Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have never been called a hard cop before, but in this context I take it as a compliment. “Regret” for us is a technical term, but it feels too mild for how I and I know other noble Lords feel about these changes. We are just those in the Chamber; it is the outside world and the impact on citizens that I regret hugely.
Knowing that the Liberal Democrats will be almost entirely on their own if we divide on a fatal Motion, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and everything she has said, and have decided to add a few points.
With regard to the intention to increase the threshold beyond £29,000 to £38,700, that is pretty much doubling the previous £18,600 without consultation or clarity about the policy objectives and at odds with the Government’s commitment to family life. I am calling on the Government to reverse the increase which is now in place and commit not to increase it in 2025.
The minimum income requirement has not been easy from the start, which was more than a decade ago. I used to think that spouse and family visas would be revised when a couple of Cabinet Ministers realised the problems for their children who had fallen in love with people from say, Costa Rica, the US, or, now, Italy because, as people have said to me quite frequently, you cannot help who you love. I was wrong about that, but I still hear the disbelief: “How can the Government do this to me? I am a British citizen”. I still hear stories like that of a gentleman from Swansea, which was and is a low-wage area; we are aware, of course, of the regional disparities in incomes. He was married to a Canadian woman, a teacher. She could not join him here because of the rules then, but she could have helped, if she had been allowed, to care for his disabled child, enabling him to work more hours and saving the state money. At a personal level this is distressing; at an intellectual level, it is nonsense.
I have heard distressing descriptions of the impact on a child separated from a parent. One child thought daddy had no legs because he could not see them online. I remember a radio call-in where the caller said, “You could move to your wife’s country and work there”. The British husband replied calmly, “But there is not much call for mortgage-broking in Nigeria”.
Apart from concern for the impact on individuals, no Government should set a tone for suggestions that, in effect, are, “Get out of the UK if you marry a foreigner”. Part of the Government’s justification for these changes is that they are necessary in the interests of the economic well-being of the country and people not being a burden on the state. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, the NRPF rules do not apply in any event, certainly not for a long period—so what is the burden? Apparently, it is because the state has a responsibility to somebody who is destitute. I think that was what the Minister had to say in the Commons, but we are talking about such small amounts.
The Explanatory Memorandum talks about the
“wider ambition for the UK to be a high-wage, high-skill economy”.
Do we not need, for instance, people at the start of their careers: young teachers, young police officers, young scientists? They are not going to meet this requirement. The spouse family visas amount to about 5% of all entry visas. The Commons Minister set the context as “immigration numbers”. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to
“supporting the aim to reduce the overall level of net migration”.
The Minister in the Commons spoke of “protecting British workers”. From what? As the noble Baroness has said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been hugely critical of the absence of an impact assessment or an equalities impact assessment. The rationale, it tells us, rightly, is not well explained. The reasons for these changes are inconsistent. It says in its report that the
“aims may all point in the same direction, but they could imply different appropriate levels for the threshold. The Home Office should be clear about exactly what is its intended outcome and then set policy accordingly”.
The committee’s report to the House includes its questions to the Home Office about the methodology basing a threshold on percentiles of earnings distribution for jobs eligible for skilled worker visas. I acknowledge that the Government introduced some transitional arrangements after the initial announcement of the increases in the threshold, but these changes were really just tweaks: £29,000 now will be £34,500, and then “at least”—I am very keen to hear what “at least” means—£38,700 “by early 2025”. I hope the Minister can be clearer about both those points.
That people need to know is not my principal criticism, but it is hugely important. People need to know, for instance, at what level their savings can be taken into account. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Home Office to consider mitigating actions and referred to relying on the income of the partner currently overseas. I would add that current earnings are not a bad indication of future likely earnings. It referred to relying on credible promises of third-party support. The answer, apparently, was that this would happen only if it would enable the Home Office to avoid breaching Article 8. The committee also referred to combining all financial resources such as savings and income from self-employment. The answer to that was “No”.
The Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which I was chairing at the time, published a report in February last year on family migration that included the minimum income threshold as one of a number of items. I am going to quote a little from the report. We reminded readers of the Government’s commitment to family life, in the words of the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, who said:
“Strong, supportive families make for more stable communities”.
In a speech setting out his priorities for 2023, he said that, by being overly restrictive, family migration policies weaken families and undermine communities.
We took the view that family migration policies, of which this was one, fail both families and society—families, because the desire to join family members is a natural and understandable response, and the rules force families to live apart. The Home Office portrays family separation as a choice on the part of the family. We profoundly disagreed that it was a matter of choice. We said that we believed that policies that respect family life also benefit society. The interests of families and society are not in competition; they go hand-in-hand.
The Prime Minister also said:
“Family runs right through our vision of a better future”.
We agreed with that. This is a bad decision on the part of the Home Office. It is a brutal decision.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I am not quite sure what follows the soft cop and the hard cop; certainly not the fair cop. I would like to add three points to the case against these changes, which has been so brilliantly put by the two cops. I have two points about process, one about substance.
On legislative process, it is absurd to produce a 289-page volume of detailed changes with no impact assessment. It is really very odd to say at the time that the impact assessment has been prepared and will be published, “urgently”. That is what the document said at the time. We have now been waiting exactly two months. It was two months ago today that the papers came to Parliament.
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its two excellent reports. It rightly points out that, without providing adequate explanation of secondary legislation’s consequences, it is quite wrong to expect the House to approve it. Our scrutiny role is pretty vestigial at the best of times, but we cannot do our job at all if we are given no analysis of the consequences of the laws we are invited to pass. Refusing to tell us makes a mockery of the process and must verge on contempt of Parliament. So, I support both regret motions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, for clarification, can the Minister expand on the “at least” £38,700, whether there is a top limit, whether there will be consultation on it, and when the Government intend to make any announcement with regard to this?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I cannot but, for now, at least means at least.
