Asylum: Sexual Orientation

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can only repeat the answer that I have now given three times.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Can the noble Baroness say how long it will take to quality assure this information?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot but I can assure noble Lords that, as soon as I get any information on this, your Lordships will be the first to know.

Calais: Child Refugees

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that I did restrict the criteria with regard to country. I said that any child who was under 12, at risk of sexual exploitation or from a country with a high asylum grant rate would be eligible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, given the fears that have been raised that some of the children who have disappeared may be in the hands of traffickers, should the Home Office not be more proactive and find out what is happening, rather than waiting for people to come to them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness raises an important point—we certainly would not want these children, who have experienced terrible trauma in their lives, to go on to experience trafficking. Obviously, we have been concerned about safeguarding these children, and there is intelligence in the broader sense on trafficking, but I can let the noble Baroness know specifically what proactive work we are doing with regard to children who come here. We are meeting tomorrow, so perhaps we can have a further catch-up about that.

Asylum Seekers

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the integration of asylum seekers granted refugee status.

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

My Lords, the Government are working towards achieving more integrated communities and creating the conditions for everyone to live and work successfully alongside each other. Those granted refugee status are given access to the labour market and benefits and encouraged to access organisations that can assist with integration.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the biggest obstacles to integration is the destitution faced by too many refugees because they are not given enough time to transition from asylum support to mainstream support. It is nearly eight months since the Government pledged to review this. With winter coming and universal credit throwing up new problems, will the Minister and the DWP now treat this as a matter of urgency to prevent further avoidable destitution and homelessness and as a first step in reintroducing a comprehensive strategy for the integration of refugees, following the example of Scotland and Wales?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have introduced a number of initiatives to prevent homelessness such as the No Second Night Out programme, but recognised refugees are also encouraged to work with the independent charity, Migrant Help, which can assist with integration into the UK. It provides individuals with the resources and support they need to access the appropriate services and information and gain greater independence. In addition, the Home Office announced a new £10 million funding package to boost English language tuition for those arriving under the vulnerable persons’ resettlement scheme.

Immigration: Detention of Pregnant Women

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulescoomb, for securing this short debate on such an important question. It takes most of us back to not exactly happier times debating the Immigration Bill, which became the Immigration Act 2016. At that time, I and others called on the Government to commit to making the statistics on the detention of pregnant women regularly available for public scrutiny. This was partly in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, promising that he would continue to reflect on how best to create greater transparency concerning procedures.

Yet in place of transparency, we have a disgraceful situation whereby the Home Office appears to have done its utmost to block FoI requests submitted by Women for Refugee Women, despite a successful complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I, too, ask the Minister to explain why the Home Office is still failing to comply with requests in a timely manner, despite the ICO’s ruling. Will she give a commitment that any future requests will be dealt with in a timely manner—not that an FOI request should be necessary in the first place? Will she explain how the Government plan to monitor the very welcome commitment to reduce the number of survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in detention? Will she commit to publishing the findings so that it is possible to assess how well the new policy is working?

During the last gasp of our debates on the issue of pregnant women, having failed to achieve the recommendation of the Shaw report that there should be an absolute exclusion on their detention, I expressed the wish that our colleagues in the other place might read our debates and,

“think about how, within the constraints of the legislation as it is, we could make this a more humane process”.—[Official Report, 10/5/16; col. 1.]

I hope we will use the opportunity afforded by this debate to do that now. In particular, I want to go back to an underlying issue that I raised during the debate on the Bill, which got a bit lost in the niceties of the wording of amendments. It is how we best achieve the Government’s stated aim that the treatment of pregnant women should be:

“Similar to the arrangements put in place as part of ending routine detention for families with children”.

Indeed, it was claimed that the Government are using precisely that model, and yet my second amendment, designed to help achieve that aim, was rejected by the Government.

The family returns process to which Ministers referred has been successful in significantly reducing the number of children in detention. It is based on the principle of engagement. Evidence from countries such as Sweden indicates that where engagement is embedded throughout the asylum process, it can reduce the use of enforcement and detention. According to Women for Refugee Women, to which I am grateful for its briefing, engagement generally takes the form of a case-management approach. Through this, ongoing structured practical and emotional support is provided to migrants and asylum seekers while they are going through the immigration and asylum processes, so that they are able to understand what is happening and participate fully in the resolution of their case while based in the community.

The evidence suggests that such an approach improves decision-making, particularly as women may be more willing to disclose information about what has happened to them. It can also help those who receive a positive decision to rebuild their lives more easily, having had practical and emotional support throughout the asylum process, but it also ensures a more humane and dignified process for those whose claims are ultimately refused. Comparisons between the experience of the UK, which relies so heavily on detention, and Sweden, where detention is much rarer, suggest that those refused are more likely to leave through voluntary return programmes in which policy prioritises engagement over detention. It is suggested that this is because people are more likely to accept a negative decision if they feel it has been reached through a fair and humane process.

Women for Refugee Women argues that engagement is not only more humane but more cost-efficient than detention, because operational costs are lower and it avoids resorting to forced deportations and potential compensation claims in the event of unlawful detention. It believes that this approach should also be considered for asylum-seeking women more generally, given their vulnerabilities and that many are survivors of sexual or other gender-based forms of violence.

