Brexit: Immigration Policy

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to outline their objectives for the negotiations concerning the immigration regime for European Union citizens, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that Article 50 will be triggered before the end of March 2017. We are still forming our negotiating position and are not going to offer a running commentary. It would be wrong to set out timelines before entering a negotiation. We want to get the right deal for Britain, not just the quickest one.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, and I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Migration Watch. I entirely understand the Government’s reluctance to set foot on what is likely to be a fairly slippery slope, but does the noble Baroness agree that it is going to be really difficult for the Government to stick out for three or four months with nothing more to say than, regrettably, she was able to say today? Will she therefore study the 10 key objectives that we published today to see whether they provide a suitable framework for this absolutely key aspect of the forthcoming negotiations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I have read the report and the recommendations, and I welcome the report. The Government have been clear that as we conduct our negotiations it must be a priority to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe. It would not be right, therefore, for us to give a running commentary on negotiations.

Immigration: Overseas Students

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating this debate, but I think my contribution to it may be slightly different from that of some of the previous speakers. I am sure that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, will be glad of that. I should first of course declare an interest as chairman of Migration Watch, unpaid of course, and I think I should say from the outset that while I am strongly opposed to mass immigration I am firmly in favour of a moderate level of immigration, and that surely is a natural part of an open society and an open economy. So I readily join with noble Lords, all of them in fact, who have spoken of the value of foreign students to our economy and our universities, and as “ambassadors” for the UK on their return. I have met them myself all over the world. Indeed, there is very little in what noble Lords have actually said in the debate with which I would disagree.

But most of the arguments that have been made fall to the ground if the students concerned do not return home, and that is where the issue lies. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked what the problem is with that, so perhaps I can help. The problem is the elephant in the room. The elephant is that the system—and we must recognise it—for the admission of students to the UK is in recovery mode. Some noble Lords will remember that following the introduction of the points-based system by the previous Government in, I think, 2008, student visas shot up from 230,000 a year to 300,000 in one year. Indeed, in late 2009 consulates in the Indian subcontinent and China had to be closed to student applications for several months. A review conducted by the National Audit Office in 2012 found that, in 2009 alone, between 40,000 and 50,000 students had entered the UK for work rather than study, as it put it rather delicately. In other words, there was massive abuse that in the longer term could only be damaging to our reputation as a source of education. Fortunately the Government have clamped down on it; I recognise that. To a certain extent this is ancient history, but it illustrates the pressures that can so quickly develop in the system. As one noble Lord mentioned, 850 bogus colleges have been closed down. But that is the background which cannot be ignored, and it seems to be the reason that underlies the Government’s policy, which we definitely support.

Despite that chequered but important history, the present regime for foreign students is actually a generous one. There is no limit on the number of genuine students—I stress the word “genuine”. There is no cap on those who wish to switch to work provided that it is graduate work and that they earn £21,000 a year. So I have to say that I am rather surprised by the continuing barrage of negative publicity about the offer that the UK gives to foreign students. It is not coming from the Government and it is certainly not coming from Migration Watch. It appears to be coming from the sector itself, but that is surely damaging to its own interests. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned, perceptions are very important. If all people hear is constant complaints from every academic in human history, they will think that something is seriously wrong. Would it not be much better for the sector to emphasise the positives of our offer and, where there are problems, to sort them out privately and quietly with the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested?

Underlying this is a disconcertingly wide gap between the inflow and outflow of students as measured by the International Passenger Survey—if that is correct. The average inflow for the past four years has been 127,000 and the average outflow 47,000, so there are 80,000 students a year over those four years for whom there is no evidence of departure—there is no doubt about that much. That is a huge number; it is about a third of all non-EU migration. It is quite possible that the exit checks that have just been installed show that that has been an undercount, but we will see. Rumours of 1% are extremely unlikely—that would mean that the IPS was missing 75,000 students a year, which is hardly possible. The prudent course has to be to await clarification before revising policy in either direction.

At least 10 noble Lords have called for the student numbers to be taken out of the immigration statistics. That is the worst possible route to take. As everyone knows, an international migrant is defined on a basis agreed with the United Nations. That is why all our competitors—yes, all our competitors—include them in their migration statistics. Indeed, it is the key to understanding demographic change and we must not fiddle about with it for other purposes. In any case, it would not work. The press would immediately add in the figures for students and the Government would be perceived as fiddling the figures on a matter of real importance to the public. They are right to rule it firmly out.

There have been a number of calls to widen the scope of post-study work but it is interesting to note that, when it was made a requirement that such work should be at graduate level, the number of foreign students taken in by employers fell from 55,000 in the one year to 6,000 in the next. It seems that industry was not desperate for their services.

I conclude as I began: I favour foreign students, provided that they are genuine. We must make sure that they are. In practice, that will turn on developing the exit checks which are now at a very early stage.

Brexit: EU Citizens

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend articulates that very well—far better than I could. I will certainly take those points back.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may help the Minister by asking a different question. Can she tell us which, if any, other Governments in the European Union have issued the kind of guarantee that has been mentioned this afternoon? If they have not given any such indication, why should we?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question, but maybe that comes back to the previous point that we are leading by example.

