Immigration Bill

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

71: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Permission to work
After section 3(9) of the Immigration Act 1971 insert—“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following.
(11) Rules must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment and that permission must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that fresh claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a fresh claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which they were recorded.(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 first, as that will explain why Amendment 71 is also necessary. Our progress as humanity has always been a continuous struggle to overcome discrimination and inequality. One can name Wilberforce, Lincoln, Pankhurst, Gandhi, Mandela and so many others who have contributed to ensuring that nobody suffers because of discrimination. All people are of equal value. The struggle continues. People are people wherever they are, and should be treated with respect and dignity.

However, there are some failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. At this moment, there are about 3,000 such people living in the United Kingdom. They cannot work. They have no access to benefits and would, in many cases, be destitute were it not for support from government and voluntary agencies. This Section 4 support from the Government is entirely separate from normal asylum support for people whose claims are pending. Under Section 4, a person will receive £5 per day, or about £36 per week. Out of this, they must pay for food, clothing, toiletries and other essential living needs. We are glad that housing and utilities are provided separately.

In April 2012, 779 of these 3,000 people were children and they are discriminated against in certain ways. For instance, the use of the Azure card is restricted to a list of certain shops and these are often the most expensive. So many of the smaller and less expensive stores, such as Aldi and Lidl, which could provide far more for those with Azure cards, are not included in the list. Whatever happens to my amendment, I hope that the Minister will at least tackle that issue, so that those places where people can get better value or a greater quantity for their money—including corner shops as well—can be considered.

Amendment 72 would allow for people totally trapped in the UK to survive. They would escape the absolute poverty to which Section 4 condemns them. It would also save taxpayers millions of pounds. To deny a person the right to work is to deny ourselves the contribution that that individual can make to our society. Our coalition partners speak of hard-working families. I would urge the inclusion of those whose one aim is to be a hard-working family. Last December, there were 23,000 of them who had the ability to earn a living. Can anything be more demoralising than having skills that you are not allowed to use, a family you are not allowed to support, or a country to which you would willingly pay your taxes, if only you were allowed? What evidence does the Minister have that the period before an asylum seeker can apply for a job would in any way be a threat if it were reduced from 12 to six months? What conversations have been taking place with the 12 European Union countries that have much lower limits than the UK? Why have we not signed up to the EU reception conditions, which reduce to nine months the period for which asylum seekers can be excluded from the labour market? That is not quite six months, but it is coming down.

Amendment 71 would allow those who have been waiting six months for a decision to claim the right to work. In December last year, the number of those waiting was 6,249, excluding dependants. We have a real opportunity here. We could reduce the burden on the taxpayer because asylum seekers who are able to work will no longer need to be supported by the benefits system. After all, we are living in times of austerity. Instead of being dependent, these people could contribute to the economy through taxes and consumer spending.

There is an understandable worry here in Parliament that allowing asylum seekers to work will blur the boundaries between asylum and economic migration. However, I suggest that a strong asylum system, which makes the right decisions the first time around, need have no fear of such a blurring of boundaries. I am sure that economic migrants making a spurious claim in order to access the UK jobs market would not be able to put in a claim credible enough to have the UKBA scratching its head for six months. An asylum claim with no real basis should not take six months to be rejected.

History shows that when new arrivals come to the UK, they contribute substantially to job creation in our country. A week ago tomorrow, the Centre for Entrepreneurs published a report entitled Building our Businesses, Creating our Jobs. Here, as in the United States, 60% of the top technology businesses were started by migrants. The next figure really astounded me: in the UK, 456,073 migrant entrepreneurs, representing 155 countries, started many of our industries. Our economy owes so much to migrants who are misunderstood and even reviled in some quarters—and it has always been so. In 1938 the Daily Express ran the headline: “German Jews Pouring into Britain”. These folk, who were escaping the Holocaust, were responsible for more than 50% of the new industries that helped the south Wales valleys to defeat the great depression at that time. We shall miss out in 2014 by denying their successors the right to work.

I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Government support the idea of the equality of all people. I should also like to see the evidence, if it exists, that other nations suffer because they allow asylum seekers to work after six months or sooner. Lastly, does he accept the fact that nearly 500,000 immigrants have been responsible for new businesses in the United Kingdom? The Bill can either continue the progress that I mentioned previously—helping a person to find his feet and grasp his opportunities—or it can be a backward step by keeping those who would enrich our communities idle and hopeless. When the time comes, I urge the Minister to support this amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for tabling these amendments. I was pleased to add my name to them, not least because I was a member of the parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, and I helped to launch a Freedom from Torture report called The Poverty Barrier: The Right to Rehabilitation for Survivors of Torture in the UK. Also, on a personal note, the noble Lord referred to the Express headline about German Jews pouring into this country. My father was one of those German Jews.

I shall start with the right to work. It is a human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporated into human rights law as part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises,

“the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work”.

After the Second World War, TH Marshall wrote that in the economic field, the basic civil right is the right to work. The importance of this right, or rather the lack of it, for individual asylum seekers is brought out movingly in the report to which I have referred. The parliamentary inquiry talked about how asylum seekers who are not able to undertake paid work lose skills, how they are not able to provide a role model for their children, and the impact on their self-esteem, self-confidence and mental health. All this has a damaging effect on their children. According to the Freedom from Torture report:

“Many questionnaire respondents, and most participants in client focus groups, highlighted the importance to them of having permission to work while their asylum claim is decided as a means of supporting themselves and being self-reliant. Indeed, the lack of permission to work for asylum seekers was a major theme of discussion and the key change that focus group respondents called for, although they also recognised that many torture survivors are not well enough to work”.

