are “largely working well”, and it is only France, along with the UK, that does not require a form of registration, so our Government should be asking what is planned to tweak existing systems. British in Europe also points out that the real issue for its members is free movement, which is a huge issue for British people on the continent, as 80% of Brits in the EU 27 are of working age or younger and rely on free movement for work and to keep their family together.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. I think I addressed in the Statement the very example she gave of stay-at-home parents. As the Statement says, applicants will not need to show that they meet the detailed requirements of free movement rules, which I think was the point that the noble Baroness was making. So if you are a stay-at-home mum—to pick a stereotype—or somebody who is retired, will you have to prove free movement rights? No, you will not. That is the simple answer to that. Regarding the independent authority, I do not think it has been announced yet, although I will confirm that in writing to the noble Baroness. I am pretty sure that it has not been announced, but it will be in due course.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for arriving late for the Statement, so I may have missed something. I know that the Statement is about EU citizens here, but can the Minister say whether she will make a similar Statement on UK citizens in Europe? Given that in our many debates the principle of reciprocity has applied, will this arrangement also be reciprocal? This issue has always been treated rather separately from the other Brexit issues. The Government declared their hand very early, so there must have been a lot of reaction in Europe, even if it has not been a consistent EU reaction.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

UK citizens in Europe will, of course, be a matter for Europe. We did declare our hand very early; we had a lot of pressure in Parliament and the country to do so, and to do so in good faith, and that is what we did.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, while this Statement will obviously need a great deal of scrutiny, I certainly join with those who have welcomed it most genuinely. Together with other things that are happening, it seems to indicate that there is a long overdue and welcome change of direction in the atmosphere at the Home Office and in the role that it is trying to fulfil. That is to be encouraged. I like these words in the Statement:

“Throughout the process, we will be looking to grant, not for reasons to refuse, and caseworkers will be able to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant where appropriate, to minimise administrative burdens”.


That is the right kind of language.

As I say, we will need to look at the detail. In the meantime, will the noble Baroness agree that the Government have yet to legislate for settled status in domestic law? What legal guarantees will those who have registered for this status prior to agreement of the withdrawal agreement be given under UK law? Can she guarantee that the agreement on citizens’ rights that has been reached with the EU will be honoured even if the UK is unable to reach an acceptable deal with the EU 27 under Article 50?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord. On the legal status, when an applicant applies for settled status they will receive a digital token and a letter that says that they have obtained settled status in this country. I think that the noble Lord is asking what will future-proof that status. Is that the point he is making? I cannot look into the future to see what a future Government might do, but this Government will do as much as they can to ensure that these people are here with settled status as proof that they are legally here.

[Lord Judd]

May I just respond to the question that the noble Baroness put to me? My point is that it is not yet established in law. How soon will it happen, and can we be sure that it will happen? In the meantime, how will their status be guaranteed in law? That is the point. Perhaps I may also say that, in view of all she has been saying, I hope that the position of the vulnerable and those who do not have access to high-tech means of communication will be covered in the spirit of what has been said in the Statement.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that the noble Lord will be more satisfied with this response. It will be established in law. I cannot say what those future laws will look like under perhaps another Government because laws change, but it will be established in law.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend referred firmly to the fact that we are still in the European Union. Can she explain whether Britain will be represented at the meeting dealing with migration that is due to take place on Sunday? In particular, will Britain be arguing the case for a possible third country taking migrants before they are settled in the EU, which seems a very interesting idea? Does she have any idea which these third countries might be?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will be a third country, as my noble friend will appreciate. On the meeting on migration to be held on Sunday, I will have to write to her because I really do not know and there is no point in pretending that I do.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, today’s Statement represents a welcome step forward, but there are an awful lot of detailed questions which remain unanswered. If my memory is correct, the group the3million has produced 150 of them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, this morning I had the advantage of meeting the Home Secretary in the EU Justice Sub-committee and we drew that to his attention. Perhaps I might also make the point to the Minister. Can she ensure that those questions are gone through and answered in some detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that my right honourable friend the Minister for Immigration met with representatives of the3million group. I will inquire as to whether she is going to go through each of the 125 questions. I have to say that I do not know. I will get back to the noble Baroness or I will ask the Minister to write to her.

At this point, perhaps I might take the opportunity to revisit an answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I talked about the EU public policy test for the implementation period when he asked me about criminality and then I started to talk about UK deportation rules. I should not have talked about UK deportation rules because it will remain the EU public policy test. He may or may not have noticed that I switched tack, but I would like to clarify that now.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the most welcome phrase in the whole Statement is that officials will be looking for reasons to grant rather than reasons to refuse—that will be a tremendous change of culture for the department. I do not believe that any civil servant in the Home Office, the Border Agency or the Passport Office has ever earned a bonus in the past for issuing more visas than the quota. Can the Minister assure the House that this is going to be a genuine culture change within those agencies: otherwise, I fear that, whatever the good intentions may be at ministerial level, the outputs will look dismally like they always do on these matters? Of course, I am sure that Commonwealth family applicants will be looking for the same kind of approach by officials when their applications are considered. Perhaps she could give us some guidance on whether this culture change is going to reach to the furthest edges of the Home Office.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that it became clear, when my right honourable friend became Home Secretary, that culture change was afoot across the Home Office. He talked about a more humane approach to decision-making and about the end of the hostile environment, which would instead become a compliant environment. The wording of the Statement today was no accident. It reflects a much more positive attitude to people who make applications and tries to help them. As I say, I do not think that that is accidental and, since my right honourable friend became Home Secretary, his actions have shown that.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, how does this settlement relate to the agreement with the EU on reciprocal treatment under the NHS? My noble friend will be aware that, under the present system, HMG pay for UK citizens who require medical treatment in the EU and we are meant to be repaid for treating EU citizens here. The trouble is that for some years it has been totally out of balance. The last time I looked at the figures, HMG paid out some £500 million for the treatment of UK citizens in the EU and received only about £50 million for the treatment of EU citizens in the UK. How is that relevant to what the Prime Minister said about the Brexit dividend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What I am talking about today is not particularly related to that issue, but my noble friend is absolutely right to ask what the reciprocal arrangement will look like when we leave the EU. I do not think that the area of NHS reciprocal arrangements has yet been determined, but I shall confirm that in writing to my noble friend. I think that it will be determined in due course.

Brexit: European Union Police Databases and Extradition Arrangements

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we note Mr Barnier’s comments, but we must bear in mind that this negotiation is only just beginning. We want to ensure that citizens across Europe benefit from the strongest possible security relationship between the UK and the EU after our exit, and to avoid a security gap. Our objective in negotiations will be to secure this outcome. In our view, this can be most effectively delivered through a comprehensive new internal security treaty.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this and other matters are serious. The Government’s red lines, such as ruling out the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the CJEU, will, as Mr Barnier says, at the moment deny us access to EU databases and things such as the European arrest warrant, the security pact, which the Prime Minister has discussed, and recognition of court judgments. Given the serious nature of this and all the other issues of the negotiations, which have never been in front of this House, does the Minister agree that we should have a proper debate here on how the negotiations are going and the Government’s objectives? The debate could be on the White Paper, if it arrives on time at the beginning of July. If it is further delayed, we should nevertheless have a debate here on this range of really important issues.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have on many occasions had debates on certain elements of the issues that the noble Baroness raises. I commend your Lordships’ House for the quality of our debates on such matters. I am sure that the usual channels will, as they are wont to do, make time for such a debate. The issues that she raises are political choices. None of them are insurmountable as a legal barrier. We are not in Schengen now. We operated the EAW without CJEU jurisdiction up to 2014. The charter creates no new rights. EU citizenship matters only for those with constitutional barriers and we are already close to a solution on that in the withdrawal agreement, but I fully support her request for a debate.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, Michel Barnier said in his speech:

“To negotiate an ambitious new relationship with the UK, which we all want, we need more realism on what is possible and what is not when a country is outside the EU’s area of justice, freedom and security”.


