Domestic Abuse: Protection of Victims
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect victims of domestic abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government provide funding to domestic abuse organisations, helplines and specialist services at national and local levels, and have introduced measures to tackle abuses such as forced marriage and FGM. We are committed to further strengthening victim protections through the Domestic Abuse Bill. We have also allocated £27 million of Covid-related funding to domestic abuse services and launched the #YouAreNotAlone campaign to signpost people to support.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
During the present Covid crisis, domestic abuse is, sadly, increasing in the UK. Can my noble friend confirm that, in their approach to those who may suffer domestic abuse, the Government will ensure that recognition and support are afforded to men as well as women and children as well as adults, and that they understand that abuse may be as much economic or psychological as physical in nature?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with all my noble friend’s points. Children are included in the definition due to the effects domestic abuse has on them, potentially for the rest of their lives. He is right about the economic aspect; coercive control is a very efficient way in which abusers control their victims.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to the concerns raised by many others in this House about how migrant women will be affected by the Domestic Abuse Bill. I thank the Government for their £1.5 million commitment to support research into the particular needs of this vulnerable group, but how many women is the scheme expected to support and what specific questions will the pilot be seeking to answer?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that point. The first thing to be clear about is the principle that all victims of domestic abuse must be treated as victims first and foremost, whether they are migrant victims or not. I do not have the numbers before me, but the pilot will make it clear how many people we are talking about and where some of the gaps in provision might be.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, last summer, the Home Office began a review of the effectiveness of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, headed:
“Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.”
Can the Minister tell me when it will be published?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Coercive control is something that until relatively recently had not been identified as domestic abuse, but it is. Just because something does not involve hitting or physically hurting somebody else does not mean it is not as bad as other types of domestic abuse. I am pleased to be able to tell my noble friend that it remains our intention to publish this to inform the Lords stages of the Domestic Abuse Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, the main way in which child abuse is discovered is either through teachers or social workers, yet throughout most of this year, children have not been in school, and due to social distancing, a lot of social workers have not been able to visit homes. There are also many kids who are still not back at school for all sorts of reasons, and according to various charities I have spoken to, there is a kind of hidden time bomb out there. I know this is very difficult, but I wanted to know whether the Government are aware of this, what they are doing and whether extra resources are being put in to take care of this unbelievably vulnerable small group, which is truly isolated and alone.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right; these children are truly isolated and alone. That has been especially true during lockdown, when we provided funding for the NSPCC. We were aware before lockdown of these children being in a vulnerable position and saw it as one of our priorities, together with domestic violence. One of the reasons, besides lots of others, to get children back to school was for their well-being to be looked after.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has exposed the shocking extent of domestic abuse in our society, with many more women being subjected to domestic abuse, along with children, and many more driven into sexual exploitation for survival. We have a new Bill coming to the House, which we welcome, but what we have learned must be incorporated into that Bill. Will the Minister meet with myself and others before it is introduced here so we can make sure that amendments brought forward will strengthen the Bill, get government support and enable us to find ways of protecting the most vulnerable women and give them some hope?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
[Inaudible] started that engagement as the noble Baroness will probably be aware. I am pleased to say I will be happy to meet her. The Domestic Abuse Bill is just the start of the process of dealing with victims of domestic abuse. Members of your Lordships’ House will want to discuss many other things, and I would like for us, in order to get the Bill through, to be very focused on what we seek from it.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, I would like to press the Minister a bit further on the issue of children witnessing domestic abuse in the home. Women’s Aid has some stark figures: 53% said their children had seen more abuse, during lockdown, in the home, and a third said the abuser had shown an increase in abusive behaviour towards the children. She mentioned some statistics and information about the NSPCC. The impact on the mental health on children is paramount, yet child and adolescent mental health services still have waiting lists of three to six months, even for an assessment. What additional resources will go into supporting families? Children need mental health services as well as the other support services she mentioned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think anyone in the House would disagree with the noble Baroness that some children have probably experienced terrible things during lockdown, with not only their parents being victims of domestic violence but themselves too. Even if a child sees domestic violence going on, they are a victim, and that is why we have included it in the definition of a victim of domestic abuse. One of the key functions of the domestic abuse commissioner will be to encourage good practice in the identification of children affected by such abuse and the provision of protection and support to people, including children, affected by domestic abuse.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Bill, as currently drafted, places an important duty on local authorities in England to deliver support for victims who are in accommodation-based services such as a refuge. But 70% of victims of domestic abuse, specifically children, suffer at home, not in a refuge. How can we avoid creating a two-tier system whereby 70% of the victims of domestic abuse, including those children, will not be able to access this support because, sadly, they suffer at home?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The idea is that they will be able to access the support—it would be a terrible thing if, say, the mother of the child was getting the support and the children simply were not. Part and parcel of the support that people will receive includes of course the children of people who are being abused.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, how will the Government ensure that Refuge and other providers which choose to prioritise the well-being of women by applying single-sex exemptions are not penalised through contracts awarded by local authorities, CCGs and PCNs, many of which have misinterpreted the Equality Act by making gender-neutral or trans-inclusive provision for members of the opposite sex a condition of contracts? Will the Minister agree to a meeting with me and others to discuss the current guidance on this issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What is important is that local providers of accommodation-based services are the people who are best placed to do the risk assessment when people are going into their accommodation. It has become a very volatile conversation and I would be very pleased, at a slow time, to have a conversation with the noble Lord on this issue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 September be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 September be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 September be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Since the referendum, the Government have prioritised the protection of EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens who have made their home in the UK. We have repeatedly said that they are our friends and neighbours and we want them to stay. Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 to protect their rights.
The Government have established the EU settlement scheme to provide a simple means by which they and their family members can obtain the status they deserve to remain living and working in the UK. More than 4 million applications to the scheme have now been received and nearly 3.8 million grants of status have been made. This is a remarkable achievement and the biggest immigration scheme in UK history.
The Government have now brought forward three statutory instruments that further protect citizens’ rights. They give effect to the UK’s obligations to EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens—who I will refer to as EEA citizens for simplicity—under the EU withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The instruments are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act. I will explain briefly the purpose of each.
The first SI is the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—or the grace period SI. The Government were pleased to share an illustrative text of the statutory instrument with the House in early September. Noble Lords also discussed this instrument in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
The grace period SI has two purposes. First, it establishes the deadline of 30 June 2021 for applications to the EU settlement scheme by those EEA citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK by 31 December this year—the end of the transition period. Secondly, it saves existing relevant EU law rights for those EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but who have yet to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme. This is because, at the end of this year, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 will be revoked, subject to Parliament’s agreement to the Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Bill. The grace period refers to the period between the ending of free movement and the deadline for applications to the scheme.
The SI saves existing relevant EU law rights for those who make their EU settlement scheme application before the end of the grace period, until the application is finally determined. It makes some modifications to the EEA regulations to reflect the end of free movement, as well as to reflect recent case law, which remains binding on the UK. It does not alter the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme; nor does it affect the Government’s commitment, in line with the agreements, to accept late applications where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline.
Broadly, the instrument maintains the status quo during the grace period, meaning there is no change to the way in which EEA citizens live and work in the UK. Those who have yet to apply to the scheme, whether they are here lawfully or not at the end of the transition period, will be in no lesser position in respect of their rights of residence in the UK on 1 January 2021 than they were on 31 December 2020, pending an application to the scheme.
The second statutory instrument is the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Worker) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, or the “frontier workers SI”, as I will refer to it. This instrument protects the rights of EEA citizens who work in the UK but live elsewhere, who are referred to as “frontier workers”, by 31 December 2020. Protected frontier workers have the right to continue to come here to work once free movement has ended for as long as they continue to be a frontier worker.
In accordance with the withdrawal agreements, the instrument will establish a frontier worker permit scheme so that protected frontier workers can apply for a permit certifying their rights under the agreements. The permit does not grant frontier workers a new immigration status. The frontier worker permit scheme will open in December this year. Applications for frontier worker permits will be made online, and the process will be simple, streamlined and free of charge.
From the end of the grace period, which is 1 July 2021, frontier workers will be required to hold a valid frontier worker permit in order to evidence their right to enter the UK on this basis. The instrument also sets out the circumstances in which a protected frontier worker’s rights can be restricted and a permit can be refused or revoked, in accordance with the withdrawal agreements. Finally, the frontier worker SI provides protected frontier workers with statutory rights of appeal against decisions that restrict their rights as well as a right of administrative review against certain decisions concerning eligibility.
The third instrument is the Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, or the “restrictions saving SI”. This instrument gives effect to the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreements. When restricting the rights to enter or reside of a person protected by those agreements, the agreements require the UK to consider conduct committed before the end of the transition period in accordance with the current EU public policy, public security and public health test. We are also extending this approach to people protected by the UK’s domestic implementation of the agreements. Therefore, the EU law threshold will apply to those who are protected by the agreements or by the UK’s domestic implementation of them. This includes those who have status under the EU settlement scheme, have an EU settlement scheme family permit, have a right to enter the UK for the purpose of a continuing course of healthcare, have entered the UK as a Swiss service provider or are a frontier worker.