Student Visas: Pilot Study

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, student exchange schemes should not be affected by this at all, given that they are in the education system.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that what is really important in post-study work is that the students, or rather the graduates, are required by employers? Would she agree that the change that the Government have made focuses on that and creates a much more effective situation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord’s point; the students entering into employment are doing so in sectors that require their skills.

Migration

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they intend to take in order to reduce net migration to the United Kingdom.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, we remain committed to bringing migration down to sustainable levels. The EU changes which the Prime Minister has secured will reduce the artificial draw of our welfare system. We are cutting abuse and raising standards on non-EU visa routes. The changes that we are making to the work visa system and implementation of the new Immigration Act will seek to challenge the permissive environment of the past.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I am grateful for that response. Is the Minister aware that the population projections that underlie all the Government’s policies simply assume that net migration will fall by 40% and stay down? Does he realise that, if the current levels of immigration should continue, we will have to build a new home every four minutes, 24 hours a day, just for new migrants and their families? Will he therefore urge the Chancellor to put much more serious resources into the immigration system to restore its effectiveness?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Government recognise that a growing demand by way of immigration has to be dealt with and can mean increased pressure on housing and public services. That is why we are working across the Government to reduce net migration to sustainable levels and delivering the investment this country needs to provide sufficient housing and effective public services.

Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, I have one brief question for the Minister, who is going to rehearse the various stages of the resettlement schemes over the past few years going back to before he came to the Front Bench. Is it not the case that the Government dragged their feet rather with the original UNHCR resettlement scheme, which would have been very similar to the scheme before us? Could he not therefore make up the ground, because I think the Government have already made their decision?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has correctly anticipated the thrust of my response to his amendment. There are of course provisions in the Dublin regulations for uniting refugee families and they are being implemented, albeit very cautiously—I accept that—but this amendment throws caution to the wind.

Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 120 provides for almost any relative of a person settled in Britain to be treated as a refugee and admitted to the UK. All he or she would need to do would be to register as a refugee with the UNHCR, so there would be little of the careful investigation of individual circumstances that applies to those who claim asylum in Britain. We would in effect be outsourcing decisions on refugee status as well as risking the development of very large numbers indeed. The second part of the proposed new clause, subsection (1)(b), is not much better. Almost any relative of someone granted refugee status in Britain would automatically be admitted, irrespective apparently of their particular circumstances.

Let us not forget that, in the past 10 years alone, some 87,000 people have been granted asylum or humanitarian protection in Britain. This amendment would throw open the door to literally hundreds of thousands of people, whether or not they themselves were in danger. Let us not forget either the question of cost, which in this context I will raise. The costs are huge. Those granted refugee status are entitled to full access to the benefits system, to the National Health Service and to social housing, where they tend to get priority because their needs are probably greater than those of many of the indigenous population. I find it surprising, actually, that such a proposal should be made when Europe is almost overwhelmed by enormous numbers of refugees and asylum seekers making their way to this continent.

I think that the amendment should be firmly resisted, but Amendment 122A is a much more realistic proposal. The fact that it uses the word “may” rather than “must” is a help, and it sets a number, which is also a help. We have to recognise that whatever limit is set would come under pressure, but it seems to me a viable start, whereas Amendment 120, in my view, is not.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who is a co-sponsor of Amendment 120. I will not repeat the cogent reasons for the amendment set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but I will offer one observation which I think also applies to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

There is one outstanding reason for these amendments. It is that stable families make stable societies, which in turn make for a more stable world. Do we appear to believe this? A visitor from another planet attempting to understand our Immigration Rules—it would need to be a very intelligent life form to do so—but it would be unlikely to conclude that we did all we could to enable family reunion; quite the reverse. What sort of system permits refugees to be reunited with children aged under 18 with spouses or partners, but children who are recognised as refugees have no similar right to be reunited with their parents? They must rely on discretionary provision, which is frequently not given. Hence a child granted refugee status may have to endure prolonged family separation. The argument for this anomaly, which is the most polite way of referring to it, is that to grant family reunion will feed the practice of people smuggling and may cause hazardous and dangerous journeys to be undertaken. The probability must surely be that illegal means of travel and entry are more likely to be attempted than less.

Reuniting a family creates the sort of economic, social and emotional support that people need. It may well save money from the public purse that would otherwise be expended on dealing with the traumas and mental unhappiness caused by enduring family separation. I believe that the present rules do families no service and do our society no good. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the spirit of these amendments and upon the value of family life as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the hour is very late. I shall be very brief. I find myself on this occasion in broad agreement with the interventions in this debate. The abuses in Iraq and Syria are repulsive and surely can only amount to genocide. I therefore welcome effective action in respect of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria.

I will just make two practical observations. The first refers to proposed new subsection (1), which is very widely drawn. We could at some future date find that literally millions of people qualified for the presumption that they met the qualifications for asylum in the UK. In the past five years alone, the office of the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide has named five countries as being at risk: Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya and Ivory Coast. Any of these situations could descend into genocide in the coming years, so it follows that a blanket clause in our immigration law could prove to be a serious hostage to fortune. I am not sure how that can be dealt with. A limit of numbers is a possibility. That was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and might be a way forward on that point. But above all, it is surely essential to avoid a situation where a thoroughly well-intentioned statement sets off a wave of humanity that has reached the limits of its endurance. I leave it to the proposers to consider that point.

