Immigration

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

I beg to move,

That the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 184), dated 23 February 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 February 2021, be revoked.

On behalf of my party, let me say that it is entirely right that we have the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the incredibly serious changes proposed in this motion. Quite frankly, it is remarkable that the Government sought to introduce these changes as a negative statutory instrument—through the back door without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny at all.

This statutory instrument will remove protections in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that sought to prevent potential victims of trafficking from being held unnecessarily in immigration detention. The changes are due to come into effect on 25 May, following an extremely limited consultation with a select few groups, which had just two weeks to respond.

The consultation, which did not seek to engage with any trafficking survivor groups, was described as “poor practice” by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Given that the changes are being made alongside those outlined in the Government’s new plan for immigration, published last month, we are gravely concerned by the Government’s desire to erode the rights and protections for victims of some of the most heinous examples of exploitation.

To be clear, the proposals will amend the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance by removing paragraph 18 on trafficking cases. That means that, from 25 May, decisions about the detention of potential victims of human trafficking will be made without reference to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 guidance, which made it clear that potential victims of trafficking are automatically considered unsuitable for detention unless there are public order reasons that militate against that. As a result, a decision will now be assessed within the much broader adults at risk framework, which considers a range of vulnerabilities, with the latest figure suggesting that about 39% of those detained in immigration detention are considered adults at risk.

A range of immigration factors is considered as part of the decision-making process and those factors go far wider than public order. They can include a history of offending, but additionally whether the person’s immigration history includes having entered the country irregularly, not having claimed asylum immediately, or having failed to comply with Home Office reporting requirements.

Often, having been a victim of trafficking leaves such individuals unable to satisfy those requirements. Being subject to coercive control commonly results in an individual entering the country outside approved routes or being unable to claim asylum immediately. Furthermore, to benefit from a stronger protection against detention once brought under the adults at risk guidance, potential victims of trafficking with a positive initial reasonable-grounds decision will now need to provide additional professional evidence demonstrating not only that they are an adult at risk, but that detention is likely to cause them harm. Therefore, the primary impact of the changes will be that potential victims of trafficking are detained, and detained for longer. That is the view not only of the Opposition and various specialist stakeholders, but of the Government.

In response to concerns raised, the Home Office admitted that some individuals might, as a result of the changes, be more likely to be detained or have their detention continued. Why, therefore, do the Government continue to press ahead when they are well aware of the damage and distress that will cause, particularly considering that they seek to deliver the changes through a statutory instrument considered under the negative procedure—deeming them unworthy of debate and scrutiny?

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue just yesterday. That demonstrates that there are serious concerns about the proposals across the House. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the debate, and it seems that the Government seek to justify the changes by saying that a similar protection will be provided through casework guidance and training, which we have not yet seen and can only trust will be published in due course.

We also expect that changes will be made to the caseworker guidance, such as the increase in requirements for medical evidence, which will further weaken the protections for victims of trafficking. For example, there are plans to introduce quality standards for external medical evidence in the adults at risk policy, including proposals to limit the weight of remote assessment, and a stipulation that healthcare professionals should have all the immigration documents and medical records relating to conditions, which a potential victim might not be comfortable disclosing or be able to disclose.

Yesterday, the Minister emphasised his pride at this country’s leading role in identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery, but he also stressed that a rebalancing is required—if I have understood correctly—between protections for victims and immigration controls. He identified what he said is, by design, an “extremely low threshold” for a reasonable-grounds modern slavery decision whereby there is a requirement only to suspect, rather than to prove, someone is a potential victim of trafficking, and explained that the Government are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the new plan for immigration.

I am sorry to say that all that is delivering a downgrading of those protections, which we could have been proud of. That is an erosion of existing safeguards and it will undoubtedly increase the risk of vulnerable individuals being retraumatised in detention.

We are concerned not only by the implications of this statutory instrument but by the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent good practice and due diligence in their processes. The consultation period lasted just two weeks during the summer of last year, without the presence of specialist stakeholders and organisations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has aptly described the consultation as “poor practice”. Shockingly, the Government did not consult the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or her office on these proposals. I very much hope that the Minister has read Dame Sara Thornton’s letter dated 19 April outlining a range of issues with the proposals.

As many will already be aware, survivors of modern slavery are at increased risk of long-term depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide attempts and health complications. Last week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a statement saying that it believes that detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration in mental health in most cases, greatly increasing both the suffering of the individual and the risk of suicide and self-harm. In 2017 the Government promised a scheme called Places of Safety to allow survivors to access their rights soon after being identified in settings such as police raids or labour inspections. That would have given survivors an opportunity to access legal representation and advocacy while at their most vulnerable, as well as increasing the number of successful trafficking referrals to decision makers. Sadly, the Places of Safety scheme was never delivered, and as a result thousands of suspected slavery survivors were identified but never referred for support or decision making. I would very much like to know what has happened to that scheme, so will the Minister clarify that? An additional concern is the Government’s decision to cancel the pilot schemes exploring community alternatives to detention. I hope the Minister can also give some clarity to that crazy decision.