Would the noble Baroness agree that we need much more realism on both sides, on the British side and on the European Union side, if the negotiations, which matter so greatly to the security of all our people, are to succeed? I was also greatly alarmed to hear that these negotiations have “only just” begun.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, these are political choices that will be decided in the course of the negotiations. I think that both sides will be realistic in the final analysis and in what is ultimately agreed. I have full confidence in that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the European arrest warrant, as Mr Barnier said yesterday, is based on trust underpinned by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the concept of EU citizenship and free movement. As the Government have rejected all these foundations, how do they expect to retain access to the European arrest warrant after we have left the EU?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As to the European arrest warrant and other matters, as I said to the other two noble Lords, these are political choices. What we have in the EAW and other matters, such as ECRIS and SIS II, is strong co-operation between us and our European Union partners. I know the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that the most important thing when we leave the European Union is that we have a safe Europe in which our citizens can live.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whatever Monsieur Barnier may say on this matter, the heads of security and intelligence in the other member countries of the European Union will make absolutely sure that we preserve our relationship? Am I right in saying that, at the moment, we extradite five times as many people to them at their request—criminals and people they wish to charge, including terrorists—as we request they extradite to us? The interests of security are quite clear, whatever Monsieur Barnier might say. He made a speech to the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The most fundamental fundamental right is the right to life, which is what the security agencies are there to protect.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes that point very articulately, and he is absolutely right on extradition—I am sure that he is. It is in everybody’s interest that we preserve that national security relationship. The UK has played its part in the huge move, in the past 12 months to two years, to help European countries when they have faced difficulties through terrorist attacks. Our police have been at the forefront of some of the aid that we have given to our European partners. It would be a detrimental move for there not to be co-operation between the UK and our European partners once we leave the European Union. Life, as my noble friend says, is the most important thing here.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, is not the key consideration in these negotiations that there is a mutuality of interest between ourselves and our EU partners in the field of security? Monsieur Barnier must surely recognise that we have very much to offer, as was shown recently by the remarks of the director of GCHQ.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have a mutuality of interest, as my noble friend has just pointed out—and, as I have said, it would be inconceivable that some of the work that we have done in co-operation with our European partners, which has been of mutual multilateral interest throughout the EU 27, would be lost in our exit from the EU.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is absolutely true that it is in everybody’s interest to have security co-operation. However, when the Minister says that it is just a question of political choices, that is complacent and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, unrealistic. There are legal constraints governing that co-operation. If you are going to have mutual recognition of judicial decisions, you have to have a common legal framework and a common jurisdiction. Nothing else is going to pass the European Parliament, I can be absolutely certain.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that what is at the forefront of the European Parliament at this point in time—and I am talking about the politicians, not the bureaucrats—is the sometimes fragile security situation that we have had in Europe over the last two years. I will come on to the legal point. None of the things that we have talked about today are insurmountable. I am not arguing against a legal framework, but none of the issues are insurmountable legally.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blunkett]

My Lords, I was Home Secretary when we entered the European arrest warrant as part of the negotiation at the time. I reinforce the points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, and my noble friend Lord Anderson. But I make a little offer. It is entirely right that we have to persuade Michel Barnier and others that it is in everyone’s mutual interest to retain our facility and access to the EAW, but in 2014 many of us had a real task in persuading the coalition Government, I think probably because of the Liberal Democrats, that remaining in or re-entering—because we had the opt-out—the EAW was essential. I offer my heartfelt skill in negotiating with Michel Barnier, as we had to do with the coalition Government.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I finish by thanking the noble Lord for his point.

Drugs Licensing

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place today. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the medical use of cannabis.

Over the weekend I issued an emergency licence to allow Billy Caldwell’s medical team to access cannabis-based medicine to treat life-threatening seizures caused by a severe form of epilepsy. This was an emergency procedure that was led by a senior clinician with the support of the medical director at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. I am pleased to say that Billy has now been discharged from hospital. It is now for his senior clinicians to develop a long-term care plan.

I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing my sympathy for Billy and his family, who have been going through a very difficult time. The course of action in this case was unprecedented. There is strong scientific evidence that cannabis is a drug which can harm people’s mental and physical health and damage communities. There are currently no legally recognised medicinal or therapeutic benefits. To date, under successive Governments, Home Office policy has been to permit the production, supply and possession of raw cannabis solely for research purposes under a Home Office licence. The cannabis-based medicine Sativex can, however, be prescribed in the UK because there is a proven case for its safety and efficacy.

However, cases like Billy’s, Alfie Dingley’s and others like them have shown that we need to look more closely at the use of cannabis-based medicine in healthcare in the UK, because it has become clear to me since becoming Home Secretary that the position we find ourselves in currently is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory for the parents, it is not satisfactory for the doctors and it is not satisfactory for me.

I have now come to the conclusion that this is the right time to review the scheduling of cannabis. Before I go into the detail of the review, let me be absolutely clear that this step is in no way the first step in the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. The Government have absolutely no plans to legalise cannabis, and the penalties for unauthorised supply and possession will remain unchanged. We will not set a dangerous precedent or weaken our ability to keep dangerous drugs off the streets.

The approach that we will be asking the review to consider would be no different from that being used for other controlled drugs where there is evidence of medicinal benefits. The government review will take place in two parts. Part 1 of the commission will consider the evidence available for the medicinal and therapeutic benefits of cannabis-based medicines. Professor Sally Davies, who also serves as the Chief Medical Officer, will take this part forward. This will then inform exactly which forms of cannabis or cannabis-based medicines should be taken forward to Part 2.

Part 2 will be led by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The ACMD will not reassess the evidence issued by Professor Sally Davies but will provide an assessment, based on the balance of harms and public health needs, of what, if anything, should be rescheduled. If the review identifies that there are significant medical benefits, we will reschedule. We have seen in recent months that there is a pressing need to allow those who might benefit from cannabis-based products to access them. It will take time for Professor Sally Davies and the ACMD to complete their work and for the Government to consider their recommendations.

In the short term, the Policing Minister announced yesterday that the Government will be establishing an expert panel of clinicians to advise Ministers on any applications to prescribe cannabis-based medicines. This is intended to ensure that advice to Ministers on licensing in these cases is clinically led, is based firmly on medical evidence and is as swift as possible. The Chief Medical Officers across the UK have been actively working together, and the expert panel will be able to start considering applications within a week.

Earlier today, the Policing Minister also spoke to Alfie Dingley’s mum, Hannah Deacon, and informed her that we will issue a licence for Alfie today. All the work I have outlined today is about making sure that we keep in step with the latest scientific evidence and that patients and their families have access to the most appropriate course of medical treatment. I pay tribute to the Policing Minister for all his excellent and sustained work on this important issue.

As a father, I know that there is nothing worse than seeing your child suffer. You would do anything to take away their pain. That is why I have the utmost sympathy for Billy Caldwell, Alfie Dingley and others like them, and for their parents, who have been under unimaginable stress and strain. I know that they are following a gut parental instinct to do whatever is in their power to try to alleviate their child’s suffering. Today I would like to say to this House that I will do everything in my power to make sure that we have a system that works so that these children and these parents get access to the best medical treatment. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and thank the Minister for making it. I thank her also for her efforts in this cause and those of her noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is in his place. I welcome the fact that Professor Sally Davies will now review the mountain of evidence for the medicinal and therapeutic benefit of cannabis-based medicines. She will undoubtedly find that the fact that there are no legally recognised benefits is quite wrong and must change. By what means will Professor Davies hear evidence from the many patients who already know about the benefits? Their doctors know the benefits, too. If she does not already, I am quite sure that Professor Davies will soon know them as well.

I also welcome the fact that the Government will reschedule cannabis when Professor Davies demonstrates those benefits. It should never have been scheduled as a drug without any medical benefits in the first place. Can the Minister estimate how long this process will take, as thousands of patients await the outcome in pain and discomfort?

While we wait for this to be done, it is very welcome that the Government have set up an expert panel to advise Ministers on any applications to prescribe cannabis medicines. It is outrageous that the Dingley family’s heroic doctors should have been put through the wringer by the inappropriate processes which the Home Office has imposed on them during the past four months.

I cannot say how delighted I am that Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell will get their medicines at last. However, it should not have taken four months since the Prime Minister promised Alfie’s mother, Hannah Deacon, when she visited No. 10 with me and a group of Peers and MPs, that her son would get a licence for his cannabis medicines on compassionate grounds and speedily. During that four-month period Home Office officials were trying, mistakenly, to operate a system for licensing which was not intended for such cases but was intended for normal clinical trials. It became clear very quickly that the system they were trying to use was not fit for purpose, yet they persisted. I would like to be assured that a system that is fit for purpose will be put in place. Will the Minister give me that assurance? It should not have taken a child, Billy Caldwell, being put in a life-threatening situation for the Government to take this action but I am delighted that they now have.

