Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, Amendment 6 would put into law the recommendation of the Shaw review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, commissioned by the Home Office, that the current presumptive exclusion from detention for pregnant women should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. On Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, twice stated that the Government would reflect on the matter by Third Reading. However, he also made it clear that the Government did not consider it appropriate for there to be an absolute rule and gave the example of an irregular migrant—I deliberately do not repeat the term “illegal”, in line with the recent recommendation of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights—who arrives at an airport and can be returned almost immediately. Six days later, the noble and learned Lord sent a detailed letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in which, among other things, he addressed the specific questions that I had raised about the new guidance on the detention of pregnant women. I am grateful to him for that, in particular for his agreement to share a draft of the new operational guidance with detention-related organisations such as Women for Refugee Women, to which I pay tribute for its tireless work on behalf of women in detention.

However, on the underlying question of whether pregnant women should be detained at all, the noble and learned Lord in effect repeated what he said on Report, and I did not see any evidence of the promised further reflection. I had assumed that there would be a further statement giving the Government’s formal response to Shaw’s recommendation, but when none had appeared by yesterday, I realised that it was not to be and therefore thought it important that your Lordships should have the opportunity to consider this question, which inevitably got rather lost in the debates about the wider question of time limits. I apologise that, as a result, the amendment was tabled at the very last minute.

Stephen Shaw was clearly aware of the issue of pregnant women who might not otherwise be returned quickly to their country when appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, he concluded:

“I believe that the Home Office should acknowledge the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, the detention of pregnant women does not result in their removal. In practice, pregnant women are very rarely removed from the country, except voluntarily”.

He therefore recommended unequivocally that the presumptive exclusion from detention should be replaced with an absolute exclusion. In doing so, he cited evidence from the Royal College of Midwives, among others, which he said demonstrated the,

“incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children”.

In a witness statement to the High Court, the director for midwifery at the RCM spelled out the medical reasons why detention is completely inappropriate, particularly for a group of pregnant women with significant or complex health and psychosocial problems in need of higher levels of care than the general population. I here call on the Minister to arrange for a discussion of the issues raised by the detention of pregnant women with the RCM, Medical Justice—which has produced a damning research report on the issue, endorsed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—Women for Refugee Women and organisations working with those who have suffered torture.

Stephen Shaw stands by his recommendation; I heard him speak recently and eloquently in support of it. He spoke of detention’s “undoubted damage to mothers and unborn babies” at a meeting in Parliament hosted by Caroline Spelman MP, who together with me, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—who I do not believe is in his place—were members of the parliamentary inquiry into detention which recommended that pregnant women should never be detained for immigration purposes. That inquiry’s recommendations were endorsed by a Motion in the Commons last September. In his address, Mr Shaw drew attention to the Prime Minister’s prisons speech earlier this year, in which he expressed particular concern about the position of mothers and babies in prison.

The argument that the absolute exclusion recommended by Shaw would tie the Government’s hands inappropriately might appear reasonable. The problem is that, in effect, it means no real change from the status quo so roundly criticised by Shaw and others, including HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which told Shaw that there is little to suggest that pregnant women are being detained only in exceptional circumstances, as is supposed to be.

Current Home Office policy already states that the only exception to the general rule that pregnant women should not be detained is when removal is imminent and medical advice does not suggest that the woman concerned will go into labour before her removal date. In spite of this clear policy presumption against detention, in 2014, 99 pregnant women were detained and, in 2015, 69. Of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood during 2014, 30—that is nearly one-third—were held for between one and three months; four for three to six months; and only nine were deported from the UK. I understand that there is a pregnant woman who has been there for just over two months at present.

I ask the noble and learned Lord to explain what additional safeguards the new approach brings. How can he reassure noble Lords that the new policy will mean that pregnant women are detained in only the most exceptional circumstances when the current policy is already supposed to ensure that? I know that the Home Office believes that the new gatekeeping team to be introduced as part of the adults-at-risk approach will introduce a degree of objectivity into detention decision-making and so protect against inappropriate use of detention. However, given that this team will still sit within the Home Office—albeit in a different management chain from those making the decisions—the oversight it provides will clearly fall short of the independent element for detention decision-making that the Shaw review recommended the Home Office should consider.