These changes represent a significant downgrading of the protections against detention currently given to potential victims of human trafficking. The Government say they want to introduce this statutory instrument so that the adults at risk policy can be used as the single mechanism for vulnerable individuals, in order to clamp down on the policy anomaly that currently exists. To perceive such legislative change purely in terms of fixing a policy anomaly fails to acknowledge the devastating impact it will have on vulnerable victims and represents this Government’s concerning approach to wider immigration policy.

The Government have previously stressed that a reduction in the number of people in detention is a key aspect of the series of reforms they are making across the detention system, yet this statutory instrument will achieve the exact opposite. Regrettably, it represents the Government’s failure to offer a solution that is compassionate, fair and deserving of vulnerable victims of human trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch [V]]

I am afraid that we are not at all satisfied with the Minister’s contribution. This is a shameful downgrading of essential, hard-won protections for those who have been subject to some of the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. The Minister says that we lead in Europe on modern slavery, but he uses that as a justification for downgrading protections, which means that we will trample all over that sense of leadership and welcome progress on this issue. We will no longer lead in this policy area, which is much more about humanity than it ever will be about practicalities.

The Minister suggested that only one other colleague attended the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, but he did not clarify the fact that it was a 30-minute debate. As such, there were no contributions from other parties or other Members. The early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument has secured 77 signatures, and is a more appropriate reflection of colleagues’ interest in this important matter.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some incredibly powerful points, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We do not have the confidence to support the Government on proposed guidance that is yet to be published. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his typically powerful contribution as well.

The protections currently in place represent far more than a policy anomaly. There is a strong case for them to be in place and we want to see those protections extended. We seek to divide the House to revoke these proposals.

Question put.

Support for Asylum Seekers

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Let me start, as others have, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate, for their outstanding opening contributions and for their leadership on asylum and migration issues. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for the debate. It is often said that debates are timely, but with just a week to go before the end of the incredibly short consultation on the Government’s new plans for an immigration policy statement, ahead of the sovereign borders Bill, it could not be more timely.

There are pre-existing weaknesses in the asylum accommodation and dispersal scheme, combined with the pressures of the pandemic, which we accept have been significant. Added to the direction of travel under this Government, outlined in the policy statement, that creates a pretty toxic outlook.

On contingency accommodation, we recognise the increased need for accommodation, with the early, welcome pause on negative cessations taking the numbers in the asylum system from around 48,000 to around 60,000. Inevitably, that would have brought logistical challenges, and we were sympathetic to that, but over 12 months on, there are no justifications for the shocking conditions that persist in asylum accommodation and the questionable motivations behind Home Office decision making. Contingency accommodation has become far more widely used as the norm than it ever should have been.

The Minister may have read the Refugee Council’s report published last week on the use of hotel accommodation. It outlines just how difficult life has been for people who have been confined to the same room for days and weeks on end and for those who arrived without basics, such as shoes and coats, and who simply were not provided with any. People had insufficient access to drinking water, and there were widespread failures to register them with GPs so that they could access healthcare. In some instances, as we have heard children were not enrolled in schools for months.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who shared with us the contributions of their local charities and communities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Reading East for introducing me to a number of his local organisations that support those accommodated in hotels.

The Government have said that the use of hotels will end as part of the new plan for immigration. That is incredibly welcome, but what is the plan? Where will those people be accommodated instead? The Home Office provided a quote to The Guardian on Friday, saying:

“As part of our New Plan for Immigration, the use of hotels to accommodate new arrivals will end and we plan to introduce new asylum reception centres.”

I understand that Operation Oak sought to move people out of hotel accommodation and into more appropriate dispersed accommodation, as should be the process. However, that Home Office spokesperson seems to suggest that those currently housed in hotels will instead be housed in reception centres.

At the end of February, an estimated 8,700 asylum seekers were accommodated in more than 90 hotels across the UK. Some were there for months. What exactly will these new reception centres be for? My hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) have stressed how unhappy we are about the proposals. I hope the Minister will explain just how many centres he envisages will be required, how long people will be required to stay in them and what the terms of their stay will be. That quote suggests that the centres will be a form of initial accommodation, but everything else we are hearing sounds much more comparable to detention than initial accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made it clear why that would be a disaster. My fear is that this is a policy choice from this Government—a point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and others.

Although I have outlined just some of the problems with hotels, it is clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to conflate initial accommodation with immigration detention, with the use of disused barracks to accommodate asylum seekers. I made a number of these points in last week’s debate. As with the use of hotels, the Government initially claimed that the use of barracks at Penally and Napier was due to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic. Yet, the equality impact assessment we have seen, which was conducted by the Home Office in September, revealed that use of that particular type of accommodation was born not out of necessity but out of political choice. It suggested that providing nothing but the absolute bare minimum to those seeking asylum is in the interests of community relations. It reads more like a hard-line right-wing manifesto than any equality impact assessment from a Government Department ever should.

The Government’s reluctance to provide anything deemed beyond what is necessary has led to people with conditions such as leukaemia, diabetes or tuberculosis being housed 28 to a dorm and sharing limited toilet facilities, with communal areas cleaned only once a week, during a pandemic.