My other observation refers to proposed new subsection (3), which envisages British missions overseas assessing applications. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that is a difficult road to go down; I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, had similar doubts. It is not hard to imagine a ghastly event in Sudan or somewhere leading to hundreds of claimants camping outside some of our missions. It might be possible to engage the UNHCR in the process. If it does not have that capacity, we might be able to consider, for example, sending a team of British officials deployed for this purpose in situ. They might be established somewhere appropriate, perhaps in a refugee camp near the border with the country concerned, but certainly not in a mission, which would very soon be swamped.

The practicalities clearly need some further thought and we should not overlook the point that to move away from the fundamental principle of claiming asylum in the UK is a major departure. That said, I think we must find a way to tackle this ghastly situation—to break, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, put it, the cycle of inertia.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, will be brief. There can be no doubt that the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Kennedy, have brought an issue of the most profound gravity to our attention, and they have done so with characteristic eloquence and passion. It is essential that Parliament takes the time to consider the appalling treatment meted out to Yazidis and Christians, the threat of extinction that faces these ancient communities, and what our considered response should be to this genocide claim. What is being proposed today is that we amend primary legislation in far-reaching ways with minimal consideration and debate. Surely a better way forward would be to establish a specific review that does justice to the enormity of the issue that is before us today, which would then be the subject of a sufficiently lengthy debate in both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, at the previous stage my noble friend and I tabled an amendment that sought to change the financial thresholds that currently apply to spousal visas. The Minister gave as one argument for the threshold the need to protect families, saying that the Government want to see family migrants thriving here, not struggling to get by. But separation does not help people to thrive. The Minister thanked my noble friend for raising our sights at that point by talking about love. So instead of another amendment on financial thresholds, my noble friend and I have decided to say what we mean, which is this: do not set a financial threshold on love.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the amendment simply deletes a key requirement in a spousal visa. Noble Lords will remember that the Migration Advisory Committee was invited to make recommendations on what should be a threshold. I take the point that the noble Baroness would not like a threshold at all, but the recommendation was £18,600 as the level at which no income-based benefits were paid. The level at which the overall costs to the Exchequer would be zero was £40,000. That gives an indication of the cost to the taxpayer of abolishing this income requirement. It is surely not right that the taxpayer should be obliged to subsidise at such a considerable level the arrangements of other people. This amendment would drive a coach and horses through that requirement, and I hope that it will be opposed.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and I appreciate the knowledge and the strength of feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He has put this as a matter of fundamental principle. I respect that, but I am afraid that we disagree on it, and I shall try to explain why the Government feel like that.

The amendment concerns the family Immigration Rules for British citizens which also apply to those who are settled in the UK and those here with refugee leave or humanitarian protection to sponsor a spouse or partner to come and remain in the UK. Of course, we welcome those who wish to make a life in the UK with their family, to work hard and to make a contribution. However, we believe that family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and that family migrants must be in a position to integrate into British society. That is fair to the applicants and to the public and it is the basis on which the family Immigration Rules were reformed in July 2014 by the coalition Government.

The amendment would reverse those reforms by removing all requirements except the requirement that the marriage or civil partnership is not a sham. So the effect of the amendment would be to remove the minimum income threshold and accommodation requirements; to remove the requirement for basic English language speaking and listening skills; to remove the suitability requirements which prevent a foreign criminal from qualifying for leave; to remove the minimum age requirement; to remove the requirements which prevent the formation of polygamous households and prevent those with a prohibited degree of relationship from qualifying; and it would run counter to Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases engaging the qualified right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as set out in the Immigration Act 2014. This would undermine our system for family migration. Understanding basic English and being financially independent, for example, help to ensure that the migrant spouse or partner can integrate and play a full part in British society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend filleted his remarks rather skilfully. I have been trying to do the same, but I think they are going to come out a little disjointed. I am sure we will be told that we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals when regulations are laid. However, I think we know that we can debate but not scrutinise effectively when we have unamendable regulations.

In the public sector generally, particularly the health and education sectors that are publicly funded, I wonder whether there is a risk that the charge will in effect be recycled back into the sector—less all the administrative costs that are lost along the way—if the sector can actually train via apprenticeships. That is not, of course, the case for doctors and many other front-line healthcare professionals. Yesterday, when I was preparing a very much longer speech than this, I wondered about the logic of a charge whose effect may well be to reduce the contribution of skilled workers because employers will simply not be able to afford them. We may be left in a worse position than we are in now. Undoubtedly, we should have enough information to be able to debate these very significant proposals, at the stage of primary legislation, in an effective, possibly even constructive, fashion. It is very disappointing that we are left without that possibility.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I very much agree with the thrust of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I think he was absolutely right.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for moving the amendment. We have to remember that what we are seeking to do here is to introduce a levy in order to bring about some behavioural change in the way that people think about recruitment. For far too long it has been an automatic thought to recruit people from outside the European Economic Area without giving proper attention to whether those skills are there in the resident labour market. The immigration skills charge is seeking to provide some funding, first, to see if it causes the organisation to stop and think about whether there are alternatives from the resident labour market and, secondly, to provide some additional support through the funds raised by the levy.

Given the hour—and of course the noble Lord is familiar with the points I made in Committee—I am happy to put further thoughts in writing to him if that would be helpful. I will just deal with some of the particular points that he and other noble Lords raised.