However, now that we have left the EU, it is right and important that we create parity for all foreign nationals in the UK. Currently, there is a stricter and more specific test for non-EEA nationals liable to deportation than that for EEA citizens. This means that it is easier to deport non-EEA nationals who have committed criminal offences. A similar distinction exists for other types of restriction decisions—for example, a person’s exclusion from the UK. Conduct committed after the end of the transition period will be assessed according to the same UK criminality thresholds that apply to non-EEA nationals. Again, this is consistent with the agreements and creates a fair immigration system for all.
This instrument will come into force once the Bill revokes the EEA regulations at the end of the transition period, subject to the agreement of Parliament. We need to save and modify relevant provisions in the EEA regulations in so far as they apply to deportation decisions in order to comply with our obligations under the withdrawal agreements. This will allow us to apply the current EU law thresholds to conduct committed before the end of the transition period. The instrument also provides that deportation decisions made in accordance with these protections continue to be appealable in accordance with the UK’s obligations.
These three draft instruments implement the Government’s citizens’ rights commitments under the withdrawal agreements, and I commend them to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I think some confusion has arisen because it is, in fact, a lot simpler than might first have been thought. Those who have yet to apply to the scheme will be in no less a position regarding their right of residence in the UK on 1 January 2021 than they were on 31 December 2020, pending an application to the EU settlement scheme.
I turn first to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which, although she says it does not oppose the grace period, actually abolishes it. The grace period SI does not replicate the provisions which apply during the implementation period because, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill, free movement will end at end of that period, so those living in the UK but not exercising EU law rights at that point will be able to regularise their position by applying for status under the EU settlement scheme, if they have not already done so. The grace period SI complies with the withdrawal agreement and confirms the protections for those EEA citizens to whom the agreement applies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I do not think that Parliament should refuse to support that.
I now turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Where a person has yet to obtain status under the EU settlement scheme, the grace period SI will protect any relevant EU law rights which they hold when, subject to Royal Assent to the Bill, free movement to the UK ends at the end of the transition period. This is in line with agreements and reflects the current position under EU law. An EEA citizen or their family member who is resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but is not exercising EU treaty rights will not have residence rights under free movement rules to be protected during the grace period. They will not be able to start exercising free movement rights in the UK after free movement in the UK has ended at the end of the transition period, but they will still be able to, and will be encouraged to, secure the status that they need under UK law to continue living in the UK beyond 31 June 2021 by obtaining status under the EU settlement scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised comprehensive sickness insurance. The grace period SI does not change the eligibility criteria for the EU settlement scheme. As I have said on many occasions and repeat today, there is no change to the Government’s policy that CSI is not required to obtain status under the scheme. The grace period SI maintains CSI as a requirement for lawful residence during the grace period as a student or self-sufficient person under the saved EEA regulations, and this is consistent with EU law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other noble Lords raised Minister Foster’s speech made in Committee in the other place in June. The Government have provided the means to protect all who are resident in the UK by the end of the transition period by establishing the EU settlement scheme. When speaking in the other place, my honourable friend the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration did not suggest that this instrument would be used to create new free movement rights once free movement has ended. To regularise their status in the UK, those not residing here lawfully at the end of the transition period can apply to the EU settlement scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, raised the question of replacing “lawfully resident” with “resident” or “present” in the UK. Having an EU right to reside confers other rights beyond the right to remain in the UK, such as access to benefits, and after the end of the transition period it would not be appropriate to widen EEA citizens’ entitlements beyond those groups who have them now. The Government have instead given EEA citizens not exercising EU treaty rights the means to resolve their situation by making an application to the EU settlement scheme. It was never the Government’s intention to change how we have implemented EU law by bringing within scope of the saved EEA regulations individuals not residing lawfully in the UK at the end of the transition period. To regularise their status in the UK, they need to make an application to the EU settlement scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also raised the issue of exclusion of EEA nationals. Decisions to exclude EEA nationals are outside the scope of this instrument, which saves only deportation powers, although the noble Lord may have mentioned deportation. Decisions to exclude those protected by the withdrawal agreement will be made by the Home Secretary directly, as is the process for non-EEA nationals. Where the exclusion is based on conduct which took place before the end of the transition period, the Home Secretary will ensure that the decision meets the EU law thresholds on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate talked about the Article 8 threshold for deportation. Article 8 of the ECHR’s right to respect for private and family life is a qualified right, which can be circumscribed, where lawful, necessary and proportionate, in the interests of a number of factors, including national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that when assessing whether deportation breaches Article 8 of the ECHR, the deportation of a foreign national offender must be in the public interest, unless certain exceptions apply. This is a stricter threshold than in non-criminal cases, because of the greater public interest in deporting serious or persistent foreign criminals. Parliament has expressly required a particularly strict threshold when assessing whether the deportation of those sentenced to at least four years’ imprisonment is in the public interest. This reflects Parliament’s view that the more serious the crime, the more serious the response.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to rough sleeping. We are committed to transforming the lives of some of the most vulnerable people living in this country, and to ending rough sleeping for good. This year, the Government spent more than £700 million in total to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, which includes the £112 million of funding for the rough sleeping initiative and the £266 million this year for the Next Steps Accommodation Programme, which aims to ensure that as many people as possible do not return to the streets; it also puts in place support over winter. For those who refuse support, the new rules provide a discretionary basis to cancel or refuse a person’s leave where they are found to be rough sleeping and are engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour. I assure the noble Lord that the new provision will be used sparingly and only when individuals refuse to engage with the range of available support mechanisms.
The noble Lord also asked about enforcement action against those eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme during the grace period. The Government have made it clear that EEA citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK by 31 December of this year have until the end of the grace period, on 30 June next year, to apply to the EUSS. During the grace period, the Home Office will not enforce the removal from the UK of those who are eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme, pending their application to the scheme and its final determination. This includes those without a right to reside, for example individuals who are studying or living here and do not possess comprehensive sickness insurance, or who are not in genuine and effective work. Our focus will remain on signposting individuals to the scheme and providing the necessary support to apply. We will, though, continue to take enforcement action against those involved in serious or persistent criminality. For conduct committed after the end of the transition period, this will be on the ground that it is conducive to the public good.
The noble Lord also asked about the position of someone with a pending EUSS application at the end of the grace period. The grace period SI will save relevant rights at the end of the transition period, in relation to residence and access to benefits and services, for those who make a valid application to the EUSS by 30 June 2021 and until it is finally determined. This includes pending the outcome of any appeal against a decision to refuse status under the scheme. This means that someone who applies by the 30 June deadline and has not yet been granted status under the EU settlement scheme can continue to live their life in the UK as now until their application is finally determined. An individual undergoing an eligibility check while the outcome of an application made by the deadline is pending will have the same entitlement to accommodation, work, benefits or services as they did before the grace period ended. Where it is needed, the Home Office will be able to confirm that an application is pending.
My noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate asked about engaging with frontier workers, first, so that they can be alerted as to their rights and what they need to do. The applications will open in December this year. They will be made online and the process will be simple, streamlined and—my noble friend Lord Bowness asked about this—free of charge. Ahead of the scheme opening, the Government will ensure that EEA frontier workers and their UK employers are fully aware of their rights and obligations, and will encourage frontier workers to obtain the permit to certify their rights under the agreements. Regarding a physical document being available—this goes to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope’s other question—those with an ID card with an inoperable biometric chip will initially be issued with a physical permit, but as soon as the technology is available, it will be a digital system.
I hope that I have answered all noble Lords’ questions. I ask the Liberal Democrats to reflect on the effect that a fatal Motion will have on those EU citizens whom they so badly want to protect.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsWednesday 21st October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 145-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons reasons - (20 Oct 2020)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the Commons on Monday, the Government chose to describe your Lordships’ amendment calling for an independent report on the impact of the end of free movement on the social care sector as “well intentioned”, but went on to claim that it was “unnecessary”—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene, I was going to give a speech. Would the noble Lord bear with me while I speak?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was very politely waiting to be asked, then the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, came in. Shall we start again?
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will turn to Motion A, Amendment 1, and Amendment 1B in lieu, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the impacts of ending free movement on the social care sector. I start by acknowledging the work of noble Lords in the scrutiny of this important Bill, which ends free movement between the EU and the UK, and the passion and commitment with which your Lordships have spoken on a number of issues. We have debated many issues, and although there are some areas on which we may still disagree, I always come back to the focus of this Bill: ending free movement and delivering on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a firmer, fairer points-based immigration system.
Amendment 1B requires the Secretary of State to publish the response to the independent assessment within two months of publication and make a statement to Parliament within seven sitting days of publishing the response. I recognise the good intentions behind Amendment 1, but the other place disagreed to it because independent reporting already exists in this area through Skills for Care and the Migration Advisory Committee. The Government remain committed to improving social care, focusing on increased funding and training opportunities and improved recruitment practices. I will reflect further on a few related points.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am, of course, pleased to hear the Government’s decision on this. From and on behalf of our Benches, I added my name to the previous versions of this amendment. The point has been made throughout the Bill that the amendment is unnecessary, but, given that its proposers have kept on pressing, clearly they have not been satisfied. This is good news, but one always has to think around the subject, and I wonder what the correct level of scrutiny is. To me, it involves stakeholders very widely and the context for consideration of a proposal, which, in this case has to be more than just the immigration provisions which may apply. One thing on which I agreed with the Commons and with others who have spoken is that the social care crisis cannot be solved through immigration alone: it is much wider than that.