During the campaign I have been convinced of the Minister’s good faith in this matter but, frankly, although she is always welcome in her place, it should be a Health Minister standing there at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, in his place listening to this debate. Drug licensing is a health matter, not a Home Office matter and clearly the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care agrees with that, so how will the Department of Health and Social Care be involved in the new arrangements outlined in the Statement and those that will inevitably follow?

Yesterday the Prime Minister said a system is already in place for the medicinal use of cannabis and that government policy would be driven by “what clinicians are saying”. The system has failed thousands of patients, but it is good news that the Government are now trying to put that right, and I thank the Minister for that. Can she say whether expert evidence from countries such as the Netherlands, where cannabis medicines have been safely used for some time, will be heard during the review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I did not do it yesterday, but I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, back to his place. It is such a pleasure to be debating with him. The first question he asked me was about whether we are doing this on the hoof given the Alfie Dingley case. We are not. One of the noble Lord’s further questions was about why it took so long between Alfie Dingley’s family coming forward and him being issued with a licence today. That is because the correct process was followed. Noble Lords would expect the correct process to be followed. The reverse of this is that a child gets given the wrong drug and becomes very ill. The correct process was followed here. The Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care have worked extensively together over the past three months to ensure that Alfie has been well cared for, and the licence for his drugs was issued today.

The noble Lord asked how many people would be on the panel. I cannot say. It was announced today, and numbers and people will be announced in the coming week. He asked about the criteria the panel will use for who will be issued with drugs. I assume that there will be clinical experts on the panel and that they will base their criteria on their clinical judgment of the benefits.

On stuff being confiscated, I hope that people do not present at the border with drugs that are not yet licensed, and will come forward to the panel for consideration and for drugs to be issued if that is appropriate. The noble Lord asked how long the review will take. Cannabis is a very complex substance, as noble Lords probably know. It will be a complex review, but the Home Secretary expects an interim report to him within three months.

The noble Lord asked about the expert panel and the advice that it will give. Again, the proper process will be followed. It will be a scientific process with clinical judgment at its heart. He also made the Private Eye point about the UK being the largest producer of cannabis. I do not think that the Government are saying that there are no benefits to be had from cannabis; they are saying that cannabis as a whole plant is currently classified as a Schedule 1 drug, as we have discussed previously. However, as we have seen, constituent parts of it have huge benefits, particularly in the areas of MS and, now, epilepsy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked for details of the review. We are working through those. I certainly know, because my noble friend has just told me, that Sally Davies will be carrying out a literature review. There are findings from across the world. Much work has been done on this and that will be very informative.

The noble Baroness also made the point about the Dingley family being put through the wringer. Again, it was important that the proper process was followed, and it was. A licence application needed to be made. It was made and I am very pleased to say that Alfie Dingley’s licence was issued today. She asked for an assurance that a system fit for purpose will be put in place. The answer to that is firmly yes: the system has to have longevity. This has been a very big and important step for the Government today.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has listened sympathetically to representations in this area in the past, and that has been much appreciated. Does she accept that the issue of cannabis-based medication for children with severe epilepsy, which has aroused intense sympathy and concern on the part of the public, should be part of a wider review? Does she agree that that review should look at the substantial body of existing evidence that cannabis-based medication might have significant and, in some cases, unique benefits for people suffering from cancer, multiple sclerosis, Tourette’s syndrome, chronic severe pain and other distressing conditions?

Will the noble Baroness recognise that the Government’s position on rescheduling that she has described creates something of a Catch-22 situation? The categorisation of cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug of no medicinal value has, in the past, proved to be a considerable impediment to the advancement of research. Therefore, will the Government straightaway reschedule cannabis to Schedule 4 in order to unblock the barrier to research? May we take it that the involvement of Professor Dame Sally Davies that she described is indeed the prelude to the transfer of lead responsibility from the Home Office to the Department of Health?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Of course, Sally Davies will be advising on the review. The scheduling of cannabis will be looked at with a fresh pair of eyes, being mindful of the international research on this subject. In talking about the benefits of cannabis-based medication for epilepsy and multiple sclerosis and as pain relief in some forms of terminal illness, the noble Lord has precisely laid out the point of the review. It will look at all the benefits to be gained in all areas of medical consideration, but it will be clinically and scientifically led. As I said, I think that today the Home Secretary has prompted a first in the consideration of cannabis and its medical benefits.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take odds with my noble friend Lord Rosser on the Front Bench because there are times occasionally when members of the Opposition should congratulate the Government on what they are doing. This is a good decision which is urgently needed. To be fair to the Government, 20 years ago I chaired the Science and Technology Select Committee when we had an inquiry into the medicinal purposes of cannabis and, before our report was even published, the then Home Secretary in a Labour Government refused to take any notice of what we had said and published his comments in the newspapers. So we are making progress here.

It is good to see that the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, is also on the Front Bench with the Minister because this is an important issue which the Department of Health should also consider. I am glad that there is joined-up government in this consideration.

Given my experience from that committee, it might be worth while looking at our original report, which is still relevant. The people that we saw again and again who were suffering from these terrible conditions were absolutely clear that they did not want to get high. They were all suffering from spasms and other problems and wanted relief of their serious symptoms. That can be regulated through the medical profession because, after all, sensible medical practitioners have access to all kinds of drugs which, if used wrongly, are dangerous.

I hope the Government will continue with their plans and that the review will not take an age to complete.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his words of congratulation. The history that he tells is interesting. Successive Governments have not done this and today is an historic day in the advancement of a substance that may prove to have huge benefits for all kinds of conditions. I worked with sufferers of multiple sclerosis for 10 years and the use of cannabis-derived products—and now Sativex—helped to ameliorate some of their spasms. They did not want to get high; they just wanted to stop the spasms that happened day and night.

I recommend that we look at the original report because I bet there will be a bit of déjà vu when we do. I thank the noble Lord for his comments and his sound advice.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it would be appropriate to draw a parallel with opium. The fact is that heroin—a derivative of opium—is a dangerous and addictive illegal drug, whereas morphine has a medical use derived from opium. Here we are talking about the medical derivatives of cannabis—which it would be helpful to move to a different schedule—and not about the legalisation of recreational use.

The Statement says that there are currently no legally recognised medicinal or therapeutic benefits, but it also says that the Home Secretary has issued an emergency licence to allow Billy Caldwell’s medical team to access cannabis based on medicine to treat life-threatening seizures caused by a severe form of epilepsy. As a consequence, Billy has now been discharged from hospital. Can the Minister explain why the clear medicinal and therapeutic benefits of cannabis are not legally recognised?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord underlines precisely why we are where we are today. Clearly, for those two little boys it has had obvious benefits and—once the doctors and the clinicians who are treating them are satisfied that those benefits of the cannabis-based medicine are real and that without them they would go back to their previous suffering—that entirely underlines why this review is well worth doing.

The noble Lord is right to make the point about opium, which of course is schedule 2—which states that it has medical benefits—but is class A in terms of control. Cannabis is schedule 1 but class B. He is also right that this review is well overdue and I look forward to some of the work that will be done over the coming months. It will take time because cannabis is a complex drug and it is important that the proper process is followed and sound clinical judgments are arrived at.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and having taken a little advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can I ask the Minister whether the Government will review not only the schedule but also the regulations to ensure quality standards so as to set out the conditions for which prescriptions should be made available? Does she recognise that if cannabis is widely prescribed, it could save the NHS billions of pounds? Will she also look at the report on this subject prepared for the APPG by Professor Michael Barnes which collates a great deal of evidence on this topic?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend has read out the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, very well. I knew that there was mischief going on behind me. The answer to those questions is yes.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I feel that we should certainly put on the record our appreciation of the steps the Government are taking. I declare an interest in this because for some time my daughter and her partner worked with drug addicts. They would never leave me in peace on the issue of how soon we could move to an understanding in our society that drugs are primarily a health issue, not a crime issue. They used to berate me about the amount of resources used for anti-criminal activity and how they could have been deployed so effectively in positive work, not least education in and around the subject.