I understand that Women for Refugee Women met the Immigration Minister in September to discuss these issues, and I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to continuing these discussions in the hope that we can make this a more humane process for this uniquely vulnerable group, in the interests of not just their health but that of their unborn children—a point made by a number of noble Lords during the debates on the Immigration Bill. Then, we can start to discuss how such an approach might help asylum-seeking women more generally.

I understand that a new draft rule contains a paragraph that states:

“when medical advice is given that locating the detainee in Rule 40/42 accommodation”—

that is, removing them from association or putting them in solitary confinement—

“would be seriously detrimental to a detainee’s health or is life threatening, the multi-disciplinary team should urgently consider this advice”,

and that any decision to continue the use of rule 40 or 42 must be recorded, clearly stating the rationale. Surely, there can be no acceptable rationale for action that has been deemed potentially seriously detrimental to health or even life-threatening. I have not been able to find out the current status of this draft. Will the Minister reassure us that this guidance is not and will not be contained in the final draft? It appears to fly in the face of everything the Shaw inquiry was trying to achieve.

France: Dublin Regulation

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes the very good point that under the Dublin regulation, asylum claims should be made in the first country in which the claimant arrives. I will certainly follow that up on behalf of my noble friend.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about an official being sent over to Calais. Is that just a single official? In the damning report that was mentioned earlier, the Red Cross said that one key way of speeding things up would be for officials—plural—to be sent to Calais as a matter of urgency.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a good question. One asylum expert is already seconded to France and another is being seconded. France and the UK have of course established a senior-level standing committee, and there is regular contact on Dublin and transferring children, including ministerial and senior-official contact, and daily contact between officials. In addition, as I said in answering the previous Question, we have a dedicated team in the Home Office Dublin unit.

Refugees: Unaccompanied Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, of course the Government take very seriously any child going missing anywhere in the world in any place. The noble Lord spoke specifically about the 10,000 mentioned by Interpol. I will write to him with an update on that number. The important thing to identify is that there are some people who are taking advantage of vulnerable young children—people traffickers in particular—and that is why it is important that we see the kind of co-operation we are now seeking across all European states, particularly with our partners in France and Greece, to ensure that we identify the children who are most vulnerable and resettle them at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain what will happen to these children when they reach the age of 18? Last month in the Commons, the Minister assured MPs that he would not want to conflate asylum seekers without a valid claim, whom the Government would seek to remove at 18, with these children, yet the next day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, seemed to be doing just that when he refused to give an assurance that the Government would not seek to remove these children. I am confused of Burtersett.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

When those children reach the age of 18, they will of course be adults and, as is the case under British policy, we will look at their circumstances. The noble Baroness has quoted two Ministers of the Realm who, in her words, have said perhaps slightly differing things. It would therefore be advisable for me to review both those answers and write to her accordingly.

Refugees: Unaccompanied Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is necessary also to have regard to the capability of local authorities to receive these children. Until there are suitable foster places available for them and until there are suitable schools available for them, it would not be appropriate simply to bring them here.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but it was suggested in the Commons yesterday that it could be seven months before any child is accepted here. How many more children will go missing in seven months? How many more children will suffer in seven months? This is not the first time that we have said that we need a degree of urgency on this question.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I, too, support Motion A. I will confine myself to three comparatively brief points. First, as has been made plain, the Government have already moved from the earlier proposal of six months down to four. Yesterday, as those who have read the debate in the other place will know, there was barely a voice and no vote whatever against that proposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has few greater admirers than I in this Chamber but, as I suggested earlier, his amendment goes altogether too far. One defect is that it is internally inconsistent. I mentioned this on Report but did not think it necessary to do so in the last round of ping-pong, though I rather regret that now. On its face, it refers in new subsection (1) to detention under any of the relevant powers. These are defined in new subsection (6) and include two dealing with detention pending deportation. However, looking at new subsection (4) of Amendment 84, it does not apply in cases where the Secretary of State is determined that there will be deportation. This is an internal inconsistency.

I suggest that four months properly protects against any risk of what can seriously be called arbitrary detention. One must remember that it is a safeguard over and above the intrinsic ability of those who are detained to seek bail—a safeguard I acknowledge to be appropriate and necessary, not least in the case of those with mental health problems. The proposal in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that there should be exceptional circumstances to justify detention beyond 28 days, is unworkable. The Minister gave reasons and illustrations, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

A shorter period, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—of whom, again, I am a great admirer—is, frankly, impracticable. Tribunals are already hugely busy and overworked. They really must not be overwhelmed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not repeat all the arguments but, as a member of the all-party inquiry, I support Amendments A1 and A2. The Commons had only an hour yesterday. Quite understandably, most of it was spent teasing out the practical implications of my noble friend Lord Dubs’ amendment. I do not think we should read too much into the fact that not much was said about these amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I acknowledge the work done in the past by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on detention and on the revising of the immigration and detention rules. I must, however, take issue with the suggestion that access to bail is merely theoretical and that there is an absence of judicial oversight.