The correct level of scrutiny involves the organisation being scrutinised—in this case, the Government and their proposals—not being committed to its initial proposition but being prepared to listen to the responses. We are always faced with statutory instruments where there is no possibility of making a change. It would be tragic—I do not think that is putting it too highly—if the opportunity is not taken on this occasion to adopt a much more open-minded practice. Having said that, I welcome what the Minister has said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I apologise to noble Lords; I keep wanting to pop up at the wrong time during this debate. However, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this part. First, I come to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and absolutely commit to the timescales set out in his amendment. He asked, with a certain degree of cynicism, I think, who will carry it out and suggested the Migration Advisory Committee. It must be a hot contender for it, but I take his point about the skills of the people who carry it out.
When settling on the proposals for the new points-based system, we did not do it in isolation; we conducted an extensive programme of engagement with stakeholders— as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, alluded to—across the whole of the UK, including in the social care sector, listening to people’s concerns and hearing about the unique challenges they face.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have in different ways pinpointed that the workforce challenges are not single silver-bullet issues—they will not be solved by continuing along the trajectory of low pay. It is incumbent on employers in what has been, throughout the last few months and years, a very valued occupation not to continue to rely on low-paid workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, social care cannot be solved just by immigration; progress needs to be made with a whole plethora of interventions in this area of a much-needed, well-respected and very much appreciated workforce.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2, in its previous form, was also disagreed to in the other place. It seeks to continue certain family reunion arrangements provided by EU law—the so-called Surinder Singh route.
Amendment 2B, tabled in lieu by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Government to provide the right for British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied, or joined, by their non-British close family members on current EU free movement law terms until 31 December 2040—that is, for a period of 20 years from the end of the transition period. They would retain preferential family reunion rights for that period. For the next 20 years, family members of British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland would continue not to be subject to the same Immigration Rules as family members of other British citizens. This would perpetuate a lack of parity, which the Government cannot accept.
Family members of British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreements in terms of returning to the UK, but we have made reasonable transitional arrangements for them. British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner in a long-term relationship, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after that date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Those family members will also then be eligible to apply to remain in the UK under the EU settlement scheme.
Family members will be able to come to the UK after 29 March 2022 but will then need to meet the requirements of the family Immigration Rules. Those rules apply to the family members of other British citizens, irrespective of where they come from, and reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. This is a fair and balanced policy. It was announced on 4 April 2019, so those affected will have had almost three years to decide whether they wish to return to the UK by 29 March 2022 on current EU law terms and, if they do, to make plans to do so.
The Government’s approach strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for British citizens and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of British citizens under the Immigration Rules as soon as is reasonably possible once free movement has ended. We must be fair to other British citizens, whether they are living overseas or in the UK. The same rules should apply to all, not continue for the next 20 years to give preferential treatment to those relying on past free movement rights, which will have been abolished. That is what a fair global immigration system means.
I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment 2 or agree to Amendment 2B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Hamwee
Moved by
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We do not minimise the importance of this issue any more than we minimise the importance of any of the amendments and the issues they covered which this House sent to the Commons and which the Commons rejected. As has been said, British citizens who moved to other EU countries will lose the right they had to return to this country of birth with a non-British partner or child, perhaps to look after an ageing parent, unless they can meet financial conditions that will be beyond the reach of many. While British citizens who have moved to the EU or EEA before the end of 2020 will face these restrictions, EU citizens who have moved to the UK before the end of 2020 will not.
However, while this issue of the right for UK citizens to return with their family was referred to by some speakers during the Commons proceedings on Monday, it was not taken to a Division. This rather indicates that we have now taken this matter as far as we can at present, having sent it to the Commons once. For that reason we will abstain if Amendment 2B in lieu is taken to a vote. In the Commons on Monday, the Government said they would
“continue to keep this area under review”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/20; col. 804.]
We call on it to continue to look further at this issue, in which I declare a personal family interest, outside the Bill and well before the deadline date of 29 March 2022 for bringing existing close family members to the UK on current EU law terms.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I start with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who rightly points out that the Commons did not divide on this matter on Monday. We should remind ourselves that the British people voted to leave the EU in 2016; we are now four years on from that point.
I will answer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: of course we keep all legislation and policy under review, and we are assisted by MAC in that endeavour. We recognise that UK nationals who moved to the EU expected free movement rights to continue. That is why we have provided for these transitional arrangements, but we have to be fair to other UK nationals whether they live overseas, beyond the EU, or in the UK. The UK family Immigration Rules reflect the public interest in preventing burdens on the taxpayer and promoting integration. UK nationals protected by the withdrawal agreement because they are living in the EEA before the end of the transition period do, of course, have lifetime rights to be joined in their host state by existing close family members. This mirrors the rights of EEA citizens living in the UK by then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, challenged me about the date of 29 March 2022 being arbitrary. It represents three years after the date when the UK was originally supposed to leave the EU. For me, it strikes the right balance between providing sufficient time for UK nationals and their family members living in the EEA or Switzerland to make decisions and plans for returning to the UK, and ensuring equal treatment of the family members of UK nationals under the Immigration Rules as soon as reasonably possible, once free movement to the UK has ended.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
I am of course grateful to my noble friends who supported this amendment. I hope that I never give my noble friend Lady Ludford cause to look up what I have said in the past. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Oates, who—if you will—embodies the point I was making about the differences between those who married EU citizens, not knowing what was coming down the road, and those in his position.
I am disappointed in Labour’s response to this because it is a legislative opportunity to get this sorted quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I asked about keeping the policy under review, but it sounds from the Minister as if this is no more than the normal keeping of a policy under review: no detail, no particular plan, no timetable. What she said is not a reason not to pursue this amendment. As my noble friend says, this is not fair and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I ask that this House do not insist on its Amendments 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10, as set out in Motions C, F, G, H and K respectively, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 3A, 6A, 7A, 8A and 10A.
I will speak to Motion C on Lords Amendment 3, which provides for children in care and care leavers who lose their free movement rights under the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme where they apply to the scheme or a local authority does so on their behalf. This would be regardless of how long the child or young person had been in the UK. I will also address Motions F, G, H and K, covering Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which cover a time limit on detention.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be disappointed with me on the position taken by the other place on Lords Amendment 3, but I reassure him that the Government agree as to the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers and other vulnerable groups as we end free movement. The Home Office continues to provide extensive support to local authorities, which have relevant statutory responsibilities for this cohort, to ensure that these children and young people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This includes the Settlement Resolution Centre, which is open seven days a week to assist local authorities with this work. It also includes grant funding over last year and this year of up to £17 million to organisations across the UK to support vulnerable groups in applying to the scheme. The number of organisations funded for this work has now been increased from 57 to 72.
A recent survey of local authorities by the Home Office has so far identified fewer than 4,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with over 40% of these having already applied for status under the scheme. Most of those who have applied have already received an outcome of settled status. Local authorities are making good progress to identify and support relevant cases.
The Government have made it clear that, in line with the withdrawal agreements, where a person eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or a care leaver misses the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK.
The Government are not therefore persuaded of the need for this amendment, which also presents some technical problems that the Government cannot accept. It effectively exempts this cohort from the suitability requirements of the scheme when there is absolutely no reason to do so. It also seeks to backdate the settled status granted following an application made after the 30 June 2021 deadline. This runs completely counter to the general operation of the Immigration Rules made under the Immigration Act 1971, under which status has effect from the date on which it is granted.
I hope noble Lords will agree that, while understanding and supporting the motivation behind this amendment, the House should not insist on this amendment.
I shall now address Motions F, G, H and K on Lords Amendments 6, 7, 8 and 10, which relate to introducing a detention time limit on EEA and Swiss citizens. Detention is a very important issue that merits debate, but it is not directly relevant to the purpose of this Bill, which is to end free movement. The central point of the Bill is a commitment to a global immigration system, and equal treatment of immigrants from all nationalities as we exit the transition period. These amendments seek to impose a time limit on detention only for EEA and Swiss citizens, which would lead to a discriminatory position for those who are not. It is important to acknowledge that the other place disagreed to the amendment for these reasons.
On the substance of the amendment, to impose a 28-day time limit on detention is not practical and would encourage and reward abuse. No European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that which is proposed in these amendments, and countries such as Australia and Canada have not gone down this route at all. We need an immigration system which encourages compliance but, where people refuse to leave voluntarily, we must have the ability to enforce that removal. We do not detain indefinitely; there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and this is a complex process that requires a case-specific assessment to be made for every single person for whom detention is considered.
A time limit would allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to deliberately run down the clock until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed. Under these amendments, any person in scope who is detained for 28 days will automatically be released, regardless of the facts of their case, including some foreign national offenders who present a genuine threat to public safety.
The Home Office operates a number of safeguards to review detention and prevent anyone entering detention who would otherwise comply with a removal from the community. Some 95% of people who are liable for removal from the UK are managed in the community while their cases are progressed. The detention gatekeeper and case progression panels are key operational safeguards. Where detention is deemed necessary, there is judicial oversight through bail applications to the tribunal, and the continuing detention of any individual remains under regular review by the Home Office.
