Family Visitor Visas

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to participate in this debate under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in respect of the research support I receive in my office for the work I do on immigration and asylum matters.

My constituents’ experiences are similar to those that my hon. Friends have related this afternoon. There is, to a degree at least, a sense that there is a culture of disbelief in the Home Office when cases come forward for decision. I am sure the Minister will wish to address that. The consequence is often heartbreak for families: relatives miss important family occasions and celebrations. As we have heard, they miss the births of grandchildren and come too late to visit terminally ill relatives. Sometimes they worry that there is little hope that very elderly relatives will ever have the chance to see family members again. Even if a favourable decision is eventually made, they may have had many months and years of heartbreak, during which time the family members remained apart.

I am sure the Minister understands that, in many such cases, timely decision making is of the essence, because the events are often one-off, significant occasions that cannot be repeated. The first question that I want to put to the Minister is, how can the process be made speedier, as well as more reliable and compassionate?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Are my hon. Friend and the Minister aware of the speed with which the Indian e-visa system now operates? One can fill in a form on Sunday and have an e-visa returned by Wednesday.

[Kate Green]

I did not know about the speed of the Indian e-visa system, but I am sure the Minister will want to comment on that comparison.

The decision making often seems irrational and random, in terms of the way factors determine the outcome of applications. As we have heard—I have experience of this from my constituency—people who have previously been granted visitor visas, made a visit to this country and then returned to their home country find that when they submit subsequent applications to do exactly the same thing, often with exactly the same facts, their new application is rejected. As we have heard, visas are often refused because they lack some key piece of information. It has often never been made clear to the applicant that it is necessary, so it is hardly surprising that it is not supplied. Again and again in my constituency, I have heard examples of very clear evidence of an intention to return that has seemingly simply been ignored.

We heard about the reports of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The 2015 report found considerable evidence of the systemic problems mentioned by my hon. Friends and of the rules not being applied appropriately. In one overseas visitors section, in Jordan, the inspector found that evidence was overlooked or misinterpreted in more than 10% of applications, and that 43% of refusal notices were “not balanced”. In a wider report, again by the inspector, 30% of visit visa cases sampled failed the Department’s own quality standards. I know that the Minister will not be satisfied with that kind of performance, and we need to hear what she will do about it.

In cases from my constituency, applicants have provided evidence of land ownership and substantial personal wealth, or income statements from their employers, only for such evidence of resources seemingly to be ignored. In other cases, children, grandchildren, the spouse or other family dependants have remained at home—clearly an applicant will want to return to them—but cases have simply been dismissed for not demonstrating strong enough family ties. It is hard to think what more an applicant can do than to demonstrate a tie to a spouse, child or grandchild.

I have heard of refused cases of applicants who have held responsible roles in their home country. In one case I have been dealing with recently, the visitor was a councillor—an elected member of the local legislature—and in another, a doctor and university professor was deemed likely, for some reason, not to return home. I have seen the Home Office dismiss what it characterises as “claims” to be in employment, implying that an applicant is lying in the application. Applicants feel very offended, hurt and alarmed about that. I have heard of cases in which families have been forced to make multiple applications, as they receive refusal after refusal, costing them thousands of pounds and going on for years and years. None of that is satisfactory or acceptable, and I do not think that the Minister will tolerate it either. I look forward to what she has to say.

The Minister is aware of my particular concern, because I have expressed it to her directly in the past: family members seeking to visit who are resident in refugee camps. I understand how difficult such a situation is for the Government to assess but, by definition, such people cannot demonstrate an immediate intention to return to their home country, because that country is not safe. Often they will not have documentation because they have fled, leaving everything. However, she knows—I have discussed a particular case with her—that those families are as desperate to visit as any. Family members have gained asylum in this country successfully, which is greatly to this country’s credit—for example, under the community sponsorship scheme—but, having given that initial welcome to such desperate people, we cannot agree to their family members making visits at a time of important family need. Will the Minister look at what can be done in this situation—I recognise that it is difficult and challenging—to ensure that when applicants are resident in refugee camps we have the most flexible and compassionate approach possible to give them the chance of family visits, too?

We heard from all my colleagues about the problems that have arisen following the removal of appeal rights. Not only is that unjust and worrying for applicants, because they feel that the refusal of an administrative application will taint a future one, but it is disingenuous of the Home Office to advise that a fresh action is quicker and more straightforward than making an appeal. I have heard cases of constituents who have had to go through the process again and again.

Equally importantly, however, the lack of an appeal process might remove any route or incentive for the Home Office to learn from and improve on poor and wrong decision making. The lack of such a process removes the feedback loop that might drive up quality standards. With my colleagues, I urge the Minister to look again at some reinstatement of appeal rights.

In conclusion, we are clearly not talking about isolated incidents; the system is poor, irrational and painful for families, and none of us can see any sign of things getting better—indeed, we fear that they are getting worse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, in the context of global travel, of it being more common for families to live in different countries, and of Brexit—whatever happens about settled status, in future more European visitors will visit family members who may not qualify for settled status—and when, as we understand, the Home Office faces so many pressures, to streamline and simplify the visitor visa system would surely be an early win for the Government, and one that would make an enormous difference to families who simply long to see their loved ones at times of important family events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening this important debate and for so eloquently and forcefully putting the case forward. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. It is also appropriate to thank all the tens of thousands of people who signed the three petitions. I am glad that we are debating this important topic.

The petitions we are considering raise two questions. First, do we want an immigration policy that respects the right to a family life, or one that breaks up families and prevents British citizens from being able to see their loved ones? Secondly, do we want a process that is effective, fair and transparent? I believe the answer to both questions should be yes. Our family visa system is not working. Too many visas are routinely rejected on false or unfounded grounds. Removing the right of appeal has meant that decision makers are not being held to account for poor performance. Where there is no accountability, prejudice and unequal treatment can flourish unchecked.

There are three main grounds on which family visa applications are unjustifiably rejected. As an MP with probably one of the largest immigration case loads, I can say this from personal experience and from evidence provided by campaigners and lawyers. First, the Home Office will claim an applicant does not have the means to support themselves while they are in the UK, when in fact they have proven that they can or that someone in the UK will take care of their expenses. My constituent’s mother wanted to visit her children in the UK after the passing of her husband. Clearly, it was an extremely emotional time when we would all want to be able to mourn our close family members. Her application was rejected because the Home Office claimed that she could not provide evidence that she was able to support herself while she was here, even though both her sons had agreed to support her for the duration of her stay.