On 8 March 2021 the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published initial findings from site visits in mid-February to Penally camp and Napier barracks with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. They confirmed that, given the

“cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier”

a large-scale outbreak of covid was virtually inevitable, which is exactly what happened. There were 197 positive cases of covid at Napier barracks between 1 January and late February. We secured the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report undertaken at Napier through a freedom of information request, and that also confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing. The CCG report also made it clear that the Home Office had a disregard for the wellbeing of not only those accommodated at Napier, but the staff working on the site. At the time of the inspection there had been nine positive cases among staff members. The report also found that all staff took breaks at the same time and that, unbelievably, staff were being asked to sleep three to a room at the site.

The ICIBI report raised serious safeguarding concerns about those who were most vulnerable at Napier, stating:

“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed. People at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit ‘isolation block’ which we considered unfit for habitation.”

In evidence provided to the Home Affairs Committee last month the Government claimed that they had been

“following guidance in every single way”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke of the simply untrue assurances that she was given about the quality of the accommodation. The CCG and ICIBI reports could not be clearer that at no time were such assurances true. On leadership and management, the latter report concluded:

“The Home Office did not exercise adequate oversight at either site and Home Office staff were rarely present. There were fundamental failures of leadership and planning by the Home Office.”

That was not someone else’s failure. It was the Home Secretary’s failure, and those barracks must close immediately.

The wider failures of the system and the nature of dispersal are now putting local authorities under enormous pressure, and there is a sense that the Government are just not listening, which is pushing the system to breaking point. I have seen a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary at the end of March from the leaders of the asylum dispersal areas for the west midlands. They are keen to stress that they recognise their responsibility as a region to contribute to the UK’s asylum and immigration challenges, and they have supported the dispersal scheme since 1999, but they feel they have no choice other than to suspend their participation.

They clearly state that, despite their attempts to engage Government in finding solutions to the challenges they face,

“the absence of any strategic plan has meant we lack confidence on the next steps around engagement to resolve the range of complex and serious challenges we face. What we do know is that the current position is untenable and that we simply cannot continue to support in the same manner going forward.”

When Government’s biggest partners are walking away from dispersal, they have to come back to the table and work constructively to find solutions. Has the meeting sought in the letter happened—with leaders from not just the west midlands but all dispersal areas—to work through the challenges? The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), made a characteristically powerful contribution, inviting the Minister to work with the Local Government Association to find the solutions we all want.

The letter also makes the point that the use of hotels has been a reality of initial accommodation since the new contracts were agreed in 2019, so any sense that they are used because of the pandemic alone is nonsense. It says that their use

“feels more like an unsatisfactory business as usual arrangement rather than short term contingency.”

That point was made clear in the Red Cross’s report, published today and mentioned already by a number of hon. Members.

The Minister knows that in rule changes made in December the Government gave themselves the ability to deem claims inadmissible if someone arrives in the UK outside of a resettlement scheme, regardless of whether asylum should be granted, and without any agreements having been struck with European partners on returning anyone to anywhere else. Over the weekend, May Bulman at The Independent newspaper broke the story that Belgium, France and Germany have all ruled such an agreement out:

“Belgium’s asylum and migration secretary…said the country had no intention of negotiating unilateral readmission agreements with the UK and that he had already explained his position to the immigration minister”.

The German embassy in London told The Independent that

“no negotiations between Germany and the UK on return arrangements had taken place”,

indicating that bilateral returns deals are simply not on the cards. France echoed those remarks, with a spokesperson saying:

“We will naturally continue our operational co-operation to prevent departures and fight against smuggling networks. With regards to readmissions, asylum is a European subject, which calls for a European response.”

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the hon. Lady, but to give the Minister a fair amount of time, can I ask her to bring her remarks to a conclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch]

Thank you, Mr Davies. I will take that on board.

Let me say in closing that this approach is utterly unworkable. We will only see more people who are likely to be deserving of asylum not even having their claims considered, while they remain trapped in a wholly inadequate and inhumane system for longer, costing the Government significantly more money to deliver nothing but failure. I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on those points.

UK Asylum System and Asylum Seekers’ Mental Health

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) on securing this important and timely debate. She made a number of really important points. Although we are limited in time this afternoon, as others have said, this debate is timely because we have had the Government’s policy statement and new plan for immigration, and there is no doubt that, during the passage of the sovereign borders Bill, we will have to return to some of the really important points that she made.

On the asylum system and the mental health of those seeking asylum, it is hard to know where to start in the time that we have. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said, we agree with the Government that the system is broken and is failing everybody, but I politely remind the Conservative Government that they have been in power for 11 years and are, I am afraid to say, the architects of that failure.

A number of really important points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who raised the backlogs in the Home Office and made the powerful case for returning the right to work, as others did. That is a point that we will return to. The Minister will remember our exchanges and our support for that campaign during the passage of the immigration Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke passionately about the importance of co-ordination and the need for quality dispersal accommodation. We will need to return to the inadmissibility rule changes, passed in December, which will only trap more people in the system for longer. The reference to reception centres in the new plan and policy statement only further blur the lines between detention and initial accommodation.