Modern Slavery National Referral Mechanism: Waiting Times
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
No. I do not see why it would make witnesses less likely to come forward.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that delays with the NRM leave potential victims without the security that they would otherwise have and—following on from the last question—make them more open to further exploitation and re-trafficking? Does he also recognise that many victims of trafficking are British citizens?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
What I recognise is that this is very complicated. Referrals into the national referral mechanism are made by a number of public authorities, including the police, local authorities and so on, as well as non-governmental organisations. Then, one of the two competent authorities takes a look and makes an initial reasonable grounds decision, following which a potential victim is entitled to a minimum 30-day recovery period, unless there are grounds to disqualify them from that entitlement. The recovery period lasts until a conclusive grounds decision is made. These cases are very complex. In many cases, there is insufficient evidence and information in the referral form, so the competent authorities must consider all the information available to them and request it from various other authorities over which they have little or no operational control, and they do not have investigatory powers. This is extraordinarily complicated, but of course I recognise the victims’ distress.
Inadmissible Asylum Seekers
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, both my noble friends have asked some questions. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Hussain’s question is a new one, but my noble friend Lord German certainly asked questions to which many organisations and many citizens want to know the answer.
The Refugee Council has sent us its estimates. No doubt the Minister has seen these, and I hope he will be able to answer on them, directly or indirectly, because if the Government will not say and will not give us the answer then what has happened to accountability, and if they cannot say then what does that tell us about how much they are in control? Last week, I asked some questions about numbers and the Minister regarded them as operational matters that he was not able to answer. I hope he will be able to be more forthcoming today.
I wanted to speak about housing, but I realised that time would be against me. I think all noble Lords will understand that, for everyone, housing is essential for stability and a basis from which exploitation and a whole range of abuses, including trafficking, can be avoided. If one does not have it, one is in real trouble.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights six or seven years ago when it considered detention in various circumstances, one of which was immigration detention. There are plenty of reports on the damage that detention can do. The committee was actually very shocked at the evidence it heard. The Government may say that one aspect of detention has been solved, which is the lack—or rather loss—of hope. They may say that is now irrelevant because detainees know they will be removed to Rwanda. I would challenge that.
I would also challenge how people are currently being detained, according to widespread reporting. This is not new, but people are being picked up from reporting centres and taken into detention without belongings, clothes, medication, phones or the means of contacting anyone who can help or needs to know. Neither the treatment nor the occasion is new, but if an asylum seeker is complying with the terms of their bail conditions, goes to report and behaves entirely properly then why are they received and dealt with in that way? Why the brutality and dehumanisation?
Of course, people are becoming more aware of what might happen without warning. I understand that they are being advised to pack a bag now, with contact details of lawyers and support organisations, and leave it with friends so that somebody can access it. But we also know that people are already slipping away and going underground.
I also want to ask about the Safety of Rwanda caseworker guidance, version 1.0. The legislation requires “compelling evidence”. The guidance has a section on this that is introduced by saying that it
“explains the meaning … for the purposes of considering claims that Rwanda is not a safe country for the claimant in question”.
How does this differ from the guidance from which the Home Office, and advisers and experts, have been and are working when the issue is whether a country other than Rwanda is a safe third country?
It is important to be clear what is required for evidence to be “compelling”. I thought I understood that when we were debating the Bill, but looking at the guidance, I am not sure I do. It looks to me as if the previous, or existing, tests are those required to be met. The references are—I suppose inevitably—to cases that precede this April. The term “compelling” is repeated and repeated, but that does not necessarily help. I am very much a lay person, but it did not seem to me in the past that the Home Office was satisfied with evidence provided by an applicant for asylum when it was not compelling.
I have been asked by a psychologist—I should declare that they are a personal contact—who has made assessments of asylum seekers and acted as an expert witness to the court, about my questions and whether I can pursue them, which chimed with my own reading. It is important, of course, that experts and advisers are clear, as well as the Home Office, because “compelling” must mean something. The guidance refers to
“a credible report from a suitably qualified independent expert, based on an adequate assessment”.
Of course, but is that a particular expertise that is different from previous expertise? The guidance also states that
“where the assertion is of a type for which strong, objective evidence ought to be available, such as the existence of a medical condition or a history of engagement in political activism, the threshold is unlikely to be met in the absence of strong, objective evidence in support of the claimant’s own account”.
Evidence of political activism is likely to be available—certainly in documentary form in the applicant’s coat pocket. It is exactly the sort of thing that it would be unsafe to travel with. As regards medical conditions, does this mean evidence recorded prior to the claim? Is it something new? Further assistance would be very helpful.
The guidance states that the impact of the threat of removal to Rwanda must be discounted. Is this rhetorical? Is it possible for an individual to be assessed without taking account of the whole situation, including removal from all his social, religious and support networks? My noble friend Lord German has raised some very pertinent questions about limbo-land, or purgatory. One thing is for sure: limbo-land is not a safe country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that I am coming to a more detailed set of number shortly, if he will bear with me. The safe third country inadmissibility policy is a longstanding process, intended to encourage individuals to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is an established part of international asylum procedures, applied across the EU and explicitly provided for in UK law, including in the strengthened provisions introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
With the exception of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, those who choose to travel from a safe third country such as France, and then claim asylum in the UK may find their claim treated as inadmissible to the asylum process. That means that the UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal to a safe country.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate about facilities in France, anyone detained at the border is held for the shortest time possible. We prioritise processing children and vulnerable people as quickly as possible. Individuals in detention are held in safe and decent conditions. There are established procedures in place in every facility to monitor people’s welfare and safeguarding needs. These facilities are subject to inspection by HMG’s Inspector of Prisons, accompanied by their French counterpart, to ensure that they are of the highest standards.