The access to bail arises immediately on detention and a tribunal must be persuaded that there are substantial grounds for believing that detention should be maintained. This is not a theoretical right; it is an obligation on the part of the Home Office to persuade a tribunal that detention should be maintained. So far as the period of detention is concerned, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that, after a period extending to four months—which is highly unusual—there will be an automatic bail hearing. In these circumstances, I renew my Motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 85J as an amendment to Amendment 85E—

85J: Line 5, after “are” insert “very””

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I wish I could warmly welcome government Amendments 85D to 85I, given that they go a small way towards meeting the concerns voiced in your Lordships’ House on 26 April. However, it is only a very small way and, as I will come on to explain, the word “very” has some significance.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his attempt last week to reach a compromise that would satisfy both sides. Alas, it was not, apparently, possible. As a very last attempt, I therefore tabled this very modest amendment, which would mean that the circumstances justifying detention have to be “very exceptional” rather than simply “exceptional”. This does no more than mirror current Home Office enforcement instructions and guidance which refer to “very exceptional circumstances”. We have just learned that that guidance is to be replaced. In the Commons last night, the Immigration Minister assured MPs that the guidance will also make it clear that detention powers,

“should be used in very exceptional circumstances, underlining our expectations in regard to the use of this power”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 486.]

Surely, if the Government want to underline those expectations, they should do so in the Bill itself. Otherwise, they could be sending out entirely the wrong message.

My fear is that, welcome as the new time limit is, unless the legislation states “very exceptional”, some might interpret the softening of language as a signal that it does not have to be quite so exceptional now that it is subject to a time limit. I remind noble Lords that, in practice, we are probably talking about 72 hours plus, because the clock starts ticking not at the actual point of detention but when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the woman is pregnant, if that is later, which it probably will be. Given that too many pregnant women are already detained in far from exceptional circumstances, in contravention of the guidance—as made clear by Shaw and the all-party inquiry into detention—this would be highly regrettable. Experience shows that we cannot rely on the guidance alone to underline expectations regarding degree of conditionality.

I turn to some questions raised by the government amendments. First, regarding Amendment 85E, I repeat what was said in the Commons by David Burrowes MP:

“However, we still need to ask about the small word ‘or’ in amendment (b) to Lords amendment 85C. Why does it make the distinction between

‘the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

the woman will shortly be removed from the United Kingdom, or

there are exceptional circumstances which justify the detention’?

Surely, pregnant women should be detained only if there are exceptional circumstances and they can be removed shortly. Why are we distinguishing between the two? If the aim of detention is to remove people and detention should be a last resort, given the new 72-hour limit on detention, when would detention not be exceptional and removal forthcoming? It is important that the Government clarify that”.

He expressed the fear that,

“the measure leaves the door open for the excessive detention of pregnant women”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/16; col. 498.]

That is my fear, too. Given that it was not possible for the Immigration Minister to answer Mr Burrowes yesterday, I trust that the Minister will be able to provide an answer now.

Secondly, could the noble and learned Lord clarify, for the record, the purpose of the qualifying phrase, “apart from this section” in the second paragraph of Amendment 85E? Fears have been expressed by those more expert than I that it would appear to be saying that the Secretary of State does not have to have regard to the woman’s welfare. I am sure that that cannot be the case. I cannot see why anyone should be allowed to authorise detention without having regard to the woman’s welfare. I welcome the fact that having,

“regard to the woman’s welfare”,

is now in the Bill. I hope that he can provide reassurance.

I turn to the key sections of Amendment 85C, which the Government have rejected out of hand. These aim to incorporate key elements of the family returns process, which successfully uses engagement to try to resolve cases without the use of detention. Ministers have repeatedly explained, in the words of the Immigration Minister, that,

“we are using precisely that model and approach for pregnant women”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/16; col. 1195.]

Yet their rejection of this part of Amendment 85C out of hand suggests a mindset that is not attuned to the family returns process, in which it is not assumed that removal requires prior detention. I ask the Minister: if the Government are using precisely that model and approach, why have they refused to countenance writing key elements of it into the legislation? Will he commit now to drawing up guidance that will ensure that the treatment of pregnant women does indeed follow the family returns process model? Otherwise, we have no way of ensuring that this model will be followed. I hope that this would reduce the need for detention but where it does still take place, clear guidelines following the family returns model would at the very least ensure that notice is given so as to minimise the stress involved in the process of being taken into detention, which can have a damaging impact on the mental and physical health of pregnant women. It is simply not good enough for the Government to talk about modelling the approach on the family returns process without giving Parliament any idea of how they plan to operationalise this.

On 26 April the Minister stated that,

“as a matter of fact and practice, all persons who are subject to removal are given notice of liability for removal, and vulnerable women, including pregnant women, receive a further notice via removal directions”.—[Official Report, 26/4/16; col. 1095.]

That sounded very reassuring but the notice of liability for removal can be three months in advance of removal and the further notice is sent after detention. There is no notice sent of removal into detention as opposed to removal out of the country, and I fear we have been talking at cross purposes on this. Will the Minister therefore now commit to a full review of the process of removal into detention, including how the woman’s medical and welfare needs are taken into account? When we last discussed this, I cited some dreadful examples of how pregnant women were in effect treated like animals during the journey into detention, potentially with serious implications for their physical and mental health.

On 26 April the Minister seemed to suggest that some of our concerns were in effect resolved because only one pregnant woman is currently being held in detention. Of course, for those of us, including Stephen Shaw and the members of the all-party group inquiry, who believe that pregnant women should not be detained on principle, one pregnant woman in detention is one too many. Leaving that aside, the numbers of pregnant women in detention have always fluctuated and we do not know the total number who have been detained so far this year. I find it worrying that the Home Office is refusing to comply with an FoI request submitted by Women for Refugee Women for the publication of the statistics on the numbers detained, the length of detention and outcomes. In the Commons debate on 25 April, the Immigration Minister said he would reflect on how best to create “greater transparency”. I then suggested that one way would be to commit now to making these statistics on the detention of pregnant women available for public scrutiny on a regular basis, as called for by bodies such as Women for Refugee Women and the Royal College of Midwives. But the Minister did not respond on that point and I would be grateful if he could do so now.