In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on contingency asylum accommodation, in particular, and specifically the former MOD sites at Napier barracks and Penally camp, which represent a callousness in decision making that has been nothing short of inhumane. The Government initially claimed that the use of those barracks was due to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic, yet the equality impact assessment that we have seen, conducted by the Home Office in September, revealed that the use of that particular type of accommodation was not borne out of necessity but was a political choice. It suggested that providing nothing but the absolute bare minimum to those seeking asylum is in the interest of community relations, but even the bare minimum should surely have meant safe. The Government’s reluctance to provide anything deemed to be beyond what is necessary has seen people, including those with leukaemia, diabetes and tuberculosis, housed 28 to a single dorm, sharing limited toilet facilities and communal areas that were cleaned only once a week during the pandemic.

We wrote to the Minister’s colleagues back in December 2020 calling on the Government to commission a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for asylum accommodation—a request that was ignored.

On 8 March 2021, in a report already referenced by others, the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published initial findings from site visits to Penally camp and Napier barracks in mid-February. They confirmed that, given the cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier, a large-scale outbreak of covid was virtually inevitable, which is exactly what happened: there were 197 positive cases of covid at Napier barracks between 1 January and late February.

The Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report undertaken at Napier, which we secured through a freedom of information request, also confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing.

The ICIBI report raised serious safeguarding concerns about those who were most vulnerable, stating that there was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed and that people at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit isolation block that was unfit for habitation. Even more distressing was a survey conducted by the inspectors that found that one resident in three at Napier barracks had felt suicidal during their time there. That clearly demonstrates the damaging psychological impact that our asylum system is having on vulnerable individuals who require specialist medical care and need to be housed in suitable and safe accommodation.

In evidence provided to the Home Affairs Committee last month, the Government claimed that they had been following guidance in every single way, but the CCG and ICIBI reports make it explicitly clear that at no time has that been true. The barracks are just one element of this system, which is failing everyone, but they represent the recklessness of this Government at their worst, putting their desire to be perceived as hard-line on immigration above what is right, fair and safe.

We know that dispersed accommodation, with local councils and communities working alongside Government to make much better choices, will be the way forward. We are part of a valley of sanctuary in Halifax where organisations such as St Augustine’s are instrumental in supporting those seeking asylum and refugees, and facilitate integration within communities.

Ordinarily, a political choice to use barracks as asylum accommodation would lack humanity and compassion, but in a pandemic it is unforgivable. There is an opportunity, with the upcoming legislative changes, to build a fairer and swifter asylum system that does not have a detrimental impact on a person’s health and wellbeing, but instead unlocks a person’s potential. However, that will require a significant shift away from some of the proposals outlined in the policy statement.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister, please leave two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion.

Immigration and Nationality Application Fees

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing this important debate and opening the contributions.

My hon. Friend did an excellent job in setting out the different fees, their cumulative effect and how they make us one of the least competitive countries in the world if we want to attract the brightest and the best, even through options like the global talent visa. She has enjoyed a great deal of cross-party support this afternoon.

I begin by reflecting on how immigration and nationality fees have increased over the past 10 years. Others have paid tribute to the wonderful organisation We Belong, which is led by young people who have made the UK their home. They are right to say that the cost of leave to remain for those who came to UK, which was a focus of my hon. Friend’s opening speech, has increased by 331% in the past six years alone. Just imagine if the same could be said about nurses’ pay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) said.

The 10-year route to permanent settlement through leave to remain requires five applications totalling £12,771 per person. That statistic is made even more staggering when we consider that it costs the Government just £142 to process those applications. The fact that the Government seek to make a profit from people who grew up in this country and who simply want to establish a future here in the UK is unacceptable. It denies them the security and certainty that they deserve. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) is quite right when he says that the fees paid are not reflected in the experience that people have in their service from the Home Office.

As my hon. Friends the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Bradford East, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), have already said, the Court of Appeal found that the requirement for children who are entitled to be registered as British citizens to pay a fee of £1,012 fails to take into consideration the children’s best interests. The Government have yet to respond to this decision, and therefore I call on the Minister urgently to reconsider this issue when they respond to those concerns. Once again, it is disappointing that it has fallen to the courts to pull up the Government with a judgment that said the fee would leave children feeling “alienated, excluded, isolated” and “second-best,” when instead some compassion and common sense would go a long way.

Others have raised the challenges facing this country as a consequence of the pandemic. Immigration fees are a significant barrier to many migrant and overseas healthcare workers, as has been highlighted during the last year. I found myself unexpectedly cheering the contribution from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) when he said that NHS workers should not be in debt to pay their fees and that we are the ones who should be indebted to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) gave a heartbreaking speech about the contribution of her local migrant healthcare workers, which reflects the fact that 169,000 or 13.8% of NHS staff reported a non-British nationality in January last year. Migrant workers currently make up 16% of our social care workforce. Many of those workers face the psychological and financial burden of immigration application fees. I believe the pandemic has made us all recognise beyond any doubt that we absolutely need these people—there’s no two ways about it.