It is in this context that current removals to Rwanda may apply. Any individual who is otherwise suitable for an inadmissibility decision and who has arrived in the UK through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary methods since 1 January 2022 may be considered for relocation to Rwanda, under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Individuals will only ever be removed to a third country when that country is safe and removal is appropriate, according to the individual’s particular circumstances.
Once commenced, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act will further strengthen our approach to inadmissibility. When a person meets the four conditions under Section 2 of the Act, they will be subject to the duty to remove. Any asylum or human rights claims made against the person’s country of origin will be declared inadmissible. The UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal either to their home country—if it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
As of 14 April 2024, there were 21,313 outstanding claims made between 7 March and 19 July 2023. In addition, there were 51,925 outstanding claims made on or after 20 July 2023. I would caution that this data is provisional. It is taken from live operational databases and has not been cleansed to remove duplicates. The finalised figures as at the end of March 2024 will be published later this month.
The right reverend Prelate also asked me about the numbers of missing children. There are 111, they are all male and 98 have reached the age of 18. There are 13 left who are under the age of 18.
These provisions will apply to both adults and children. The duty to remove does not require the Secretary of State to make removal arrangements for unaccompanied children, but there is a power to remove unaccompanied children in limited circumstances, such as family reunion with a parent. However, any asylum or human rights claim made against the child’s country or origin will be declared inadmissible. Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK.
Once commenced, these inadmissibility provisions will apply to those who are subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act, and who entered or arrived illegally on or after 20 July 2023. As all asylum claims are generally worked in date order, the next cohort of asylum claims that are due to be progressed are those made by individuals who arrived in the UK after 7 March 2023. Further information will be published on our plans to decide these cases in the coming weeks. I am afraid there is no more I can say at this point.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I appreciate that the time allocated for the Minister is passing but, since several noble Lords took far less time than their allocation, I am sure the House will be sympathetic if he continues.
I think he has finished with the numbers, which he said would answer my noble friend Lord German; I am not sure that they have. On the same subject, the only way to come without crossing the channel would be to fly or to be here already, because we are an island. The report on safe routes published some months ago merely reported on what the safe routes are, without proposals for new safe routes. Can the Minister tell the House what proposals the Government have in mind so that their conditions can be fulfilled? I also hope he can answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the reporting.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that under the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act, a consultation process took place with local councils and authorities to find out what their local capacities are. I believe that consultation process has concluded, but I do not yet know the outcome. That will presumably inform the debate as to the safe and legal routes that may or may not be made available after we know the numbers.
We are continuously working through cases that could not previously be progressed as they require further investigation. The difficult cases typically relate to asylum seekers presenting as children, where age verification is taking place; those with serious medical issues; or those with suspected past convictions, where checks may reveal criminality that would bar asylum.
To come on to a few of the more specific questions, I can say confidently that detention capacity is sufficient. I cannot comment on other operational aspects around detention, but as of 24 April there were 2,200 people in immigration removal centres, which includes those liable for removal to Rwanda.
In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I can say that any evidence presented by an individual will be considered on its own merits. The information needs to be substantial and reliable and support the claim being made.
In answer to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German, about our ODA spend, that is all reported in line with OECD rules. We do not include support costs for those in detained accommodation, nor for those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible.
Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2024
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, although I have to say that my head was beginning to spin even though I spent a bit of time looking at this issue yesterday. I have a couple of questions and a request for an assurance on which I wrote to the Minister yesterday by email, which I hope got to him.
My first question is: with the judgment having been given in December 2022, why has this taken so long? I appreciate that it will have needed some consideration. I note too that the current guidance was published in November last year, so it seems to pre-empt the order. Does it?
The order takes effect the day after it is made, so I wonder about the sequence of events. Being more practical about it, I wonder whether any people will be caught in the gaps. I do not feel at all qualified to guess at that, but there may be applications pending. In the last debate, there was reference to unintended consequences—I hope that will not be the case here.
I am grateful to the organisation the3million for its briefing on this next issue. A pre-settled status holder who has not achieved permanent residence will be affected. Such a person will not ultimately be able to apply for settled status if they are absent from the UK for too long, and they are at risk of having their pre-settled status curtailed if they are away for too long. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to that at paragraph 5.8 but these issues are not immediately identifiable from the order itself. The substantive part of it basically says, in four different places, “after such and such, omit the word ‘unlimited’”, which seems quite hard for an adviser to follow through.
The change in legislation following the High Court judgment is welcomed by the3million, but it is concerned that both individuals and advisers—I should think that advisers dealing with this sort of thing must have a permanent headache—will incorrectly think that pre-settled status holders can be away for up to five years without loss of status. The organisation has said to me that it explains to them that that is indeed the case but they should beware because it is meaningless for an individual who does not have permanent residence rights in law, and that in itself is not straightforward to explain. It says that a pre-settled status holder who does not have permanent residence rights and is away for over six months is likely to be questioned at the border on return and is at risk of their status being curtailed.
Immigration Update
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement; I have a number of questions for him.
What is the Government’s plan for the 99% of people who will not be sent to Rwanda? How will the Government fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to detain everyone crossing the channel, given that there is fewer than one detention space for every 10 migrants who make that journey? Of the 5,700 migrants who have been identified for removal, only 2,145 can be located. Where are these people and what is the department doing about tracking them down? Can the Minister explain what will happen to the more than 150,000 people whom the Refugee Council estimates cannot be removed to Rwanda or returned to their home country since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Act 2023? Does he accept that these people are stuck in limbo and are likely to be reliant on Home Office support or to go underground?
Do the Government have an updated figure for how much money has been sent to Rwanda? Will they publish the advice that they have received on their new visa rules and what impact they believe these changes will have on key industries such as hospitality and social care? What action are the Government taking to ensure domestic social care training and recruitment so that elderly and vulnerable populations are cared for? How are they working cross-department to address this issue? I remember that the Minister largely answered that question in the previous business. Will the Government commit to publishing their analysis on the workforce and economic impact of their immigration policies, and are they considering stronger measures to crack down on rogue care sponsors?