Secondly, the Home Office will claim that it is not confident that the applicant will leave the country after their stay, even when they are here for a specific purpose or event, they have booked a hotel only for a certain period and possibly even a return flight, and they can prove they have permission from employers to leave work only for a limited period. Another constituent wanted her aunt to come and visit her. Her aunt has seven sons, two daughters and 10 grandchildren who she takes care of as a housewife in Pakistan. It is clear from her case file, and from my conversations with my constituent, that she fully intended to return after her visit, yet her family visa application was rejected because the Home Office did not believe she would go back at the end of her stay.

Thirdly, possibly the most infuriating and outrageous grounds for the Home Office to reject an application is because it has made a mistake. The case of Chinwe Azubuike was reported in The Guardian. She had not seen her family for 14 years when she invited them to London for her wedding. All of her seven applications on behalf of her family were rejected on the grounds that they did not “have sufficient funds available”, a claim that her immigration lawyer called

“unlawful, spurious and plainly wrong”.

As well as ignoring the fact that Chinwe and her husband had committed to pay all her family’s expenses, the decision was based on a basic error by Home Office decision makers, who confused yearly with monthly income. The accusation that the couple were lying about their income was therefore particularly insulting.

Basic errors resulting in outright rejections are not unique to the visitor visa system. I will discuss later wider failings in the Home Office, but from highly skilled migrants to the Windrush scandal, the Home Office cannot seem to get even the most basic information and checks consistently correct. The rate of refusals for visitor visas cannot be blamed solely on mismanagement and inefficiency. The assumption behind many of refusal letters is that, given the chance, nobody from Africa or the Indian subcontinent—such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka—could possibly want to return home at the end of their visit to the UK. That is deeply offensive, not to mention plainly wrong.

I represent the great city of Manchester where, every two years, we have an international festival. Festivals up and down the country have difficulties.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend will know because the Gurdwara is in his constituency, although many of the worshippers are my constituents, that there is particular difficulty in getting visitor visas for members of the Sikh community to come to participate in religious festivals.

[Afzal Khan]

I am aware of that difficulty. There are similar issues when events are going on at the mosques. Manchester International Festival invited Abida Parveen, a renowned artist of international calibre, but it was a struggle—we all had to get involved to make sure she could get here. Only about a month ago, I got involved with another incident concerning an international artist. Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid), I am sure, enjoy listening to Abrar-ul-Haq. He struggled to get a visa for a charity event and the whole event had to be cancelled. There are issues here that the Minister should consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) touched on the introduction of e-visas in India, which is proving effective. I hope the Minister will elaborate on that and tell us whether e-visas will be rolled out to Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries.

Let me turn to my first question: do we want an immigration policy that respects the right to a family life? Article 8 of the European convention on human rights states:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

The Labour party believes that right should be protected. We are committed to allowing spouses to come to the UK without a minimum income requirement, we will not force children to pay more than £1,000 to obtain citizenship just because their parents were not born here, and we will allow all reasonable requests for visitor visas.

An estimated 15,000 children live without a parent because of restrictions on family visas. When a reasonable request for even a visitor visa is turned down, families can be devastated. Children grow up used to the possibility that they may never see their parents, even for a short visit. The Government’s spouse visa rules have already been found to breach article 8. The Government have tweaked the wording of their policy since that ruling, but the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants argues that that has not made a difference to decision making. The right to a family life will be a guiding principle for Labour as we review our immigration system in government.

Does the Minister believe that charging £1,000 for citizenship is in the best interests of a child and their family? Does she think denying people the right to come for family visits—for weddings and funerals—respects the right to a family life? Family visitors are tourists, who contribute to our economy by visiting our great sights. Does she believe it helps her colleagues in the Department for International Trade sell the idea of a “global Britain” post-Brexit for it to be almost impossible to sustain family ties across borders? How does the fact that anyone who comes to Britain runs a high risk of not being able to have their family visit them while they are here help to build trade links?

My second question is: do we want an immigration process that is effective, fair and transparent? The right to appeal in family visa cases was removed in 2013—a move the Labour party opposed. Before their abolition, one in three appeals was successful, which raises concerns about how decisions were—and still are—made. The Minister must address the underlying issues with the application process and reinstate appeals so that her Department can properly be held to account.

In a recent report, the Select Committee on Home Affairs made a powerful and convincing case that the “refusal culture” in the Home Office is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. It pointed out that the removal of legal aid and of the right of appeal removed a

“valuable legal check on decision-making within the Home Office despite no obvious signs that the quality of decisions had improved”.

That lack of vital checks and balances was a strong factor in the Windrush crisis.

A system that sets people up to fail, coupled with the removal of checks and balances, has caused the wrong people—some of them British citizens—to be caught up in the hostile environment. On top of that, there is no evidence that any of those policies achieve their apparent aims. The chief inspector of borders and immigration said that the right-to-rent scheme

“had yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool to encourage immigration compliance, with the Home Office failing to coordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while at the same time doing little to address the concerns of stakeholders.”

The Government’s approach to visitor visas is part of a refusal culture and a punitive hostile environment, which work against people who want to come to the UK, against British citizens who want to maintain family ties and against our country’s best interests. The chief inspector of borders and immigration and the Home Affairs Committee—independent bodies that spend significant time and resources investigating the Home Office—are united in saying that the effectiveness of the hostile environment has not been proved, and the Government have consistently ignored legitimate concerns that it hits the wrong people.

We clearly need to re-examine the visitor visa system and immediately reinstate appeals. It took too long for Ministers to realise the extent and devastation of the Windrush crisis. We need proper checks and balances to avoid a repeat of that scandal.

Saddleworth Moor and Tameside: Ongoing Fire

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I wholly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the value of hill farming communities and the beauty of the particular locations of these terrible incidents. I come back to what I said before to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) about the need, once this situation is under control, to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others to think about how these risks are managed more effectively in the future.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I too pay tribute to the emergency services and to the members of the local communities for their work in fighting this fire. I travelled through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) yesterday, and the impact on the air quality in particular is something of which nobody in Greater Manchester and around can be unaware. In considering the lessons learned, what attention will the Minister be able to give to a programme of public education, particularly for young people, in relation to fire safety on the moors?

[Mr Hurd]

There is a great deal of information out there on fire safety, not least from organisations such as the Forestry Commission. Again, in the light of these types of incidents, we need to look again at what is out there to see whether it is fit for purpose. The hon. Lady raised the issue of air quality, which I know is an issue of concern for many constituents. Public Health England is issuing health advice to residents and to those travelling in the areas affected by smoke and ash. I urge residents and constituents to keep referring to that.