I know there is a reluctance to extend the ping-pong process too far but when your Lordships’ House passed Amendment 85C, despite the technical and other objections raised by the Minister, I took that as acceptance of the need to write into the Bill the safeguards necessary to ensure the protection of the welfare of pregnant women, whatever our view on the principle of their detention. I do not believe those safeguards are strong enough. This is a much more modest, even minimalist, amendment. I hope the Government will be able to accept it because it does simply what the Immigration Minister says is the Government’s intention, but with the force of primary legislative backing. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I will begin by answering the question just posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The provision does refer to “exceptional circumstances”. The guidance as it exists talks of only “very exceptional circumstances” applying for the detention of pregnant women, and that will continue to be the policy that is applied in the context of the provision. I reiterate what was said in the other place last night: it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it will be considered appropriate for this provision on detention to be employed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to interrupt, but there was a specific question there: if that is the case, why is “very exceptional circumstances” not put in the Bill?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In the context of drafting statutory provision, it was not considered that the addition of such words as “most”, “much” or “very” would add anything to the proper construction of the provision. However, the policy guidance is there. It is absolutely clear, and both in this place and the other place it has been said that the policy will apply in the context of “very exceptional circumstances”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

With respect to the noble Baroness, “It means what I say—it does not say what I mean” may be her line, but that is one that we shall take into consideration.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Winston, who made a very powerful point. It has reinforced the sense that this House is very concerned about this issue and not convinced that the welfare of pregnant women and the foetus inside them is being protected by the concessions that the Government have made.

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing all the questions that were asked. I do not think that it is just a question of elegance; it is a question of comprehensibility. I have to say that I did not understand a word of one of his answers, but that is probably me, and I shall put a towel over my head and finally understand it when I read it in Hansard. It does have resonances of Humpty Dumpty and words saying what I say they mean, and the,

“question is … which is to be master—that’s all”.

Unfortunately, it is the Government who are master and who have the power to decide these issues. The answers that I did understand from the noble and learned Lord were very disappointing. I have still not heard a good or proper reason as to why, if it is good enough for the guidance and it means something in the guidance, it is not good enough to be in the legislation. I am still worried that someone looking at both of them will think, “With regard to the legislation, the Government have actually gone backwards”.

I was not asking for a whole new review: I was asking for a very focused review of the process by which a woman is taken from her home into detention. As I understand it, there has already been a commitment to look at transport; I am just asking for that to be broadened out to the whole process. It is not a big thing, and I have still not heard any explanation as to how this is going to be modelled on the family returns process. The noble and learned Lord said there was not going to be any further guidance on this, so it is just an empty claim unless someone can show us otherwise.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary will take this away and read what has been said in this House. My noble friend Lord Rosser pointed out the really strange Commons procedures that do not allow the Minister to respond to perfectly good questions, but we at least have a chance to do that in this House. I hope that the people in the other place will all read what has been said in this House and will think about how, within the constraints of the legislation as it is, we could make this a more humane process. As we have heard, there is a lot at stake here. My noble friend Lord Winston said that it could be responsible for a heritable effect on the child. That is very serious, so I hope that this will be looked at further, even if it cannot be in the context of actual legislation. That said, like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I recognise when we are coming to the end of the road. Therefore, like him, with a very heavy heart indeed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment B1 withdrawn.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the wonderful speeches that we have heard today. Your Lordships’ House is a truly remarkable place. When I last spoke on this matter in Committee I cited the case of three unaccompanied refugee children and a dependent adult trapped in Calais, in whose favour the Upper Tribunal had ruled in January this year. The ruling that they be allowed to join their family in Britain forthwith was made under a clause of the Dublin III regulations that permits family reunification. It acknowledged that the proper process of applying through the French authorities had been followed, but that that process had failed and the children faced up to a year fending for themselves in the Calais camp while the French Government’s request to the British Government to take charge languished, as these cases are wont to do in the dysfunctional French immigration system.

The initial euphoria on the part of those children has ebbed away as they await the outcome of our Government’s sad decision to appeal the finding. That is the reason I support the laudable amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Although it is not necessary to enshrine in law our request that 3,000 of the 26,000 unaccompanied refugee children currently in Europe be allowed sanctuary in Britain, it is clear that the Government, despite their earlier protestations that they will look into the matter, have set their face against it.

Last Friday I was in Calais again. In the wake of the recent demolitions, I wanted to meet the heroic volunteers who have done so much to keep some of the most desperate people alive in wretched conditions through this winter. The Governments of France and Britain make much of the “pull factors”—as though making the atrocious conditions just that little bit more humane will be a magnet. However, the millions of people on the move are not fleeing their homes, their livelihoods and their communities for a better life in the West. As one Syrian told me recently, what they are leaving behind used to be so much better than anything they can hope for in Europe; but they have no choice. Among these refugees are children, some travelling without adult protection—some left home on their own, because parents could afford smugglers’ fees for only one; some children’s parents died on the journey or became separated from them. The best estimates are that there are some 28,000 refugee children fending for themselves in Europe, and 10,000 are now unaccounted for. Some of those children have family in Britain. With a will, using the safe and legal routes available to us, we could fast-track the assessment and processing of these child refugees and give them sanctuary. Lord knows, we have many able and willing volunteers ready to house them.

