Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 39 to 41. I say from the start that I broadly support the Government’s policy on all these matters. All these amendments would have a similar effect. They would make it very difficult to detain a person who claimed asylum for more than a few days, irrespective of the facts of the case. It is surely perfectly obvious that such measures will make it extraordinarily easy for any claimant simply to disappear into the very large community of illegals—perhaps 1 million—that we already have in the UK.

We have to consider these amendments against the background of current events. A substantial and growing inflow of migrants across the channel is, understandably, very unwelcome to the public. They rightly perceive that they have nearly all come from a country that is safe, whether France or Belgium, and that they are not in fear of their lives. This is confirmed by Home Office evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 3 September, which said that, of those crossing this year, 98% claimed asylum, half of which had been considered so far, and 80% of that number had been refused. Some 71% were refused because we are not the responsible country. That, of course, is because they travelled through a safe country before they arrived here.

It follows that for those who are concerned about genuine asylum seekers—I of course accept that many noble Lords and noble Baroness are concerned about them—the situation has to be tackled if public support for the asylum system is to be maintained. However, limiting detention to 28 days, as proposed in Amendment 39, would exacerbate the crisis of immigration enforcement and undermine support for asylum generally.

People need to feel confident that the asylum system, which costs the taxpayer £1,000 million per year, is producing a worthwhile result. The main effect of a 28-day limit on detention is that false asylum claimants would have only to spin out their claim or make some false statement that could not be refuted in the allotted time before being released and potentially disappearing. Indeed, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has found

“little evidence that effective action was being taken to locate the vast bulk of absconders”.

It follows that illegal immigration—which, by the way, 77% of the public consider a serious problem—would intensify. The credibility of the immigration system as a whole would also be further undermined.

Some Members will remember that, on the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, rightly pointed to the crucial importance of the integrity of the immigration system in the eyes of the public at large. It is a continual surprise to me that others in the political arena seem to have failed to get this absolutely central point.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment. So many of those involved have been through unspeakable, disturbing—even horrific—experiences. Detention is really not appropriate for any of them but, if there is detention, it must be strictly monitored and should certainly be for only a limited period of time; 28 days is surely more than long enough for the authorities to be able to establish reasons for declining residency to people who are in detention.

The practice of detaining people, as referred to by Amendment 70, is unspeakable when you think of the kind of backgrounds many have come from. The other practical point I make is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases with which we are dealing, people are ultimately released from detention. This makes it all the more obvious that something is wrong. The system needs very close attention; these amendments help us to provide that kind of focus.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]]

My Lords, I speak in favour of this group of amendments and, in particular, address my comments to Amendments 39 and 40. I concur with the excellent points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the introduction to this debate, as well as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others who have spoken since.

I would like to further emphasise the human and moral cost of our current and proposed detention system. The effect of indefinite detention, which lasts in some cases for months or even years on end, is devastating on the mental and physical health of detainees. Hopelessness promoted by a lack of knowledge over what comes next and flashbacks to past trauma are common experiences.

I offer an illustrative example, collected by the Jesuit Refugee Service, of the impact of our present system. Oliver was conscripted into the army at 17. He had no choice—he was taken off the street one day on his way home from school. He managed to escape after eight years but was captured, imprisoned underground and tortured. He was the victim of human trafficking twice, once being sold into slavery and once when he was taken to Europe. He arrived in the UK in July 2015, immediately made himself known to the authorities and claimed asylum. He was taken into immigration detention at Dover and moved to Harmondsworth IRC.

Oliver spoke no English. He had committed no crime. The incarceration triggered flashbacks to his imprisonment underground in his home country. He was examined by doctors and found to be suffering from PTSD. He had clear injuries on his body, which were ratified by a medical examination as being signs of torture conducive with his experience. After three months in detention, he was released to Section 4 accommodation in Cardiff. A year later, he was suddenly detained again and taken by taxi from Cardiff to Dorset. This time he was released after 18 days and finally granted indefinite leave to remain in 2019.