I should like also to put on the record our deep appreciation of the courage of the parents and families who are standing by these two boys, but I hope that we are now beginning a process which will have its own self-generating logic within it so that we can reach a more enlightened and effective—that is the important word—policy on drugs and their use in medical treatment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said today, this is not about the recreational use of cannabis. This is entirely about making medicines available to very sick children as well as adults, should they need them. We are not going into the pros and cons of the recreational use of drugs because this is an entirely separate matter. I take on board what the noble Lord has said, but I think he will appreciate that I will not go there today.

Home Office: Immigration

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve performance on immigration matters by the Home Office.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary has publicly stated that he is committed to a fair and humane immigration system. Although the latest published data shows that the immigration system is meeting published service standards on the majority of high-volume routes and at the border, we are continually seeking to improve our performance. We are reviewing the operational assurance regime across the immigration system to ensure that it is effective and reflects best practice.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

Is the Minister not ashamed that three young Eritrean men in their late teens who came to the UK committed suicide because of our immigration procedures? Is she not ashamed that 40% of immigration decisions made by the Home Office are overturned on appeal? Is it not time that this was looked at, possibly by an outside agency independent of government, to overhaul the procedures and bring us an immigration system that is fit for purpose?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The case raised by the noble Lord is obviously very sad, but he will understand that I cannot comment on individual cases, other than by saying that 94% of straightforward asylum claims are processed within service standards. However, we are committed to reaching asylum decisions as quickly as we can, while ensuring that those often complex cases are given proper consideration. He talked about appeals, and I do not disagree with him: we wish that the appeals rate was better. However, I am sure he understands that quite often information is brought at the last minute which enables an appeal to be granted.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given the support last week from around the House during the debate on a Motion on this, what steps are the Government now taking to ensure that no child who belongs in this country is dragged into the immigration control system because they cannot afford the fee to register their entitlement to citizenship, which the Home Secretary himself described as “huge”?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I half expected to see the noble Baroness at the debate last week, but I know her absolute commitment to this. The Home Secretary has made it very clear that there will be a far more humane system in the Home Office. I know that children who come here and who are under local authority care are treated as they would be if they were citizens of this country. There is complexity in this, obviously, and when a child turns 17 and a half, their case has to be looked at again. However, I cannot give her any further update on fees for children.

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased that the Home Office has made efforts to improve its performance in assessing claims for asylum based on religious persecution by developing a dedicated training model with the help of the APPG for International Freedom of Religion and Belief and the asylum advocacy group. To ensure that this knowledge is integrated into departmental work, will my noble friend include this training in the compulsory foundation training course provided to all Home Office caseworkers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On a number of occasions over the past couple of weeks, I have described the types of decision-making in UKVI that we are seeking to improve. That includes improving the training and mentoring programmes for new caseworkers, as well as the wider assurance process, which my noble friend would expect us to do. The assurance process follows the three lines of defence and at each stage of an assessment there is scrutiny of the effectiveness of the decision-making process.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, last week’s announcement of the changes in the tier 2 visa regime for NHS staff was urgently necessary and much appreciated. Will the Minister now look at some of the bureaucratic processes of the Home Office which are still causing problems, particularly for general practitioners already working in this country, and providing valuable services to patients, when their continued service is at risk? Will she also take the opportunity to confirm that the Department of Health and the NHS have a clear code of conduct on international recruitment to prevent unethical recruitment from developing countries, a concern which has been raised in the House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In and of itself, the fact that doctors and nurses have been taken out of the cap will improve the bureaucratic processes and help decisions to be made more quickly. As to those doctors and nurses who are not in the occupation shortage list, the sponsor still has to go through the resident labour market test. I expect this to go more smoothly and to free up the numbers within the cap for other occupations.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In response to a question from my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford about tier 2 visas and recruiting medical professionals from overseas, the Government said:

“It is appropriate to take doctors only from countries that have their own very effective medical systems. To take them from third-world and developing countries is not acceptable”.—[Official Report, 12/6/18; col. 1575.]


That reply indicates there must be a government list of some sort of both third-world and developing countries from which it is deemed not acceptable to take doctors. There will be interest in which nations are included in the list of developing countries, in particular, from which it is considered not acceptable by the Government to take doctors; and, not least, how many and which countries from the Indian subcontinent are on that government list. Can the Minister make sure that the government list in question—in whatever form it exists and to which reference on this issue was made by the Government last week—is made available to Members of this House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can answer the question about doctors from India because we issue a huge number of visas to them. As to recruitment from third-world countries—I did not answer the question from my noble friend Lord Cormack—rather than guess at it I shall get back to the noble Lord on those countries, although I suspect that there is not such a list.

Immigration: Hostile Environment

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I am mindful that in five minutes this House will participate in a minute’s silence. I therefore seek the Minister’s advice as to whether I should start my speech or wait until the five minutes has elapsed and the minute’s silence is observed.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

Given that the noble Lord has addressed the question to me, I would be very happy if he would like to start his speech and resume it afterwards. It is entirely up to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for securing this debate, and all those who have spoken for their varied and interesting contributions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for his particularly thoughtful contribution, and pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris—our very own Windrush Member of your Lordships’ House.

It is true to say that the work of the Home Office is vast. Millions of visa, citizenship and settlement applications are granted every year, and thousands of people are provided with international protection thanks to the decisions of Home Office case workers. However, as the Home Secretary has made very clear—a number of noble Lords have alluded to this—as well as having a fair and humane immigration system, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just mentioned, we need one that clearly distinguishes between those who are here legally and those who are here illegally, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, very articulately pointed out. It is important to recall that successive Governments have put in place controls to deter illegal migration and protect public services.

It remains the case that the public expect us to enforce immigration laws approved by Parliament as a matter of fairness to those who abide by the rules. A recent YouGov poll showed that 71% of the public support our policy of requiring people to show documents to prove their entitlement to be here, work, rent a flat or access services and benefits. These measures have been introduced over many years. The first NHS charges for overseas visitors were introduced in 1982. The right-to-work checks were introduced in 1987, not 2014 as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 introduced restrictions on accessing benefits, social housing and social services. To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, we have to clamp down on people who are here illegally.

Key elements of the compliant environment policy were put in place by the Opposition when in office, and it was during that time that the policy was described by Ministers as a hostile environment against illegal immigration. I am happy to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Parekh: that is when it started. I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that Alan Johnson used the term “hostile environment” and that the term was used by the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas in 2010 in his strategy paper on immigration, following a similar strategy paper in 2005. So the term has been used, and noble Lords have made the point that we can all go back and blame various different people for it, but the current Home Secretary has made clear that it is a term that he does not want to use and that the term “compliant environment” better reflects our values as a country, ensuring that fair rules are properly upheld.

More recently, measures to prevent illegal migrants from accessing the private rented sector have been introduced to bring consistency with well-established controls on accessing social housing. Further controls on access to bank accounts and driving licences introduced in the 2014 and 2016 Acts carry on this trend. In relation to access to employment, which is one of the key draws for illegal immigration, employers have had a duty to prevent illegal working, as I have said, since 1997. Since 2008 this requirement has been underpinned by civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliant employers, which were introduced by the Opposition. If an employer is found to have employed someone illegally and they are unable to demonstrate that they have carried out the prescribed check, they may be liable to a civil penalty. There is a sliding scale of penalties and the maximum is currently £20,000 per illegal worker.

Employers comply with the law by undertaking a simple right-to-work check on new employees and repeat checks on those with time-limited status. This is a face-value check of an original document set out in secondary legislation as being acceptable for this purpose. Employers need to contact the Home Office only in certain specified circumstances, including when a potential employee has an outstanding immigration application or appeal, during which time they may be entitled to work. Employers can also contact us if they believe that someone has the right to work but does not have the necessary documents to evidence that right. Retrospective checks on people who were employed before checks were introduced are not required.

In setting the list of documents that individuals may provide to demonstrate their right to work, we have prescribed documents that most lawful residents already have or are able to obtain at minimum cost. For example, UK citizens may use their UK passport or alternatively their national insurance number in combination with their long birth or adoption certificate. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but I understand her point about the Irish question. The Home Office provides guidance for employers, an interactive tool on checking a right to work and an employer checking service for employers who are unsure whether a potential employee has the right to work. The statutory code of practice makes it clear that employers should conduct checks on all prospective employees, not just those whom they believe may not have the right to work in the UK.