Everyone in immigration detention is protected by these safeguards, which entitle them to apply for bail hearings at any point, to appeal against any refusal of asylum and to have access to legal representation. If we accept a 28-day time limit, it will enable these people to exploit the immigration system, making unmeritorious claims to avoid their removal. In the current immigration system, it is only in the most complex cases that detention exceeds 29 days. A time limit would cripple the function of the detention system, exposing it to abuse, undermining our capacity to enforce removals and potentially endangering public safety. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this amendment is not only unconnected with the main purpose of this Bill but unsupportable, and I urge them not to insist on this amendment, which would lead to unfair treatment between EEA and non-EEA citizens. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the decisions taken by the other place on all these issues are most disappointing. I thought my noble friend Lord Dubs made a convincing case, but sadly it was not listened to in the other place, as is so often the case now. I hope the Government will take a constructive attitude in working with local authorities to protect vulnerable children. Many local authorities have considerable pressures on them in terms of looking after children in care, and I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that there is a positive attitude from the Government to address these concerns, even if they are not prepared to accept my noble friend’s amendment today.
I note the comment—the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also made the point—that the other Motions in this group make reference to all these dangerous criminals who would potentially be released into the public. I think we have to accept that the people we are talking about here are vulnerable people, and that if there are people who are dangerous criminals, there are other procedures to deal with them. We should not be wrapping people up like that: these are vulnerable people who need our help and support. There is an issue about people being locked up in detention when they have done nothing wrong and not knowing when they will get their release date.
The noble Baroness may well say that they are normally released into the community. That is obviously really good news, but if you are locked up in a cell or in a detention centre and you do not know when you will be released, the fact that you will be released at some point in the future may not be a huge comfort to you. Again, we are not going to pursue these issues any further today, but the fact that the Government rely on those arguments underlines the weakness of their case in this respect. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we will return to these issues at a later date, but we will not be pressing any of them today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, initially challenged me on what the Government have to lose. It is not really about what the Government have to lose; it is a demonstration that, throughout this process, we have constantly articulated just what the Government are doing to ensure that children in care, or other vulnerable people, are able to register for the EU settlement scheme. We have put in quite a lot of resource to ensure that that happens. We have increased the number of organisations helping in this regard from 57 to 72 and we will put significant funding in place to ensure that people eligible to apply do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are acting as though all detainees are offenders, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the number of people detained who are vulnerable. In fact, a snapshot of offenders from the EU detained at the end of March 2020 found that if a 28-day time limit were in place, we would have been required to release into the community 166 foreign national offenders being held under immigration powers to effect their deportation. Of these offenders, 35 had committed very serious crimes, including murder, rape, offences against children and other serious sexual or violent offences. There is no indefinite detention, but it is necessary sometimes to keep people detained, particularly serious offenders and those frustrating their removal.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I shall put the question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Lords Amendment 4 and Amendment 4B in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, relate to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I ask noble Lords to note that the other place highlighted that Lords Amendment 4 would engage financial privilege. Amendment 4B in lieu would remove the previous restriction on charging a fee for applications for leave to enter under the proposed new route; however, there remain a number of costs with this amendment. These relate to family reunion applications—not just the cost of processing the application but the cost of providing asylum support and accommodation for asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their claim. Clearly those costs could not and should not be recouped via an application fee.
Turning to the substance of the amendment, we had many interventions on this issue on Report and I confirm the Government’s commitment to the principle of family unity and to supporting vulnerable children—we take their well-being very seriously. We have a proud record of providing safety to those who need it, through our asylum system and world-leading resettlement schemes. We have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe: we received more claims than any EU member state in 2019, and 20% of all claims made in the EU and UK.
We have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It remains our goal to negotiate such an arrangement. I reaffirm my commitment to further constructive engagement to identify ways to level up access to safe and legal work pathways for talented displaced persons. I once again thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and Talent Beyond Borders for discussing this with us and I look forward to continuing to work together to attract the best and brightest talent to the UK, regardless of background. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary made clear in her speech at the Conservative Party conference, safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure that it is both fair and firm.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, not to insist on his amendment, or to divide the House on Amendment 4B in lieu. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Currently, the only legal way to reach this country from the EU in order to claim asylum, including for unaccompanied children, is through the Dublin III regulation on family reunion. That route, as we know, will cease to be available at the end of the transition period in a few weeks’ time. The Government have no comparable proposals to replace Dublin III, since their alternative removes the mandatory requirement to facilitate family reunion, removes a child’s right to appeal against refusal and further narrows the definition of “family”, since a child or teenager would no longer be able to join, for example, an aunt, an older sister or someone who could look after them when they have been separated from their parents
Safe Passage, to which reference has already been made, which supports child refugees, has said, I believe, that more than 90% of the young people and children it has supported through the Dublin III legal pathway would be unlikely to qualify under the Government’s alternative system. The numbers involved are not large and are very small indeed compared with the numbers of those from outside the EU whom the Government, by choice, each year, have enabled to come to this country. Before the mandatory Dublin III provisions came into effect, about 10 or 11 children per year came to this country under the scheme. Since 2016, when it became mandatory, the average number of children per year has been just over 500.
We support the amendment in lieu, Amendment D1, moved by my indefatigable noble friend Lord Dubs, which represents the guaranteed continuation of a decent and humane approach, particularly to children and young people in real need, including in real need of a safe and legal route to safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who makes this plea so genuinely and passionately. I hope, at this late stage, he might consider withdrawing his amendment to the Motion when he hears what I am going to say. First of all, we do not just use financial privilege for child refugees. That is not the case at all, but I think he knows that. The wording—
“trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient”—
is standard parlance.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in response to her question, that it is true that the state does not have to fund children who are living with relatives, although, of course, it is different for children who are living in local authority care. I go back to the point I made earlier, which is that the Home Secretary made it absolutely clear in her speech at the Conservative Party Conference that safe and legal routes are a core part of our proposed reforms to the asylum system to ensure it is both firm and fair. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that very thing today in his speech. I can confirm that, as an integral part of that work, the Government will conduct a review of safe and legal routes to the UK for asylum seekers, refugees and their families, which will include reviewing routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to reunite with their family members in the UK. As noble Lords will recollect, we intend to bring legislation next year that will deliver those reforms.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about bilateral negotiations. I understand noble Lords’ concerns about the risk of a non-negotiated outcome on asylum and illegal migration, and I can, today, make a commitment to the House that in the event of a non-negotiated outcome, this Government will pursue bilateral negotiations on post-transition migration issues with key countries with which we share a mutual interest. This will include new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I hope noble Lords listened carefully to what I have just said.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 5 and Amendment 5B, tabled in lieu and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, require a physical document to be offered to any EEA citizen who applies for it and who has been granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. The other place has rejected the previous amendment submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, as they considered it would incur significant costs. The amendment in lieu removes the provision prohibiting charging a fee for the physical document. However, this does not fully address our concerns about the cost of this proposal.
To allow the now nearly 4 million people who have been granted status under the EU settlement scheme to apply for physical documents, we would have to incur significant up-front costs. These costs would include setting up and designing the application process to issue a secure biometric document, some caseworking resource and significant communications costs; much of this cost would be incurred regardless of how many people applied for a physical document.
As we would not know how many people will apply, we would not be able to set an individual application fee that covered these costs without that being beyond the reach of most applicants. Much of the concern expressed in this House relates to the most vulnerable, and I really do not think we would want to pass on to them the costs of setting up this process. The cost of producing a biometric immigration document is about £75, but that fee does not cover the costs that would be incurred in setting up the process and communicating it. Therefore, being able to charge a fee does not in and of itself fully address the reasons given in the other place for rejecting the previous amendment.
We cannot accept the amendment, but that does not mean that the Government do not understand the concerns raised. We are committed to working with this House and with stakeholders to ensure that measures are in place to support those who may find the transition to digital services difficult. We will run a campaign to ensure that third parties understand how to check a person’s immigration status and the need not to discriminate when doing so. In some cases, the check will be directly with the Home Office, and we are confident that this system will reduce the scope for error and better ensure that people have access to the services they are entitled to.
The Government have clearly set out their ambition to move to a system which is digital by default. That will produce a better system for migrants and will make it easier for them to prove their status where all migrants, not just EEA citizens, will have online access to their immigration status. Other countries, such as Australia, have had a system like this in place for some time, so we know that it works.
This amendment is well intentioned, but it will have an adverse impact on our plans for modernisation and digitisation of our immigration system. These plans include the support services we need to provide to migrants for the future. It will also adversely impact employers and landlords, who would still need to conduct manual checks to authenticate a document and go through the process of photocopying it, signing and dating it and then filing it away in a cabinet.
The Government recognise that digital processes represent a major change for some people. However, as I have outlined in this House, we will provide a physical document in the form of a written notification of their permission to stay in the UK, which they can print off and store as a record. We will require EEA citizens to use the online system to prove their immigration status to employers and landlords only after 30 June 2021, to give them time to adjust, and we will continue to provide information and support to enable them to do so. Many thousands are already successfully using the service now to evidence their status in the UK, as I pointed out during the passage of this Bill.
I am aware that many noble Lords are worried about the impact of digital by default on the elderly and the vulnerable, but I reassure them that we are taking steps to ensure that those individuals are not disadvantaged by the move to digital services, particularly in accessing public services. System-to-system checks with other government departments and the NHS will mean service providers, such as healthcare and benefits, will check status directly with the Home Office at the point at which the person seeks to access them. This will reduce the number of occasions where individuals need to prove their rights, where such information can be made available directly to the service provider on their behalf.