A census carried out in Calais just before the demolitions showed there to be 423 unaccompanied child refugees in the camp. Surely it is time for the Government to accept their moral obligation to look after those children with a legal right to come to Britain, and set up processing centres? Safe and legal routes is the right way to thwart the smugglers—not partaking in tortuous contortions of international law and returning refugees from whence they came.

It is my belief that in years to come all of us in Europe—save possibly with the exception of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel—will look back at this period in our history and hang our heads in shame. A small piece of redemption would be to accede to this request to give sanctuary to 3,000 children, alone in Europe.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to respond briefly to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. In September, Save the Children made the proposal to bring 3,000 children to this country. Six months have passed and the Government have chosen not to exercise their discretion to do so. We have heard strong arguments as to why we should welcome those children here and, because the Government have chosen not to exercise their discretion in that respect, my noble friend Lord Dubs is putting forward this amendment to make it mandatory. We can wait no longer. Every day we hear of children being exploited and abused, and whose mental and physical health is deteriorating. Let us use this opportunity.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may also say something in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The short answer to the very practical point that he made is for the Government to come forward with an alternative that does not tie them to taking in 3,000 children on the understanding that, if the amendment is accepted, they will be under a moral obligation to do something very similar. One argument that the Government have raised is that this may encourage other children to be put on boats and sent over. That may be but, if the Turkish agreement is to be of any use, one hopes that everyone will then go back to Turkey, certainly from Greece. However, there is a chance that that will not happen.

What really worries me—and I am obviously not the only one to be worried—is the plight of the very young children. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about Calais. I understand that at least one child there is only nine. However, I am concerned about children under 14 and especially children under 12. They are particularly at risk not just from people traffickers but from those who would enslave them. Speaking as the co-chairman of the parliamentary group on human trafficking, I can say that there is a real problem with these children. Ten thousand-plus have gone missing. How many have gone into the hands of those who will use them for prostitution, benefit fraud, thieving and even forced labour?

We absolutely must do something to stop those children being victims. They are already victims by being in Europe if they are unaccompanied, but they are in danger of becoming slaves. As many have said much more eloquently than me, we have an obligation to look after at least some of them. As has already been said, we have a noble record of looking after children who are at great risk.

I admire the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for putting forward this amendment and I support it in principle entirely. I have the feeling that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does not object to the proposal; he just objects to its mandatory nature. Therefore, I put in a plea to the Government. As I have already said, if they do not like the way in which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is expressed, the very short answer to that is to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading and they would have the whole House behind them.

Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am happy to reassure the noble Viscount that it is the latter. That is why it does not use the word “must”; it is purely discretionary. It is deliberately designed in that way to meet the concerns that the Government have expressed. It does not go as far as I personally would wish it to and it does not go as far as the amendment moved by my noble friend, but it is an attempt to open up the possibility of helping families in this predicament.

Let me conclude by saying that this is an exceptional measure for exceptional times. It does not seek to change the rules in perpetuity; rather, it would provide a solution for those families which have been torn apart by the present crisis. It would provide a managed route to reunite refugee families and to allow British citizens who are desperately worried about loved ones stuck in conflict regions or makeshift camps across Europe the opportunity to be reunited. It also leaves the final decision, reverting to the point made by the noble Viscount, in the hands of the Secretary of State. I hope that if the Government are unable to accept my noble friend’s amendment, they will respond to this amendment in the spirit in which it has been tabled.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. I was going to talk about the human rights implications, but given how the time is getting on I shall simply quote from one of the many emails that I am sure we have all received imploring us to support one of these family reunion amendments. This email rather touched me: “I have a very personal reason for my concern in that my family were privileged to foster a 14 year-old boy from Afghanistan for five months. He has now moved to an area of England where there are other people who speak his language, but he became such a special part of our family and we remain in very regular contact with him. His story was truly heart-breaking. His mother had been killed and he had been injured by the Taliban when he was 10 years old, and then in recent months his village in eastern Afghanistan had been targeted by Daesh/Islamic State who were forcing teenage boys to fight for them. His father felt there was no choice but to arrange for him to leave, otherwise he faced almost certain death. We have the utmost admiration for this boy. His courage and determination are just amazing and he is trying so hard to make a new life for himself. We are extremely proud of him and know he will be an amazing asset to this country. His sadness at being parted from his family is beyond comprehension, however, and that is where I would like to appeal to you”. I replied and in the response I received the lady said: “I have never before felt moved to contact anyone in this way, but this subject has affected me hugely”.

I take great heart from the fact that there are members of the public with direct experience and who care so much. I hope that we will do the right thing if it comes to a vote.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 123B, 123C and 123D. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for attaching their names to these amendments.

These amendments affect a subgroup of young people leaving care. I am very glad and grateful that at the last Conservative Party conference the Prime Minister chose to speak about his particular concern about young people in care. Edward Timpson MP’s work in improving security for care leavers and introducing “staying put” to allow young people to stay with their foster carers until the age of 21 was a huge step forward in the coalition Government. There has been much welcome work in this area and recognition of the vulnerabilities of these young people. I am therefore not at all surprised that the Minister has paid great attention to these amendments. I appreciate our correspondence, the meeting that we and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, had about this, and the Minister’s consideration and the adjustments that he has made, particularly with regard to young people who were not offered the chance to make an application for their immigration status to be regularised while they were in care under the age of 18, and to young people who have been trafficked.