Several “compliant environment” measures have been the subject of public consultations, impact assessments and policy equality statements prior to introduction. Noble Lords will be aware that the Immigration Act 2014 also introduced the right-to-rent scheme, which noble Lords have referred to today. Engagement with the sector, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Equality Commission and housing charities had a major impact during the design of that legislation. As a result of that engagement, we incorporated exemptions for accommodation occupied by vulnerable groups and enabled individuals to demonstrate their right to rent using a broad range of commonly available documents without a passport or photo identification.

The scheme was extended to cover the whole of England in February 2016, after an evaluation of its operation in the West Midlands found no evidence of discrimination arising, no impacts on levels of homelessness, no further barriers to people with little formal documentation accessing the sector and no impacts on the availability or costs of let accommodation—to answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that was posed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The evaluation also found that, where landlords engaged with the checks required, they found them to be straightforward and easy to operate. Landlords are not asked to be immigration or forgery experts, contrary to the assertions by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The checks do not require all tenants to have passports or immigration papers.

For example, a check can be satisfied by presenting a letter from a charity involved in the access to the private rental scheme and a letter from a professional who can confirm that they have personally known the holder for at least three months. The scheme was modelled on the checks that many landlords have been carrying out themselves to establish the credentials of prospective tenants—for example, credit checks, which have been taking place for many years and which, for obvious reasons, landlords carry out diligently.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me about immigration bail and the issue of study. As she acknowledged, I answered her very clearly on this point and I hope that she is satisfied with that. The case still stands as to what she asked me last week.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The problem is that in practice, practitioners are finding that it does not.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was about to go on to say that the Home Office is performing a check to ensure that no one is having study restrictions placed on them inappropriately. I hope that she is satisfied by that.

The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report on the right to rent. We welcome that report. It made four recommendations, and noble Lords referred to recommendation 3 on the consultative panel. It will be reconvened and we will ask the noble Lord, Lord Best, to continue to co-chair it. Somewhere in my pile of documents, I have the make-up of the panel. It will be co-chaired by the Immigration Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Best, as I said. It will be made up of Crisis, Shelter, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, bodies representing landlords, agents and local authorities—those people with housing expertise.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving way; it is very kind. We have raised this point before, but why are the Government not going with the right to rent committee? Instead, they have come back with the previous committee and are not going to include the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants or the anti-slavery commissioner. They would be important to include for their expertise.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Given that the noble Lord worked through the housing Bill with me, I hope that he would agree that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is a very experienced member of your Lordships house in the area of housing. Having the Immigration Minister co-chairing, as he asked, will lend great credence to the panel. I am sure he would agree that the bodies I mentioned are the type that we would want represented on the panel to ensure its housing expertise. I pay tribute to the groups that he mentioned, but they are not necessarily in and of themselves housing experts, although they have expertise in the area of immigration and slavery.

I must now turn to the Windrush generation, because I want to spend some time on that. I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and all those from the Windrush generation who came here quite legally to help to rebuild this country after the war. The Government, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have all said that the Government deeply regret what has happened and have made it a key priority to resolve the problems that have arisen and to ensure that it does not happen again. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to his friend and all that he achieved in his life.

The Home Secretary has commissioned an independent lessons learned review, which will look at how members of the Windrush generation came to be entangled in measures designed for illegal immigrants, why it was not spotted sooner—this has been going on for decades; it is not a new thing—and why the right corrective measures will now be put in place. The review will take into account the experiences of those involved and wider reflections on Home Office culture as a whole. We have established the Windrush Scheme task force, which is working with members of the Windrush generation to resolve their status and ensure that they obtain the documents they need to evidence it.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary also issued a call for evidence to inform consultation on a compensation scheme for members of the Windrush generation who have been wrongfully impacted by immigration measures. That call for evidence closed last Friday and we are currently analysing the responses. Simultaneously, we have strengthened the checking services provided to employers, landlords and public service providers to ensure that we are not denying work, housing, benefits or services to those who are here lawfully. We will be providing regular updates to the Home Affairs Committee on the progress of that work. Our focus now is on putting right what was so wrong in the past.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me for an update on Windrush figures. As of 10 June, the task force has received 20,145 calls. It has referred 5,750 for call-backs and completed 5,740 call-backs and issued 1,651 documents.

We owe it to the public to ensure that we maintain effective controls on immigration and have measures in place to protect taxpayer-funded services. The compliant environment forms an important part of those measures.

The noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Taverne, asked about tier 2 visas and for an update on NHS workers and doctors. As they will know, because it has been widely reported in the media this morning, the Home Secretary is currently reviewing that and he will make an announcement on it very shortly. I will be able to say more after the announcement, so I hope that the noble Lords will bear with me.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, talked about a specific case. He will understand that I will not discuss it on the Floor of the House, but I will write to him about it. He also talked about HMRC and people being refused resettlement on the basis of their tax returns. This is not about people making minor tax errors. We are now able to check what applicants told us in the past about their self-employment and compare it to what they have told HMRC for the same period. There is a clear pattern of abuse where, more often than not, the self-employed earnings used to claim points in the tier 1 application have been £10,000 higher than the self-employed earnings reported to HMRC. Where employment circumstances do not add up and applicants claim to have been working in a full-time low-paid manual job while simultaneously earning very high amounts from self-employed work for which the evidence is weak, we must consider paragraph 322(5), to which the noble Lord referred, and refuse the application where the evidence shows that the individual has not played by the rules and their character and conduct is such that they should not be granted settlement in the UK.

Before the noble Lord intervenes on me, I will make just one more point, because he then may not need to intervene. I will write to him on the case he raised separately and in no way am I saying that what I am outlining is anything to do with that case.

[Lord Taverne]

Will the Minister deal with the point that paragraph 322(5), which is concerned with terrorists, is used in connection with mis-statements in tax returns?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will write the noble Lord on that when I write him on the specific case, if that is okay by him, because I am rapidly running out of time and I want to get through points that other noble Lords made.

The noble Lord, Lord Morris, talked about reduced numbers of staff. The work of the immigration system is vast, as noble Lords will appreciate. Every year, we make more than 3 million decisions on visas and have 250 million people crossing our borders. We are not complacent about this. The immigration system is constantly and continually improving, such as with ePassport gates.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made a very important point about identity assurance. I particularly draw to noble Lords’ attention, as she did, the issue of EU citizens when we leave the EU. That is why we have put in place measures to ensure a very clear process, so that what happened with Windrush will not in future years happen to EU citizens. So all EU citizens who are here lawfully when the UK exits the EU will have the opportunity to regularise their status to remain in the country by applying for settled status. On identity assurance, we have operated a new scheme for settled status from scratch. So the application system will be simplified, user-friendly, and it will draw on existing government data to minimise the burden on applicants.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will run out of time; I am pretty much out of time.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve]

Will the noble Baroness answer the Irish citizens’ question? It is quite different from that for EU citizens in general because of the common travel area legislation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I shall write to the noble Baroness on that, as I know it is completely different.

On the point about limbo, asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jones—and before the clock gets to “21”—when an application is made during the period of extant leave, leave is extended by statute until the application is determined. Where the right to rent or work checks are required, the Home Office can confirm entitlement to an employer or a landlord.

I have run out of time. I am terribly sorry.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I can give the Minister some clarification. The debate started at 11.39 am, and as it is a three-hour debate, there are 20 more minutes left.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I noted from the guidance that I had 20 minutes to speak; in fact Ministers rarely get more than 20 minutes to wind up, but I will continue if the House does not object.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also asked about visa performance. Obviously he knows I cannot comment on an individual case, but the majority of UKVI decisions are made within the established service standards. In complicated cases it can take longer, and if so, we write to advise when a decision is likely. The noble Lord will no doubt tell me that he knows of cases where we have not written in a timely fashion. We have introduced a range of measures since 2010 to improve the quality of decision-making in UKVI, including training and mentoring programmes for new caseworkers, as well as wide quality-assurance processes. He also raised the issue of the health surcharge. Applications for indefinite leave to remain are not required to pay the health surcharge.