There are exemptions to the charge. An exemption will be applied to migrants undertaking occupations skilled to PhD level. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in terms of academia—

Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neuberger (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on moving it. My uncle came here at the age of 13—he would have failed the 12 year-old cut-off point—as a semi-unaccompanied refugee from Nazi Germany; my mother was an adult when she came. I want to say something about the courage of the British Government at that time. When we talk about not wishing to accept the amendment, we should think about just how brave were the British Government against other Governments who did not wish to show such generosity and kindness in the late 1930s and in 1939 itself. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, paid tribute to Sir Nicky Winton, but, wonderful as he was, he was not alone—there was Trevor Chadwick, who worked with him. There were also British diplomats around Europe, particularly in Germany and in Austria, who played a major role in helping Jews and left-wingers get out of Germany and Austria. I pay particular tribute to Robert Smallbones, Arthur Dowden and the MI6 spy, Frank Foley, who does not receive enough tribute.

The reason for supporting this amendment is not only the moral one—it is the least that we can do—but something about what Britain is and what Britain should be and setting some kind of example. We could do it in the 1930s. Why cannot we do it now?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, this is a very difficult issue. The heart indeed speaks strong and it beats particularly strong, it seems, in this Chamber, but we also have to think it through a little. I entirely understand the good intentions behind the amendment, and nobody is better placed than the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to propose it and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to speak to it. I would be perfectly content to support a Motion calling for HMG to accept a larger number of children and their families from the refugee camps elsewhere in the region. It is not a question of cost; it is a question of need and one that we should be ready to meet.

My concern is that the amendment refers specifically to unaccompanied children in Europe. These children are already in Europe and are initially the responsibility of the Governments in the countries where they find themselves. The idea seems to be that we, the UK, should take a fair share of these children, who indeed find themselves in terrible circumstances. But there is a risk, which we cannot dismiss—it is a serious risk—that in doing so we will make a bad situation even worse. We are not dealing here with a finite number of children—it is no use saying, “There are 24,000 children; we will take 3,000 of them”. We are dealing with a situation in which the families concerned have come to the view that if they can only get their children into Europe, they will be looked after, and as a secondary consideration they themselves might be able to follow them up later.

To my mind, the follow-up adults are not the issue, rather it is the risk that still more children will be put at very serious risk. A well-intentioned action could have the perverse effect that many more thousands of children will be sent off to face the terrible conditions that have been described. If so, we would not be solving the problem, and indeed we might be exacerbating it. That is why I believe that the Government are right to take refugees from the region, but not from Europe. It is unsatisfactory, but it is perhaps the least bad outcome. We have to consider this carefully. A point which has frankly been ducked in this debate—I think only one speaker has mentioned it—is the risk that this will generate very large numbers of children being put at risk and make a bad situation worse.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. The first is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, who talked about anyone over the age of 12 not being vulnerable. I find that a quite incredible thing to say, not just in the sense that 13, 14 and 15 year-olds are vulnerable, but because when we talked about votes for 16 and 17 year-olds in your Lordships’ House, people on those Benches were saying that 16 and 17 year-olds were not mature. So there is a form of hypocrisy here in terms of the age of those who are seen as vulnerable.

My second point is that it is a complete nonsense to suggest that this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would act as a pull factor. It suggests that parents and children are sitting in a war-torn part of the world and suddenly say that because 3,000 children have been accepted into the United Kingdom they are going to send their children here. People are fleeing because they fear for their children’s lives and their own lives, not because of some rational thought about what is being said in the sanitised, oak-panelled walls of this Chamber.

I end by saying this. I was brought up to do the right thing, not necessarily the easy thing or the technical thing about the territorial boundaries of where a child in need is. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It sends a message about the morals of this country: that we open our hearts and our arms to those in greatest need. We do not turn our backs on vulnerable children.

Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to speak briefly to Clause 42. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke powerfully and from long experience, and that has to be respected. However, it is troubling that he suggested that the police cannot be trusted to enforce a carefully drawn law. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said on that subject.

I remind the House that the major purpose of the Bill is to make it more difficult for those who have no right to be in this country to remain here. Those who do so add to the pressures on public services, and we should remember that there are no actual barriers to them accessing health and education services. There is widespread concern throughout the country about the scale of illegal immigration, in part because it tends to lower the wage rates for the low-skilled workers. In a sentence, there are very good reasons for this Bill and very good reasons for this part of it. Action is needed and should be pursued with care and with thought to the points raised, but it really ought to be taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support Amendments 84 and 85 as a member of the all-party inquiry, which I came away from convinced of the case for a time limit, based on the experience of other countries and on the evidence that we have received from professionals and those with experience of detention about the impact of indefinite detention in particular on mental health. I am going to apply a self-imposed time limit on my own comments, and I am going to scrap what I was going to say about that. However, given the very broad all-party support, which we have heard about already, whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular amendment, when Liberty tells us that this is one of the greatest stains on this country’s human rights record in recent decades, surely we should do something to remove that stain.

I move to Amendment 85 and government Amendment 86. While I welcome the decision to publish statutory guidance on the new adults-at-risk decision-making procedures, I have some concerns, particularly with regard to pregnant women. Although it is welcome that they will automatically be treated at the highest level of risk, it is still not clear why the Government have refused Shaw’s recommendation of an absolute exclusion from detention. I note that the Home Affairs Select Committee has asked for an explanation of this in its recent report, and I would appreciate one, too.