There has been a huge amount of publicity in the last couple of days about the one volunteer who was flown to Rwanda with £3,000. I understand from reading the papers that he was from Africa in any event. In addition to that £3,000, is there any support? On other schemes, people being sent to Rwanda are likely to get a five-year support package as they make their new lives in Rwanda. Will the individual who voluntarily flew out also be entitled to this package of support? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I am sorry that he has been given the task of defending what reads more like a press statement on the eve of an election than an update on overall policy, but perhaps I am prejudiced. I am sorry that the Statement does not extend to putting our policy into an international context and telling the House anything about work being done with international partners.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I am interested in this well-covered story of the individual who has received £3,000 under the old scheme to go to Rwanda. What support will he receive to help him settle in? Will he have to pay for it out of the £3,000? Can the Minister give a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers who are not missing but who cannot be found? How many are due to report within the next week, the next month and so on? What is the “range of measures” to remain in contact with those people and how does the Home Office know where they are when they are reporting digitally? Will the Government keep the House updated on this?
The Statement refers to the minimum income requirement for family visas, which we will be debating the week after next. We have just debated overseas care workers bringing dependants, so I will ask some questions about students—most, but not all, of whom similarly cannot bring dependent family members—and about young people.
On students, where has there been a reduction in student visa applications? Is there data to show which courses have a reduction in international student numbers? Have the Government consulted universities recently about the impact of international student numbers on their university funding? Is the reduction in numbers reflected more in certain nationalities than others? What would be the long-term impact on university funding? Has an assessment been made of the impact of the policy to reduce international student numbers on the soft power that creates for the UK internationally?
With regard to young people, the youth mobility visa scheme offered by the EU has been rejected by the Government and I understand that Labour takes the same view. Why have the Government rejected this out of hand? Details would need to be negotiated but it is a sensible proposition. It would boost our economy—especially in hospitality and tourism—offer important opportunities for young people to live and work abroad and have an important role in our relationship with the rest of Europe. Why have the Government rejected the proposal?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those questions. I will start with the cohort that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to. He asserted that of the 5,700 that have been identified, the Home Office has located only 2,143. This is not accurate. In preparation for flights taking off, we have identified the initial cohort to be removed to Rwanda, as was said in the Statement, and have dedicated caseworkers who are ready to process any claims. An initial cohort of around 2,000 suitable cases has been identified for removal. They have been placed on immigration bail with strict reporting conditions. For those outside this group, there is still a wide range of tools to maintain contact with them, including face-to-face and digital reporting, while many individuals are also residing in Home Office accommodation. We are confident of their whereabouts. Once the decision to detain is made, this is just one of the cohorts of people who may be eligible for removal to Rwanda.
As to those who may or may not get sent to Rwanda, I am not qualified to comment on those particular statistics. I certainly did not recognise the one that the noble Lord quoted from the Refugee Council, so I will refer back to Hansard and, if I may, I will reply in more detail. On money, I do not know how much more has been released to Rwanda. I am basically up to date with what I read in the papers, which is that when the treaty was ratified there was another release—but, again, I may have to come back and correct the record on that.
The noble Lord asked me again, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the impact assessment. As I said on the previous group, the intention is to publish this as soon as possible. There are a number of assumptions in there that are being reworked, and as soon as those are solved or sorted, it will come around.
The noble Lord did acknowledge that I have already answered a lot of the questions that he posed about the domestic workforce, the plans we have in place and the cross-departmental work with DHSC and DWP—so I will not rehash all that, because it would bore the House to tears. On his final question about the volunteer who flew to Rwanda, as I understand it, he qualifies for the five-year support package, as outlined in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of students. We expect to see a surge of applications in the summer as students tend to apply for their visa in advance of their course start date, most commonly in September. We have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look at the whole student situation; I am not quite sure when it is due to report back, but it will certainly do so in due course, and I am sure we will discuss its findings.
The noble Baroness also asked me to comment on a large number of operational matters. I am afraid I will not do that, for very obvious reasons, but I will recount some of the work that is being done with our international partners, particularly on the policing and law enforcement side. As noble Lords will be aware, to stop boats launching we signed the biggest ever deal with France; we have doubled the organised immigration crime funding for the National Crime Agency; and, as I mentioned again in the opening Statement, last year the French stopped 26,000 boats launching and we took down 82 gangs. Since the inception of the UK-France Joint Intelligence Cell, 24 organised crime groups have been dismantled, with 12 in 2023; and 280 people smugglers were arrested in 2023, including 94 pilots of small boats. The NCA also conducted the biggest ever international operation targeting networks suspected of using small boats for people smuggling, with 136 boats and 45 outboard engines seized. Over 150 small boats and engines have been seized as a result of the work of law enforcement in the UK.
On working with EU partners, illegal migration, as noble Lords will be aware, at the EU’s external border is growing dramatically. It is the highest it has been since the 2016 migration crisis. There were about 380,000 irregular crossings at the EU’s external border in 2023, showing a 17% increase from 2022 and indicating a consistent upward trend over the past three years. But the UK is committed to working with our European partners on these issues, both bilaterally and multilaterally, including at the EU level. I have mentioned FRONTEX —I could go on. There are an awful lot of interesting EU and broader European initiatives taking place, but I do not want to bore the House and I will not go through all the details now.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for taking the Front-Bench slot from this Bench instead, where I can lean on the back of the Bench in front of me.
The inscription on the sculpture at Waterloo Station commemorating the Windrush generation reads:
“You called … and we came”.
It is the first and repeated line of a poem by Professor Laura Serrant, a very senior nurse, celebrating the call between 1948 and 1971 to people to care for this nation. One stanza is as follows:
“Our big hearts, skilful hands and quick minds
encased in our skins – of a darker hue.