The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made the point that Home Office staff should have training in race relations. There is mandatory training for Home Office staff on race relations and discrimination—and unconscious bias, for that matter. It is mandated by the Cabinet Office for all civil servants and is a core element of the Civil Service code. The noble Baroness also made a point about stopping illegal migrants coming to the UK. They are not just people coming to the UK without permission, but those who remain unlawfully when their leave expires. It is worth mentioning that people here illegally are some of the most vulnerable people in the country. They are not protected as UK taxpayers but are vulnerable to people traffickers, and endure some of the less savoury elements of exploitation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about victims of crime. There is no obligation for the police to report victims of crime to immigration authorities but they have the power to do so, and we are working closely with the police to ensure that victims of trafficking are supported. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about statistics on illegal migrants. He will know that by their very nature, it is very difficult to produce statistics on illegal migrants.

I thank all noble lords who have taken part in the debate.

Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for securing this debate and for his and others’ very human and humane contributions to it. I will say at the outset that I am very proud of the long-standing tradition that we have in the UK of offering protection and shelter to those who are most in need. The contribution that the UK makes to the needs of refugees, both in the region and here in the UK, is recognised across the world, and in particular by UNHCR. But it is absolutely right that we take time to reflect on what we have collectively achieved over the last few years and also to learn lessons for the future, as noble Lords have said. This report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration is a helpful part of that process, and it is good that the issues are aired.

Before I turn to the report, it might be helpful if I take some minutes to set out the context. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme is one of four resettlement schemes operated by the Home Office. These resettlement schemes offer a safe and legal route to the UK for the most vulnerable refugees. The scheme was launched, as noble Lords know, in 2014 and has helped those in the greatest need, including people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk—as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, says, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. He touched at one point on LGBTI refugees who, in many cases, must be in one of the worst situations of all. We need to be very sensitive in our treatment of them, particularly, as the noble Lord said, given the part of the world from which they are fleeing. I know that UNHCR has undertaken particular efforts to ensure that LGBTI individuals are able to register and, in addition to sensitising and training staff on LGBTI issues. UNCHR works closely with partner NGOs supporting the LGBTI community in the region to facilitate registration, to ensure access to services and to explore available durable solutions, which may include consideration for resettlement. The NGOs are thus able to refer such cases to UNHCR where particular protection concern exists.

In September 2015, as noble Lords know, the then Prime Minister announced that the scheme would be expanded to resettle 20,000 Syrians in need of protection by 2020. In July 2017, the Government took the further decision to extend the scope of the scheme to include refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria but do not have Syrian nationality. The department works closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—UNHCR—which is uniquely placed to identify those living in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities who would benefit most from settlement in the UK. Although the UK has been resettling refugees since 2004, the announcement that we would resettle 20,000 people fleeing the conflict in Syria within five years represented a considerable increase in the scale of our resettlement programme. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, with over 1,000 refugees resettled within the first three months, and over 11,000 refugees resettled by March 2018, this upscale is a significant achievement. Noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, acknowledged this.

On the report, the Government are pleased that the inspector, too, recognised the considerable achievements of the scheme. The Government welcome the recognition that the processes on which the scheme relies are essentially effective and that there is every reason to believe that it will achieve its target by the deadline. Furthermore, the Government welcome the finding that the flexibility in allowing local authorities to decide how best to spend the funding provided for each refugee—that goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—has enabled some to participate in the scheme who may not otherwise have been able to do so.

In responding to the publication of the report the UNHCR said that it has been impressed with the UK’s ability to scale up its VPRS programme significantly and swiftly, co-ordinating closely with it. It went on to say that the UK programme is flexible and that the UK receives some of the most vulnerable refugees. The VPRS and the UK’s other resettlement programmes allow UNHCR to address serious refugee protection needs. The VPRS makes the UK one of the world’s largest resettlement states, and it is taking a leading role in promoting resettlement.

However, we are not complacent and recognise the need to keep improving to ensure that the scheme continues to work well. A comprehensive evaluation of the scheme is under way, and the department continues to engage with key stakeholders and delivery partners. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will acknowledge the lack of defensiveness in that statement, but it is important that we continue to challenge ourselves and our own policy.

On the human point, which many noble Lords made, including the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Kennedy, the new Home Secretary made that point quite clear, saying that the Home Office deals with individuals, day in and day out. These are people; they are human. The noble Lord posed the question of what a good system looks like. In the Home Office it is when people feel as if they have been treated as human beings, efficiently and effectively, and feel that a fair process has been undertaken throughout.

The chief inspector made seven recommendations as part of the report. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, helpfully went through each one of them, and I shall do so in turn for his benefit and that of other noble Lords, and will try to respond to each. The report recommended that the Home Office review the scheme’s staffing, ensuring that roles are clearly defined and set at the correct grade and that staff receive training that enables at least some of them to be deployed flexibly, as required. The department believes that roles in the team are set at the correct grade and it has already deployed staff flexibly within the team. The activities of certain roles will be reviewed in terms of case sign-off and categorisation when staffing levels allow. Any changes in process or responsibilities will be reliant on securing the necessary changes to IT systems. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, challenged me on what those changes mean. I will have to write to him on that. I asked the Box, and it has just occurred to me that I have not given a full answer.

The report recommended that the Home Office ensure that the data required to support the efficient and effective management of each stage of the resettlement process is defined, captured, shared and processed or analysed, and the results shared with all relevant parties. The department has a suite of internal management information and progress reports to enable the effective management of the VPRS, and is working to develop new digital tools to enhance automation and increase efficiency of casework, allocations and arrivals processes. That might be the IT changes; I shall confirm it. The collated management information is shared appropriately and securely with the relevant bodies involved in the resettlement of vulnerable individuals under the scheme, and is used by Home Office analysts in monitoring and publicly reporting the operation of the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, commented about there being not enough grip on the data and ensuring it is used, and asked what the Home Office is doing to improve the recording and monitoring of the reasons for referral of refugees. We record the primary reason for referral to the UK, as the noble Lord knows, and we manage people’s needs carefully. We do not believe a more granular approach—which I know he has pushed for, and has pressed me for time and again through Written Questions—would make any material difference to the support received by the refugees who are referred or accepted for resettlement. But I know exactly the point he will make now.

[Lord Scriven]

This is an important point if we are to get this right and start to plan before people arrive. The UNHCR does more than just give a primary reason. If people are coming with complex needs, and we want to plan, we need to know about them before they are here. Why do we not look at more than just primary recording—as well as using that to help plan, both before and while people are here?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I take the point. I am sure that we will get better at collation of data and disaggregation of data in the future. Of course, UNHCR then refers the cases for resettlement to the UK, so it makes a judgment—but I am sure that some sort of statistical assessment by ourselves would be useful.

The resettlement process relies on UNHCR to undertake identity and nationality checks when registering cases as refugees. The report acknowledges that UNHCR’s screening processes are very effective in this regard. The dossier approach provides UNHCR with flexibility and allows people to be resettled more quickly. The department will continue to monitor and assess UNHCR processes through assurance work, including whether to trial additional interviewing, as part of the commitment to keep processes under review and our approach to security dynamic.

To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, any wholesale change to the ways of working would need to be weighed up against the costs and benefits. This will be taken into account in future resettlement planning. The department will review internal processes in terms of the documentation required to facilitate the issuing of UK visas in resettlement cases.

In reaching its determination that an individual has met the criteria required of the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR has conducted its own assessment of credibility, which we rely upon. UNHCR is well versed in this area. Its resettlement handbook, its refugee status determination guide and its own internal standard operating procedures provide clear guidance to its caseworkers on credibility assessment. In addition, it has produced guidance on credibility assessments for EU asylum systems.

UNHCR’s position on DNA testing is that it should be done only:

“where serious doubts remain after all other types of proof have been examined”.

The Government take regard of UNHCR’s view on this and will commission DNA testing where it is considered appropriate.

The inspector’s report recommended that the Home Office should, through monitoring, analysis and evaluation, and calling on the expertise of others as appropriate, determine what constitutes best practice at each stage of the resettlement process, as well as producing, and updating as necessary, the scheme’s guidance documents, ensuring that they are comprehensive and coherent and that they drive towards consistent best practice. It set out a list of issues that this should cover and this recommendation was partially accepted by the Home Office. In some instances, this is because clear guidance already exists and the Government have a clear and established rationale for the process as it stands.