These amendments ensure that young people leaving care are able to continue to access leaving-care support from their local authorities in circumstances where their departure from the UK is not envisaged. This includes young people with pending applications to remain in the UK whose long-term future may be in the UK, and young people who cannot leave the UK because there is a genuine obstacle to their removal.

This Bill creates a two-tier system of support and discriminates against care leavers on the basis of their immigration status, with damaging consequences for young people who have sometimes been living in the UK for many years as unaccompanied children, including potential victims of child trafficking and those who have no family but their foster family and their corporate parent, the local authority. It is not clear to me why a separate system is needed when the Children Act 1989 and the provision for care leavers, in particular the entitlement to a personal adviser and pathway planning, provide the most appropriate mechanism for supporting young people leaving care whatever their long-term future in the UK.

Central and local government have a unique relationship with children in care and care leavers, as they are corporate parents. That means that they have a statutory responsibility to act for young people in the way that a good parent would. The Government have indicated that very similar types of support could be provided under new paragraph 10B in the Bill, including continued foster placement, the advice and support of a personal adviser and social care support. That is most welcome. However, the Bill is drafted so that the duties to meet the welfare needs of care leavers, in line with wider care-leaving legislation, have been replaced by a power to make regulation. It is therefore anticipated that these young people will generally be prevented from staying in foster placements, continuing education, having a personal adviser and pathway plan, being supported with their health and so on.

The Bill’s provisions affecting migrant care leavers are inconsistent with government policy on care leavers generally, and fundamentally undermine the corporate parenting responsibility. Under these provisions, the Government estimate that 750 care leavers will be affected and therefore prevented from accessing the full range of leaving-care services that their peers receive. However, the Bill will also affect care leavers with pending immigration applications that are not their first application, and others whose long-term future may be in the UK. Young people caught by these provisions will include those who face genuine obstacles to removal, which may persist for lengthy periods of time, and those with non-asylum human rights claims based on having lived in the UK for significant periods of time, if this is not their first application.

I am very grateful to the Minister for the attention that he has given to the needs of these young people, and for the extent to which he has moved during the passage of the Bill. I would really appreciate it if he and the Government could go a bit further in ensuring that as many of these young people as possible have access at least to a personal adviser and a pathway plan. That is crucial for these young people at the age of 18 who have had troubled starts in life. It may also be to the benefit of the Government in their wish to create a robust immigration system. If these young people are engaging in a relationship with their personal adviser, it is easier for the authorities to have contact with them, so it should be easier for the Immigration Service to keep in touch with them and remove them when it is possible to do so.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could give a clear commitment to meeting the needs of these young people and, if he can, to move further forward than he has hitherto. If he could bring something to the House at Third Reading that would make the protections for these young people clear in the Bill, that would also be very welcome. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments, to which I have added my name, for the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has been resolute in his defence of the rights of care leavers. I want to raise some issues arising from the Government’s rationale behind creating a separate system of support for care leavers who have no leave or who are appeal rights exhausted, particularly the removal of the duty to provide these care leavers with a pathway plan and personal advisers, and the dispersal of care leavers outside their local area. I am grateful to the Refugee Children’s Consortium for its briefing.

As I understand it, the Government’s view is that a separate system is needed for these young people who are appeal rights exhausted, because they believe that these young people’s future does not lie in the UK, even though in practice many young people who are ARE remain because of the barriers to their removal. However, the Government accept that in some cases additional support, such as access to social care services and remaining in foster placements, will still be needed. In his letter following Committee, the Minister stated:

“I agree entirely that they”—

that is, care leavers—

“should receive support appropriate to their individual needs”,

and that this could,

“include remaining in foster care placement”.

That is welcome, but it is very difficult to see how it will be achieved if the young person’s needs cannot be assessed because they will no longer be entitled to a pathway plan or personal adviser under the provision in new paragraph 10B, which is precisely the mechanism through which individualised assessments currently take place. Are the Government not just going to be reinventing the wheel by creating a whole separate system for this group of young people? Would it not be better to concentrate on ensuring that the current system for planning these young people’s transition to adulthood worked better by using dual or triple planning approaches to plan for all eventual outcomes for the young person’s immigration status, as set out in the guidance? Can the Minister explain whether the Government intend for young people’s needs to be assessed by new and different professionals? If so, would this not simply break the existing links that young people have with their personal advisers?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

145A: After Clause 84, insert the following new Clause—
“Fees for applications made by children to register as British citizens
(1) Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 (fees) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (13) insert—
“(14) Notwithstanding subsection (9), in setting the amount of any fee in respect of an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child, the only consideration to which the Secretary of State may have regard is the cost of exercising the function.
(15) Fees regulations shall provide for the waiver of the fee for an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child and is being provided with assistance by a local authority.
(16) Fees regulations shall provide for discretion to waive the fee for an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person who is a child on grounds relating to the means of the child and anyone exercising parental responsibility for him or her.””