EU Settlement Scheme

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Will the Minister say a little more about the situation of children? I know that parents are concerned about it. Children will not be able to provide utility bills or employment records, and better-off parents will probably not have received any benefits for them. What other evidence would the Government find acceptable to demonstrate that a child has the right to settled status, and where will they look for that evidence?

[Caroline Nokes]

Obviously there will be a significant link between many children and their parents’ status, but we will accept evidence from educational institutions, and from healthcare professionals who have encountered people during their stay. Similarly, if adults cannot provide records from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, evidence of university or college attendance will suffice.

Refugee Family Reunion

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady’s pronunciation of my constituency was excellent. Some Members might feel they are a bit of a refugee in this Parliament when trying to say the name of my constituency, or indeed they might think I am the refugee. Either way, the hon. Lady’s point is absolutely on the money.

I hope that the Home Office will take this point on board. I have had some discussions with Government Whips about the money resolution, and the lights so far have been going green. We have yet to move on to the Home Office itself, but that is coming, and I am hoping for further green lights.

In 2012, legal aid was taken away from refugees, but that did not happen in Scotland. Moreover, if Scotland were independent, I am sure we would be in line with other European countries, and I hope that the UK as it is at the moment ensures that child refuges have the same rights as adult refugees. That is what my private Member’s Bill tries to do. Some Members have expressed a strong concern about children being sent ahead as anchors, but that does not stack up at all, given the rights that adult refugees have anyway and the fact that that does not happen in other European countries. Anyway, who uses members of their family as bargaining chips?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. He is right to draw attention to children’s rights. Does he agree that we have an absolute obligation to allow children to be reunited and to bring in their parents and family members because we have signed and ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child, which states:

“States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child”?

How can it be in the best interests of a child for them not to be able to bring their parents and other family members to live with them?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

That is absolutely correct; I could not have put it better myself. I thank the hon. Lady, who is co-sponsoring this debate, for that invaluable intervention pointing out our international obligations.

I agree that it is in the best interests of children to be with their parents, and I must make a remark about the utter revulsion and disgust many of us feel about what is happening in the United States of America, with migrant children being taken from their parents. I am at a loss as to whether that is stupidity or evil—I cannot decide which, but it is certainly not a good situation. I think that all of us know that when children are being ripped from their parents in such a way, we do not need quotations. The American Administration have used biblical quotations, but we all know in our hearts that that is wrong. We do not need to quote and counter-quote, and make arguments about this. If those in the Administration of the United States of America do not know in their hearts that there is something very wrong with that, there is something wrong with their moral compass, and I do hope that that all changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), and I pay tribute to his work in this area. It is fitting that the Member for such a constituency, which is beautiful and has wonderful people, is acting and leading the charge in this area, not least because it has been the site of forced emigration in the past.

I welcome this important debate in the middle of Refugee Week. The subject is important all over the world—in Germany, in Italy and in the US—and I welcome President Trump’s decision to change course on the policy of separating children from their families at the border. This issue is also important in my constituency, which has welcomed all kinds people fleeing persecution in other countries. For example, in the 1970s, we welcomed the Ugandan Asians. I pay tribute to how they have made a new life in this country, building amazing businesses, creating an amazing sense of community and integrating into our community. They are amazing people.

Others have come to my constituency more recently. I meet many of them because Kennedy House in Wigston in my constituency is a centre for people seeking asylum and new refugees. I pay tribute to those who volunteer with those people, helping them to integrate into our community and in other practical ways. They often bring some of them to my surgery, so I hear about some of their problems. I also pay tribute to the groups, such as Market Harborough Helping Refugees, that raise funds to help refugees in this country and overseas with practical things such as blankets to help them as they seek a new home.

Today’s debate is about the importance of family reunion but before I turn to that, this being Refugee Week, I hope the House will not mind me briefly mentioning a few things that we could do to improve the lives of refugees. I have three suggestions that have sprung from the work done by the all-party parliamentary group on loneliness, of which I am a member, and from my constituency experiences.

The first thing that the Government should do is clarify the rules on refugees and asylum seekers doing voluntary work in the community. I understand the arguments against allowing asylum seekers to do paid work and the arguments about pull factors, but they should be able to do voluntary work. By doing such work, they can express their strong desire to do something helpful for the community that is hosting them, but they can also integrate and learn English, so it can play an important role in them becoming part of our country. Unfortunately, refugee charities tell me that the rules are not clear and that people have lost out as a result of doing voluntary work, so it would be good to clarify them.

The second thing that we could do to improve the lives of refugees living here is to help more of them to get a decision within our target time. Probably the most common reason that asylum seekers come to my surgery is that the deadline that they were given for a decision on their application has passed and they are wondering what is happening. It is clearly difficult to make decisions on complicated cases involving people who have fled from war zones where public records may have been destroyed or otherwise made unavailable, but, if we could speed up decisions, that would help many people who spend a long time unable to do anything but wait, which is a painful experience for them.

[Kate Green]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentions the delays in getting a decision. A group of refugees from Refugee Voice recently visited me in my constituency to make exactly that point. Living with indecision and uncertainty, sometimes for years, puts incredible emotional pressure on people.

Relating that to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier point about access to paid employment, does he agree that, increasingly, decisions are taking a very long time to be made, through no fault of the claimant, and that asylum seekers should be allowed to work after a certain period if delays in decision making mean there is a failure to give them a decision on their status?

[Neil O'Brien]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have heard that argument, which is an intriguing one. It would be a big step to do anything that suggested those people would be able to work in this country, so we should be very careful when we think about it. However, I understand the argument that, if people have to wait a very long time, perhaps something about their treatment should change at that point.

Immigration Detention (Victims of Torture)

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan]

I know that those APPGs do valuable work. After seeing examples of the harm caused to vulnerable adults by immigration detention—I am sure we will hear more today—I hope the Government will pay more serious attention to this than their legislation from past years demonstrates, particularly since the introduction of the adults at risk policy in 2016.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to the support I receive for my work on asylum and immigration. Does she agree that, for those who have already suffered torture and persecution in their home countries and who flee here for security, to have that pain compounded in detention, with abuses against them carried out by those who detain them, is the ultimate outrage and something of which we should be deeply ashamed?

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely. I will later ask the Government whether they are not ashamed of the harm caused in their name and which it is within their gift to change—not only is it within their gift, it is under the instruction of the High Court.