Returning to the example of the pregnant woman who arrived at the airport with no right of entry, it is the only example we have been given of where an absolute exclusion would cause a problem. So it should be, because it is the only exception that exists at present. I have not seen any evidence as to how often this occurs at present. The fact that nine out of 10 pregnant women held in detention in 2014 were subsequently released back into the community rather than deported suggests that it is rare. ILPA makes the point that if a pregnant woman claims asylum she cannot be returned until her claim is determined in any case.

As Women for Refugee Women argue, refusing to accept Shaw’s clear recommendation of an absolute exclusion from detention on the basis of what would appear to be a small number of cases each year where swift removal might be possible, and when there is clear evidence that allowing decision-makers discretion results in significant numbers of pregnant women being detained in circumstances that are far from exceptional—just one pregnant women being detained when she should not be is one too many—is not sensible, effective or humane policy-making. I hope that even at this late stage the noble and learned Lord will accept Stephen Shaw’s recommendation, which has support across the political spectrum and from a wide range of civil society groups, none of which have been convinced by the Government’s argument against doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I raised this issue in Committee, and then my noble friend Lord Hylton and I took the trouble to go to Yarl’s Wood where we asked questions about the number of pregnant women who had been detained there in the past or might currently be detained. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who did such wonderful work on this Bill in its earlier stages. He commented on a Channel 4 investigation into Yarl’s Wood, which was shown in March 2015, where staff members called the women being held there “animals” and “beasties”. Having watched the programme, the noble Lord said to the House:

“I watched that documentary on Channel 4, and quite frankly I was sickened”.—[Official Report, 28/1/15; col. 103.]

Having been to Yarl’s Wood, I was able to say to the House that many of the staff we met had learned the lessons of that experience, and certainly my noble friend and I were impressed by many of the standards that we saw, but nevertheless we could not be convinced that it could ever be right, as the noble Baroness has just said, to have even one pregnant woman detained in those circumstances.

The Royal College of Midwives has said that:

“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.

In the review referred to by the noble Baroness, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England, Stephen Shaw, says this:

“that detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take … to be a statement of the obvious”.

Alongside that, of course, there are long-standing concerns about the conditions in Yarl’s Wood. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has called it a “place of national concern”. Although I have tried, I hope fairly, to say that conditions have undoubtedly improved, nevertheless it is not a place where pregnant women should be.

The briefing material referred to by the noble Baroness from the organisation Women for Refugee Women poses the question that the Government frequently ask in these circumstances:

“If the government said they were going to stop detaining pregnant women, wouldn’t women lie and say they were pregnant—or get pregnant deliberately—just to avoid detention? And wouldn’t women abscond if they weren’t detained?”.

I agree with the response:

“Establishing if a woman is pregnant or not is very straightforward: she simply needs to take a pregnancy test! The idea that women would get pregnant as a way of avoiding detention is unfounded and based on sexist stereotypes about women and the way they behave”.

To illustrate the strength of that argument, which I agree with, it is perhaps worth mentioning to noble Lords the story of one woman, Priya:

“Priya was trafficked to the UK and forced into prostitution. She has been detained in Yarl’s Wood twice; the second time she was locked up, she was 20 weeks pregnant, and was held in Yarl’s Wood for seven weeks before being released back into the community”.

Picking up her story, she says this:

“I was released after three months in detention, and fell pregnant by my partner, but then I was detained again. Although I had a written report from an expert, the Home Office did not believe that I was trafficked, so my claim was refused and I found myself back in detention. This time around I was in Yarl’s Wood for about seven weeks, and I was 20 weeks pregnant when I arrived.

I only had one hospital appointment while I was there, for my 20 week scan, and even then I was escorted by officers who took me 40 minutes late for my appointment. I felt frustrated that I wasn’t able to speak to the midwife after my scan because there was no time. The officers just took me straight back to Yarl’s Wood instead”.

I will not read the entire testimony to the House, but let me pull out two more sentences:

“The first time I was detained in Yarl’s Wood, I was on medication for sleeping and depression, and I took an overdose because I felt so hopeless … I couldn’t eat the food in the canteen; that made me sick too. A lot of the time I could only really manage milk. It was too far for my partner to visit and, as an asylum seeker as well, he couldn’t afford the travel, but we spoke on the phone every day. I’ve been released now but I still feel depressed”.