In moving to a digital system, we recognise that there are people who cannot access online services and will need additional support. We are committed to delivering a service that reflects the diverse needs of all users. Help on how to use the online service and share status information is already available through our telephone contact centre, and we provide a free-to-use assisted digital service where those applying to the EU settlement scheme, or others making online applications in the UK, are able to get support. We continue to improve the support services to ensure that they are inclusive and available to all who need them, and we would welcome continued discussions on what additional support we would need to provide to address the concerns that many noble Lords have raised.
We want a robust and secure system that is efficient as well as convenient. Migrants will be able to access details of their immigration status online at any time and from anywhere, with a variety of devices, such as a smartphone or laptop. The Government want a better immigration system, and we believe that the move to a digital service is an important part of that. The amendment would prevent our moving in that direction and would require significant expenditure, which would be better used in supporting those using the services. I hope noble Lords will not insist on this amendment. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we may all have different views of this Government. While some might think that they are useless and incompetent, others might take a different view. However, I think that we would all agree that they certainly make many strange decisions—often ludicrous, inconsistent, contradictory and largely disappointing. This is one example. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, a consistent argument has been made about this issue, but the Government are just not listening. That is much to be regretted on the part of the Government because they should have given way on this point, but it is quite clear that they are not going to do so. I do not know if that is down to unelected advisers, the Home Secretary, or the general attitude of the Government as a whole. However, it is clear that they are not going to give way and that is most disappointing. For that reason, we are not going to support sending this issue back to the other place again because I do not think that the Government will change their position.
However, I have a few other comments to make. A few days ago, we had a debate about the costs to enable British children in care to get their British citizenship. The Government were happy to charge over £1,000; there was no issue about that at all. That is many hundreds of pounds more than the cost, so apparently there is no issue there at all. Here, of course, the Government have raised the issue of cost, saying that they are not sure and that it could be too much for people. I have equally made the point by asking for years why we cannot stop council tax payers having to subsidise planning applications. But no, the Government say that we have to continue letting those taxpayers subsidise such applications. That is completely ludicrous, contradictory and inconsistent, but that is what we have before us again today.
In all of these debates, I have never had an answer to this question. The point is made about how we cannot have certificates because they are not needed, everything is now digital, and we should not be worried about it. Yet, at the same time, we are handing out certificates to people who become British citizens. This is done in ceremonies in town halls up and down the country. You have to hand them out, they are signed by the Home Secretary of the day, and you tell the person that the certificate is really important. You hand it to them, a photograph is taken, and off they go with a document that at the moment is signed by Priti Patel. I have handed out hundreds of these things over the years, but I do not believe that those certificates are biometric. I think that they are a piece of paper. I might be wrong about that; perhaps they are biometric now and I do not know. Again, this is from the same department, so it is inconsistent and completely ludicrous. It is a real shame that the Government have not listened and that they are not going to do so. I think that that is much to the regret and shame of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who moved it.
One of the first areas of disagreement that he raised was on costs. We have used published costs for enrolling biometrics and issuing a BRP, which are £19.20 and £56 respectively. They cover only the casework in the applications and not the significant set-up costs. There are costs of issuing and replacement, and one-off costs of upgrading pre-settled status cards. There is a cost of communication of the change and, of course, of facial technology.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, suggested that the system should be trialled. The fact is that people are using it now. It is not going live on 1 January; people are already using it to prove status. That is proof of the success of the “trial”, as he puts it. Surely the fact that 4 million applications have already been made suggests that the system is working. This takes me to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding the difficulties of the system. I have seen how the application process works. It is very easy; I have suggested previously in this place that noble Lords take time to look at just how easy it is to set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, also stated his dismay that the PSED has not been published. I do not have any update on my previous statement that we intend to publish it.
On discrimination, the BNO route will be launched in January. Applicants will receive digital status using the technology based on the EU settlement scheme. People receiving that status will be required to use it from January, so the system relates not just to people from EU member states but to our BNO friends who we expect to come here from then. The system is therefore not discriminatory in the sense that our BNO friends will use it from January as well.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is absolutely right: although it might not be the way forward for older people, digital by default is the way forward. It is completely retrograde to talk about physical documents when in fact, to date, the system appears to be working well. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about physical documents being less open to abuse. They are more open to abuse and far easier to forge than a digital status that an employer or landlord can access.
Finally, regarding a power outage at the PNC, I should tell my noble friend Lord Polack that our back-up systems are very robust, as I have previously explained.
I do not think that I will convince some noble Lords—indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, intends to divide the House—but it is a retrograde step to talk about returning to physical documents. I remember my noble friend, joined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the importance of physical identity, which we fully intend to take forward. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will withdraw his amendment but I do not think that he will.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I do not understand the issue with set-up costs; a system exists. I also do not understand the point about casework costs for people who already have settled status.
All the arguments have been aired extensively. I very much regret that the Labour Front Bench is unable to come with us, not least because of the strong arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for exactly my position. However, I hope that, despite the view of the Front Bench, my friends on the Labour Benches will support us, just as my friends on the Conservative Benches will do. I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support and I appeal for their support again. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery, which has no place in our society. We are now identifying more victims of modern slavery and doing more to bring perpetrators to justice than ever before, and we are committed to supporting victims and helping them to rebuild their lives.
Lords Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl, would require arrangements to be made in the Immigration Rules for the grant of leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens in specified circumstances. I am therefore pleased to see that he has tabled Amendment 9B in lieu, which reiterates the Government’s commitment to him in this area.
The original Amendment 9 is unnecessary and should not be insisted upon for the following reasons. Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for discretionary leave to remain. By “automatic”, I mean that they do not need to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration after a decision has been reached that there are conclusive grounds to believe they are a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are currently not automatically considered in this way.
However, in line with assurances given in the other place, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example through our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make this clear.
The published policy already provides for a grant of leave in cases where the victim is supporting the police in an investigation; is to be a witness in court; is pursuing compensation for the exploitation that they have suffered; requires medical treatment that needs to be provided in the UK; or because there is a risk they may be retrafficked if they are required to return to their country of origin. This is substantially the same as the qualifying criteria set out in the original amendment.
I hope that, in the light of the assurances I have given, the House will agree that Amendment 9 and Amendment 9B in lieu should not be insisted on. There are further issues to take forward about how we can best identify and support victims of modern slavery and I have undertaken to discuss these matters in further detail with the noble Lord, Lord McColl. However, it is important that, for immigration purposes, EEA victims are treated in the same way as other victims from abroad once free movement ends. I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs of their decision to appeal the decision of the High Court on 19 December 2019 in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens versus Home Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we do not comment on ongoing litigation. Administrative costs are not recorded against particular legal cases, and as the litigation is ongoing we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of the legal costs at this time.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is it not passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Immigration Act 2014 allowed for the review of fees. I can give the noble Lord a general figure, which is that just over £2 billion was generated from visa, immigration and nationality income and passport fees in 2019-20. The cost of BICS, the borders, immigration and citizenship system, was £3.18 billion.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the judgment in December 2019 highlighted that the Home Office application fee to register a British citizen was £1,012 for children, even though the Home Office estimated the cost of processing applications for registration as £372. Putting a financial barrier on being able to access one’s rights is a clear barrier to one’s access to justice. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the number of people whose rights are limited by the level of the fee that has been set?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
There are areas for fee waivers, and children in care may well have their citizenship fees paid for them. I reiterate my previous point that just over £2.9 billion is generated in fees, whereas the cost of BICS is over £3 billion.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that there are some exemptions for children, both those born before 2006 and those born after. Does my noble friend agree that this is not about immigration but about children with the right to register as citizens and potentially denying them their right to register if they cannot fund more than £1,000? I encourage my noble friend, who I know is compassionate about this issue and about children in general, to urge the department to perhaps consider again.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that we do not underestimate the significance of the issue of fees for child citizenship and registration as a British citizen to both Members of the House and to those affected. As I said earlier, we keep those fees under review.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Are those children whose families do not have enough money to pay for British citizenship to which they are entitled liable to be deported when they become 18?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is so fixated on what I was going to reply that she is stuck to the spot.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is quite all right. Destitution and the inability to pay a fee—I have mentioned children in care—would not be a preventative factor for people gaining leave to remain in this country. Where an applicant can pay the whole immigration fee but none or only part of the immigration health surcharge, the immigration fee will be required and an exemption will be applied to the immigration health surcharge. As the noble and learned Baroness can see, there are a number of areas in which fees can be waived.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office carried out a children’s best interest assessment of the Government’s policy on fees in light of the original judgment? If it did not, can she explain to the House why it was not conducted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not talk about the case in point, because there is ongoing litigation. We will look at the judgment with interest and see what is to be done from there.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is? Controlling immigration is of benefit to all citizens and should therefore be paid for by all citizens.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The whole rationale behind the fee is to pay for the costs of the border, and not everyone goes through the border. I take the noble Lord’s point, of course, that maintaining a strong border is a cost to everyone.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether the Government have assessed how many people forgo registering for British citizenship for themselves and their families as they cannot afford it? How this might contribute to their sense of belonging and well-being is important. It is over £1,000 per person, and £4,000 for two adults and two children. What can be done to help with that finance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I mentioned earlier, there are waivers for certain groups of people, particularly children in care. I cannot tell my noble friend how many people did not apply or register last year, but I can say how many did. There were 49,000 applications for registration in 2019, and nearly 46,000 of those were granted, of which over 34,000 were for minors.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British? I think it is wrong, grossly unfair and risks pricing children out of their legitimate rights. There are numerous examples of when the Government have refused to let other bodies recover their costs. I have asked many times here why local bodies cannot recover their planning costs—but the Government constantly refuse to do that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to my noble friend, and say to the noble Lord now, we do not underestimate the significance of that cost, to either an individual or a family. We keep the fees under review, and, for children and their well-being, there are a number of exceptions to fees for applications for leave to remain.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, is this not just one other example of the feeling of hostility: that the Government, the Home Office and the immigration system are against us? Not only that, but imagine how full of worry and anxiety somebody facing deportation or tribunal is. This makes us one of the most inhospitable of countries. Is it not time to revise again the British Nationality Act 1981?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to when the fees were last agreed. They were set out in Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014, during the coalition Government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the “task and finish” exercise which she promised at Report stage of the immigration Bill will address the barriers to children registering their citizenship, as covered in my amendment, and that the outcome will be reported to your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On Report, I promised to meet with noble Lords. I called it “task and finish”, but I am still thinking of the best way to set that up. And yes, I would like to report some of the findings of that discussion to your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsWednesday 14th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 View all Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons amendments - (9 Oct 2020)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the Commons amendments, I will take a moment to remind us all what the Bill does. It gives our law enforcement officers the power to arrest individuals wanted by particular countries for serious crimes when they come across them at the border or on the streets of the United Kingdom. So, when the police come across an individual who they understand, on performing a simple database check, is wanted for a serious offence overseas, they can arrest them immediately without first applying to a judge for a UK arrest warrant. I know that noble Lords already agree that this is a sensible and necessary piece of legislation. I hope that we are now at the final stage of its passage.