The debate provides an important opportunity to scrutinise these matters and to call on the Government to honour their promises to improve the protections for identifying and securing the release of vulnerable adults at risk in immigration detention. The debate also enables us to refer to there being no time limit for immigration detention, unlike in nearly all other European Union countries. That adds to the lack of protection, to the suffering and to the likelihood that the serious mental health harm being inflicted will increase suicide attempts.

The debate is particularly pertinent because the new Home Secretary has pledged to review the Home Office’s hostile environment policy—admittedly because of the Windrush scandal. The 70th anniversary of the arrivals on the Windrush is currently being debated in the main Chamber. I am sure that, as they arrived, they did not expect what has happened recently. The example of what has happened to the Windrush generation should be a warning to the Government that we do not raise these issues to make party political gains; we raise them because there is a humanitarian need and a human rights cause that the Government should not need reminding that they need to address, given what has happened with the Windrush scandal.

The treatment of vulnerable people in our country’s immigration detention system should be an important part of the Home Secretary’s review. It is the considered judgment of esteemed organisations, such as Freedom from Torture, Medical Justice, the Helen Bamber Foundation and Bail for Immigration Detainees, that the current safeguards and the Government’s proposed changes to the law have failed to provide, and will fail to deliver, adequate protection to vulnerable people. That view is held across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I am sorry to intervene on my right hon. Friend again. Does she agree that one deficiency of the current arrangements for identifying vulnerable individuals is that, at that very first stage, Home Office staff rely on Home Office information and do not obtain other objective evidence, which might support their making a better decision?

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely. All the evidence tells us that there are major problems with the screening, and all the expert organisations that have commented on this situation, including the Red Cross, tell us that the Government’s changes will not provide the protection that should be provided.

Long-standing Home Office policy has required that vulnerable people, including those with independent evidence of torture, should not be detained unless in exceptional circumstances, but in practice many are. We know from extensive medical evidence that immigration detention can seriously harm the mental health of detainees, particularly those who have previously suffered from ill treatment, and the conditions of immigration detention can be appalling. In a series of findings between 2012 and 2015, the High Court said that the Government’s immigration detention system amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment”.

In 2015, undercover reports by Channel 4 News inside Yarl’s Wood and Harmondsworth immigration removal centres revealed abuse of detainees and references to medical mistreatment. When the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, commissioned the former prison and probation ombudsman Stephen Shaw to conduct a review into the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention, his damning report, published in January 2016, found that safeguards for vulnerable people were inadequate and that detention was used too often and for too long.

The Government responded by drafting and implementing their adults at risk policy, which incorporates the detention centre rules and the guidance on detention of vulnerable persons. However, that flagship policy, which is intended to safeguard vulnerable adults by routing them away from or out of detention, is not working—far from increasing protection for vulnerable detainees, it has increased the risk of harm.

In its initial 10 weeks of implementation, the adults at risk policy was applied incorrectly in almost 60% of 340 cases. From January to September 2017, Freedom From Torture’s medico-legal report service received 101 referrals for suspected torture survivors in immigration detention, and 14 of its treatment clients were detained between January 2016 and November 2017. Torture survivors continue to be detained.

The guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons raised the threshold for a decision not to detain by increasing the evidentiary burden on the vulnerable individual. As a result, the release rate following a rule 35 report—designed to screen torture victims out of detention—has fallen dramatically. In quarter 3 of 2016, before the policy was introduced, 39% of those with a rule 35 report were released. In quarter 1 of 2018, that number had fallen to 12.5%.

I urge the Minister to publish more detailed information and data on the functioning of the adults at risk evidence levels and the rule 35 process. Since the adults at risk policy was introduced, how many people have been categorised as an adult at risk under levels 1, 2 and 3, and how many within each of those categories resulted from a rule 35 report? I hope all the scribbling going on among officials and by the Minister herself means that we will get some answers to these questions today.

For each of the adults at risk categories, how many people were subsequently diverted from detention—in other words, not routed into detention? How many were released from detention as a result of a rule 35 report and under which categories? I hope we get some answers today, but I certainly intend to correspond further with the Minister and will consider parliamentary questions as a means to get more data on those matters.

Although it might be the case that the overall number of people in detention is decreasing, there were still more than 27,000 people placed in immigration detention last year. When I reveal that figure to people, they are shocked. I do not think the general public realise how many people are held in immigration detention and they are horrified when they hear that number.

In 2017 alone, 11 people died in custody. Detainees are dying at a faster rate in immigration detention than we have seen before. According to Freedom from Torture,

“statistics for 2017 show that 446 people self-harmed to an extent that they required medical attention. This constitutes a 30% increase over the last two years, which is even worse when we remember there has been a reduction in how many people are detained. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has noted that there has been a significant increase in deaths in detention, particularly self-inflicted deaths: in 2017 there were at least five self-inflicted deaths in immigration removal centres compared with only three in the previous five years.”

There were 2,272 people on formal self-harm watch last year. That constitutes approximately 8% of the detained population, or almost one in 10.

Last September, the BBC’s “Panorama” programme investigated conditions in Brook House immigration removal centre and exposed a culture of abuse and widespread instances of self-harm and attempted suicides by detainees. In its most recent inspection report on Yarl’s Wood, published in November 2017, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons found that vulnerable women were still being detained, despite

“professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections.”

It concluded:

“The effectiveness of the adults at risk policy...was questionable”.

I would go further: this catalogue of failings shows that the Government’s policy is not fit for purpose.

Let us remember that, despite all the evidence, the Government are not changing their policy. We did not see that in the delegated legislation a few days ago. They are not making changes because they have listened or seen the evidence for themselves; they are doing so because they were pulled into the High Court and told that they must make changes.

The analysis that the policy is not fit for purpose was borne out by the ruling of the High Court last year in a case brought against the Home Office by Medical Justice and seven detainees. It found that the Government’s policy unlawfully imprisoned hundreds of victims of torture. That was due to the Home Office’s deeply regrettable decision to narrow the definition of torture so that it refers only to violence carried out by state actors, and excludes vulnerable survivors of non-state abuse. We discussed that in the Delegated Legislation Committee, and I made the point then that the definition excludes anybody tortured—I am sure we can all come up with our own groups—by Hezbollah, ISIS, Daesh, Hamas or whoever. It excludes all those people and encourages states to outsource torture to their proxy groups. I cannot believe the Government are not aware of that.

