Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Norwich Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

We are facing a problem that I think we realise exists: what happens to youngsters—unaccompanied asylum seekers or refugees—who came here some years previously? They have settled down here, they have become part of our communities; they speak our language, they go to our schools; they have imbibed the culture of the United Kingdom; and they have been very well cared for—and we are so grateful to the authorities and the foster homes which take this responsibility upon themselves. But then, when they reach 18 years of age, they lose that protection. This is an immense problem.

I remember meeting about half a dozen lads from Afghanistan who were in this category. They had reached 18 and were telling me what they had done when they were on the verge of turning 18. One had built a noose above his bed in case Border Force came and wanted to deport him—he knew what he wanted to do then. A couple of the others had pushed their wardrobes against the doors of their bedrooms to try to stop or hinder anyone from coming and deporting them. These are people who have been here, people who do not know their original country, and yet we are going to force them from here.

Last year about 250 18 year-olds were deported. Half of them were taken forcibly—they were physically taken and deported. Gosh, what sort of reputation do we have if we do these sorts of things? My grandchildren are not quite 18. These people are us, they are human beings, and yet we are doing this to them. What makes it even more incredible to me is that of those who appeal, half of them win their appeals against the prospect of unfair deportation. I ask the Minister to look at this and give us an assurance in the Bill that nobody aged 18 will be treated in this way. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, Amendment 114 in this group is in my name. I am grateful for the support of other noble Lords. The amendment seeks to ensure that a best interests assessment is obtained for any child separated from its parents as a result of an immigration appeal. It is not so very long ago, I remember, that in the light of failures in child protection a policy initiative was given the title Every Child Matters. Every child does matter, without exception.

Under Clause 59, the Secretary of State will have the power to remove the ability of a person to remain in the UK when appealing against an immigration decision. This simply extends provisions already contained in the Immigration Act 2014 which apply only to foreign national offenders. However, no analysis on the impact of children being separated from their parents as a result of the Immigration Act 2014 has been undertaken. That is the first thing to stress, yet the new Bill extends these provisions to all appeals relating to immigration claims, including those involving accompanied and unaccompanied children.

Recent research by the Children’s Commissioner has shown the serious long-term impact on a child of separation from a parent: it can undermine their developmental, behavioural and emotional well-being. There is a significant delay, currently of up to a year, in immigration appeals being listed so this separation from family or home in the event of certification would have significant consequences for any child. A year may seem to pass quickly when you reach the seniority of many of us in your Lordships’ House but for a child aged six or seven, a year’s development is very significant. In Committee, the Minister expressed the hope that in future,

“appeal processes in simple cases will not exceed six months and even in complex cases will not exceed 12 months ”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1813.]

But there is no guarantee that this will be the case and even 12 months can be too long for a child removed from parents or school, or for unaccompanied young people who find themselves, as they are likely to do, without a support network in their country of origin—where they may have no family left at all.

Government Amendment 145 draws attention to the duty of the Home Secretary under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009,

“to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”,

with respect to immigration, asylum and enforcement functions. However, the experience of organisations such as the Refugee Children’s Consortium is that children’s best interests are not systematically and comprehensively assessed within immigration decision-making. No one has ever relied on this duty of the Home Secretary in any case and there is no clear means of implementing it. It seems no more than a pious aspiration. I am in favour of pious aspirations and the more pious, the better, but they need some means of implementation and checking. There needs to be independent oversight of the duty on the Home Office to ensure that the best interests of any child are adequately considered before any decision is made to certify any claim for out-of-country appeals. That is what Amendment 114 offers so straightforwardly.

We need to see all this within the context of cuts to legal aid. The Government have removed all legal aid for immigration cases, undermining the ability of children and families to put forward the necessary evidence and legal arguments to have their cases fairly determined. What is the result? The Home Office will be making decisions on poorly-prepared cases with inadequate evidence because children and families will not have had the benefit of legal advice. It means that the ability to appeal against decisions by the Home Office has never been more important.