We welcome the decision to extend the visas of doctors, nurses and paramedics that were due to expire before October and then March, even though that second extension came late in the day. It has been a battle to ensure that those extensions recognise all those that they should. We were also delighted that the Government listened to our calls to offer an exemption from the immigration health surcharge to those working in healthcare, even though the delivery of that has been far from as simple as it could have been, with many still waiting for refunds. As the Minister will remember, we were keen to stress during the passing of the Bill that became the Immigration Act 2020 that it is not that we are doing those workers a favour by extending their visas; they are doing us a massive favour, by staying and working on our frontline.

How else can we recognise that contribution? In addition to the fees paid by individuals, the Minister will also remember that we called on the Government to rethink the immigration skills charge for NHS trusts, which is a fee paid by hospitals back to the Government; they often face no choice other than to recruit from overseas for specialist clinical skills, because we have failed to train staff domestically. My local hospital trust, which runs Calderdale Royal Hospital and Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, paid nearly £163,000 back to Government in the 2019-20 financial year alone. That money could have been better spent on services and improving health outcomes. We are aware of at least three trusts that have paid out over £1 million since 2017, with Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust paying £2.7 million since 2017. I urge the Minister to reflect on that, as it surely does not make any sense.

The Select Committee on Home Affairs has repeatedly pushed for the free visa extension to be applied to care workers and low-paid NHS staff in non-medical roles, which we fully support, and it has recommended British citizenship or permanent residency be granted to health and social care workers with short-term visas. We have an obligation to acknowledge the sacrifices that migrant workers have made during the pandemic, and removing the fees would be a great start. Research undertaken by the liberal conservative think-tank Bright Blue suggests that 60% of the public think it is important for immigrants living permanently in the UK to become citizens, and 75% think it would be cheaper for certain migrant groups to become citizens. We know there is a broad appetite among the general public to make citizenship more accessible, and fees are certainly one of the biggest barriers.

My constituents in Halifax know from personal experience that the measures introduced by the Government are falling drastically short. My office and I have been supporting a young woman who is a single parent and who works in social care, caring for adults with learning disabilities. She paid to extend her visa in September 2020 and had to pay over £1,000 for the immigration health surcharge. As a direct result of that payment, she is struggling financially, to the extent that we had to refer her to local food banks. We contacted the Home Office to seek clarification as to when she could expect a refund. However, I am afraid to say it has been utterly non-committal. We still have no information as to when she will receive that back. Given the pressures that my constituent has faced over the last year during this pandemic, it is deeply distressing to hear how our immigration fees threaten to leave her without even the most basic essentials. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) shared similarly powerful stories from her constituency, about how she feels that both the fees and the solicitor fees are pushing constituents into poverty and destitution.

The Doctors’ Association UK has pointed out:

“We entered this pandemic severely short-staffed, with over 10,000 vacancies for doctors, and 100,000 for nurses.”

An immigration policy that acknowledges that reality, and seeks to fix it with an accessible and affordable process that is fit for purpose, is now required from the Government.

Hon. Members will recognise from their casework that the examples I have mentioned are not uncommon, but I want to turn to the really worrying contrast reported in both The Guardian and the Financial Times recently, which relates to the investigation into the conduct of a Home Office official dating back to 2016. I have written to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about this issue, but sources have claimed, and the Home Office has confirmed, that a senior caseworker who works on nationality applications at the Home Office was investigated by the Department’s anti-corruption unit for allegedly being paid to offer external advice to one of the UK’s largest law firms, Mishcon de Reya. Allegations also include the release of unauthorised information regarding citizenship applications. The official was taken to dinner, and gifts, including champagne, were sent to him and at least one other colleague.

I have asked for that investigation to be published, but the Minister for Crime and Policing said this week that that would not be possible. In his answer to my written question, the Minister present today also confirmed to me this week that:

“Per the Civil Service Code, Civil Servants must not accept gifts or hospitality or receive other benefits from anyone which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgement or integrity.”

In its response to The Guardian newspaper, Mishcon de Reya said:

“There is nothing unusual or inappropriate about this common industry practice.”

Mishcon de Reya was aware that other law firms had similar professional relationships with the official in question. Given that we know gifts were sent to other Home Office officials, I would welcome some clear answers from the Minister. Do we know who else received gifts, and were these returned? How would he respond to the suggestion that such conduct is common industry practice? Those are questions that must be answered, and some transparency is absolutely essential.

Frankly, the news of this scandal comes as an insult to my constituents who cannot afford that level of access to officials via their lawyers, and who are struggling to make ends meet in paying the fees required. We need assurances from the Home Office that the UK immigration system is not one that works only for those who can afford to make it work for them. Over the last decade immigration and nationality application fees have risen beyond what is reasonable, often trapping people into paying fees that are beyond their means for years, just to have the security of staying where they are. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) made very clear the consequences for children, in particular, as they grow up in this country.