We need a change. During the Delegated Legislation Committee last week, it was galling to hear the Minister say:

“The adults at risk policy represents a proportionate and rational way of carefully balancing the vulnerability considerations against immigration considerations.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 6 June 2018; c. 12.]

Will the Minister clarify how the policy is proportionate and rational when, according to Medical Justice, it has

“fundamentally weakened protections for vulnerable detainees, leading to more rather than fewer being detained, for longer”?

How is it proportionate and rational to propose amending the detention centre rules and guidance as set out in the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018 and the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018, when Medical Justice, which brought the successful litigation against the Home Office, said that the changes will not deliver inclusive, protective and effective detention safeguards for vulnerable people? Medical Justice brought the litigation and the High Court agrees with it. The Government now propose changes, but again Medical Justice says that they will not deliver the required outcome. It beggars belief that the Minister and the Government are not listening.

I did not get a satisfactory response to the question from the Minister in the Committee last week. However, I received a letter from her yesterday—finally responding to a letter that I wrote to her at the end of March, expressing my concerns about immigration detention matters. Given that I wrote my letter two and half months ago, it would have been useful to have the Minister’s response prior to the Delegated Legislation Committee last week. The time lag is unacceptable. In her response, the Minister claimed again that

“the policy we have in place, which will be enhanced by the amendments we lay before Parliament, is rational, sensible and balanced, and provides vulnerable people with proportionate levels of protection.”

What does “proportionate levels of protection” mean? Proportionate to what? That feels like a huge step back from the Government’s commitments in the adults at risk policy. Certainly, it is not what Stephen Shaw had in mind. Drawing on medical evidence, Shaw said in his report’s conclusions that

“detention in and of itself undermines welfare and contributes to vulnerability. I need hardly say that a policy resulting in such outcomes will only be ethical if everything is done to mitigate the impact”.

We should be seeking maximum levels of protection for vulnerable people—not proportionate levels. Can the Minister please clarify today what she means by “proportionate levels” of protection?

The Minister also said in her letter that her

“officials have engaged with a range of NGOs and inspectorates in producing and developing the Statutory Instruments.”

I do not know what criteria the Minister uses to judge adequate levels of engagement with outside organisations, but I know that the NGOs are not happy with the way the Minister and the Home Office have conducted the so-called consultation. Freedom from Torture, Medical Justice and others have said that the Home Office failed to consult appropriately or to consider relevant evidence. How can it be, to use the Minister’s words, “proportionate and rational” of the Government to ignore the advice of expert organisations when drafting the statutory instruments, and proportionate and rational of the Minister to run the risk that the Government will face further court action, by ploughing on regardless of criticism?

When the High Court ruled against the Government last year, it placed no obligation on the Home Secretary to define torture in the new policy. Medical Justice and Freedom from Torture cautioned that the new torture definition set out in the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 was unnecessary, inappropriate and too complex for caseworkers and doctors to apply to specific cases. That is the very point raised by my hon. Friends. Last week, the Minister said that she did not accept that assessment. I ask her to check again. Organisations commenting on the Home Office training to accompany the new adults at risk guidance said that

“it is quite obvious that the caseworkers did not understand the torture definition”.

They stated:

“The training focuses very closely on distinguishing between victims of assault and victims of torture, rather than on identifying vulnerability. The training kept creeping back to notions of detention and physical restraint in the language used to explain the definition, and it was clear there was no common understanding of what severity or powerlessness means in the examples used.”

I hope that we do not hear those points referred to in court at some time in the next 12 months, but I fear that we may.

Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice said that

“even when applied correctly, the definition of torture will exclude a group of victims of severe ill-treatment who do not fall within the other indicators of risk”.

I ask the Minister to look at the matter again. I urge her to replace the current categories of torture and sexual or gender-based violence with a more inclusive category, modelled on the detention guidelines from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, namely victims of torture or serious physical, psychological, sexual or gender-based violence or ill-treatment.

NGOs have stipulated that the new catch-all provision in the revised guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons

“does not adequately mitigate the risk of excluding from the protection of the safeguard those known to be at risk of harm in detention.”

Their concerns have been ignored by the Government. NGOs, as well as a cross-party group of parliamentarians, also called on the Government to wait for the publication of Stephen Shaw’s re-review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention before laying the statutory instruments before Parliament in 2018. That was mentioned in Committee last week and I am afraid that the response was far from satisfactory. I am not even sure that I count it as a response at all. It held no water.

The request to wait for the re-review is perfectly sensible. The High Court did not demand that the Home Office should respond to the court order before Shaw published, so that is not an adequate answer. We are now in the bizarre situation where Parliament must consider the revised definition of torture and the amended guidance separately from the findings of the Shaw re-review. It would have been much better to give the Home Office, parliamentarians and expert organisations the benefit of considering the changes in the light of the full insights from Shaw. Given that the statutory instruments are not due to come into force until 2 July, I urge the Government to withdraw them so that a proper consultation can be carried out on the basis of Shaw’s recommendations. Last week, the Minister said in Committee that Stephen Shaw’s new report had been given to the Home Office at the end of April—a matter of a few weeks after the statutory instruments were tabled—and that it will be published with the Government’s response later in June. I ask the Minister to reaffirm when it will be published. Can she guarantee that it will be this month?

The Home Secretary said in a recent written statement to the House on the Windrush scandal that it was

“fundamentally important that the lessons from this episode are learned for the future, so that this never happens again.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 53WS.]

However, it is very difficult to have any confidence in Home Office Ministers when they are demonstrably unwilling to learn the important lessons on how to increase protection for victims of torture and other vulnerable people in immigration detention. Freedom from Torture, Medical Justice, the Helen Bamber Foundation and Bail for Immigration Detainees could not be clearer:

“Under current arrangements the Adults at Risk policy does not work to ensure that fewer vulnerable people are detained for shorter periods of time. It is already failing and the proposed changes will exacerbate the problem.”

It is their considered and expert judgment that a terrible situation is going to be made even worse.

The Government should be ashamed, yet at no stage have I heard the Minister offer any kind of apology to the victims of torture and other vulnerable people who have suffered under the policy. It is a prime example of the hostile environment that flourished when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary. The adults at risk policy was drafted on her watch. I know that the Minister has been in her post only six months, so I urge her to apologise on the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s behalf for the torment that so many individuals have faced.