Levels of depression in Yarl’s Wood and incidents of self-harm have been very high indeed. The prisons inspectorate report in 2015 found that more than half of women who were detained there felt depressed or suicidal when they first arrived, and that there had been 72 incidents of self-harm in the previous six months —a huge rise from the previous inspection. Surely these are circumstances in which we should never put someone who is pregnant.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Alton of Liverpool

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 227, which has been so comprehensively and well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, will recall that, prior to Second Reading, I chaired a meeting in your Lordships’ House organised by the Refugee Children’s Consortium and the Children’s Society. Some of the issues raised by the noble Lord today were raised then, and I know that they have been on the mind of the Minister.

The position of children was brought home to me by a report that appeared in the Daily Telegraph on Monday last, reiterated in the Observer on Sunday, which stated:

“At least 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have disappeared in Europe, the EU’s criminal intelligence agency has said, as it warned many could be in the hands of traffickers.

Brian Donald, Europol’s chief of staff, said the children had vanished after arriving in Europe and registering with state authorities”.

He went on to say:

“It’s not unreasonable to say that we’re looking at 10,000-plus children”.

We should take the rights of children, which are at the heart of the amendment, very seriously within our own jurisdiction, as well as recognising that children are suffering outside our jurisdiction as a result of this massive crisis of migration.

The seriousness of this question and of out-of-country appeals was also brought home to me this morning when, with my noble friend Lord Hylton and as a result of the kindness of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and Mr James Brokenshire in organising it for us, we visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre. I was deeply impressed by a lot of what we saw there. We were able to talk at random to people at Yarl’s Wood. I spoke to a lady who is 33 years of age. She has lived in this country for 26 years. She has three children, aged 17, 14 and 12. She was born in Somalia. Because she has some minor convictions, including things such as shoplifting in the past, this lady will be deported from this country to Mogadishu in Somalia. “Needless to say”, she said, “Every night, I sleep with my heart pounding”. I do not know, but will this woman have to launch an appeal from Mogadishu? Is this the sort of thing that could arise as a consequence of this legislation?

That is why the amendment that the noble Lord moved is so important. I have three very brief reasons why I support it. First, thousands of children, including British citizens, will be at risk of being separated from their parents or being removed from the UK before any judicial scrutiny of the Home Office’s decision and without adequate consideration of the best interests of the child. Secondly, given the consequences of inappropriate certification and the cost and obstacles to challenging certification—the only means of doing so being by judicial review—surely it is wrong to extend the existing provisions. Thirdly, Clause 34 could see more cases involving unaccompanied children or young people aged over 18 who claimed asylum alone as children, or who arrived as children and have lived in the UK for most of their lives, being certified for an out-of-country appeal and being removed to their countries of origin without a sufficient assessment of their best interests being undertaken.

The Children’s Society tells me that the provisions risk children being deprived of their parents or forced to leave the country that they grew up in before any judicial scrutiny of the Home Office’s decision and without adequate consideration of the best interests of the child. It says that this provision could see more cases involving unaccompanied children or young people aged over 18 who claimed asylum alone as children and/or who have lived here for many years and have built their lives in the UK being certified for an out-of-country appeal.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was right to remind us of the implications, following the changes made under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, of the consequences of removing legal aid. I was struck by a report, again by the Children’s Society, that estimates that 2,490 children would be out of scope in a post-LASPO context. Clearly, without legal aid these children, including those in care, are unable to resolve their immigration issues, often resulting in a crisis for the child as they turn 18.

I have only one other point, which is a question to the Minister. Given the difficulties that children and families face making immigration applications because there is no legal aid for immigration claims, how will the Home Office be sure that it has all the information it needs to make a comprehensive, best-interests assessment before allowing an appeal only from outside of the United Kingdom? Before we agree the provisions of the clause or reject the amendment, we need an answer to that question.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of opposing the question that Clause 34 stand part of the Bill and in support of Amendment 227, to which I added my name. In its two reports on the last Immigration Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was then a member, raised serious concerns on human rights grounds about out-of-country appeals. It questioned reliance on judicial review to challenge certification. I note that the Select Committee on the Constitution suggested that we may wish to bear these concerns in mind. Indeed, I see that the current chair of the JCHR has written to the Home Secretary to raise concerns about how extension could result in families with meritorious Article 8 claims being subjected to extensive separation.