Women for Refugee Women has raised a number of concerns with me and, if it is easier, I shall be quite happy for the Minister to respond to these in writing later. First, can he give some indication of how the new gate- keeper team will operate and explain why it was decided not to include an independent element in decision-making, as suggested by Shaw in recommendation 61? Secondly, it is worried as to how “imminence of removal” will be interpreted under the new adults-at-risk approach, given that this is the wording already used in the current policy. Under this policy, it says that nearly one-third of the 99 pregnant women detained in 2014 were held for between one and three months and four for between three and six months, which suggests a rather loose interpretation of imminence in the context of pregnancy. It is also worried about what is meant when the draft implementation approach states that the level of risk/vulnerability for which someone has been assessed will depend on the type and quality of the evidence available. In the experience of Women for Refugee Women and of Helen Bamber, what is understood as constituting independent or good evidence is often a real problem for survivors of sexual violence. Under rule 35, for instance, evidence such as a doctor’s report on mental symptoms has been dismissed because there is no physical evidence. Will self-disclosure be accepted as evidence, as it is by many other agencies?

I was pleased to read of there being new guidance on care and management of women in detention. That sounds like a positive step. Would the Minister undertake for the Home Office to consult organisations such as Women for Refugee Women, on its contents?

It appears that the Government have also rejected Shaw’s recommendation that the words,

“which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention”,

should be removed from references to individuals suffering from serious mental illness. Shaw states that,

“it is perfectly clear … that people with serious mental illness continue to be held in detention and that their treatment and care does not and cannot equate to good psychiatric practice (whether or not it is ‘satisfactorily managed’)”.

He concludes:

“Such a situation is an affront to civilised values”.

Can the Minister say whether the recommendation has been rejected; and, if so, why? Finally, can he explain why the statutory instrument giving effect to the statutory guidance will be subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative, given the importance of these details? Will he commit to independent monitoring of the new regime, with regular reports to both Houses? In this way, we can assess whether the new adults-at-risk policy proves to be the generally transformative approach that has been promised.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I share the doubts expressed about Amendment 84 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. We need to be clear on what is at stake here. It is not simply the number of weeks that someone is held in detention, important though that is. The capability to remove those who have no right to be in this country is absolutely fundamental to the credibility of the entire immigration system; and, indeed, the power of detention is essential to effective removal. This is fundamental in a number of respects, not just to the human rights aspects. It is fundamental to the whole immigration system.

Broadly speaking, I would argue that the system is working, although obviously it can be improved. I remind the House that in 2014 nearly 30,000 people were detained in immigration detention centres. But here is the point: two-thirds of them were there for less than 28 days. If you are going to set a limit of 28 days, what you are saying is that there are going to be 10,000 cases a year of people appealing to the immigration tribunal for release—10,000 cases, at a time when the tribunals are struggling to deal with 20,000 or 30,000, an increasing number of asylum cases. Throughout this debate, I think everyone has recognised that we need a faster and more effective system, and it seems to me that to introduce an amendment of this kind would do it very considerable damage. There may be scope for a much longer timescale of 90 days or whatever. That could be considered, perhaps, by the Government. But to set it at 28 days is, I think, quite wrong. As was mentioned in earlier debates on this Bill, it would encourage people to spin things out to get to the 28 days, they could then apply for their bail, and then—who knows?—they might disappear.

This amendment can only help such people. We need a much faster asylum system if public support for the whole system is to be maintained. This amendment would slow it up, and it should be resisted.

Immigration Bill

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

I wish simply to thank the Minister for these changes, particularly in view of the two codas from our legal friends on the dangers of the amendments and the explanation that my noble friend put forward about their real meaning. I hope the Minister will take back to the Government the great advantage to be gained from being seen to listen to sensible arguments in the House of Lords and changing the legislation as a result. There are many other occasions when we would get through our business much more quickly if sensible debate was ended by a sensible change of mind by government.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will contribute a slightly wider point to the discussion. It is surely clear to all of us that a substantial number of people would like to come to this country and work illegally. As the Home Office will confirm, nearly half of those who apply for asylum have previously been working illegally and apply only when discovered. We have literally thousands of people queueing up in Calais wanting to get into Britain and work illegally. They know perfectly well that they will be illegal when they get here but they come because they want to work and send money home. Understandable though that may be, it is surely essential that there should be a disincentive to those people from making that attempt. The obvious thing is to make it illegal. There is no way that they will understand the intricacies of British law—indeed, the deputy mayor of Calais does not understand them—so it must be made illegal. If the Government can usefully adjust the law in terms of prosecutions, so be it, but let us keep our eye on the ball. There are literally thousands, if not many thousands, who would like to come and do this and they should be deterred.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just said. Clause 32 would essentially criminalise knowingly working illegally. I find it difficult to suppose that there would be much if anything in the way of the successful recovery of illegal earnings under POCA, and I can hardly think that that is the real object that underlies the proposed introduction of this new offence. Surely the real question is whether the suggested benefit indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Green—of adding this explicit new offence to the altogether more abstract existing offence of working in breach of immigration conditions, to discourage people smugglers by cancelling the message that they presently give to aspiring immigrants; namely, that there is no such existing offence here—outweighs the suggested risk of the exploitation of such workers by henceforth making it more likely that they will keep their illegal working secret. My judgment is that it does outweigh it. Therefore I support the existing clause as amended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made the best case that could possibly have been made for his amendment. He was very effectively supported by many others: the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger. Clearly, there is, if you like, a human case to be heard and I am glad that it has been heard. But again, if I may say so, there are some wider aspects that also need to be taken into account. First, not all people who seek asylum are in fact genuine. The record is that 50% turn out not to be, so we have to have that in mind when we consider the people who are making applications.