I know the Minister will recognise the deeply unfair contrast I have set out between those who can afford top lawyers and what would appear to be the enhanced access that comes with that, and those who cannot. We need a fairer system that recognises the contributions made by migrant workers, many of whom work in our local healthcare and who are a precious resource that we just cannot afford to be without.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I was just checking that that was an ending and not a break in the transmission. My apologies. I call the Minister, Kevin Foster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

We can see from the contribution Glasgow makes that a range of support is already available. As I say, we want to end the use of contingency accommodation. It is just that—contingency. As the pressures have reduced, we have moved away from using the Penally site, for example. However, as has been touched on, the solution is for more areas to come forward, because we need local councils to back up some of what they call for with action.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

The independent inspector’s report states very clearly that

“once one person was infected a large-scale outbreak was virtually inevitable.”

In addition, the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group inspection report on Napier confirmed that some communal areas were cleaned just once a week; that staff were expected to sleep three to a room; and that there were people with pre-existing vulnerabilities, including diabetes, leukaemia and tuberculosis, accommodated there. The public health advice never supported the use of dormitories, so why is Napier barracks still open?

[Kevin Foster]

As I have already outlined, we have instructed our providers to make improvements, and we want to reduce the use of contingency accommodation through fixing our broken asylum system. I am sure many will be interested to note the Labour party’s sudden interest in, and enthusiasm for, securing improvements at Napier barracks now that they are no longer being used by our armed forces.

Oral Answers to Questions

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The closure of the barracks would be made a lot easier if more councils in Scotland—other than only Glasgow—would accept dispersed accommodation. That is the sort of thing that puts pressure on our accommodation estate. Thanks to the generosity of our approach, the number of people we are accommodating has gone up from 48,000 to 61,000 during the pandemic, because we have taken a thoughtful and protective approach. That is the right thing to do and we stand by it.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

On Napier barracks, the equality impact assessment makes it clear that the use of disused barracks as asylum accommodation is absolutely a political choice. The Government have consistently refused to confirm the numbers of those who contracted the coronavirus while staying at Napier barracks, but I understand that, out of around 400 people, 105 who did not have the virus were moved out, leaving us to draw our own conclusions about just how massive an outbreak took place there. Does the Minister not agree with me and others that the use of barracks as asylum accommodation has been both a moral and public health disaster and that people must be moved into dispersed accommodation as a matter of urgency?

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

On the first question, about the asylum track, after somebody arrives—having come, we believe, from a safe country where they could have claimed asylum—and if they are declared inadmissible, we will seek for a short period to get the agreement of that other country to return them there, where their asylum claim can be substantively and properly considered. If that is not possible, the asylum claim will of course be substantively and properly considered in this country.

My right hon. Friend asked some questions about our asylum system more generally—I think she was in some way seeking to insinuate that it was not reasonable or fair. The accommodation that we provide is reasonable and good, and there are 60,000 people currently being accommodated.

In terms of our system more widely, last year we made 20,000 grants of asylum or other forms of protection—that is a very high number. We welcomed and received more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children last year than any other European country, including Greece. Over the last five years, our resettlement schemes have seen 25,000 people taken directly from conflict zones and resettled in the United Kingdom—more than any other European country. After the 232 remaining people have come over, we will continue with resettlement, as far as we are able to, given the context of coronavirus and everything else. I therefore think we have a proud record of helping people who are genuinely in need.

My right hon. Friend asked about safe and legal routes. In addition to what I have described, last year over 6,000 people came into the UK under the refugee family reunion routes, which of course continue to exist.

The purpose of these changes is to prepare us for life after Dublin, and it is quite right that we make preparations, but at the heart of this is a desire to dissuade people—indeed, prevent people—from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys, particularly across the English channel, endangering their own lives and feeding ruthless criminal people smugglers, and all for no purpose, because France is a safe country where asylum can easily be claimed, as are the other European countries these migrants have travelled through.

My right hon. Friend asked about future agreements. She referenced France, and we are of course in close dialogue with France—we have a very close and friendly relationship. We will also be entering into discussions with other countries, including some of the ones she mentioned, as soon as the current European-level negotiations are concluded. These rules lay the foundations for those future discussions and negotiations, but most of all they will deter dangerous and unnecessary journeys, and I hope the House will join me in supporting that objective.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question and for the incredibly important points she made, not least in relation to asylum accommodation.

As we have heard, these changes will allow a claim to be found inadmissible if someone has had the opportunity to claim asylum in another safe third country prior to claiming asylum in the UK. That is not dissimilar to the current arrangements under the Dublin III regulations that we have in place with our European neighbours, but which will cease at the end of this month. We are leaving the Dublin III regulations, so this change allows the Government to deem a claim inadmissible without any co-operation or agreement in place to facilitate returning the person concerned to a third country. This is an unworkable half-plan, being introduced by the back door as changes to the immigration rules, with no opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny.

On Monday, the Minister outlined that it is this Government’s intention to open discussions with those countries as soon as we are able to do so. Can he confirm that those talks are yet to start and that there will be no such arrangements in place by 1 January, when these changes come into effect? Will he clarify what a person’s rights will therefore be in the period between their claim being found inadmissible and a returns agreement being reached?

The changes also suggest that an asylum claim can be reinstated after a reasonable period of time, if another safe country is unable to admit that person. How long is “a reasonable period”? Further still, as the Minister has confirmed, these changes will allow someone to be removed to any safe third country, including countries that the person has never been to and has no connection with. How does he envisage that that could possibly work in practice?