Which had shimmered and glowed
in our sunnier climes.
But now signified our difference
– our un-belonging.
Matrons became assistants
Nurses became like chambermaids.
All the while striving to fulfil our promise
– to succour, to serve, to care”.
This is not the first time that I have used poetry in this Chamber to make a point which I cannot make quite so clearly myself.
I share both my noble friends’ regret regarding these rule changes as they apply to care workers—though “regret” is rather a mild term when we still look beyond the UK to other countries for people to care for us but do not treat them as we should. We fail to respect them as we should. We subject or expose them to experiences that do not show respect or, sometimes, humanity. We may not display overt racism in the same way that the Windrush generation encountered, but failing to recognise that caring is part of the culture of some other nations in a way that it is not in ours is, I think, an aspect of othering.
The paradox—or contradiction, if you like—of “We want you and we need you but there is a limit to how far we will reflect that in our rules and our ways of working” remains. It is reflected in the rules regarding dependants and in the risks of exploitation. My noble friends have covered that very fully, as did the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—although, as usual, it couched its criticisms in very careful language. Its report on the lack of an impact assessment and an equality impact assessment is very clear and, in my view, uncontestable, as is the absence of consultation. On the latter, the Government explained that
“an external consultation would carry an unacceptably high risk of a prolonged spike in applications pre-empting the rule changes”.
In other words, they have made the decision and do not want to have anything fed back to them that disrupts that decision.
To say, as the Home Office did, that a formal public consultation
“would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes”
overlooks how our care system operates, which is of enormous public interest and concern. It is something that people think of in terms of their own lives and the lives of the people they are close to. The Home Office explained that consultation would be disproportionate because of the
“marginal benefits of consulting on these particular changes – which would be unlikely to … inform the policy in any meaningful way”.
I leave that to speak for itself, but to me it is an interesting approach to consultation.
I am a member of the Select Committee reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, and we have identified the care sector as one to be concerned about. I do not want to say too much about that, not least because we have yet to take oral evidence from the CQC, but the CQC’s expertise, or the limits of its expertise, and its capacity have already been identified as areas to investigate: just what is to be inspected; what about enforcement; how best practice is to be encouraged and maintained; and all this in the context of a route designed, as the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration put it, as applying to a largely compliant sector but applied to a high-risk area. It is a fragmented sector too, and it is easy to let people fall through the gaps. And it is a sector where exploitative practices are seen in providers who are actually now registered with the CQC.
How “the party of the family” can introduce rules about dependants, most of whom must be children and all of whom are subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rules is beyond me. How does this help in filling care roles? Is it a deterrent that care workers cannot bring their dependants with them? Deterrence must be a term which the Government wish had never been coined. It seems that, yet again, immigration numbers trump every other consideration.
Professor Serrant’s poem ends:
“Recognising the richness of our kaleidoscope nation.
Where compassion, courage and diversity are reflected
in our presence and our contribution:
Not only the hopes and dreams of our ancestors.
Human values needed to truly lead change … and add value.
Remember… you called.
Remember… you called.
You called.
Remember, it was us, who came”.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving his regret Motion and for the way he did it so fully and so movingly, if I may say so. I also thank the two other Liberal Democrat Peers who have spoken. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Allan, had an interesting perspective, with the various questions he asked the Minister and the way he delved a little more into the fraud that is strongly suspected to be currently within the system. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has taken a long-standing interest in these matters.
Anyone who works in our adult social care system deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and our thanks should go to anyone who comes to our country to join our adult social workforce and our NHS workforce. The changes the Government have made regarding access to and cost of visas, including family visas, have had a huge impact on many families across the country, and there are serious concerns about how lack of transparency in the Government’s decision-making only makes the situation worse.
Net immigration levels soared to 745,000 in 2022, despite the Government repeatedly saying their priority is to bring them down. This compares to a net immigration level of 245,000 in 2019. We in the Labour Party are clear that this level of immigration is unsustainable. We must ensure a level of controlled immigration that balances the needs of the country. Our efforts to create a sustainable system must be evidence-based and transparent. The Government have not been clear, in the large number of major changes they have made in the past year, about why decisions are being made and what impact they will have on our workforce and our economy. The Migratory Advisory Committee must be asked to investigate the impact of preventing workers bringing dependants to the UK, as well as the setting of salary thresholds, and decision-makers must consider those findings and reach a sensible, balanced conclusion.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Baroness Hamwee ExcerptsTuesday 16th April 2024
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 60-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendment - (16 Apr 2024)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion B I will also speak to Motions D, D1, E, F and F1. At this late stage in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, it has been made unequivocally clear, here and in the other place, that it remains the Government’s priority to stop the boats. As I have stated before, the deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. We need to take swift action now to put in place the policy that will enable relocations to Rwanda to take place, to create that deterrent and stop the boats. We have seen the deterrent effect work for Albania and we need to replicate it for everyone else.
I turn to Motion B and Amendment 3E. We have made it clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under it. Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of country situations, including Rwanda, and this will not change. The published country information notes include information from a wide range of sources, such as media outlets, local, national and international organisations, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
The treaty also sets out clearly in Article 4.1 that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further considerations.
The Government of Rwanda’s commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty has been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation. The recent steps taken were set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart in the last group. On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. A complaints process has been set up and will be further developed as we progress further into the partnership.
Motion D1 and Amendment 7D would result in the provisions of Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions on age made by a designated person or local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda, and would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, initial age decisions of immigration officers at the border. The initial decision on age is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment.
As part of this process, on arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18. This is a deliberately high threshold and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that, where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation by a local authority, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. This approach has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case BF (Eritrea) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021, UK Supreme Court 38.
We know that assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the 2023 Act, and there are obvious safeguarding risks of adults being placed within the care system. It is therefore crucial that we take steps to safeguard and swiftly identify genuine children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges to age decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. This amendment would simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.