Motion on Amendments 1 and 2
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 and 2.
The “designated authority” is the National Crime Agency.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to change the meaning of “designated authority”.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if noble Lords are amenable, I will address Amendments 1, 2 and 5.
First, I reiterate that the Bill is designed to bring a wanted person into their extradition proceedings as soon as the police come across them without changing in any way the likelihood of their successful extradition to any country. Ongoing extradition proceedings remain the preserve of the UK’s independent courts and all the safeguards that currently exist will continue to apply. The judicial oversight afforded to every person who goes through extradition proceedings remains unchanged.
I wrote to noble Lords on 21 September. I repeat what I said then:
“a UK court has no obligation to extradite a suspect who has been arrested using this or any power and the protections for every person who faces extradition in the UK remain in place within the Extradition Act 2003. This Bill does not make any individual extradition any more or less likely. The Bill allows UK law enforcement officers to better protect the British public and get potentially dangerous offenders off UK streets. It does not provide any advantage for the countries that are listed in the Bill and, as now, it is a UK court who will determine whether the fugitive should be extradited, not a court overseas.”
Amendments 1 and 5 are a contingency to keep an important protection for the UK public in place after the end of the transition period, whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. As noble Lords are aware, the negotiated outcome that we seek with the EU would create a warrant-based system based on the EU’s surrender agreement with Norway and Iceland.
The purpose of amending the Bill in this way and at this time is to ensure the continuation of relevant arrest powers should it prove necessary; it will be commenced only if it is needed. If an agreement is reached, it will not need to come into effect. It is a contingency. Similarly, it provides a contingency in the event that we do not agree new extradition arrangements with Norway and Iceland to maintain the arrest power currently available by virtue of the EU’s Norway-Iceland surrender agreement.
Our current warrant-based extradition arrangements, in the form of the European arrest warrant, and the ones we seek to negotiate based on the agreement with Norway and Iceland, both allow for the immediate arrest of a fugitive wanted by a party to the agreement to take place. We are of course seeking to agree arrangements to keep our power of immediate arrest and retain an end-to-end extradition system with EU countries, Norway and Iceland. The Bill cannot and does not provide an end-to-end system, as is being discussed in the negotiations, but it would none the less maintain an important existing law-enforcement capability in respect of persons wanted by EU countries, Norway and Iceland. There is no alternative in UK law or within the European Convention on Extradition.
So, in the absence of the power being available, this important protection for UK citizens from potentially dangerous criminals wanted across Europe would be lost. Last year, nearly 1,100 wanted persons were arrested in the UK based on a European arrest warrant. Between 60% and 70% of these were as a result of chance encounters. It is these arrests that this amendment provides the contingency for. The Bill is about ensuring that UK law-enforcement officers can continue to arrest dangerous criminals in the UK as they do now. It has nothing to do with whether any UK extradition requests from other countries are successful.
If we fail to legislate in this way and do not secure new extradition arrangements with the EU, Norway and Iceland, if a UK police officer were to encounter a dangerous criminal that they knew to be wanted by the police in an EU member state, they would not have the power to arrest them then and there. The police officer would need to let the individual go, secure a UK arrest warrant from the courts and then attempt to track down the fugitive, possibly days later and of course leaving open the possibility that they might reoffend.
I repeat: the amendment will be commenced only if no warrant-based system is in place at the end of the transition period. It will not be commenced if an agreement is reached with the EU or, in respect of Norway and Iceland, with those territories. The drafting allows for commencement only in relation to EU member states and not Norway/Iceland or vice versa to accommodate the different possible negotiation outcomes. Noble Lords will note that the provision also contains a sunset clause, such that it expires at the end of 2021 to the extent that it has not been commenced. I ask noble Lords to support the Government in this responsible and necessary contingency planning and to support Amendments 1 and 5.
Amendment 2 specifies that the National Crime Agency is to be the designated authority for this legislation and provides a power to change the designated authority by regulations in the future. The designated authority is the agency that will have the task of “certifying” the international arrest alerts that conform to the criteria for carrying out the new power of provisional arrest. We have taken this approach as a direct alternative to using secondary legislation on this occasion. The amendment therefore represents a change of process, not policy, and noble Lords will recognise that it is being made in response to pressures on parliamentary time.
Throughout the passage of this Bill, the NCA, as the UK’s National Central Bureau for Interpol, has been identified as the designated authority and has the need for a regulation-making power to change that, if necessary, in the future. This ensures flexibility for changing circumstances or alterations to the functions or titles of law-enforcement bodies in the UK, such as the NCA in this context.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, who laid a very similar amendment to this in Committee, for his contribution to the scrutiny of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this ensures the best use of parliamentary time, and the future-proofing of this legislation. I ask noble Lords to support the Motion on Amendments 1 and 2, and the Motion on Amendment 5.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lords who spoke to this. I start with the analogy between this and the European arrest warrant, and the suggestion that this was our intention all along. The Bill is similar to the EAW only in so far as it provides an immediate power of arrest of those wanted by countries listed in the Bill. It does not change anything about the subsequent extradition hearing in court or consideration by the Home Secretary.
In the negotiations going forward, I reiterate that we will remain fully committed to reaching a balanced and reciprocal agreement with the EU on law enforcement and criminal justice. The safety and security of our citizens is our top priority, which is why we have said that the agreement with the EU should provide for a fast-track extradition arrangement, based on the EU’s arrangements with Norway and Iceland. An agreement with the EU that reflected either the UK or EU text would keep EU member states in Part 1 of the Act, where the power of immediate arrest already exists. The Bill is for specified Part 2 countries only, for which there is currently no power of immediate arrest.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his use of the word “prudent”. I know he is not entirely satisfied with this outcome and would have preferred the EAW, for all its shortcomings, but I hope that that explanation is reasonable to noble Lords, for now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I now address Amendments 3 and 4, made in the other place, to remove amendments made here at Third Reading. Amendment 3 commits to Parliament having the same opportunities to scrutinise this issue as it does now in the specification of territories under the Extradition Act 2003. The addition or removal of any territory is by the affirmative procedure and, as I have emphasised throughout the passage of the Bill, any statutory instruments laid before Parliament are accompanied by Explanatory Memorandums, which set out both the legislative context and policy rationale.
Throughout this process, relevant officials are engaged in regular discussions with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations and law enforcement agencies, which operate across the UK to ensure the effectiveness of our extradition system. This system, which gives Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise such proposals and accept or reject them, has been in place for over 15 years and has proved effective and fit for purpose. The amendment ensures legislative consistency between the Bill and its parent Act, the Extradition Act 2003. There is no need for alternative provisions, and I hope noble Lords will support the amendment, which the other place considered in detail and decided, on balance, to comprehensively support.
I will now address Amendment 4, made in the other place, to remove the amendment made here. This provides that the removal or addition of a country will take place under the existing process in the Extradition Act 2003, where multiple countries may be added or removed at once. The Bill is consistent with that legislation and any Government seeking to add countries in the future can do so only with the consent of Parliament.
Unnecessarily burdensome legislation is an inappropriate use of parliamentary time and resources, and the Government are under a duty to use proportionate systems to legislate. Any additions are dictated by the will of Parliament and, if Parliament does not agree that a country should be specified, the relevant regulations will be voted down in the normal way.