We saw a stark example of the current weaknesses of Home Office decision-making just last April. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision by the Upper Tribunal requiring the Home Office to return a five year-old child to the UK with his mother after failing to consider properly his best interests before they were removed to Nigeria. The woman, who was undocumented, had claimed to be in the UK since 1991. She applied for asylum in 2010, saying that she feared destitution and discrimination as a single mother in Nigeria with no immediate family. Her asylum claim had been repeatedly rejected. At one point, she was admitted to a psychiatric unit with depression. Her son was put into foster care as she battled against attempts to send them both back to Nigeria. The foster carers who looked after the boy remained close to him. When the mother and child were removed from the UK, those foster carers paid for their accommodation and healthcare in Nigeria from their own savings because they were so concerned about what happened to them both. The judge ruled:

“In not taking into account the implications of”,

the mother’s “mental health” for the child,

“and the risk of that degenerating in the Nigerian context and the likely consequences of removal, the Secretary of State failed to have regard to”,

the child’s,

“best interests as a primary consideration”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords who added their names to this amendment for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place because it is his birthday, and so I think he is allowed the evening off to celebrate with his family, much as we will miss him. I also want to express my support for Amendments 117 and 118.

The amendment concerns what is commonly known as the moving-on or grace period, during which an asylum seeker granted status continues to receive asylum support but after which it is expected that they will have sorted out mainstream financial support, employment and accommodation. The amendment would increase this period to 40 days.

I am grateful to the Minister and officials for the recent meeting that we had to discuss this matter and for the discussions that I believe officials have had both within government and with the British Red Cross, to which I am grateful for help with this amendment. As I explained in Committee, this is a problem that has for far too long created unnecessary hardship and heartache for those granted status. It is not the product of deliberate government policy, but a very unfortunate consequence of an inability of two government departments to sort it out. In Committee, I cited evidence presented recently to the Work and Pensions Select Committee, which called for an immediate joint investigation of the issue with the Home Office and recommended that the time allowed in the grace period be amended if necessary. I also cited a recent report from the British Red Cross and an earlier report from Freedom from Torture.

All the evidence shows, first, that asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to destitution just at the point when they are granted refugee status or leave to remain, because it so often takes longer to move on than the allotted 28 days, after which asylum support is stopped, regardless of whether mainstream social security has started to be paid. Internal management statistics show that in 2015 the British Red Cross supported 9,138 primary service users and 4,130 dependants who were destitute. It questioned around 2,500 of them as to why they were destitute, and the largest group, a quarter, cited problems with moving on. This is a measure of the level of unnecessary destitution caused as a result of extremely vulnerable people being caught in a limbo between asylum support and mainstream support.

Secondly, it is clear from the evidence that it is not just the material impact but the psychological impact of destitution that should concern us, especially in the case of those who have suffered torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status but instead are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time—not grace but a form of purgatory. Just imagine how we would feel when the moment prayed for came about, but our life was actually made more difficult than it was already. Moreover, the Home Office itself has in the past emphasised the importance of the moving-on period for the longer-term integration of refugees yet, in trying to rush rather than move refugees on, the grace period serves to impede that integration.

In his response in Committee, the Minister referred to his letter of 21 January. However, that dealt with people without status, not those who had been granted it. He made the point, understandably—although I picked him up on it at the time—that it is not just a case of extending the time period but about making sure that people apply for those benefits promptly. He cited the BRC report which showed that only three—in fact, four—of the sample of 16 had applied within the first three weeks of being granted status. I accept that that is a legitimate point, and it is in no one’s interest, least of all that of the refugees, for a claim for benefits not to be made promptly. After all, asylum support is significantly lower than mainstream social security. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties for people new to the system if they do not have the support of an organisation or friends who understand it. As my noble friend Lord Judd, who is not in his place, pointed out in Committee, sometimes mental health problems or a state of confusion can make it an unrealistic proposition. The BRC study found that the majority of service users questioned in Birmingham did not even know that they had only 28 days to complete a benefits claim after getting status. Most people struggle to understand the paperwork that they are sent.