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

The amendment would: limit the fee that the Secretary of State may charge for the making of an application to register a child as a British citizen to the cost incurred in dealing with such an application; provide that, where the child applicant is being assisted by a local authority, there shall be no fee; and, where the child and/or her parent or guardian has insufficient means, provide a power to waive that fee, because no such power exists at present.

The aim is to remove the barrier to children registering their entitlement to British citizenship and to other children applying to register at the Home Secretary’s discretion that is all too often created by the Home Office fee. The amendment follows on from that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in Committee, and I am pleased to see that he is very patiently still in his place. Like him, I am grateful to Amnesty International UK and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens—or the project, for short—for drawing this issue to my attention and for their help with their amendment.

The noble Lord drew attention to the problems faced by an estimated 120,000 children in the UK without citizenship or immigration leave, despite the fact that many of them are entitled to British citizenship and many others could and would be likely to be registered at the discretion of the Home Secretary, if they were to apply. More than half of these children were born in this country. Unlike the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this one is not limited to children in care; it is concerned with all children entitled under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as British citizens, and those others who may be registered if they apply. Given the various provisions in this Bill and its predecessor concerning such matters as the right to rent, access to employment and access to higher education, the importance of registration for these children is clear.

The project has much experience of the considerable barrier to children registering as British created by the fee, which rose last Friday to a staggering £936. When I tell people about this, they look at me open-mouthed and say that they had absolutely no idea. Nor, to be honest, had I until I was made aware of this issue. Not surprisingly, many children, and their parents and carers, cannot afford it, many local authorities are unwilling to pay the fee for children in their care, and it is unclear why local rather than central government should bear the cost of these children’s registration. The overall result is that children who could and would be British miss out and in many instances later face the prospect of being removed from the country in which they have lived for all or most of their lives.

The project provided some examples, including that of Danny, who was three years old when he was brought to the UK and was in receipt of assistance from social services. He had been offered a place at drama school but had no leave to remain. He was referred to the project as he was approaching his 18th birthday, and he was able to apply to register as a British citizen. However, he could not afford the fee and the local authority refused to pay it. Had one of the project’s volunteers—and it is totally volunteer-run—not paid his fee, Danny would have lost the opportunity to be registered on turning 18. Surely it is not right that a basic right such as this should be subject to the vagaries of a kind volunteer meeting the cost of accessing it.

It is especially shocking that by far the greater part of the fee is simply profit to the Home Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out in Committee. The cost to the Home Office in registering a child was calculated to be £223 in the previous financial year. The relevant impact assessment states that this cost will rise by more than 20% in 2016 to £272, although it is unclear why. The impact on children is not considered in that assessment, and their best interests, and the Government’s statutory duty to promote their welfare, are not considered. The assessment and other government statements failed to acknowledge the fact that in many of these cases what is being charged for is a pre-existing entitlement under the British Nationality Act 1981, and that the Home Office has not been asked to grant but is merely being required to register the child’s citizenship. In any case, making any profit, let alone one of £664, as is now the case, from a child’s entitlement to be registered as British is surely unconscionable, especially when it leads time and again to preventing children from registering at all.

A recent Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, explained:

“The power to set fees that are higher than the cost of processing applications is contained within The Immigration Act 2014, which provides that the Home Office may take into account not just the cost of processing an application, but also the benefits and entitlements available to an individual if their application is successful and the cost of exercising any other function in connection with immigration or nationality. The Home Office does not provide exceptions … because the Home Office considers that citizenship is not a necessary pre-requisite to enable a person to exercise his or her rights in the UK in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. British nationality applications are not mandatory and many individuals with Indefinite Leave to Remain decide not to apply. A person who has Indefinite Leave to Remain may continue to live in the UK and travel abroad using”,

existing documentation. Again, the Home Office is failing to distinguish the registration of a pre-existing entitlement from other citizenship applications, particularly naturalisation applications. It is comparing apples with oranges. Those children who are entitled to register are not requesting some benefit from the Home Office but are requiring it to record what Parliament as long ago as 1981 determined to be their right. It is true that those who may apply to be naturalised are not in the same position, and it is correct that many of those with indefinite leave to remain—a prerequisite for applying to naturalise—do not necessarily want or need to be naturalised. Those entitled to register are entitled in the same way as those born in the UK to a British or settled parent are entitled to British citizenship.

The Written Answer seems to imply that the registration of British citizenship is of no real importance to these children, yet in his post-Committee letter the Minister acknowledged the importance of local authorities enabling and encouraging children in their care who need to do so to make a timely application to regularise their immigration status or to register as British citizens. It can be critical for some of these children, because they risk losing their entitlement if they do not register before turning 18. Moreover, the guidance on the MN1 form on which children register as British states:

“Becoming a British citizen is a significant life event. Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up”.

The project and Amnesty believe this amendment to be crucial to ensuring that children are not denied their right to citizenship because of their inability to pay. They are right to call our attention to what they dub profiteering on the part of the Home Office at the expense of children.

I imagine that the Minister is planning a response on the lines of the recent Written Answer from which I quoted. I hope I have shown why that Answer does not invalidate the case for this amendment. I would be grateful if he could take on board in particular what I said about this being a pre-existing entitlement. There is a real issue here. It may well be that we cannot resolve it today—today now being tomorrow—but I would be grateful if the Minister and his officials could look into it, ideally in discussion with the project and Amnesty, and consider coming back at Third Reading with a considered response. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said to the House. As she indicated, this is an issue I raised in Committee. It has been the subject of correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and me and of Parliamentary Questions which I have tabled.