The Government are well aware of the importance of parliamentary support to continue or commence any extradition arrangements with new countries. Our arrangements with Hong Kong are a good recent example, and amendments tabled to the Bill in the other place demonstrated the strength of parliamentary feeling on the matter. Our extradition arrangements with Hong Kong have been suspended indefinitely and these events exemplify that this kind of parliamentary scrutiny is already highly effective. As with the previous amendment, we do not think there is any need for this provision in the Bill. I therefore ask noble Lords to support these amendments and I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start with the issue that has been mentioned by all noble Lords who have spoken: the specification of non-trusted countries. Speaking as a Minister, when we look at secondary legislation we always look to see where the risks are and where the opposition might lie. For a Minister to bring forward a statutory instrument that might contain a country to which the whole of Parliament would be opposed would be to absolutely guarantee that that instrument would be voted against. The addition of any country must be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and I trust that neither House would be content to approve the addition of a country about which it had any concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about politically motivated extradition requests. I certainly have sympathy with her point, but the power is not being afforded to countries known to issue politically motivated extradition requests, nor does it alter the ability of a UK judge to discharge such requests in the normal way. The independent courts are the proper forums for deciding which extradition requests should fail, so it would not be appropriate to make provision relating to politically motivated extradition requests through this Bill, which is about a power of arrest. The immediate power of arrest proposed by the Bill will apply only to requests from specific countries: currently, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and, if necessary, the EU member states. These countries are specified as we already have effective extradition relationships with them, and we have confidence in their use of Interpol and the international arrest alerts that they issue. The Government have no intention of specifying countries which are likely to abuse the system to political ends.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the abuse of Interpol channels. International organisations such as Interpol are critical to international law enforcement and provide a secure channel through which we exchange information on a police-to-police basis for action. The UK continues to work with Interpol to ensure that its rules are robust, effective and complied with. The former chief constable of Essex was recently made the Executive Director of Police Services for Interpol, which is the most senior operational role in that organisation. A UK Government lawyer has also been seconded to Interpol’s Notices and Diffusions Task Force to work with it to ensure that Interpol rules are properly robust and adhered to by Interpol member states.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a sensible point about consultation. Of course, extradition is a reserved matter, but we have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations regarding the contents of the Bill and will of course engage with them as a matter of good practice where any secondary legislation is to be introduced in relation to it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5.
“3A In Schedule A1 (as inserted by paragraph 3), at the appropriate places, insert—
“Austria”;
“Belgium”;
“Bulgaria”;
“Croatia”;
“Cyprus”;
“Czech Republic”;
“Denmark”;
“Estonia”;
“Finland”;
“France”;
“Germany”;
“Greece”;
“Hungary”;
“Iceland”;
“Ireland”;
“Italy”;
“Latvia”;
“Lithuania”;
“Luxembourg”;
“Malta”;
“The Netherlands”;
“Norway”;
“Poland”;
“Portugal”;
“Romania”;
“Slovakia”;
“Slovenia”;
“Spain”;
“Sweden”.
3B Paragraph 3A is repealed at the end of 2021 if, or to the extent that, it has not been brought into force before the end of that year.”
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsMonday 12th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 137-I Amendment for Third Reading - (7 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should have said when I called the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we were talking about Amendment 1, to Clause 6. I now call the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I was about to clarify that we are talking about Amendment 1, but the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and indeed the Deputy Speaker, have now clarified that.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to remove the declaratory status aspect of Clause 6 so that it would provide for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme, where they applied to the scheme or a local authority did so on their behalf. It would do this regardless of how long the child or young person had been continuously resident in the UK. There is absolutely no difference of view on the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers as we end free movement—just as we are seeking to do where all vulnerable groups are concerned.
I set out in earlier debates on this provision the extensive support that the Home Office is providing to local authorities to ensure that those children and young people, as well as any other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme, and the secure evidence of that status which the scheme provides. This includes grant funding to organisations across the UK of up to £17 million over the period 2019-20, to support this and other vulnerable and at-risk groups in applying to the scheme. I am pleased to say that the Home Office announced last week that the number of organisations funded for this work would increase from 57 to 72. That includes local authorities and local government associations as well as charities.
I made it crystal clear in the earlier debates that, in line with the withdrawal agreement, where a person eligible for settled status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. I have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or care leaver does miss the deadline, they can still obtain lawful status in the UK.
In light of views expressed in this House in our earlier debates on this issue, the Government do not object to Amendment 1. We will see how the other place regards Clause 6 as so amended.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I give my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for what has been a difficult but nevertheless constructive Bill all round. The Bill gives effect to the ending of free movement as per the referendum and allows for the EU settlement scheme, which has been extremely successful in processing nearly 4 million applicants to date.
There has been a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House have found it difficult—views around leaving the European Union—but the constructive way in which we have approached it, even if we have disagreed, does your Lordships’ House great credit. I have to say that I admire the skill in moving some amendments that had nothing to do with the Bill, but we have had some very good debates despite that and I think it right that these issues be aired.
I thank all noble Lords involved and am very happy that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on her stamina and patience throughout consideration of the Bill, if not, perhaps, on the number of government concessions. We also thank her for her typical willingness to meet and discuss matters relating to the Bill; that is much appreciated. We appreciate, as well, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the work of the Bill team. In addition, perhaps I may be permitted to thank Grace Wright in our office for all her work and invaluable advice on the Bill.
This Bill has of course had its own unique incidents, not least the temporary hiccup over the voting arrangements. Let us hope that that remains unique to it.
As the Minister said, the Bill now goes back to the Commons—in my view, certainly a better Bill than when it left the other place. All that we can now do is wait to see what the Commons make of the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House.
I reiterate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and myself our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the Bill team, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in the lengthy and interesting debates during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am glad the Deputy Speaker has given me another chance to speak, because I forgot to thank both my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I will just thank them fulsomely and sit down.
Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 September be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers, including the UK branches and subsidiaries of overseas businesses, to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address the historic underinvestment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers.
The charge is currently paid by employers looking to sponsor a non-European Economic Area migrant for a tier 2 general or tier 2 intra-company transfer visa lasting more than six months. It also applies if the employers wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. The charge is paid upfront when the employer assigns a certificate of sponsorship to a migrant worker, and automatically calculated based on the dates provided by the employer as part of the sponsorship process. It applies at a rate of £1,000 per migrant per year for large businesses, with a reduced fee of £364 for small businesses and charities. To date, the charge has raised approximately £382 million. While the income raised is not additional funding for skills, it is helping to maintain the Department for Education’s existing skills budget and existing levels of investment in skills in England. Similarly, as education and skills are devolved matters, the income raised is helping to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations. It is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the formula devised by Lord Barnett.
Introduction of the charge was supported by the independent Migration Advisory Committee as part of its December 2015 review of the tier 2 immigration route. Subsequently, in its September 2018 report on the impact of EEA migration in the UK, the MAC continued to lend its support to this policy. Specifically, in relation to the abolition of the resident labour market test, which is not considered to be fulfilling its intended purpose of ensuring that employers look to recruit from overseas only where a suitable resident worker cannot fill the vacancy, the MAC stated that the immigration skills charge, alongside a system of salary thresholds, was the best way to protect against employers using migrant labour to undercut domestic workers.
The regulations are necessary to ensure continued application of the immigration skills charge under the new skilled worker route, which will replace the tier 2 general visa from January 2021 in the UK’s future points-based immigration system. I have outlined the costs and can confirm that these regulations do not change the amounts charged for either large businesses or small and charitable organisations.
The regulations also do not change the position in respect of EU, EEA and Swiss nationals, who are currently exempt from the charge. Given the ending of freedom of movement between the UK and the EU, we intend to remove this exemption. However, this will require separate consequential amendments following Royal Assent of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
As is currently the case, under the future immigration system there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as where the employer is seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations, where they are recruiting a person who is switching from the student route, or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. There are also exemptions for those within other sponsored routes such as tier 2 minister of religion visas and tier 2 sportsperson visas. These exemptions will continue to apply under the future immigration system.
The Government are making the biggest change to our immigration system in a generation and delivering on the will of the British people. These changes come at a time of global uncertainty as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, which has sadly resulted in lost and permanently changed lives. It has also resulted in many people across a wide range of sectors losing their jobs, at a time of wider economic uncertainty and instability. While it is right that the immigration system encourages those with the skills and talent that the UK needs to prosper, we must now, more than ever, continue to support our domestic workforce. The immigration skills charge is intended to do just that and ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in developing the skills that the country needs. I commend these regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, with quite varying views, on the immigration skills charge.
I shall come to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, first. On the numbers affected and the limits on numbers, I know that there will be no cap and, although I do not have figures to hand for the numbers affected, I can certainly write to him if we have them. Clearly, that would be a retrospective view, because it is about to be brought in, but we will certainly have the numbers since 2017, when it was introduced. The noble Lord also asked me what percentage of the DfE budget the charge represents, but I do not have that figure either.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Goudie, asked if this is a retrograde step. This charge has been in existence since 2017, and in what it does and does not do, the exemptions are nothing new, such as where employers are seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations, where someone is switching from the student route, and those under the ministers of religion and sportspersons tier 2 route. Those exemptions will continue to apply; they are not new under the future immigration system.
The definition is those who come under tier 2 and tier 5. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why they are necessary. It is to ensure continued application of the skills charge under the new skilled worker route. From what he was saying, I think that he is satisfied on that rationale. I think my noble friend Lord Moynihan asked what the definition of a sportsperson is. It is someone recognised by their sport’s governing body as being at the highest level of their profession internationally. I understand that it does not apply to their entourage.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, asked about the lack of exemption for health and care workers. As they will know, the Government are proactively supporting the health sector with a number of unprecedented initiatives, including introducing the new health and care visa. The income from the ISC is used to address skills and training gaps in the resident workforce, which includes the healthcare sector, but the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right to point out that it is funding those sectors not directly but indirectly. The rationale behindit is that we provide resident workers with the opportunity to develop skills which will enable them to progress in their career. As I think I have already pointed out, it is raised and paid into the Consolidated Fund and distributed to the DfE and the devolved nations using the Barnett formula.