Secondly, the most recent EU directive requires that there should be access to the labour market after nine months, and it is now proposed that we should go to six months and be on the more generous side among EU nations. It is perfectly fair to make that point, but mention was made of Sweden, which has had a very large number of applicants—much larger than most countries in Europe. Until recently, Sweden allowed all asylum seekers to work from the time that they arrived. Without question, that was a major reason why there was such a large inflow to Sweden, and it is why the Swedes were obliged recently effectively to try to close their borders.

One problem with going to six months is that it could become almost an incentive to asylum seekers to spin out their cases. If they could make enough appeals to slow up the process, then they would be able to go out to work. So there is some risk there.

However, my main point is that this is really almost an extraordinary time to propose this change. I mentioned earlier the thousands who are queuing up in Calais; these are not desperate people but people who are already in a safe country—that is the fact of the matter —and it would be entirely open to them to claim asylum in France, which is what both Governments are now trying to encourage. Really, we should not do this now. It should be our objective to reduce the pull factors—and pull factors do exist, even if one does not like the term—not to increase them.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, powerful arguments have been made in favour of the amendment, led by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who made an excellent speech. He was kind enough to quote what I said in Committee, and I want to return the compliment. In Committee, he said that,

“alleviating destitution amongst asylum seekers is a prerequisite if we believe in the upholding of a person’s human dignity. The right to work is fundamental to this”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 843.]

So, extremely importantly, this is not just about self-reliance and retaining skills for the benefit of the person and society—bearing in mind that a high proportion of these people will go on to live for many years, or possibly for the rest of their lives, in this country, so what is not to like about them retaining their skills?—it is also about human dignity.

It seems to me that much of what we are discussing in this Bill is a kind of displacement activity for what should be the core function, which is to apply immigration law efficiently and effectively. If asylum claims were determined as swiftly as possible, while allowing for people’s rights to be respected, many of these problems would not arise. Illegal renting or driving and all this outsourcing of immigration control would be unnecessary. We keep having to come back to the main issue: whether the UK Border Agency, or whatever it is now called in the Home Office—sorry, I forget, but my past is not in domestic immigration law—is efficiently assessing asylum claims.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that I do not think that anyone is proposing, and the amendment is certainly not proposing, that people should be able to work from the day they arrive; it would be after six months. So, with respect, the Swedish experience is not really relevant to this debate.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said in Committee that UK policy is,

“fair and reasonable … and is consistent with our obligations under EU law”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 851.]

Unless he knows otherwise, I understand that we do not have any obligations under EU law in this area because we are not opted into the so-called reception conditions directive, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, obliges other EU countries—and would oblige us if we were opted in—to allow work after nine months. We are not bound by that directive or, as I understand it, any other provision of EU law because we have opted into only some EU asylum directives, and not that particular one. We are entirely free, so please, for once, can we not blame Brussels for what we are doing in this area? As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, 12 countries allow working after six months, but all those other EU countries which are bound by the reception conditions directive, and do not have the choice the UK has, are of course obliged to allow working after nine months. We should not pray in aid EU law in this particular area.

All rational arguments are in favour of allowing the right to work—those based on human dignity and self-reliance, as well as the economic points and the fact that public opinion understands that people are trying to support themselves and not scrounge off the taxpayer, if £5 a day can be called scrounging off the taxpayer. The only argument attempted against it is that it would be a pull factor—our “old friend” the pull factor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said. I cannot understand how it can be argued that someone who is working illegally would deliberately make themselves known to the authorities by claiming asylum. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested that sometimes people claim asylum after they are discovered working illegally, but that is quite different from deliberately claiming asylum when you are working illegally undetected. Why would you then claim asylum and bring yourself to the attention of the authorities in order to get the right to work?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

The point is that 50% of those who claim asylum were working when they were discovered.

[Baroness Ludford]

The answer to that, as I said at the beginning, is to apply the law more efficiently. There is every benefit in making things above the law and in regularising people’s right to work. The more we can bring people into the light of day—what they are doing, whether they are legally in the country and whether they have a right to work—the better for enforcement. What is so pernicious for public confidence in the asylum system is the idea that so much of what is done is not being properly regulated, enforced or managed. That is where the concentration and the focus has to be. Like my noble friend, I fully support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My name is also attached to this amendment, which we support and for which we will be voting if the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House. The noble Lord has made a powerful and persuasive case, as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not intend to go over again all the arguments that have been advanced but shall just reiterate one or two.

The amendment is intended to implement the terms of the Ewins Independent Review of the Overseas Domestic Workers Visa. The Conservative Minister said in the Commons:

“I cannot commit a future Government, but the intention is that whoever is in government—I very much hope it will be the Conservatives—will implement the review’s recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/15; col. 650.]