If Amendment 145A is accepted, it would mean that in setting a fee in respect of an application for the registration of a child as a British citizen, the only matter to which the Secretary of State could have regard is the cost of processing that application. The amendment provides that fees regulations must provide for the fee to be waived where the child is in care or otherwise assisted by a local authority. It provides for discretion to waive the fee in other cases on the grounds of the means of the child, his or her parents or his or her carers.

In many cases where children have a claim to be registered as British citizens, no application for such registration has been made. Under a number of provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981, to which the noble Baroness referred, the power to register the child exists only while the child is a minor. After I raised these cases in Committee, the Minister wrote in reply on 3 February and described what he called—the noble Baroness referred to this—the importance of local authorities enabling and encouraging children in their care who need to do so to make a timely application to regularise their immigration status or to register as British citizens. So there is nothing between us in that sense. We both agree about the desirability of that.

However, I have had drawn to my attention, as has the noble Baroness, that in many cases the reason why no registration has taken place is precisely the size of the fee. As of 18 March 2016, the fee is £936. In these cases, where the child and/or the parents cannot afford to pay or the local authority will not pay, this money is simply beyond their means. The fee is set above the cost of registering the child, which the Home Office calculates to be £272, while in 2015-16 it was just £223. There is a massive discrepancy between that figure of £272 and the £936 that would be charged to the child in order to be able to register in these circumstances. How on earth can we justify that phenomenal difference? It seems to me like profiteering on children. It is quite indefensible and it is hardly a good advertisement for one-nation Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her Amendment 145A. It is important that the Home Office is able to run a sustainable immigration and nationality system in a way that minimises the burden on the taxpayer. When the figures are spoken about in terms of the amount of money that it costs, that has to be seen in the context of our commitment to achieve a self-funded border, immigration and citizenship system by 2019-20. That raises the question: when people are using our border service, our immigration system or our citizenship, why should the resident taxpayer population be the ones who have to pay for the benefit that is falling to the individuals making the applications?

The first part of the amendment would restrict our ability in setting a fee to take account of any factor other than cost. That would cost the Home Office at least £29 million per annum over the next spending review period, mainly from lost income on current plans. Such a reduction in fee funding would have a serious detrimental effect on the department’s ability to operate an effective border and immigration system.

We recognise that families normally bear the cost for applications made on behalf of children. As a result, the Home Office already sets a fee for a child to register as a British citizen at a rate £300 lower than the overall cost of adult citizenship applications.

The second part of the amendment relates to those children receiving local authority assistance. Unaccompanied children in the UK generally seek leave to remain on protection grounds, for which no fee is charged. For a child in the care of the local authority, the Home Office waives the application fee for leave to remain on the grounds for settlement. This preserves the person’s ability to reside in the UK until they can afford to apply for citizenship.

The final part of the amendment, which would introduce a very broad provision to waive application fees, taking into account the means of applicants or parents, would be very difficult to implement in practice. It would be highly likely to lead to claims from applicants simply seeking to avoid paying, rather than those who were genuinely destitute, for whom there are already alternative and appropriate remedies that ensure that convention rights are protected. For children in family groups applying for leave to remain on human rights grounds, the fee is waived where the applicant is destitute or otherwise meets the published fee-waiver policy. Taken as a whole, this policy ensures that a person’s convention rights are protected, that the value of British citizenship is recognised and that the border and immigration system is adequately sustained and funded.

Citizenship can never be an absolute right, nor is it necessary in order for a person to reside in the UK and access our public services. A person who is settled in the UK is not required to become a citizen by a certain date: they can remain here until they can meet the criteria for doing so, including payment of the required fee. Overall, on balance, we feel that the existing arrangement strikes the right balance between fairness to individuals and fairness to all applicants, as well as to the resident taxpayer population. I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for persevering and staying up at this late hour to give me such strong support on this amendment.

I suppose I am grateful to the Minister—he did not have any option but to stay and respond—but I am very disappointed by his response. He seems to be saying that the immigration system depends on children paying this exorbitant fee to be able to carry on; that, bluntly, seems to be what he is saying. These children will become taxpayers; I find the idea that they are somehow a burden on the taxpayer terribly depressing. They have a right—I do not see why they should have to pay such fees.

I can quite see that there might be somewhere between what the amendment is calling for, which is that there cannot be anything above the cost to the Home Office, and the Government’s position, but we are talking about a difference of over £600 for a child between the cost to the Home Office and the fee. That seems to be a very large surcharge on these children to keep the wheels of the immigration system turning. It is well past my bedtime so I am not thinking very straight, but I am slightly flabbergasted by that argument. At least it is now in the open—what this has been about has been said very clearly.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not been willing to give an inch, because there is scope there for some kind of compromise between the amendment and the situation as it stands. I am also disappointed that the Government are not prepared to think about it and talk to Amnesty and the project just to see whether there might be some way of coming to some kind of agreement to make this policy slightly less harsh than it is at present. The Minister may want to say something.

[Lord Bates]

I will say only that, with the existing arrangements for waivers for those who are in particular need, the policy is absolutely right and we stand by it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

According to Amnesty, the waiver is limited, but I will have to look into that. The Minister talked about the right balance, but personally I do not think there is no balance there at all. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 145A withdrawn.