The changes before us come into effect in less than a month’s time. The Minister must realise the widespread concern about leaving some incredibly vulnerable people in limbo, at risk of homelessness and destitution.

[Chris Philp]

Let me reassure the shadow Minister on one or two points. She concluded her questions by asking about the risk of destitution. To be clear, if somebody who is in the inadmissible cohort is unable to make provision for their own accommodation or upkeep, they will be eligible for accommodation in the normal way, just as people currently in the Dublin third country cohort, awaiting return to a European country, are accommodated and supported. There will be no risk of destitution, which would of course infringe their article 3 rights were it ever to happen.

The hon. Lady asks about the status of people who may fall into that cohort. Clearly, the intention is that a period of time will pass when we seek the agreement of a third country to return them. That will happen within a reasonable time—we will set that out in guidance, but it will be a matter of a few months; it will not be a long time. If, after that reasonable time, no agreement is forthcoming, their asylum claim will be substantively considered here. There will not be any extended period of limbo, which I do not think would be in anybody’s interests.

The hon. Lady refers to the fact that these arrangements are in some regards similar in concept to Dublin. I hope the House will take from that that they are reasonable in spirit, because no one has objected to the principles that underpin the Dublin regulations—indeed, many people have pointed to them as exemplars.

Finally, the message all of us in this House should be sending out, the Opposition Front Bench included, is that if somebody is in continental Europe and they feel they have a protection claim that needs to be heard, they should not attempt a dangerous crossing of the English channel. They should not pay money to ruthless people smugglers. They should use the very well-functioning asylum systems in our very civilised European neighbours. Let that message go out from this House today; it will save life.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Murray, as we consider this very important secondary legislation. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks, but I suspect that Labour’s opposition to the regulations will not come as a surprise to him, as we rehearsed a great deal of the debate during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. Then, however, we did not have any of the detail that is contained in the SI. We were greatly concerned that the Act granted the Government powers to bring forward the changes to the law contained in the SI. A 90-minute delegated legislation Committee is no way to scrutinise law changes of such magnitude.

The SI is 64 pages long and if I am not mistaken, it changes well over 70 existing Acts and regulations. We have been working hard to follow the changes to understand the implications for people’s lives but we would need to consult the country’s leading experts and lawyers on everything from immigration to housing and equalities to devolution even to scratch the surface of the regulations.

To put the changes in context, the regulations document is five times bigger than the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, which ran to only 14 pages. Bizarrely, the explanatory notes accompanying the regulations constitute just 14 lines.

We sought a number of improvements to the process at various stages of the Act’s passage in the hope that we would not be in the current position. We called for limits to its Henry VIII powers or for the changes in the regulations to be included on the face of the Bill, as called for by experts at the evidence sessions, so that we could all exercise due diligence and allow for proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Sadly, our efforts were in vain.

I have had the chance to discuss the detail of the legislation with experts and they have expressed their real concern about what they believe its impact will be. They have voiced concern not least that some Acts of Parliament are to be amended when not strictly necessary to give effect to Brexit and the withdrawal agreement. To quote from one of the country’s leading experts on this matter, other changes will leave the law in a state of “bewildering complexity”. That is contrary to the Minister’s suggestion that the regulations will render the statute book coherent. Those changes risk errors in interpretation by public officials and those private persons including landlords and employers who will have to apply the regulations.

Feedback from those working in the field has flagged up that the regulations amend some fairly recent Brexit-related statutory instruments, but leave other parts unamended when it would have been a significant improvement simply to have replaced the regulations with new ones that could have been followed and understood.

That principle applies to at least three changes including those to the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) Regulations 2020, the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006—if I am not mistaken, that amends a Brexit-related SI but leaves parts unamended, which means the amended 2006 regulations have to be read with schedule 4 of the amending regulations—and the saved parts of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016. It is painfully complicated and completely at odds with the Government’s aspiration to simplify the immigration system. A leading expert described it to me as a “Frankenstein-like patchwork quilt” of 20 years-plus of immigration changes, layered on top of each other.

It is the combination of the process and the content of today’s regulations that make for such a toxic mix. They lay bare the architecture of the hostile environment to be extended to a brand-new cohort of people. We fear some of those most vulnerable, who have made their lives in the UK, perfectly within the rules, will stand to fall into its trap, without even being aware that they will do so come the end of June next year.

If we consider just some of the details, the Minister has outlined the variations in the start date for some of the changes. We were particularly interested in the regulations relating to changes to marriage and sham marriages, which come into force on 1 July 2021. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation about why that might make life easier for those who conduct such ceremonies, but I still wonder whether there is scope to push the start date for other changes back to coincide with that July date. That would give everyone the chance to be aware that all those changes are on the way.

I note that the Aliens Employment Act 1955 is changed by the SI; EU citizens and family members with leave to enter or remain on a basis outside the scope of the EUSS—for reasons such as family members or as skilled workers—will have restricted access to civil service jobs. Why do that when they are lawfully resident? That is just one of the anomalies thrown up in the time that we have had to consider the regulations. However, our substantive concern with the legislation is that it is highly likely that a significant number of individuals will not apply to the scheme before next June’s deadline—the Minister and his colleagues have previously acknowledged that risk—for a multitude of reasons. That means that a significant number of individuals with full rights to be in this country will lose those rights overnight.