However, an apology alone will not be sufficient. We need a fundamental review of immigration detention policy. We need a policy devised with consideration, care and compassion for victims of torture and other vulnerable people. We need a more humane approach, which should also include an end to indefinite immigration detention. I urge the Minister to reflect and act on the concerns that I have expressed and to commit to engaging far more constructively with parliamentarians and NGOs on these important issues. I look forward to her response.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It will not surprise anybody that I wish to join in this debate to talk about my experiences of detained women who have been victims of torture, gender-based violence, sexual violence, female genital mutilation, abuse—anything that can be thought of that happens to us women. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) on tenaciously and consistently fighting for these people. The Minister should recognise, after a few weeks of being in front of her, that she will not give up.

I associate myself with everything that my right hon. Friend said about the adults at risk policy. That policy specifically states that survivors of sexual or gender-based violence are recognised as “at risk” and so are unsuitable for detention, yet anybody who ever visited Yarl’s Wood would know that the majority of women in there have certainly suffered gender-based violence, sexual violence or domestic abuse.

I went to Yarl’s Wood about a year and a half ago to visit a woman who I knew to have been a victim. She was in Yarl’s Wood regardless of the fact that she had been a victim of quite horrendous trafficking and abuse. I do not know whether it was just because these people knew I was coming, but by the time I got there, they had released her, so I went to speak to another woman, who had nobody visiting her—I went back round through the security.

I am not entirely sure what training the Home Office is getting, but as somebody who was trained as a first responder for human trafficking and modern slavery and as such was allowed to refer into the Home Office’s system, it took me one minute to identify that this woman I had never met before was a victim of human trafficking. I did that by talking to her and asking her about her experiences—it was not difficult. I had no doubt that this woman was somebody I could easily have acted as a first responder for to get her into the national referral mechanism for modern slavery in this country. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind, yet there she was, in Yarl’s Wood, surrounded by people who were meant to have assessed her.

[Kate Green]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention particularly to the situation of women and, indeed, men who have been trafficked, because there is plenty of evidence that being in detention makes it harder for those individuals to receive the expert support and advice that they need, to be able to build up trust to report the experiences that they have had to the authorities and therefore to access the national referral mechanism. As long as we put people in detention, we make another part of the system that is supposed to protect them even less likely to be effective.

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and the matter of trust between the different agencies is something that I shall come on to; in fact, that is the main focus of my speech. I could give hon. Members endless evidence from Women for Refugee Women. I have with me case study upon case study of women who had suffered FGM, been forced into prostitution, managed to escape and ended up in Yarl’s Wood. None of them ever seemed to have rule 35 laid out to them—and if they did, that was after two weeks of being detained.

I need not go through all the stories; I am sure that the Minister is very familiar with the issues and I will gladly send her every single one of the case studies. I want to talk mainly about how the Home Office is not only not assessing the people it finds in detention, but actively seeking victims as low-hanging fruit, in its drive to get deportation numbers up. We have seen from the Windrush situation that there is a target culture that is undeniable—somebody got a big Brucie bonus for getting more people deported. We have seen what that has done to that community.

In my constituency, I was dealing with the case of a woman who was brought to this country on a spousal visa and was abused, tortured, kept locked up and prevented from being fed by her spouse and his family. When she escaped, she came to me, and I did all I could to ensure that her immigration was secured through the domestic violence rules that the Home Office lays out.

It used to be the Sojourner project—or “sojournay” for people who are not from Birmingham. Things were going absolutely fine. We often deal with these cases, and the Home Office agreed that it would put the appeals on hold while we were dealing with this woman’s case. There were some discrepancies. Her husband obviously denied what she had said, and the Home Office, for a spell, decided to agree with him, but we managed to get over that little hump in the road, and then he sent a letter to her family in Pakistan, threatening to kill them—his family in Pakistan would kill her family in Pakistan—and that he would kill her in the UK.

On receiving the letter, my constituent called the police; her brother told her what had happened, and she called the police. I do not necessarily know whether this fits into the fancy idea of torture, but I think that somebody threatening to kill a person’s entire family and them—it is a credible threat, because it is not the first time that they have tried to kill the person—is pretty torturous. The woman called the police. The next day, her neighbour, upset and frightened, called me and said, “She’s told us to call you; she said to call you as she was being taken away.” She was taken away to Yarl’s Wood. When she called the police for help because her life was in danger, the response that she got was that she was taken away to immigration detention.

I cannot think of anything that would make women who are desperate and at risk in this country more unlikely to call the police than the fact that they might be dragged off to immigration detention. It is not only that when this woman was taken to Yarl’s Wood, she was not assessed properly for vulnerabilities or how at risk she might be; they actively took a woman, knowing that her life was at risk. That is totally unacceptable.

As somebody who has dealt with many cases like that, I know that immigration detention and deportation is a tool used by perpetrators of violence and abuse, grooming gangs—you name it, it is used by pretty much every perpetrator I have ever met where immigration was involved in the case. The perpetrators say, “If you tell anyone, they’ll take you away,” and boy, haven’t we just colluded with the violent men in this country that we pretend we are trying to stop!

I thought, “Maybe this is an isolated case and it just happens to be in my constituency,” which I did think was a little odd, but it turns out that it is in no way an isolated case. A freedom of information request was made recently of every police force in the country. Of the 45 police forces asked about the practice of handing over victims’ details, more than half said that they did that; the rest either did not reply or did not give a clear yes or no. Currently, we have a situation in our country where immigration officers are specifically targeting victims who come forward to the police forces. There should be a Chinese wall between victims of abuse and violence, and immigration detention.

I will not read the list of names of migrant women with unstable immigration status who were murdered last year. I asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

“how many victims detailed in domestic homicide Reviews were classified as (a) migrant to the UK and (b) no recourse to public funds in the last three years.”

Unsurprisingly, although we share all sorts of information about who is in our custody, we do not collect that information centrally.

It is horrifying to think that people who are vulnerable and desperate, who have suffered all manner of torture, are still being failed by our immigration system when they come forward for help. It is criminal that we are handing over victims of violence into immigration detention centres. We do not even need to do an assessment, because we know; they have rung us up about rape, abuse and torture, whether at home or abroad. That we think the appropriate thing is to get on the phone to immigration detention is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is a massive breach of trust in this country that this is still happening.

Again, I associate myself with everything my right hon. Friend has said and the questions she put to the Minister. I want to know what plans the Home Office has to introduce proactive screening processes in the adult risk process; it has a proactive way of detaining people, as I have just outlined. How will the Home Office ensure that people are detained only for the shortest possible time, as the detention policy sets out? As has been said, why is it only the UK that does not have limits on immigration detention? I want to hear from the Minister about that.