Those are the questions that I can answer today. If I have left anything out, I will write to noble Lords, but on that basis, I beg to move.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsTuesday 6th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (30 Sep 2020)
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
The grace period regulations limit a legal basis to live in the UK to those who were “exercising treaty rights” in accordance with existing EEA regulations by the end of the transition period. This must mean that such citizens who are not exercising their treaty rights fall outside the protection of having a legal basis to live in the UK. This appears to cover a potentially significant number of people, including those who have not held comprehensive sickness insurance.
Amendment 27A ensures EU nationals cannot have an application denied for citizenship, settled status, or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance. It is clear from the debate there is considerable confusion—which I share—about the actual position. Surely, any doubts, confusion or uncertainty would be removed by the Government accepting this amendment or returning with their own amendment at Third Reading. That would help clarify the situation.
I conclude by simply saying this, as I do not want to repeat all the valid points that have been made. If Government will not do that, could the Minister spell out the circumstances in which an EU national would have an application denied for citizenship, settled status or pre-settled status on the basis they have not held comprehensive sickness insurance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has tabled Amendment 27A. I hope I can provide clarification.
The new clause has three main purposes. First, it seeks reassurance that comprehensive sickness insurance is not, nor will be in future, an eligibility criterion for applications to the EU settlement scheme. Secondly, it seeks to provide that if someone is eligible to apply to the scheme, their previous residence should be deemed lawful, whether or not that was the case under the EEA regulations. Thirdly, the new clause seeks to remove the lawful residence requirement from British citizenship applications by those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme.
Let me address the noble Baroness’s concern about comprehensive sickness insurance, which has been raised several times during consideration of the Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) of her proposed new clause concern eligibility to apply to the EU settlement scheme. I can assure the noble Baroness that currently, there is no requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance or previous lawful residence under the EEA regulations in order to be eligible to apply under the scheme. This will not change for applications made after the transition period, nor after the grace period. I can reassure the House that an application made before or after the deadline of 30 June 2021 will not be refused for failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance. Accordingly, the amendment is not necessary.
I turn to proposed new subsection (2), which seeks to provide that the previous residence of anyone who is eligible to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of next June will be deemed to have been lawful whether or not it in fact was. In doing so, the intention is to support applications for citizenship, which I will come to shortly. However, the effect of this amendment is wider. It would create new residence rights for those who do not have them at the end of the transition period, as they are not complying with free movement law and have yet to apply to the EU settlement scheme. Those who are currently here without residence rights will continue to have no residence rights until they apply to the EU settlement scheme; that is why we are encouraging them to apply to the scheme.
In line with the withdrawal agreement, the Government are using secondary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—the so-called “grace period SI”—to save the existing rights of those EEA citizens and their family members who are lawfully resident in the UK at the end of the transition period under 2016 EEA regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me to set out the existing rights; they are pre-settled or, indeed, settled status. This means that an EEA citizen, or their family member, who is resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but is not exercising free movement rights will still be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline of 30 June next year. However, they will not have any residence rights under free movement law protected during the grace period. This is for the simple reason that they do not possess these rights at the end of the transition period. This reflects the current situation, as set out in the free movement directive and the EEA regulations.
The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to create new EU rights of residence beyond those saved by the grace period SI once free movement has ended. That cannot be right, nor accepted by the Government. Having an EU “right to reside” provides other rights beyond the right to stay in the UK, as it can confer access to social security benefits. I am sure noble Lords would agree that, at this juncture, after we have left the EU, it would not be appropriate to widen EEA citizens’ benefit eligibility any further than those groups who are already entitled to it.
This brings me to the final limb of the new clause, which I think is probably its main objective, concerning how EEA and Swiss citizens who hold settled status might then proceed to naturalise and become British citizens. The noble Baroness will be aware that the power to determine naturalisation applications from all migrants—not just EEA and Swiss citizens—is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Under Section 6(1) of the Act, an applicant is required to show that they have sufficient residential ties here. For example, they must have resided here lawfully for at least five years and they must no longer be subject to any immigration time restrictions. Proposed new subsection (1) would require any residence before the granting of settled status to be treated as lawful, regardless of whether it actually was or the circumstances under which it occurred. That cannot be right, and I do not consider it unreasonable to ask anyone wishing to become British to have resided here lawfully.
Amendment 27A seeks to treat those with settled status under the EU settlement scheme differently from other EEA and Swiss citizens, and also non-EEA citizens. I believe the noble Baroness is most concerned about those who—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, outlined—are here as students or are self-sufficient. This is because free movement rules require them to hold comprehensive sickness insurance after their initial three months of residence in order to be lawfully resident. This is not a new issue. Had a student or self-sufficient person previously made an application for permanent residence documentation without holding CSI, they would have been refused.
The noble Baroness may be aware that, even where CSI has not been held by a student or self-sufficient person, it does not mean that a naturalisation application must be refused. The British Nationality Act permits the application of discretion to this requirement in the special circumstances of a particular case. Caseworkers will therefore continue to examine each application to understand why the individual did not comply with the EEA regulations, as well as any reasons which can nevertheless allow an application to be granted. This is already set out in published guidance for decision-makers. However, it is right that we assess on an individual basis, rather than having a general rule to overlook any non-compliance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, made a point which we went over in detail yesterday, about people who are applying either to the EU settlement scheme or for citizenship, which are two different things. There are a lot of voluntary organisations to help people who might need assistance through this process, but naturalisation as a British citizen is not part of the EU settlement scheme; nor is it covered by the withdrawal agreement. We welcome people who make the personal choice to become British citizens, but there is no need for any new arrangements because of our leaving the EU. The existing system already applies equally and fairly to all applicants. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurance that she sought and that she is happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. My noble friend Lady Ludford asked whether this was a chessboard, but I think it is more like snakes and ladders: up you go, you think you are settled and then you slither downwards into what she called the “crocodile-infested” waters of CSI.
When the Minister referred to “lawful residence” under the British Nationality Act I wrote a question to myself about whether this meant treaty rights—which you would need to have had CSI to exercise—to which I think the answer is yes. She then mentioned discretion. One always has a concern about discretion because the law should provide, not leave things to caseworkers, but the situation that we have posed is not unusual.
I do not intend a pun here, but the issue is not settled. I am glad that we have had this exchange. I do not pretend to know whether I am comforted. I think I am not, as noble Lords will understand from my last remarks, but much better that I leave the experts to use what the Minister has shared with us when they are considering the regulations. I thank her and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on having persuaded the Government to introduce their Amendment 32A, in the light of his comments on this in Committee, and on tabling Amendment 32, to which I have added my name.
The similar concern over wording that resulted in Amendment 33 has not been addressed by the Government. Amendment 33 would remove paragraph 6 of Schedule 1. As noble Lords know, paragraph 6, like paragraph 4(2), is broadly drafted. It provides that any EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are inconsistent with or “capable of affecting” the Immigration Acts or functions cease to be recognised.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have both expressed their strong concerns about the sweeping powers that the Government are seeking to take under the Bill—powers that will not be subject to any effective parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Minister said:
“I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 580.]
Why then are the Government not also prepared to lay out the law and provide that certainty over the EU-derived rights, powers, et cetera, that are being referred to in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1? I hope the Minister will answer that point in her response.
One has already been mentioned as a possibility. Bearing in mind that, in Committee, the Minister also said
“I note that the drafting of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 ensures that nothing is missed that might mean free movement was only partially repealed”,—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 576.]
that could mean that the Government are not prepared to move on paragraph 6(1) because they do not rate their ability to ensure that the Bill says all it needs to say to ensure that free movement is fully repealed. To cover up for their anticipated deficiencies, the Government take these powers to act without full parliamentary scrutiny and leave people in a situation where the legislation, in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, does not enable them to identify the exact nature of their obligations and rights. If that is the motive for not moving on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1, in the way that the Government have on paragraph 4(2), one can say only that that is not the purpose for which use of these powers was originally intended. No doubt we will hear from the Minister why the Government have not moved on paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 or at least produced their own amendment in response to Amendment 33 of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords who have spoken to Amendments 32 and 33. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the noble Lord and draft Amendment 32A as a result.
I understand why noble Lords find these provisions difficult to follow. They are, however, essential in repealing EU free movement. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of Schedule 1 disapply elements of retained EU law, where they are inconsistent with or affect the interpretation, application or operation of the Immigration Acts. “The Immigration Acts” is a commonly used legislative shorthand for the UK’s domestic immigration legislation. Most importantly, it includes the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the requirement for non-British and non-Irish citizens to have leave to enter or remain. “The Immigration Acts” is defined in Section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Bill, once enacted, will be added to that definition by Clause 3.
These phrases therefore clarify that the retained EU law in question does not provide a back-door route to enter or reside in the UK outside of the system of leave to enter and remain, once the main free movement legislation is repealed. That system is made up partly of Immigration Rules made under the 1971 Act. That is why the words
“by or under the Immigration Acts”
feature in these paragraphs.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1 applies only to Articles 2 to 10 of the Workers Regulation.