A wide range of human rights and immigration organisations have raised concerns on human rights and rule of law grounds, as access to justice is likely to be impeded, as we have already heard. On the rule of law question, ILFA notes that the Government point to the decision in Kiarie, R v the Secretary of State for the Home Department as support for its view that an out-of-country appeal is adequate. However, ILFA responds that a decision that the Secretary of State is entitled to proceed on the basis that an out-of-country appeal will meet the procedural requirements of Article 8 in the generality of criminal deportation cases, where she is balancing the individual’s right against the public interest of deporting someone with a criminal conviction whose presence, it is asserted, is not conducive to the public good, does not necessarily mean that it will meet those requirements in the wider generality of cases covered by Clause 34.

Concerned organisations, including Amnesty, also point out that the consequences of being removed from the UK may be profound and long-lasting, even if removal is for a short time only. Despite the equality statement’s assurance that no adverse impact on grounds of gender are anticipated, as I said at Second Reading:

“Rights of Women is worried about the implications for women migrants who have left abusive partners but who do not qualify to remain under the normal domestic violence rules because of their status, which is a common occurrence. Rights of Women fears that:

‘A mother seeking to remain in the UK as the parent of a child who is wrongfully refused by the Home Office faces the prospect of leaving her child in the UK with an abusive father or taking her child with her forcing them to leave behind a network of friends and family, abandoning their schools and communities and being forced to live in a country where in many instances they have no ties, no understanding of the language or culture’.

It points out that this upheaval could last for months or longer”.—[Official Report, 22/12/15; col. 2491.]

Potential family separation is a concern raised by a number of organisations. Will the Minister confirm that the family test was applied to this provision and, if not, why not? If the answer is yes, would he be willing to publish the conclusions reached, as, to its credit, the Home Office did, in the equality statement Reforming Support for Failed Asylum Seekers? In particular, what impact do the Government believe the policy will have on all family members’ ability to play a role in family life—one of the questions in the family test? The fact that the DWP guidance suggests that this question is aimed mainly at work/family life balance issues should not allow the Home Office to ignore this clause’s potentially much more profound impact on the ability to play a role in family life where families are separated as a consequence of it.

This brings me to Amendment 227. In its recent note on this clause, the Home Office acknowledges its duty under Section 55 of the Border Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to,

“have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child in the UK who will or may be affected by any immigration decision”.

It continues,

“where the decision maker is aware that there is a child who is affected by her decision, the decision maker will have regard to the best interests of that child as a primary consideration in deciding the human rights claim and also in deciding whether to certify the claim so that the appeal is heard after the person has left the UK”.

This is clearly meant to be reassuring but it does not reassure members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, whose experience is that children’s best interests are not systematically and comprehensively assessed within immigration decision-making. Its briefing reminds us that the,

“UNHCR’s audit of the Home Office’s procedures highlights that, at present, there is no formal and systematic collection or recording of information that will be necessary … to a quality best interests consideration. This includes a lack of any mechanisms to obtain the views of the child”.

As the JCHR concluded in its final report of the last Parliament on the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

“The Home Office seems still to prioritise the need to control immigration over the best interests of the child. This is unsatisfactory. The Government must ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount in immigration matters”.

In contrast, the Home Office note emphasises:

“While the best interests of the child are a primary consideration, they are not the only or an overriding consideration”.

Of course they are not the only consideration but established case law makes it clear that decision-makers must first understand what course of action would be in the best interests of the child before going on to take account of other considerations, including immigration control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 228 and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have added their name to it. This concerns what is commonly called the “moving on” or “grace” period, during which an asylum seeker granted status continues to receive asylum support but after which it is expected that they will have sorted out mainstream financial support, employment and accommodation. The current period is only 28 days. The amendment would increase this to 40 days.

As I said when we discussed the previous group, I applaud the Home Office for listening to the concerns expressed about the grace period proposed in the consultation on asylum support for failed asylum seekers, but I was disappointed that the same document stated:

“There are no plans to change the grace period arrangements for those granted asylum or other status here”.

I hope that we might be able to persuade the Minister to look again at this also, particularly given that the grace period for failed asylum seekers will now be 90 days.

I was prompted to table the amendment as a result of reading the recent Work and Pensions Committee report Benefit Delivery. The report referred to the research evidence suggesting that,

“28 days is insufficient time for refugees to make the transition from Home Office support in many cases”.

This includes the DWP’s own research which,

“showed it takes on average 32 days from receipt of claim to first payment for a claimant with a National Insurance number and 35 days for a claimant without”.

The Committee asked why only 28 days is allowed, when it is clear from the research that,

“it is in many cases insufficient”.