I am sure the Home Office will get used to all the amendments that will be tabled to the Domestic Abuse Bill, because this Chinese wall will be in there. I will stand and ensure that no woman who ever rings up about being raped or having a threat to the life of her or her children, whether here or in a different country, ever ends up in Yarl’s Wood again. I will find every single woman that has happened to.

What plans does the Home Office have to look at different ways of dealing with this? The Corston report on women in prison should be a lodestar and touchstone. There are community organisations to which the Government could pay a tiny fraction of what they are currently paying to whoever it is these days—G4S or Serco, or perhaps it is Sodexo, which makes sausage rolls for hospitals and keeps prisoners safe. Such a range! Those community organisations would actually help these people.

I worked in a human trafficking service. I worked for years in community projects with women with unstable migration status. I can almost guarantee that our rates of return home were better than those of the current detention system, because we did not just send people back to a country with no support. We ensured that those choices were made in reasonable time and that the safest option, whether staying here or going back, was followed.

There is no energy going into looking at better community options for immigration detention, for both men and women. Yet, in every other area of criminal justice, we will see that community detentions have far better rates, are far cheaper and are much better for the human rights of the people involved. I will leave the Minister with that. I cannot ask enough times whether she will confirm for me that a victim of crime will never again be used just to inform our deportation numbers.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I do not have a great deal to add to the eloquent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). Like them, I have been absolutely devastated by some of the stories I have heard of what has been happening to vulnerable people, who have committed no crime and who are locked up by the state when they have already suffered unimaginable trauma.

I became aware of just what that means for individuals at the St Bride’s Destitution Project, which is run with the British Red Cross at St Bride’s church in my constituency. It is a drop-in for refugees and asylum seekers, many of them destitute, to find company or to get some advice, food or clothing.

While I was there on a visit, a lady came in who had just been released from Yarl’s Wood and sent all the way back to Manchester that afternoon. That was not the first time that this had happened to her, because one of the features of our detention system is that people are in and out, in and out. We have a cat and mouse situation of taking people into detention, deciding they are vulnerable or do not pose a risk, releasing them and then—later in the protracted process of handling their claim for status—bringing them back into detention again.

When that lady came in, she collapsed in front of me. She literally collapsed. Her legs gave way beneath her, not for a physical reason, but for the sheer relief of being out of detention. I have never seen anything like it. I was moved and horrified. The distress that lady felt and her relief at being out of that situation will stay with me all my life. What threat she posed to our community and society I cannot imagine. The threats were being directed by us, as a state, at her.

I endorse everything that has been said about the deplorable, inhumane way that we are treating people in detention, particularly about the failure of the process to screen out at the first stage people who should not be going to detention at all. I would also like to draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the complete failure of the assessment process when people try to avail themselves of rule 35 inside our detention centres.

Women for Refugee Women produced a compelling report on the experiences of a group of women that it was able to talk to in Yarl’s Wood, some of whom had sought rule 35 reports. Sometimes those women had had to wait a considerable period even to have the assessment and the report prepared—women who present as highly vulnerable and are then told to wait days, if not weeks, until someone takes the time and has the capacity properly to assess that vulnerability. That would not happen in any other part of our public services. It should not happen to those vulnerable people.

Even when those women obtained a rule 35 report and it confirmed that they were survivors of gender-based or sexual violence, many of them were still kept in detention. I cannot understand how they were not released when it had been identified that those women had experienced something that any woman in this room will know would be torturous. We could not live with that. We would be vulnerable as a result.

We have to recognise that many of those who spend time in detention will be released and returned to the community. Some 56% of those in detention return to the community after a time.

[Joan Ryan]

That is a really interesting statistic—56%—and I thank my hon. Friend for making such a powerful contribution to the debate. Let us remind ourselves: Home Office policy is that people should be detained only in exceptional circumstance. How can that be being applied if 56% are then released?

[Kate Green]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and when she was talking about detention not being proportionate, I thought, “How can it be proportionate, when more than half the people who are detained are clearly not a risk that means we have to lock them up? If they were, they would not be returned to the community.” It makes no sense.

We need some clear answers from the Minister on the failure of the assessment process—or lack of process—before people are detained, and we need much greater insight into what the Government are doing to address the fact that in detention, the way of screening, assessing and dealing with vulnerable adults is still not working well, despite the adults at risk policy and the availability of rule 35.

Just today, I was sent a copy of the Independent Monitoring Board’s report on what happens when people are deported from detention centres. There, too, we have a catalogue of poor-quality treatment of people who are leaving the country and are therefore likely to be traumatised, angry and frightened. Although it is legitimate to remove them, we should do that in a way that is dignified and humane. The report makes it clear that we do not consistently do that. How can we hold our heads up in a civilised country if we have to shackle people unnecessarily, deny them access to private toilet facilities and leave them to get off a plane in their home country without any knowledge of what support they will have or what situation they are walking back into, and without any advice available?

At every stage of the process, our system shames us, especially in relation to the most vulnerable people who have suffered persecution, torture and abuse. I hope the Minister understands how much concern there is about the way our detention system works—not just among those of us who could be in the Chamber this afternoon, but across the House. Like my hon. Friends, I very much look forward to her response to that concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan]

What the Minister has just said beggars belief in the light of the statistic mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham—

[Kate Green]

Stretford and Urmston.

[Joan Ryan]

Stretford and Urmston. Streatham is not very far away, is it? You would think, with my accent, I would have been able to get that right—I do apologise.

My hon. Friend talked about 56% of people being released back into the community. There clearly is a problem. It is not as the Minister says. I do not understand what confidence we can have if she cannot take account of that. Will she also confirm that the Shaw re-review will be published later this month?

[Caroline Nokes]

That is an important point about proportionality and the numbers who are released from immigration detention. We use detention to ensure that people who have no right to be here are returned to their home country. However, it is important that when additional information emerges and people demonstrate vulnerability, there is constant review. They can ask at any moment for consideration of immigration bail. That will be automatic after four months and every month thereafter. I accept that we do not make correct decisions all the time. I welcome the fact that when evidence emerges of vulnerability or of another reason it is inappropriate for somebody to be in detention, we are happy for them to be released into the community and for their case to be managed in a better way than detention.