Furthermore, this amendment would give rise to differential treatment. The amendment would result in Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions by local authorities and the National Age Assessment Board if the person is to be removed to Rwanda. That would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country under the 2023 Act. Decisions of immigration officers and the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) would therefore not fall within Section 57 if removal is to Rwanda. In judicial reviews to these decisions suspensive appeal rights could apply, and the judicial review could be heard on a matter-of-fact basis. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.
I turn to Motion E and Amendment 9. As I have previously set out, under the internationally binding treaty the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs that an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all the necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. Safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedures on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023, which state that
“At any stage in the refugee status determination … and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate a person is vulnerable”.
The standard operating procedures set out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process.
Victims of human trafficking and human slavery will receive the necessary support that they need in Rwanda, as they would in the UK. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. To that end, the government amendment in lieu—Amendment 9C—requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of this legislation as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the treaty.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House how far the scope of the annual report will go beyond what the monitoring committee will be doing, so that both the Government and Parliament are able to scrutinise exactly what is going on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not know how far it will differ—or not, as the case may be—from the monitoring committee, so I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that subject.
Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 31 January 2024, would amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018, more commonly known as the immigration exemption. The Government are amending these provisions following the Court of Appeal judgment on 11 December 2023, which found the immigration exemption incompatible with provisions in the UK GDPR. The court suspended the effect of the judgment until 11 March 2024 to allow the Government time to make the necessary amendments.
I will briefly outline what the immigration exemption does and the changes being made by these regulations. Parliament included the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018. It provides a legal basis to derogate from certain data subject rights where their exercise is likely to prejudice effective immigration control. For example, a data subject has the right to request and receive details of what personal data is held about them and how it is being processed. Under the provisions of the immigration exemption, the Government may limit the information provided in response to that request if, for example, the provision of that information would tip off the data subject that they were about to be subject to immigration enforcement. The immigration exemption is therefore an important provision in the DPA 2018 that allows the Government to protect the functioning of the immigration system. This was noted specifically by the Court of Appeal in its judgment.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment noted two technical deficiencies in the current exemption. First, the safeguards to be applied to the immigration exemption needed to be in the legislation itself; this is being amended by the regulations’ new paragraph 4A, which inserts the safe- guards on the use of the immigration exemption previously contained in the immigration exemption policy document into the legislation.
The court also determined that the risks to rights and freedoms of individuals were not sufficiently set out in the legislation. This is being remedied by new paragraph 4A(3), which specifically sets out the rights and vulnerabilities that should be taken into account when exercising the exemption. By including these explicitly in the legislation, we are providing increased clarity on the safeguards that are already applied when exercising the provisions of the exemption.
The Government are also choosing explicitly to include provisions as to the balancing exercise that must be undertaken when determining whether the exercise of data rights is likely to prejudice effective immigration control and, if it is necessary and proportionate, to restrict such rights as a result. The draft regulations were subject to consultation with the parties to the judicial review proceedings as well as the Information Commissioner’s Office. The ICO issued a public response to the consultation confirming that it was content with the regulations.
The Government have acted to meet the requirements of the Court of Appeal’s judgment while continuing to ensure that there are necessary safeguards in the legislation to protect effective immigration control. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I have to say that my recollection is that the issue is much wider than the exemption and ensuring that there is no tip-off to somebody who is about to be visited by immigration enforcement. Let me give an example that was borne out after the Act was passed: solicitors acting for data subjects were unable, as we had anticipated, to find out what the Home Office thought it knew—I put it that way deliberately —about their clients.
I have some general points to make; I will do so fairly quickly. It would be optimistic to think that the Home Office had taken from this saga that objections and criticisms—in the form of amendments, obviously—can be helpful because we could have avoided a lot of effort in rectification. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will go into some of the history; I must admit, I do not recall much detail except for being teased frequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she was the Home Office Minister, because I brought up our objection to the immigration exemption so often.
I feel strongly that it should not have to be for non-governmental organisations that are no doubt strapped for cash to do so much in order to get things right. I appreciate that that is part of our democracy; I do not object at all to the fact that they can do so, of course, but they should not have to. An application, an appeal, another judicial review, another appeal—at what cost to those organisations and the taxpayer! I emphasise that there is an exclamation mark, not a question mark, at the end of that sentence.
This saga is one of those episodes that vindicates the role of the courts, often in language that I, for one, relish. We have spent a lot of time in the Chamber recently discussing the role of the courts in our constitution; to give one example of the language, I really liked the understated use of
“over-broad derogations from fundamental rights”.
As the Minister said, the litigants were consulted before the publication of the SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reports that it made three points, of which one, on oversight, was rejected by the Home Office and one was regarded by the Home Office as not necessary. Can the Minister tell the Committee what these were and why they were not pursued?
On the detail of the instrument, I note that it will be a matter for the Secretary of State to balance the risks to the individual and the risks to the state. I happen to think that it is in the public interest to apply exemptions with a very light touch, but of course it is no secret that the Liberal Democrats have problems with the Home Office’s immigration policy, and I fear that the reputational ship is well on its way. Clearly, there is an imbalance of power. That is inevitable, but it is not easy for the individual data subject to exercise his rights, and we should be aware of that.
Can the Minister also tell us what the Home Office will do to ensure that there will be transparency of decisions so that it can appropriately be held to account? Mechanisms must be written into the procedures. New paragraph 4B of Schedule 2 provides for a record of decisions and reasons. How will that be published and what will happen to it?
Will the Minister also comment on the capacity of immigration enforcement—and whoever else needs to—to look at prospective decisions on a case-by-case basis for each disapplication? I recognise that that will not necessarily be a straightforward and easy exercise, but it certainly requires a great deal more than, “It’s okay; it’s immigration, so we can just rely on the exemption”. Case-by-case decision-making is very important.