I could have filled a much longer speech with many other examples, including those of children, victims of trafficking, slavery and sexual abuse, and of people repeatedly detained in a highly traumatic environment that served no purpose in protecting the wider public. These amendments do not dispute that detention can serve a valuable, even critical, purpose, including—in a small number of cases—the protection of the public. What these amendments would do, however, is demand that the purpose of detention is clear and justifiable in each case, and cannot be of unlimited duration or used repeatedly in ways which have been shown to be immensely harmful to detainees. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, I believe that the public recognise that detention for long periods is not the way that we treat human beings in our country. We all want a better, respected asylum system, but detention detracts from that. I hope that the concerns in these amendments can be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

From June 2016 onwards, your Lordships’ House and the other place have talked about the rights of European citizens. Those rights will be removed, but surely it is appropriate that Parliament looks very carefully at how they are replaced. Simply to say that EEA nationals now fall under the wider immigration regime may be appropriate for someone who arrives from one of the EEA countries on 1 January 2021, but it should not apply to EEA nationals who are already resident in the United Kingdom but maybe have not already sought the right to reside. What guarantees do the Government intend to put in place for EEA nationals legally resident in the United Kingdom on 31 December 2020 to ensure that their rights are not removed overnight if they have not already put in a request for indefinite leave to remain? Otherwise, the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seems to be wholly appropriate, and I wonder whether the Government could see their way to supporting it. However, I suspect the Minister has a whole suite of reasons that she can give us for why it is not appropriate.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 42 seeks to repeal the right-to-rent scheme introduced by Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the 2014 Act. That chapter, coupled with amendments made to it by the Immigration Act 2016 and amendments made there to the Housing Act 1988, requires landlords and their agents to refuse accommodation to people who require, but do not have, permission to be in the UK. Landlords and agents may indeed face criminal sanction if providing accommodation in these circumstances.

As Amnesty firmly argued in its excellent brief, the impact of this regime is more widely harmful for people of colour. It essentially promotes homelessness and race discrimination—for example, because it becomes safer for landlords to avoid providing accommodation to people who are not white, do not have recognisably British accents and have non-Anglo-Saxon-sounding names.

Amendment 50 essentially seeks the repeal of other provisions of Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014, which provides for an immigration health charge and restrictions on who may open a bank account or obtain a driving licence. It is particularly important to emphasise the need for a repeal of the immigration health charge. As Amnesty again forcefully argues, it is nothing more than a tax upon people coming to the UK to work, study or join family—people who are already taxed by immigration fees often set far above the administrative cost, over and above the taxes that they, like others, pay by reason of their living and working in this country.

In the sad legislation before us, we need to take these points very seriously indeed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I do not know what is going to be included in the Government’s response to these amendments, but we have heard today, as we have on previous days in Committee on this Bill, that an amendment or group of amendments is not relevant to the Bill. I am assuming that that is being said purely as the Government’s view, since presumably, through the changes that it does or does not make to a government Bill, it is for Parliament to decide what should or should not be in a Bill and is therefore relevant to it. So I would be grateful if the Government could confirm that when they say an amendment or group of amendments is “not relevant” to the Bill, they are simply expressing a view and accept that that is an issue that Parliament will have to determine.

Amendment 42 in this group would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from the right-to-rent immigration checks by landlords under the Immigration Act 2014. Amendment 50 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals and their dependents from some provisions under the Immigration Act 2014, including the NHS surcharge and immigration checks on opening bank accounts and holding a driving licence. It would also exempt them from provisions in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which disallows a person from being employed if they do not have a valid immigration status. Amendment 71 would exempt EEA and Swiss nationals residing in the UK immediately before the commencement of the Act from a variety of immigration provisions, including checks on renting, bank accounts, driving licences and illegal working.

We understand the concerns that these amendments seek to address. The experiences of the Windrush generation, when lives were ruined and families torn apart, simply highlighted the failures of the hostile environment policy, particularly the culture that it led to in the Home Office that determined how the policy was applied, and as reflected in the terms of the Immigration Acts in 2014 and 2016. Against that background, it is understandable why there is concern among EEA citizens living in this country about the impact that changes to their status following our withdrawal from the EU could have on their position in relation to the application of the terms of the Immigration Acts.

The Government could have used the Bill to signal the end of the hostile environment policy in reality, not just in name, and in so doing convince EEA citizens that their concerns were without foundation. The Government have chosen not to do so, and consequently these amendments seek to do what the Government have failed to do, by giving EEA and Swiss citizens exemption from some of the more contentious parts of the Immigration Acts, including in particular those parts of the now rebranded hostile environment policy that were effectively farmed out to private individuals and private companies to implement, such as the checks in relation to the renting of property or opening of a bank account.

I hope that when we hear from the Government, as we are just about to, we will hear some hopeful response to the thrust of these amendments and that the Government are equally determined to address—and how they intend to do so—the concerns that the amendments have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. It is quite shocking to hear from Safe Passage that in their negotiating proposals the Government seek to replace children’s rights under Dublin III with a discretionary provision that provides vulnerable children with neither the certainty nor security they sorely need. That contrasts with the mandatory approach taken to returning children to other EU countries—or EU countries, now—which rather smacks of double standards.