We are about to launch our own campaign to encourage all local authorities to reach out to those who have not yet applied, or who do not know that they need to do so. The Minister will have seen the utterly depressing statistics released by the Home Office on 13 November, which revealed that only 46% of children in the care of local authorities have made an application to the EUSS. The Children’s Society fears that those figures are worse again. We argued for a declaratory scheme for that group of children as an absolute minimum during the passage of the Bill, and those figures are simply just not good enough.

I have outlined examples of groups who will be affected by the proposed changes. We believe that the Government’s disregard for those groups by attempting to enact such significant changes through secondary legislation is totally inappropriate, given their scale. The regulations, which will have such major long-lasting effects, should be examined line by line, in detail, by all Members of Parliament, who should have their say. We have argued for that time and time again.

We have grave misgivings about the substance of the regulations, as well as about the procedure governing their introduction. Those apprehensions relate to the possible consequences of the regulations for those who fail to meet the deadline for whatever reason and therefore fall prey to the hostile environment created by them.

We cannot vote for the regulations in good faith, and I call on the Minister to withdraw them and reintroduce them in primary legislation, which would enable the House to exercise proper and appropriate scrutiny of the proposed changes.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.

The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,

“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”

There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.

Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?

It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.

The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.

I am not going to comment on the individual operational circumstances surrounding any particular flight, but we are fully committed to the 2007 Act’s provisions. In relation to children, there is a well defined test around family rights and how they interact with removal. It is possible for people to go to the courts if they want to test their family rights against the Government’s obligations to remove them. But we are clear that our priority is protecting British citizens from dangerous criminals, and that is what we are doing.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2020

Holly Lynch Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 General Committees

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I say with all sincerity that it is an absolute pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, as we consider this important delegated legislation.

I am grateful to the Minister for outlining with such clarity the purpose of the SI. As we have heard, in essence the order allows those who would lose free movement rights to be able to continue to use e-Gates at the UK border. I followed last week’s debate on this matter in the Lords closely. The Opposition see the merits in the order—it would assist in managing queues and limit the disruption at the border when free movement ends—but we want to explore some of the detail further with the Minister.

We must have faith that the systems in place at the border are welcoming where appropriate but robust enough to identify if a person requires further investigation. The Minister will be aware of the letter sent by the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, Martin Hewitt, to the Home Affairs Select Committee, dated 11 November. He referred to UK law enforcement co-operation with EU partners from 1 January 2021, and the possibility of any impact arising from the loss of the EU law enforcement and national security measures, known as LENS tools, as part of the Brexit process and the end of the transition period. Martin Hewitt was very clear that in the event of a non-negotiated outcome

‘the UK will lose access to all LENS tools and capabilities and will rely on contingencies. As an overarching principle, the loss of some or all of the tools will mean that, even with contingencies in place, the fallback systems will be slower, provide less visibility of information/intelligence and make joined up working with European partners more cumbersome’.

That is a pretty desperate warning.

I hope that the Minister can tell me that there will be a negotiated outcome, but in the absence of clarity about to which security databases we will have access post transition, it is highly likely that we will not have access to the data that we once had feeding into our systems and checks at the borders. With that in mind, can the Minister reassure me that e-Gates will be sufficient in identifying any potential threats at the border?

If I am not mistaken, based on the Minister’s recent appearance before the Home Affairs Select Committee, and having followed last week’s delegated legislation debate on law enforcement and security, we do not know whether we will have access to a range of LENS tools come 1 January.

The Opposition will not divide the Committee on today’s order, but we would welcome any updates from the Minister on the negotiations and, ultimately, we reserve judgment on the role of e-Gates until we have clarity about the overall package of measures to which the Border Force will have access. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens North (Conor McGinn), the shadow Security Minister, has written to his counterpart to seek urgent clarification on the issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister worked with his colleagues to ensure that we receive a response to my hon. Friend’s letter as soon as possible.

I note from the explanatory memorandum that the order forms part of the Government’s long-term plans to develop a new global border and immigration system that is digital by default. Such a move towards more digital checks will only work if we have access to the data to deliver that, and access to European databases will be crucial to achieving that.

EU citizens who are lawfully resident in the UK before 31 December 2020 will be protected by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The3million wrote to the Minister on 28 October to express its concerns that persons entering the UK after 31 December 2020, who are protected by grace period regulations but who have yet to make their application to the EU settlement scheme, will be inadvertently granted leave via the e-Gates for six months with the relevant restrictions attached, such as no right to work and no access to public funds. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how that will work, and what measures will be in place to protect those covered by the grace period regulations? Should those protected by those regulations still be encouraged to pass through e-Gates? Would a person who has every right to work but has not yet had their application concluded under the settlement scheme encounter problems because it is recorded on their passports that they used the e-Gate and have six months leave as a visitor, and so prevented from working should they seek to do so?

I hope that the Minister understands the point that I am trying to make, and that he can offer clarity to me and the3million by explaining how those arrangements will work in practice.