This amendment enables the Government to deliver on an intention declared by a Conservative Minister during the passage of the then Modern Slavery Bill.

Mr Ewins stated in his review that his recommendations were the minimum necessary to protect overseas domestic workers, but the Government have indicated in their recent letter that they intend to implement less than that minimum. They say that Mr Ewins identified gaps in the evidence available. That is true, but Mr Ewins looked at the evidence that was available and made recommendations based on it. Rather than accept those recommendations, which largely confirm the arguments put forward during the passage of the then Modern Slavery Bill, the Government are proposing their own courses of action.

One is that all domestic workers should be allowed to change employer but only within the currency of the six-month visa. The Government say that their proposal acknowledges the case put forward for providing overseas domestic workers with an immediate escape route from abuse. However, one has to ask what the prospects are of changing employer if you have to say to a new employer that you are permitted to stay in the United Kingdom only for an absolute maximum of six months and very likely much less than that, as such overseas domestic workers would be very unlikely to decide to move from their current employer immediately. I suggest that the chances are likely to be slim and, without work, how would such an overseas domestic worker manage to live without falling back into exploitation and abuse, as there would be no recourse to public funds?

A six-month visa restricted to domestic work in a private household is no help to a vulnerable worker looking for a good employer. In reality, who would employ someone for less than or up to six months for childcare or care work? From a commercial point of view, who would employ someone for six months or less in a childcare or housekeeping position? It is just not long enough, especially since, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, the new employer would be highly unlikely to be able to get a reference from the previous employer.

An overseas domestic worker is more likely to report the abuse if they have left the control of the employer concerned and have relative security. That is what Mr Ewins’s recommendations were designed to achieve—recommendations which the Government appear to have either rejected or, at least, not accepted. Mr Ewins concluded the following in paragraph 10 of his review:

“On the balance of the evidence currently available, this review finds that the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.

This amendment seeks to provide in the Bill for the implementation of the Ewins review recommendations through the Immigration Rules, and it is an amendment that we support.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, I take a different view on this and I do not apologise for doing so. I accept that the motivation is entirely well intended but I fear that it is completely impractical. Anyone who has been involved in issuing visas overseas will be astonished by this proposal. It would provide what will be seen by many as a wide-open door to the UK.

Earlier, the question was raised as to why the Government had not accepted the report from the reviewer. They could not have foreseen that the reviewer would simply deny that there were implications for immigration control, but there most certainly are. This is an invitation to anyone who comes here on a visa as an overseas domestic worker to leave their employment whether or not they are being abused. If they were being abused, of course I would support the idea that, through the mechanism that now exists, they should be helped, looked after and given time to organise their affairs. But the amendment says that any of the 17,000 workers who come here as domestic workers can leave their employment at any time and stay on for another two years with another employer. And then what? They will probably disappear. That is amazing and it cannot possibly be a basis for government policy.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, this amendment brings us to the issue of how best to protect the interests of those who are admitted to the United Kingdom as domestic workers and how the Government plan to respond to the Independent Review of the Overseas Domestic Workers Visa, produced by James Ewins.

When we discussed similar amendments in Committee, I undertook that the Government would clarify their position on Report. I am pleased to be able to say that we have done so. The Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime made a Written Ministerial Statement on 7 March setting out the Government’s response to Mr Ewins’s key recommendations. The meeting we had on 11 February at the Home Office, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, to discuss these issues was also attended by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and Mr Ewins, and it greatly assisted the Government in coming to their final view.

The key issue is the proposal that we relax the employer tie. Mr Ewins proposed that we do this by permitting those admitted as overseas domestic workers to change employer and to be granted an additional two years’ stay for this purpose. The amendment before noble Lords would appear to go slightly further by providing for an additional two and a half years to be granted for this purpose.

The Government have considered this matter carefully. We have come to a somewhat different view of how best to approach it, but it is one that I hope will meet with the approval of your Lordships. Our primary aim is to ensure that, where abuse takes place, it is brought to light so that victims can be supported and action can be taken against perpetrators. Our concern is that if overseas domestic workers enjoyed an unconditional freedom to change employers and extend their stay for as long as two years, this would undermine the national referral mechanism and perpetuate a revolving door of abuse. The Government have also noted the view of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner that such arrangements might create a situation in which the trafficking of victims between employers flourished more easily.

The Government are proposing two changes in response to James Ewins’s proposal. First, they acknowledge that overseas domestic workers should have an immediate escape route from abuse. We will therefore, as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has proposed, allow those admitted as domestic workers to take alternative employment as a domestic worker during the six-month period for which they have been admitted. Their entitlement to change employer will not depend on whether they have been a victim of abuse and they will not need to make an application to the Home Office for permission to do so, although we will wish to encourage notifications of any changes of employment. Secondly, we will increase from six months to two years the length of the extension of stay that can be granted to an overseas domestic worker who has been confirmed as a victim of slavery or human trafficking.

Taken together, these measures strike the right balance between ensuring that overseas domestic workers have a “self-help” remedy and ensuring that the national referral mechanism is not undermined. This approach will also complement the action that the Government have taken under Section 53 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to protect against enforcement action those identified as potential victims of abuse, and to provide actual victims of abuse with greater certainty as to their immigration status. By contrast, and contrary to the current provisions of Section 53, the amendment before noble Lords would appear to protect overseas domestic workers against enforcement action, irrespective of whether they had been the victims of abuse. That approach may simply invite wilful abuse of the terms on which such workers are admitted.