It recommended that,

“the DWP conduct an immediate investigation into the ‘move-on’ period and work with the Home Office to amend the length of time if necessary”.

I realise that this amendment goes further, but I do not believe further investigation is necessary, given the evidence that already exists, including from the British Red Cross, as cited by the Work and Pensions Committee—and I am grateful to the BRC for its help with the amendment—and also an earlier report by Freedom from Torture.

It was in fact that report, on the poverty barrier faced by survivors of torture, that first alerted me to this issue. I tried in vain to find out who had responsibility for this matter in DWP and, to my shame, when I did not find out I let it go. But the publication of the Work and Pensions Committee report, following the recent research report from the British Red Cross, convinced me that we must use the opportunity provided by this Bill to address what is a very real and unnecessary injustice.

The Red Cross research identified 23 factors at play affecting the speed with which refugees are able to move on to mainstream support. For some people, five to 10 of these factors could be holding up progress. The research documents the complexities of the transition period, involving multiple stakeholders and the issuing and management of multiple documents. During a one-month data collection process, the study found that 14 out of 101 people helped by the BRC refugee support service in Birmingham were in the moving-on period, and two out of 55 people in Plymouth. All 14 participants in Birmingham were destitute, with neither financial support nor adequate accommodation. All 11 for whom it had sufficient information had been without support for more than 15 days, five for 15 to 35 days, and three for more than 75 days. In Plymouth, both had been without support for between 15 and 35 days.

BRC has provided me with a case study that was not part of the research. Hagos is a 19 year-old from Eritrea living in Stoke on Trent. He was granted status on 16 October and claimed jobseeker’s allowance on 29 October. In case anyone is wondering why there was a delay in claiming, let me remind noble Lords that claiming benefits can sometimes be difficult for people at the best of times. In his oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, Fabio Apollonio of the BRC explained:

“It is clear to us that at a particular stage when a person is just coming out of a trauma, perhaps, they are thinking of what to do next and they are bombarded with a lot of things to do and very often they do not even start the process until very late. It is very difficult to engage with a benefit agency at that stage unless you are prepared and you have been receiving advice from someone who can explain to you clearly what you should do without delay”.

Anyway, back to Hagos. His asylum support was terminated on 19 November. His first JSA payment was not made until 7 January—held up in part because of incorrect advice given by Jobcentre Plus staff—so this young man, still in his teens, experienced destitution for a period of 50 days.

Another example provided in the West Yorkshire Destitute Asylum Network’s submission to the Work and Pensions Committee was of a woman with severe mental health problems, with two children, who was told that her claim for benefits could not be processed until two days before her asylum support was due to end. It then took over a month for the first payment to be made. The family were left in temporary accommodation without any subsistence support for a number of weeks and had to rely on food parcels and hardship payments from a member organisation of the network. As the network points out, many new refugees lack the safety net of savings or social networks able to support them through this difficult period.

The researchers concluded that:

“Our findings show that moving from asylum support to mainstream benefits and employment is a real ordeal for new refugees—and usually takes much longer than the … ‘grace period’ given by the government”.

I do not believe this is hyperbole, and even though it is a small study, it is consistent with the other available evidence.

In particular, the psychological impact of the ordeal that new refugees face is documented by the Freedom from Torture report that I mentioned. It observes that:

“The relief of gaining security of legal status can dissipate fairly quickly as the reality becomes apparent, while at the same time the survivor may be particularly vulnerable psychologically, as the full impact of torture and the loss of their former life may begin to be fully felt at this time of transition”.

Clinicians interviewed for the research said that it was at this time of transition and great psychological vulnerability that clients were most likely to experience destitution. They commentated on the devastating impact that this could have as, in their experience, when survivors of torture are effectively made destitute, it can lead to a deterioration in their mental health and/or to an increased risk of suicide. It can also have a long-term impact on their ability to recover from their past trauma, even after they are no longer in destitute circumstances. As one clinician put it:

“There’s nothing worse for our clients than thinking all your problems have ended because you get ‘status’ and then becoming homeless”.

If we stop and think how we would feel in that situation, it is all too understandable.

I do not believe that this is what anyone in the Government wants. It is a policy of neglect and bureaucratic inertia rather than of deliberate intent, but it is no less cruel for that. A number of practical reforms that could help are detailed both in the BRC report and in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee—for instance, to start the clock of the grace period ticking only once a refugee has received key documents such as an NI number. But this problem has been going on for years. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee recommended in 2013 that,

“asylum support should not be discontinued until the Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that the recipient is receiving mainstream benefits”.