The Home Office already has a monitoring and evaluation process for the VPRS, which is well under way. This includes a monitoring framework containing seven high-level integration outcome areas, with a detailed set of indicators beneath each area. Early integration outcome data on a considerable number of refugees resettled under the VPRS has already been captured and a detailed analysis undertaken.

That early integration outcome data has already been shared with strategic migration partnerships, which were encouraged to pass it on to local authorities to promote continued engagement with the underlying data collection exercise—in which local authorities are playing a really valuable role—and encourage a focus on how services are being delivered and whether they might be adapted to further support refugees’ integration. Service delivery is also a key focus of the comprehensive qualitative evaluation being conducted by Ipsos MORI, and the department is very keen to share the output of its work with partners once available.

The Government do not accept that there are no processes in place for dealing with referrals of families of six or more and those which are too complex or difficult to deal with on paper. The department does accept, however, that these processes could be clearer and more comprehensive, and it will make sure that this is immediately addressed in the standard operating procedures.

In the report, the chief inspector suggests that the Home Office should consider the treatment of pregnant women, including how their resettlement might be expedited to avoid “fit to fly” concerns—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Where practicable, existing processes seek to ensure that resettlement takes place while those who are pregnant are fit to fly and able to travel, but a number of factors will impact on the feasibility of this—for example, an individual’s willingness to undergo a TB screening X-ray. Having been pregnant, I can understand that people might be wary of that. However, the department will strengthen internal guidance and staff training on how to deal with cases that involve pregnant women to further emphasise that there should not be an automatic assumption that they should not travel. The Government do not accept that cases involving pregnant women should be expedited or prioritised before other vulnerable cases simply on the basis of pregnancy. Cases that involve a pregnancy will be prioritised only where the UNHCR categorises them as urgent or as an emergency.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The report suggests that people should not move and I do not understand why that is the case. I understand why resettlement in these cases might be expedited but why should such people not travel?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The point I am making is the opposite of that. Where people are fit to fly, they should be able to fly. Pregnancy in and of itself does not make someone vulnerable, and a case involving pregnancy will be prioritised only where the UNHCR categorises it as urgent or as an emergency. In other words, if a woman is in an unwell state, as opposed to just pregnant—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I get that and that is very helpful. Maybe I am wrong but the report suggests the reverse—that there is an automatic decision that people should not travel—and that seems perverse.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will just repeat what I said—it is written down. Where practicable, existing processes seek to ensure that resettlement takes place while those who are pregnant are fit and able to travel. However, if someone refuses a TB screening X-ray, that obviously creates a problem in the process.

I have only one more minute. I will scoot through a few points that noble Lords have made. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about a more local approach. We are very grateful for the ongoing support of local authorities. They have enabled resettlement to take place and provided a vital role. However, before committing to offer resettlement, we have to think about whether they are able to put in place the infrastructure and support to vulnerable people—I think that noble Lords would accept that. They are obviously provided with the funding to enable them to provide vulnerable refugees with a safe environment and the chance to rebuild their lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked about enforced removals and case work. All aspects of our detention and removal processes are subject to external scrutiny from HMIP and independent monitoring boards, and the Home Office is leading a review of our practices, including the use of de-escalation techniques and assessments of individual risk. As part of this review we will engage external partners, including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.

I have run out of time. There are some specific questions that noble Lords have asked, including the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Roberts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I shall put my answers in writing to them. I thank noble Lords once again for taking part in the debate.

Immigration: “Right to Rent” Scheme

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact and effectiveness of the “right to rent” scheme following the most recent report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into their “hostile environment” measures, An Inspection of the “Right to Rent” Scheme.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have undertaken to reconvene the landlords consultative panel and to work with it to monitor the operation and impact of the scheme. We continue to raise awareness in this sector to promote compliance and in the past year the right to rent guidance has been viewed online nearly 450,000 times.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, that is welcome news and it is also welcome that the Government are reviewing their hostile/compliant environment regime, though it is not clear to what extent that will include a proper, thorough review of right to rent schemes. In view of the inspector’s damning observations that hitherto there has been no attempt to measure its impact and that it has yet to demonstrate its worth, plus evidence from the Residential Landlords Association and others of discriminatory consequences, will the Government now suspend the scheme until they have conducted this proper, thorough evaluation that the inspector and others have called for?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have no intention of scrapping the scheme. The first phase of the scheme, in the West Midlands, was subject to evaluation by Home Office Analysis and Insight to test its impact on discrimination, vulnerable groups and homelessness, as well as its impact on the sector and local authorities. The Home Office report published on 20 October 2015 found no evidence that the scheme was having any adverse impact on any of these. It is important that noble Lords note that the right to rent scheme is relatively new. It should not be seen in isolation but as one of a number of provisions that deter illegal immigration and restrict the number of illegal migrants establishing a settled life in the UK.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the chief inspector’s report calls for monitoring and evaluation of the right to rent measures in terms of racial and other discrimination. He, like many in this House when the issue was debated, is concerned that risk-averse landlords could refuse to rent to black and minority ethnic tenants or those who have foreign-sounding names. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are monitoring racial and other discrimination, and what baseline data they are using to determine whether discrimination has increased as a result of the right to rent scheme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, an evaluation by the Home Office found no evidence of discrimination. We have found no levels of discrimination to date but we intend to reconvene the panel and monitor the effects of the scheme, as we do with any legislation.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the difficulties of removing what might be up to 1 million illegal immigrants, it makes good sense to try to bring in measures that would encourage them to leave of their own accord? Is she aware that recent opinion polls have shown that between 70% and 80% of the public agree with the measures that the Government are taking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that if someone is here illegally, they should leave of their own accord. He is absolutely right that the public support that approach. It is also important to note that in 1997, as part of the “compliant environment” measures, the then Labour Government introduced the right-to-work proposals. To date those have worked well. Nobody should be in this country if they are not legally entitled to be.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, when the Bill went through this House, a number of us warned that the Government were turning landlords into unpaid and unqualified immigration officers as they now had to check on the immigration status of tenants or face penalties. As a landlord, I quite understand why landlords want to play it safe and rent only to people with bona fide UK passports, thus discriminating against the 17% of UK citizens who do not have a passport and those people who have a perfectly legal right to rent in this country but do not have proper paperwork. Is it right that landlords such as myself should be treated as unpaid immigration officers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government do not expect landlords to be immigration experts. They are asked to carry out checks based on checks that were previously carried out in the sector. Landlords and agents are reminded in a code of practice of the need to conduct checks against all prospective tenants in a consistent manner. I understand my noble friend’s concerns but I say to him that the list of acceptable documents is broad and it is clear that the checks are not based solely on the examination of passports or immigration documents.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, recommendation 3 of the independent inspector’s report called on the Government to establish,

“a new ‘Right to Rent Consultative Panel’”,

with a remit to tackle the very issues the noble Earl raised in his question. Why have the Government not agreed to that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have agreed to that and we are planning to reconvene the landlords consultative panel this year, in response to the noble Earl’s question.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the consultative panel on right to rent at the Home Office. I am delighted to hear today that we are to be called together again; it has been 18 months since we last met. Looking at this report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, does the Minister share my disappointment that, regarding the hostile environment we hoped would be created for rogue landlords, who willingly and knowingly take in illegal immigrants and then exploit them because they know no one will ever complain—whatever the rent and however awful the conditions—the report indicates that in fact very little has happened in that regard?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am glad that the noble Lord has brought up rogue landlords because during the housing Bill—a period of our lives we will never forget—we discussed this at length. To date, 400 rogue landlords have been fined. I hope the noble Lord is on the reconvened consultative panel—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Because he brings such great expertise in this area.