It is common ground between the Government and the proposers of this amendment that Mr Ewins’s recommendations concerning information, advice and support meetings should be adopted. The Government have made it clear that they will implement these recommendations as soon as possible. The amendment, however, seeks to impose a requirement to attend such meetings through guidance issued to immigration staff. It is not entirely clear how that would work, and the Government have indicated that they intend to go much further.

We will place the requirement to attend such meetings within a wider scheme of controls aimed at enforcing the obligations placed on the employers of such workers. We will do so by introducing a system under which such employers must be registered with UK Visas and Immigration. If employers fail to comply with their obligations, we will be able to consider striking them off the register so that they will no longer be able to sponsor the admission of domestic workers. The existence of such a register will send a powerful deterrent message to those employers who may otherwise doubt the seriousness of our intention to root out abuse.

The Government have made it clear that they will implement the planned changes through changes to the Immigration Rules. No amendment of primary legislation is required. The Government consider their response to the independent reviewer’s report to be a coherent approach to the issues, balancing the need to encourage those who are victims to access the national referral mechanism, the need to provide support to victims where they are identified, and the need to adopt more measures to deter employers who think the system is blind to their activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked how many cases involving overseas domestic workers had been handled by the national referral mechanism. Between January 2009 and December 2015, there were 80 positive conclusive grounds decisions under the NRM in respect of non-EEA nationals admitted as overseas domestic workers. Those admitted as overseas domestic workers accounted for 3% of all NRM referrals between July and December 2015. Of those overseas domestic workers in the NRM process, so far about 30% have obtained a positive conclusive grounds decision and at least 29 referrals still await a decision.

How many overseas domestic workers have received compensation or an extension of their visa as a result of having entered the NRM process? We do not have figures for what proportion have received a conclusive grounds decision under the NRM and have also been granted an extension of stay. If we can establish that figure, I will write to the noble Lord. How many employers have been prosecuted or banned? No reliable figures are available for this. In fact, in his report, James Ewins referred to the absence of information available to him.

I think I have covered most of the points and questions that were raised. From what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has said, I have picked up that he intends to press his amendment and that no matter what we say it will be very difficult to move him on that. However, I personally firmly believe that his amendment would put more people at risk than the current policy, as set out and amended, before us today—it is a carefully considered mechanism. I ask the noble Lord and the Opposition to think very carefully about that. They are proposing that there should be no obligation for people to go through the national referral mechanism, but if they do not, we do not have a record of who employers have been carrying out this abuse on. It is a revolving door for abuse: the employers can go on abusing and go on bringing people in, and they will not be prosecuted. That is a tragedy and a complete failure, not just for the people who are here but for those who are going to be brought here in the future.

Under the national referral mechanism, people get access to a whole range of benefits provided by the Salvation Army. They get safe accommodation; emergency medical treatment; material assistance; access to a complaints service; translation and interpretation services; information and signposting; advocacy for specialist services; access to education for dependent school-age minors; and transport services. They get access to all those things but under this amendment they would not.

The noble Lord asked me in Committee if we would organise a meeting and invite James Ewins. We did better than that: we invited James Ewins and we also invited Kevin Hyland, whom we appointed to act as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and who enjoys widespread respect in this House for clamping down on trafficking. Do you know what he said at that meeting on 11 February? The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, heard it as clearly as I did. He said he feared that by adding another two years to the time that people could stay here, they would be made vulnerable to the trafficking gangs that all our modern slavery legislation has been introduced to mitigate.

Having seen the vote on the previous amendment, I know that the noble Lord has the numbers to get this amendment through. However, I urge him to think carefully about whether this will make people safer. Fewer people will be prosecuted because we will not know about them, more people might fall victim to the trafficking gangs, and fewer people will get access to the type of services provided by the Salvation Army. I ask the noble Lord to think very carefully on that before he presses his amendment.

Migration

Lord Green of Deddington Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the most recent quarterly migration statistics.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, immigration remains too high and we are committed to bringing it down to sustainable levels. Our reforms have cut abuse and raised standards. The Prime Minister renegotiated the UK’s position within the EU to exert greater control by closing the backdoor routes into the UK and tackling the artificial pull factors, but there is still more work to do.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that there are important benefits to be gained from controlled immigration? However, is he aware that net migration at its current level is well above the high migration scenario of the official population projections? Does he recognise that that implies an increase in our population of half a million every year, of which 75% will be due to future immigration? Does he appreciate that this increase is equivalent to a city the size of Newcastle, Edinburgh or Bristol, and that that increase will continue until such time as there is a significant reduction in net migration?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, as we all are, to preface our remarks in this area by talking about the immense benefits that controlled migration brings to this country. He is also correct in saying that if you use the statistical data available to forecast, you arrive at roughly the numbers he referred to. Of course, that assumes that no action is taken. That is the reason the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and others have been working hard through the Immigration Bill and the renegotiation with our European partners to ensure that we address some of the pull factors which cause people to come here in greater numbers, and to increase the discomfort for those who are in this country illegally. I believe that that will have some effect and ensure that the situation projected will not turn out to be so.