[Kate Green]

The Minister might not have the information before her, but I wonder whether she could write to advise me of the frequency of people being taken into detention, released and then taken back into detention, and the reasons for that. She suggests that new information might come to light and people’s vulnerability may change over time. I accept that, but I would like a better understanding of the degree of churn in the system. That constant uncertainty, and the sense that even when they are returned to the community they might end up back in detention, is extremely damaging to vulnerable people.

[Caroline Nokes]

As I would expect, the hon. Lady makes an important and concerning point about churn. We all share that concern, because we want to have effective immigration policies, not churn. As I said, it is right that when vulnerabilities are demonstrated people are released, and that their immigration bail can be considered on request at any time. I will certainly write to her with the information she seeks.

The Shaw review became available to me at the end of April, which was later than I had anticipated, albeit not by much. We are working very hard on our response. We will publish that as soon as possible, but I want it to be thorough. It is important that the Government’s response is as full as possible, taking on board, understanding and showing action on the recommendations that Shaw has made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Lady and I have debated this matter in Westminster Hall, and we both know that there is a balance to be struck between the right to protest and ensuring that protests do not cross the line into harassment and intimidation. As she says, her local council has introduced a public spaces protection order, and we need to see how that goes. As for the review that she mentioned, it was entered into in good faith and it is ongoing.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the new process for non-UK EU citizens resident in the UK to apply for settled status. [R]

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

The application process for resident EU citizens and their family members to obtain that status in the UK after we leave the EU will be straightforward, streamlined and user-friendly, and there will be a dedicated customer contact centre to help people through the process. The majority of applicants will need to meet only three criteria: they will have to prove their identity, prove that they are resident in the UK, and prove that they do not pose a serious criminal or security threat.

[Kate Green]

According to the Migration Observatory, 64,000 non-Irish EU nationals in the UK have never used the internet, and 250,000 have reported language-related difficulties in accessing or keeping work. What capacity will the Home Office have to deal with the many thousands of applicants who will not be able to apply online?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is crucial that, in addition to our assisted digital application process, we will have dedicated support—lines to help people through the process. But I am very conscious that there will be people with language difficulties; that has been raised with us by some of the user groups, and we are looking to see how we can assist them as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

It is an honour to take a question from my right hon. Friend, and I can give her that assurance. She is absolutely right; we have to make sure we have the skills that we need for both our public sector and our private sector.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T6. I am sure the Home Secretary will join me in sending condolences following the appalling incident in my constituency last week at a car meet, when a so-called drifting car crashed into spectators, killing one and grievously injuring six others. Will he work with me and colleagues around the country to look at how we may need to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms available to the police and local authorities so that we can curb the spread of those events and stop them being displaced elsewhere?

[Sajid Javid]

Of course I join the hon. Lady in what she has said, and my thoughts are with all those affected. She is right to raise that issue, and this is a good opportunity to look at it more closely. I will happily discuss it with her.

G4S: Immigration Removal Centres

Kate Green Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

As I have said, the Government are awaiting the two reviews that are being conducted, and we will consider those results very carefully. The re-procurement process will be started afresh, and from that, expectations will be set and standards will have to be met.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I say not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last, that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is correct: this is indeed an urgent question, and on the principle that the House and perhaps those attending to our proceedings like to have a bit of extra information, I can vouchsafe to all present that this is the 465th urgent question that I have been pleased to grant.

[Kate Green]

I have to say to the Minister that a two-year extension—what she calls a “short” extension—to the contract will seem to many like a reward to G4S for its failure. If she is now reopening and rerunning the tendering process, will she take the opportunity to do that in tandem with a review of the tendering and provision of healthcare services in immigration detention centres, which seem to be woefully inadequate to meet the needs of the very vulnerable detainees who have been mentioned this afternoon?

[Victoria Atkins]

May I explain the reason why two years has been settled upon? The Home Office has taken the view that that is the minimum period required realistically to revisit the specification, to run a full and legally compliant procurement process, to complete all the relevant governance processes and to mobilise the new services. That timetable is not unusual for a procurement of this sort of value. I will ask the Immigration Minister to write to her on the question about healthcare.

Home Office Removal Targets

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case with me. The Minister for Immigration is sitting beside me; I know she will want to discuss that case with the hon. Lady.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The independent inspector’s report in 2015 reported:

“The Family Returns Process’s target for the financial year 2014/15 was 252 returns”—

including both voluntary returns and required returns. Is or is not that a target? Did the Home Secretary or her predecessor know about it? Is it still in place or not?

[Amber Rudd]

We made changes in 2010 that were specifically to support families and children who might be at risk of being removed. For instance, we banned the detention of children outside of families, which had been taking place before 2010. So I believe we made some changes in 2010 and going forward, which really were trying to assist families and children, rather than the opposite.

Windrush

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I would caution the hon. Gentleman not to use his constituent to make such a political point about the past eight years. If he wants me to look at his constituent, who sounds to me like she falls within the 1973 to 1998 cohort, I urge him to send the information through to me.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Since last week, I have heard of constituents who have been forced to apply for indefinite leave to remain when it is not clear that they needed to; who have applied for spouse visas when it is not clear that that was appropriate; and who have had to go to court to make the case for their right to live and work here. Some have had legal advice—sometimes poor-quality legal advice—and some have not been able to afford it. In addition to the measures that the Home Secretary has announced today, will she also look again at the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the detrimental effect that that is having, when people cannot get good-quality, professional, legal immigration advice?

[Amber Rudd]

I recognise the concern that the hon. Lady has raised. The measures that I have put in place today will not require people to get legal advice. I believe that the new taskforce I have put in place has an approach to individuals that will enable them to have confidence that the process will work much better for them than having a lawyer. In one case that I was engaged with today, I was talking to some of the caseworkers and they described how somebody had asked their son or daughter to call up to create that first distance, and then they had taken confidence and were able to address it. This is a system I have put in place where people can have confidence in addressing and dealing with it and in getting a fast resolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I do agree with my hon. Friend. It was the Home Office that took the initiative to set up the counter-terrorism internet referral unit, which has seen 300,000 pieces of terrorist propaganda taken down—voluntarily, but taken down none the less. It was the Home Office that worked with ASI Data Science to develop an automatic model, which has a 99.9% accuracy rate. If we can do it, why can those companies not?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I recently held a community meeting to contribute to Mayor Andy Burnham’s consultation on community integration and preventing radical hate speech. One issue that came up was the extent of online hate speech against Islam coming from around the world, and particularly from the United States. Will the Minister say what discussions he is having internationally to ensure that this kind of derogatory and offensive material is taken down as quickly as possible?