Finally, I note that the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that there is no full impact assessment because the instrument
“does not substantively alter the safeguards and considerations for applying the Immigration Exemption”.
I have to say that I thought that was the point.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this set of regulations is a step forward, but with all the caveats that my noble friend made, and I have some more.
As the Minister confirmed, these regulations are the result of the Open Rights Group case—the Court of Appeal judgment in the3million & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor—which confirms the earlier High Court judgment in March 2023. In broad terms, the Court of Appeal found that the immigration exemption in Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 conflicted with the safeguards in Article 23 of the UK GDPR, as the Minister said. This was because the immigration exemption was drafted too broadly and failed to incorporate the safeguards prescribed for exemptions under Article 23 of the UK GDPR. It was therefore held to be unlawful and was disapplied.
These regulations follow two previous attempts by the Home Office to craft an immigration exemption which contained sufficient safeguards to satisfy the requirements set out in Article 23 of the UK GDPR. This is the third shot at it. In order to make the immigration exemption compatible with the requirements of Article 23, as the Minister explained, the Government added a number of safeguards to the exemption which were not there before. These are set out in the regulations. They are worth stating because they are really important requirements, which were omitted previously.
They include requirements to: make decisions on the application of the exemption on a case-by-case basis; make separate decisions in respect of each of the relevant UK GDPR provisions which relates to the data subject; make fresh decisions on each occasion where there is consideration or restriction of any of the relevant UK GDPR provisions in relation to the data subject; take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the potential vulnerability of the data subject, and so on; and apply the exemption only if the application of the particular UK GDPR provision would give rise to a substantial risk of prejudice that outweighs the risk of prejudice to the interests of the data subject, ensuring that the application of the exemption is necessary and proportionate to the risks in the particular case.
You would think it rather extraordinary that those are excluded from the previous regulations. In addition, a record must be made of the decision to apply the exemption, together with the reasons for that decision. There is also a rebuttable presumption that the data subject will be informed of the use of the exemption.
The ICO welcomed them in its letter to the Home Office as, in its view, satisfying the requirements of the Open Rights Group case. In its view, the proposed changes will ensure that the exemption complies with Article 23(2) of the UK GDPR and ensure that there are appropriate safeguards to protect individuals. Since it took part in the case as an interested party, this is of considerable reassurance. I congratulate the Open Rights Group and the3million on not one but two notable successes in court cases which have forced the Home Office to amend the exemption twice.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did not skate over it at all; I referred to it explicitly and am happy to do so again, if it would help. I do not know if there is any specific redress to the Home Office. I would imagine not, given that it is explicit that data subjects should go via the ICO. If I am wrong on that, I will clarify.
I have no particular data on the subjects who may have been covered by this before the court’s decision, so I will have to find out, come back and write to the noble Lord if there is anything useful to add.
The Home Office already has relevant guidance and training in place for those exercising the immigration exemption provisions, but we are undertaking a review of those materials to ensure that they align with these regulations. That will be completed in time for the 11 March deadline to amend the current exemption. The instrument is making existing safeguards explicit in the legislation, which are already captured in the existing training and guidance, so we do not expect substantive changes to be needed.
The costs of the court case are not yet settled, but I am happy to commit to write once they have been.
There are a couple more bits to say. How often is the exemption used? The honest answer is not very often. I think I referred to this earlier, so it is probably redundant to say it again but, for the record, in the year ending October 2023, the immigration exemption was applied in around 70% of subject access requests received in relation to immigration citizenship and the Border Force. Of those, the vast majority had only a small amount of data redacted under the use of the exemption. So I suppose the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that it will have a very minimal impact on people, but I commit to clarify that.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the relationship between the DPA and retained EU law. The official answer is that the focus of this SI is the immigration exemption and that discussions of the rules and the implications for the DPA 2018 are probably best debated as part of the DPDI Bill, which will, I believe, come to the House on 20 March. The unofficial answer is that I cannot comment on the noble Lord’s disposition because I did not really understand it and I do not have much knowledge of this subject. However, I note that we have left the EU: the people voted. Our rules can now be amended to our own circumstances, and of course, that applies across the entire legal suite. It was a pretty clear vote by the people of this country; I know that that does not suit the Liberal Democrats.
In closing, I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the points that were made and that noble Lords understand the necessity—
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Before the Minister ends, can I go back to the record the Home Secretary is to keep under the schedule’s new paragraph 4B? It provides that, when he makes a decision, he must keep a record and the reasons for it. In essence, my question is about whether this will be public to any extent or whether transparency will be confined to the data subject. Also, I do not expect the Minister to go into any detail on this now or to comment, because he gave the figure, but 30% seems very high to me. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has commented in the past—not the immediate past but, then again, I have not asked it—about the difficulty data subjects and, in particular, their legal representatives face because they simply do not know what the Home Office thinks it knows about their clients, which is an important starting point for any legal representation and any claim. I make this point because it really needs to be made.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for making her point. As regards what is required of the Home Secretary, for obvious reasons, it will not be public, although I agree that transparency is important when it comes to culture; we talked about that earlier in the context of the police, where similar rules apply. It will, however, be available to the ICO and subject to the usual transparency rules at the ICO’s request.
As I have already noted, we understand the necessity of these changes in order to ensure compliance with the Court of Appeal’s judgment and to increase clarity around the use of the immigration exemption. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill
Baroness Hamwee ExcerptsMonday 4th March 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 View all Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 41-R-II Second marshalled list for Report - (4 Mar 2024)
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I support Amendment 42 tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol regrets that she cannot be in her place today to speak in support of this amendment, which she has signed.
The question of deterrence is central to the Government’s premise in the Bill. The threat of being removed to Rwanda should, in theory, be sufficient to discourage asylum seekers from taking dangerous crossings in small boats across the channel. Even if we accept that this will work for individuals trafficked to the UK against their will—I have not seen evidence that suggests it will—how can the Bill possibly have a deterrent effect? This point was made repeatedly in Committee, but it has not been adequately addressed.