Surely it is hypocritical to wring one’s hands over children and young people risking their lives to cross the channel in tiny boats while increasing the likelihood of that happening in future by further narrowing clear and firm legal routes open to them, as has already been stated. On that, can the Minister say when the Government plan to start the resettlement programme, which has already been mentioned? She recently told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that the Government will do so

“as soon as it is practical and safe to do so.”—[Official Report, 3/9/20; col. 519.]

The Government have already deemed it “practical and safe” to restart some deportation flights, so why not resettlement flights? I understand that nearly half the countries in the resettlement programme restarted their schemes weeks ago. As Stephen Hale, chief executive of Refugee Action, has said:

“It is baffling that the UK government has arranged travel corridors for summer holidays on the one hand but prevented resettlement flights taking place on the other. Flights that would offer a literal lifeline to some of the most vulnerable refugees in the world.”


He underlined that it is “a matter of urgency.”

Urgent too, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, is action to help those children whose lives have been turned upside down yet again by the dreadful fire at the Moria camp in Lesbos. We have heard that a number of other countries have offered to take some of these children but that this country has not stepped in—or, I should say, stepped up—to its responsibilities. Can the Minister explain why? Why have we not yet done what we should be doing here?

Returning to the Bill itself, Coram has bemoaned the lack of attention given to children generally in the Government’s immigration proposals. Have the Government even undertaken a child rights or best interests assessment of what they are proposing? I have not seen one. Can we perhaps have one before Report? Here is an opportunity to give children’s organisations such as Coram some reassurance by accepting my noble friend’s amendment.

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I sometimes wonder whether the Government—particularly those within No. 10, holding office or otherwise—have any sense of shame whatever. There is really no other way to describe their dilatory approach to all this than shameful. Perhaps nothing is unbelievable these days, but it is almost unbelievable that—dealing with children in the most vulnerable situation, who have been through hell and are psychologically and sometimes physically in a very bad way and in need of love, affection, care and concern—there is a total failure to ensure that the provisions of the Dublin agreement, such as they were, have been carried forward and a satisfactory replacement negotiated with the European Union.

I know that it is a controversial thing to say in this House, but I have reached a point at which I feel shame for my nation. Do we care about children, or indeed adults, who are in desperate need or do we not? Why are we not busting a gut, with all our ingenuity and skills, to find ways in which people can, in their desperation, make safe journeys rather than being thrown into the hands of smugglers or acute dangers in totally inadequate vessels? This issue goes to the kernel of what kind of nation we want to be and appear to the world to have become.

All I can say is that my admiration for my noble friend Lord Dubs is unbridled. The way he has been, in effect, repeatedly let down by government is a sad and sorry story. I am sorry if it appears that I am just moralising, but this is crucial to where our sense of care, concern and responsibility as a nation is. Therefore, this amendment, whatever it can do, is desperately needed. I cannot say how sorry and sad I am that we have reached this predicament.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Rosser and the other signatories to this vital amendment. The new clause they have described would delay application of “no recourse to public funds” rules during the current pandemic and until such time as Parliament decides. That is a high purpose.

While I enthusiastically support the amendment, as Amnesty and other non-governmental organisations working on the front line remind us, there is a need to look at the importance of providing access to welfare support for all people in the group with which we are currently concerned during the current and future pandemics to ensure that people lawfully in the UK whom it is plainly anticipated will remain here, such as people permitted to stay by reason of their private life and people who have joined family for purposes of settling, are not left destitute.

Of course, while Amendment 73 provides an opportunity to examine the wider implications, I stress again that the NGOs are right to insist that we need to look at all those who are put in jeopardy by circumstances out of their control such as the pandemic, and measures taken in response to it, as well as illness, accident, redundancy and changes to immigration rules, or things that people have been given no or insufficient opportunity to plan or prepare for. This is an utterly humane and sensible amendment and I do hope it finds favour with the Government.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Covid has proved a desperate situation in so many different ways. One of the telling impacts is on individuals who have no recourse to public funds, not just for them as individuals but, as other noble Lords have said, in the context of public health, if they have to go to work, or to collect food from a food bank or other donors. The position is diametrically opposed to the UBI universal benefit, to which reference has been made. There is a lot to be said for that.

On Amendment 73, it occurred to me to ask what the policy aim is, because it reads as a hostile environment measure. What is the purpose of applying the no recourse rule to people whose future clearly lies in the UK? It is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is about starving them out.