The BRC identified 23 factors at play affecting the speed with which a refugee is able to make the transition to mainstream support. In some cases, five to 10 of those factors could hold up progress. It is a process involving multiple stakeholders and documents—daunting at the best of times.

Even when a refugee makes an expeditious claim, there is no guarantee that they will receive a payment within 28 days. Indeed, it can often take considerably longer than that from the date of the claim, as the BRC study found and the DWP’s own research indicates. So while I agree that claiming in good time is part of the solution, it is not the whole of it. On the basis of the experience of refugee organisations, I suggest that a two-part solution is needed. First, there must be an improvement in procedures, including adequate advice and support to those granted status to ensure that they make a speedy claim. I would be grateful for an indication of what might have emerged from the discussions that officials have been having about how to improve those procedures. But that on its own is not sufficient, as can be seen, for example, from the experience of the deployment of a dedicated caseworker by the Holistic Integration Service in Scotland.

Secondly, this needs to be complemented by a legal right to continue receiving asylum support beyond the current 28 days. This amendment suggests 40 days, based on the experience of refugee organisations. Again understandably, in Committee the Minister expressed the fear that simply adding days might not be enough, and of course any time limit is to some extent arbitrary. But combined with improved procedures so that, to cite the Minister, people get the care they need when they need it and the system works effectively, the view on the ground is that this is a more realistic and appropriate time period. I chose a time limit because I assumed that it would be easier to administer than a case-by-case approach triggered by the receipt of mainstream social security, but I would not be averse to the latter if the Government preferred that, and it would of course be open to the Minister to bring forward an alternative amendment on those lines at Third Reading. One way or another, I believe that we have the opportunity finally to resolve this issue. It is an injustice born of oversight, not intent, but it is none the less cruel for that.

Just as I finished drafting what to say in the debate, I read ILPA’s briefing. It cites the case of EG, a little boy who starved to death during the moving-on period and whose mother died two days later. The serious case review identified the following national issue:

“Westminster Local Safeguarding Children Board should write to the National Asylum Support Service and the Department for Work and Pensions to express its concern about the adverse consequences on vulnerable children and the resulting additional pressure on local professional agencies which are triggered in the transitional period between the withdrawal of support by the National Asylum Support Agency and entitlement to benefits”.

That was dated April 2012; four years later, I am not sure that much has changed. Shockingly, according to Still Human Still Here, if anything, things have got worse. I apologise if that appears emotive, but I feel so strongly about this. It is not a party-political issue. None of the political parties would support a policy that deliberately created destitution during this period, yet none of them has done anything about it when in government. I appeal to the Minister to use the opportunity provided by this Bill to put right such an unnecessary wrong and ensure that the period after granting of refugee status can be a time of joy rather than one of destitution and psychological turmoil. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 116 largely as a result of past involvement with UN gateway resettlement programmes in Norwich for Congolese refugees. I discovered then how long it takes asylum seekers, once granted refugee status, to set themselves up so that they can live as citizens. The transition into work or even to mainstream benefits does not come at all quickly. Applying for national insurance numbers and biometric residence permits is slow going. Completing benefit application forms, and even getting hold of the right ones, is difficult because refugees are not always given the correct advice.

As the noble Baroness has just said, the possibility of getting what was most wanted—refugee status—and then finding that it is followed up by the removal of financial support and no accommodation is not so much an irony as a tragedy. We need a bigger window before asylum support is terminated. Starting the clock only when a biometric residence permit is obtained would inform the situation. I do not need to labour the point because it has already been very well put, but it is a terrible experience for refugees in a country to which they are immensely grateful to then experience the trauma of destitution when they have experienced so much trauma already. I warmly support this very straightforward amendment.