I am afraid that I do not have confidence in the statutory agencies to ensure that measures are implemented effectively without legislative change. Of course, the sooner a refugee can move from asylum support to mainstream support, the better, but in order to ensure that they do not drop into a horrible limbo in between, the time has come to extend the period to 40 days as a basic safeguard against destitution.

I am sure that the Minister is not comfortable with this situation. Therefore, would it be possible to arrange a meeting involving representatives of the Home Office and the DWP together with interested Peers and representatives of key organisations supporting refugees through the moving-on period to look at what might be possible before Report? I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, put the case eloquently and persuasively. She and I attended a briefing with the British Red Cross and she then tabled the amendment. I added my name as a signatory because it puts, as she said, a real and unnecessary injustice right. It is a basic safeguard against enforced destitution.

The Minister needs no convincing about the merits of the British Red Cross. He has not only raised significant sums for the organisation in a voluntary capacity but I know that he has huge admiration for the work that it does. Representatives told us in the briefing that we had with them that they had helped to reunite 300 refugee families last year in the UK. They also illustrated from their own experience that destitution in the asylum system is a worsening and deepening problem. They supported 9,000 refugees and asylum seekers who were destitute in 2015, compared with 7,700 in 2014, which is an increase of some 15%. That included people granted refugee status but not given enough time to transition to mainstream benefits in the way that the noble Baroness just described.

Nearly 44% of destitute refugees and asylum seekers supported by the Red Cross last year were from Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria, all of which are among the world’s top refugee-producing countries. Although I agree with what the Minister said earlier about people seeking better lives from countries such as Albania—a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in his intervention—we must never lose sight of some of the hell-holes from which people are coming.

When the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I were at Yarl’s Wood today, two men had just arrived off the back of lorries from Iran. Another had arrived from Mosul in Iraq. The situations they had come from were such that any noble Lord in the Chamber tonight would have attempted to escape from too. We have to be clear that these are not economic migrants or people who are just coming for a better life. Some of them have come from the most perilous and appalling situations.

If the Bill is left unaltered, it could plunge thousands more people in those kinds of situations into poverty, including families who are unable to leave the UK through no fault of their own, for example due to a lack of identification documents to provide their nationality or because they have no viable or secure place to return to.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Lister of Burtersett and Lord Alton of Liverpool

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Very briefly, I support Amendment 215A because I absolutely agree that this is not a trivial matter. I am not an expert on these issues but a social scientist who knows the importance of language. Some years ago, it was quite common among the media and politicians to talk about bogus asylum seekers. That did immense harm, so I absolutely agree that language which has connotations of criminality when applied to asylum seekers is totally inappropriate and could be very harmful.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and previously the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made about the importance of the language we use. When the Minister comes to consider this issue again between now and Report, I wonder whether he will look at the nomenclature that we use here and whether “immigration bail”, with its connotations of criminality, really is the right language for us to use at all. In particular, people seeking asylum are not criminals when one considers that they will include refugees, children, survivors of torture and trafficked people. It is quite wrong to imply that they are necessarily people who are therefore trying to break our laws.

I hope that the Minister will also return specifically to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about our duties under international law, especially Article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which expressly protects those who claim asylum from being treated as criminals. The UNHCR and other international guidance recognises that the detention of persons seeking asylum must always be the exception, so let us at least start from the basis that those seeking asylum will be among people who are genuine. They will be trying to escape from the most appalling situations in their own countries and are not criminals. We therefore must have some regard for their well-being and status.

I would like to raise one other brief issue in relation to Schedule 7, which is not covered by these amendments but on which I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarification. It appears that the introduction of a restriction on studies as a condition either of temporary admission or bail for those subject to immigration control is a new provision. I would be grateful if the Minister would spell that out. No reason for the restriction is given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, so I wonder whether we could take this opportunity in Committee to find out what that reason is. Breach of a condition of immigration bail is, as we have just discovered in these exchanges, a criminal offence and therefore has serious consequences. Those lawfully present and in touch with the authorities should not be restricted from undertaking studies. All those subject to immigration control will be on immigration bail, not just persons released from detention. The condition could potentially be applied to children and young people, preventing them accessing further education and even attending their school. I am sure that that is not what the Government had in mind but I hope they will clarify what the consequences of this provision might be.