There are as many as 4,000 people in the national referral mechanism who could potentially be eligible for removal. Can we not give them assurance that we will not subject them to further upheaval? The Global Slavery Index estimates that the rate of modern slavery in Rwanda is more than twice as high as the rate in the UK. Can we be sure that victims will be safe from the risk of re-trafficking?‘
The provisions of the Bill are incompatible with protective obligations, but potential victims will not even be able to put this injustice to the courts under the Rwanda treaty. Not identifying victims or sending them to another country before their claim has been properly assessed will also set us back in our efforts to bring perpetrators of modern slavery to justice. Victims are often the only witnesses of this crime; without them, the case against perpetrators will be significantly harder to make. Safeguarding victims of modern slavery from removal to Rwanda will have a negligible impact on the supposed deterrent effect of the Bill, and every effect on the safety and flourishing of the victims of modern slavery.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name would have been on the amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but I was not quite agile enough to get in as number four. The treaty provides at Article 13 that
“Rwanda shall have regard to information provided about a Relocated Individual relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of their being a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and shall take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated”.
If the Home Office rushes through its processes, as it will under the legislation of 2022 and 2023, I doubt that the individual needs will be adequately identified. It is hard enough to do even under the pre-2022 procedures.
Of course, what Rwanda is told is necessary and what it actually can provide are not necessarily the same thing, as has been covered pretty fully today. Its record is not exemplary. Just last year, the 2023 US Trafficking in Persons Report of 2023 told us that Rwanda
“did not refer any victims to services”.
That there were none is, to me, literally incredible.
The report also refers to widespread cultural prejudice, as we have just heard, along with a lack of capacity and resources that inhibits effective procedures, and so on. Referring to the words of the treaty as if that made them actually happen seems simply an extension of the argument of “The legislation says that Rwanda is safe and it therefore is”. What assessment have the Government made of the risks of Rwanda being safe in this respect? What assessment have they made of its capacity to provide services? Do they accept that Rwanda is able carefully to assess each individual’s risk of being re-trafficked? The risk in this country is enough—my goodness, what must it be there? Indeed, what assessment have they made of how those people sent to Rwanda by Israel disappeared? Common sense gives me a likely answer.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 44 in this group, which is in my name and supported by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Houghton of Richmond, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. Before turning further to Amendment 44, I say that I support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I have had the benefit of hearing about these amendments in Committee and today in your Lordships’ House. I do not plan to say anything further on this, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government’s attitude to those who have been trafficked or other victims of modern slavery should be that they were in control of their own decision-making and to categorise them as such, when manifestly they were not. I also support Amendments 31 and 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which I am sure she will speak to immediately after I sit down, and Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
As the explanatory statement in relation to Amendment 44 makes clear, the new clause proposed by this amendment would exempt from removal to Rwanda people who are in a very special case: those who put themselves in harm’s way in support of His Majesty’s Armed Forces or through working with or for the UK Government overseas. It extends this exemption to their partners and dependants. In Committee on 14 February, responding to a debate on this amendment, the Minister said:
“Of course, we greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our Armed Forces overseas, and we have accepted our moral obligation. … Anyone eligible for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and Afghan citizens resettlement scheme should apply to come to the UK legally under those routes. As regards the specific case of British Council personnel, they are qualified under the third pathway of the ACRS and places are offered to them”.—[Official Report, 14/2/24; cols. 287-88.]
I know and admire the Minister, and he is correct, but his restatement of the eligibility framework and criteria for these schemes does not engage, never mind undermine, the necessity for this exemption. It is clear that we have a moral duty to those who have served at our behest and in our interests. However, despite serving shoulder to shoulder with British troops, most of the Triples were not evacuated in August 2021, and many have subsequently been rejected under the ARAP scheme. We know now that they were rejected because of misunderstandings on the part of decision-makers of the terms of ARAP and, often, the nature of the service of the applicants, despite the existence of compelling evidence to the contrary, and there is now credible evidence suggesting that the UK Special Forces department blocked eligible applicants from being accepted. The group was refused wrongly by the bureaucracy or blocked for self-serving, venal reasons by the country’s Special Forces, whose Government and Ministers have a moral obligation to promise them, and still promises them, sanctuary.
It comes to this: many applied for the status that would allow them a legal route to resettlement in the UK. They were refused in error. Then, fearing what materialised as their comrades were murdered or tortured by the Taliban, they faced the choice of staying in Afghanistan and facing certain death or getting here somehow. They chose to get here somehow. They were in extremis and had no alternative. There was no legal route open to them because of our failures. In Committee, I shared accounts of the experience of five Afghans who were driven to this extreme and acted accordingly. I do not intend to repeat them but they are freely available in open source media, and I am sure many others will become apparent over time.
Shamima Begum
Baroness Hamwee Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Government keep all these tragic cases under careful review. Where there are compelling circumstances, we will of course look at them again. Decisions on the return of British unaccompanied minors and orphans to the UK, where feasible, and subject to national security concerns, nationality and identity checks, and so on, are made on a case-by-case basis.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that one reason why there is a call for people to be brought back to this country to stand trial in our courts is that the alleged offender—in this case, she was an appellant—has access to her own advisers and expert witnesses have access to the alleged offender to assess matters such as trafficking? SIAC commented on the distinction between its position and that of the press, which somehow gained access to her.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am grateful that the noble Baroness brought up SIAC—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It ruled that the legislation should be construed as requiring the Secretary of State to seek prior representations from an individual, but that in Begum’s case the failure to do so did not change the outcome or invalidate the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in fact, the legislation does not require the Secretary of State to seek representations prior to making a deprivation decision. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but SIAC’s ruling was clear.