Home Office: Data Breaches

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that documents sent to the Home Office are not lost; and what plans the department has to refer itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office when data breaches occur.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, following the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation on 25 May, the Home Office has appointed a data protection officer who is reviewing the data breach reporting arrangements across the Home Office. This autumn, the Home Office will begin the rollout of a more complete service that will see customers enter and leave a commercial partner facility in possession of their documents, having had them scanned.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, repeat examples of personal documents being lost by the Home Office are unacceptable and distressing and potentially devastating for the individuals who have had their papers lost. I am pleased to hear of the action being taken by the noble Baroness, but this is not a new problem. It was raised as far back as 2012 in the other place by my right honourable friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. So can the Minister give us further assurances about what is happening about personal papers and things? We cannot have a situation where papers are lost and people are potentially put in devastating situations. I did not quite catch what the Minister said. Can she confirm that in future, if there are any data breaches, the Home Office will refer itself to the ICO?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for asking that question about clarity. He is absolutely right to be concerned about lost documents. It can be devastating for people, particularly for immigration or visa purposes. Following a spike last November, UKVI formed a lost documents working group to identify methods of preventing lost documents. From October 2018, the majority of customers will complete their visa application, for example, at front-end service points in the UK managed by our new commercial partner on behalf of UKVI. The noble Lord asked about breaches. They are normally reported to Home Office security and to the data protection officer.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that there has to be a specific lost documents working party says a great deal about organisation in the Home Office. I dare say that there are many millions of EU citizens who will be delighted to know that their documents will be handled with care. I should not be so cynical. If personal information is to be dealt with more reliably within the Home Office, can we expect a reduction in the percentage of successful appeals to the tribunal, which currently stands at 40%?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness raises a point that the Home Office itself acknowledges. Documents have on occasion been lost—a minute proportion of the total number of documents that it deals with, I have to say, but lost nevertheless. As I say, moving to a digitised system should help in huge part to guard against that. The reporting of data breaches in future should also help not only to highlight what has happened but, hopefully, to prevent stuff from happening in future.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, when I was at the Home Office we were moving towards digitising all this documentation. From what the Minister says, we do not seem to have achieved that. What level of digitisation of documents and the like have we got to in the Home Office? It was very low when we started in about 2009. What level have we got to now?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As an example, paper documents that previously had to be submitted by hand can now be scanned and sent without the need for documents to actually change hands between the individual and the office to which they are applying for whatever purpose.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister about the related issue of record keeping? I understand that there are other groups of people who may have similar problems to those we have seen in the Windrush cases. We have discovered that the Home Office is very poor at keeping records of, for instance, people who have indefinite leave to remain. Is that issue being examined? I have seen it stated in an Amnesty publication that Chilean refugees who came in the 1970s may be encountering a problem, while a Liberal Democrat councillor who has been here for decades recently had a problem when she applied for British citizenship because there seemed to be no record of her ILR from 1979. What is being done about that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Baroness will recognise that for the last few weeks we have recognised some of the problems faced by people who came here before 1973 but for whom there is no formal documentation. She talked about certain individuals—indeed, she mentioned a whole host of cases—but I hope that she will recognise from the statutory instrument that the Home Secretary laid last Friday that on the issue of the Windrush generation and all those individuals who were here before 1973, every effort is now being made to regularise their status. As for her assertion of ILR, I cannot comment on the case, but if she would like me to write to her on a particular case, I will certainly look into it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, is there any reason why the ordinary law of the land should not apply here? Could not proof of the contents of a lost document be established by way of affidavit or statutory declaration?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord goes a bit above my pay grade, but I am sure that he is right. The Question today refers to lost documents—that is, documents that are sent in good faith and then lost, and then the individual who has sent the document has great difficulty in obtaining whatever service it is that they wish to complete. As I say, the presence of a data protection officer and some of the digitisation that the Home Office is undertaking should help to alleviate this.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to a previous Question, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, made ample reference to the secure keeping of people’s data. In reply to this Question addressed to the Home Office, we have heard pretty good evidence of anything other than the security of people’s personal data. Will the Home Office be subject to the same scrutiny, supervision and possible sanctions that small clubs will be subject to as a result of the misuse of people’s data in this way? Might it be appropriate to ask the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, to reply?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The simple answer is yes—every public body will be under the same obligation.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, is this confined to the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know whether my noble friend means lost documents or data protection, but I am sure that other departments have similar procedures for lost documents.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness correctly referred only to the Home Office, but a lost document from any government department could be critical. Will the Minister assure us that she will draw to the attention of other departments the need to ensure the safety of documents submitted to them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this: it applies not just to the Home Office and all government departments but to all public bodies.

Police: Firearms

Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the outcome of the review of police officers’ use of firearms announced in November 2015 after the terrorist attacks in France.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, armed police officers do a vital and uniquely challenging job on behalf of the public. It is right that they are supported to take difficult decisions to protect the public without fearing that the justified use of force will damage their careers. The work looking into the legal and procedural framework governing police use of firearms and post-incident investigation is ongoing, taking into account learning from recent events.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, in this country there are 120,000 police officers, only 6,500 of whom are armed. They deal with 15,700 firearms operations a year, yet discharge their weapons on only 10 occasions. Yet when they do discharge their weapons they can expect a lengthy and prolonged inquiry—more than 10 years on the worst occasion. Something needs to happen about this. That was agreed in the review that this Question relates to by the then Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron. Here we are two and half years later and that review has yet to conclude. The Government and the law need to change to accommodate the needs of the firearms officer to ensure these things are carried forward well in the future. The very least that should happen is that the review should conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his Question—his first to me, I think. I thank him for the time he took to speak to me this morning and join him in paying tribute to all those who serve in our police services in some very difficult circumstances indeed. On his first point on the previous Prime Minister commissioning the review, officials have been looking at the legal and procedural framework of post-incident procedure in consultation with stakeholders, including the noble Lord. His second point was about armed police officers feeling like they are treated as suspects. As I am sure that he would agree, it is quite clear that the facts should be established and no predetermination made during the process. The police and the IOPC have agreed a protocol for post-incident procedures following a terrorist attack to improve clarity and address concerns about safety and fairness. On the noble Lord’s third point on timeliness from the point of view of the firearms officer, and that of the family of someone who might have been shot, he is absolutely right. There have been precious few convictions—in fact none—since 2004, but timeliness is improving.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests to do with policing in the register. Can the Minister confirm that it is proving difficult to recruit up to the required level of firearms officers at present? Can she tell us the reason? Is it because there is now too small a pool of police officers to recruit from? Is it because police officers who accept this responsibility are not paid any extra? Is it because they are worried about the extremely long processes that might follow if they ever have to use their weapon? Which is it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord rightly raises a number of concerns. We know there have been challenges in recruiting additional firearms officers. To date, we have recruited 650 and hope to reach 1,000 by the end of this year. Developing a pipeline of skills is very important when we are looking to recruit. In doing so, we want firearms officers to feel that they can do their job with the safety of a legal framework around them.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, police firearms officers are volunteers who make split-second decisions to protect us all. Does the Minister not agree that they deserve some legal protection in return?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the final part of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made precisely that point. We absolutely acknowledge the way the police have to make—in the blink of an eye—what are sometimes life-and-death decisions. They had a particularly challenging time last year during the several terrorist attacks that took place in this city and in Manchester. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, acknowledged in his report how well the police responded in those situations.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the increasing number of firearms officers required, is my noble friend the Minister satisfied that the training arrangements for them are adequate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right: the training is crucial. These officers are experts in their field, who have to make split-second decisions in not just challenging but life-threatening situations, with a lot of people being affected should decisions go wrong. Training is absolutely crucial.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the timeliness of investigations into firearms incidents is improving, but my understanding is that it is not. Will she take this matter back and perhaps leave a report in the Library about what the Government are doing to improve that timeliness?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am certainly happy to give the noble Baroness a longer answer in writing. I will just run through some of the things we have done in recent years. The timeliness of investigations has gone down from 205 working days in the year to April 2017 to 186 working days in the year to April 2018. The IOPC has increased the number of investigations nearly sixfold since 2013-14. In addition, we have doubled the IOPC budget.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has raised a very important issue but can the noble Baroness tell us when she expects the review to conclude? As he said, it has been going now for nearly two and a half years.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

We expect that Michael Lockwood will complete his review soon. He is quite new in post and is looking at the Section 22 draft statutory guidance on achieving best evidence in death and serious injury matters, while taking into account the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for armed policing post-incident procedures.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the point has been raised that the timeliness of these investigations is quite poor. That does not give justice to the families of the people who have been shot, nor to the officers who have done the shooting, so are there plans for the Government to review the processes so that they can be run concurrently rather than sequentially?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The timeliness is improving. A number of changes made to the IOPC have resulted in better performance from it, including in the time it takes to investigate.