The weekend before last, noble Lords may have read in the Guardian an interview with six refugees or asylum seekers with professional backgrounds. One of them was a senior government adviser from the Ivory Coast now living destitute in Birmingham. The article says:

“But for the moment, what makes her unhappy is the enforced idleness: the UK Border Agency stipulates, in emphatic capitals, in correspondence with her, ‘You are NOT allowed to work’”.

It goes on:

“‘Work is health,’ she says, taking off her glasses and rubbing her eyes. ‘I started working when I was 21. I am an active person. When you have nothing to do, you look on your situation and start to think. You say to yourself: “What am I doing? What will become of me?”’”.

If we were professional people who were forced to leave our home and seek asylum in another country, how would we feel if we were not allowed to contribute to the country that we wanted to make our new home?

Much of government social policy, whichever party is in power, is premised on the principle that paid work is the primary responsibility and the most important contribution that people make to society, summed up, as the noble Lord said, in the mantra of “hard-working families”. However, successive Governments deny asylum seekers the opportunity to make such a contribution for a whole year, even though the evidence shows that it helps integration. Home Office research shows that delayed entry to the labour market can cause problems even when refugee status is then granted, leading to high levels of unemployment and underemployment. It would appear, therefore, that the Government work on the assumption that asylum seekers will not be granted refugee status, so it does not matter to this society what the long-term effects of enforced idleness are. I hope I am wrong, and would be grateful if the Minister could disabuse me, but that is how it comes across.

As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the Government argue that to allow asylum seekers the right to work would blur the distinction between economic migrants and asylum seekers, and act as a pull factor. However, we are not calling for an immediate right to work: there would still be a six-month delay. In 11 other European Union countries, in both northern and southern Europe, asylum seekers are permitted access to the labour market after six months, or sometimes even less, of waiting for a decision. In all of those countries, except Sweden, fewer applications for asylum were received than in the UK, which does not suggest that it acts as a pull factor. The lack of impact on the number of applicants is confirmed by a recent study of OECD countries. If we do not allow the right to work, the danger is that asylum seekers who end up in the shadow labour market will face the kind of exploitation referred to earlier by my noble friend Lord Rosser.

I fear that Governments are often timid with regard to the rights of asylum seekers for fear of public opinion. However, surveys by the IPPR and the British Social Attitudes survey show that there is public support for allowing asylum seekers the right to work. The Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, in an inquiry into destitution among asylum seekers a few years ago, said:

“Overwhelmingly, giving asylum seekers the right to work was the favoured solution identified”,

by those who gave evidence.

On the question of destitution, the parliamentary inquiry of which I was a member found that the current asylum support system is forcing thousands of children and young people who are seeking safety in the UK into severe poverty. We were shocked to hear of instances where children were left destitute and homeless, entirely without institutional support and forced to rely on food parcels or charitable donations. This cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. I am well aware of it, which is why asylum seekers are able to do voluntary work.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I remind the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, of an answer he gave me some months ago when he said that the intention was to make it very uncomfortable for asylum seekers to stay here and to work here. If he looks it up in Hansard, he will remember that comment.

Do the Government accept the equality of people in this sphere? Do they accept that a child is a child, whether they are Welsh or Scottish—well, I must not say that after last Saturday? Children and families need respect. Is not this refusal to allow the parents to work after six months denying children and others that very status in society? Another question that I asked the Minister was: how many conversations have taken place with those European countries that allow asylum seekers to work after six months or less? Have the Government asked for the comments or experience of those countries? If they manage it, why cannot we?

Is not the whole issue that if we say no for another 12 months, it adds to the cost and to the listlessness and helplessness of a person who wants to work but is not allowed to work to support his family? I also ask that that list of Azure card shops should be expanded. If he or others go to those shops, they will see the difference in prices. A person who has £5 a day or £36 a week would find it far more comfortable to support the family in low-cost shops. Also, when will we sign the European reception directive, which other countries have signed but we have not?

Having said that, we will again return to the issue at Report. I am sure that, by that time, the Minister and others on every side of the House will see the reasonableness of what we are asking for now. With that caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 71 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I agree. For that reason, I believe that Clause 60 should not stand part of the Bill. If it does, it is imperative that the clause is amended along the lines of the various amendments that we are debating this evening.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I will refer to Amendments 75 to 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They touch upon important points, including one made in the context of Clause 14 by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and myself.

The Government have an obligation to take into account the best interests of any child affected by their decisions. I accept that Amendment 77 must be understood in the light of the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to amendments tabled to Clause 14. He stated:

“We believe that the children’s best interests must be a primary consideration. … However, it is simply not the case that a child’s best interests will outweigh every other possible countervailing factor, including illegal immigration and serious criminality”.—[Official Report, 5/3/14; col. 1384.]

Amendment 77 seeks to put on the face of the Bill that the child’s best interests should be considered, no matter what the crimes of the parents might be. This remains true.

I support also Amendment 75, which seeks to limit the dangerously broad and vague power that the Home Secretary asks for. The lack of clarity was outlined to me in a Written Answer from the Minister, Lord Taylor, on 10 February, in which he stated:

“The Government does not wish to be overly prescriptive about the meaning of ‘seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom’, as the circumstances of each case will be different. However we intend it to cover those involved in terrorism or espionage or those who take up arms against British or allied forces”.—[Official Report, 10/2/14; col. WA 103.]

He cited terrorism, espionage and taking up arms against British or allied forces as possible specific examples. I hope that all here will wholeheartedly agree that the Home Secretary should be obliged to consider whether the deprivation of citizenship is both a necessary and a proportionate response.

Ultimately, this debate will focus on the finer details of this clause, but we must also take a moment to consider whether the deprivation of citizenship is an appropriate response to alleged criminality or threats to security, given its considerable implications for international law. For this reason, I have put my name to the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to oppose the clause in its entirety.

Although I have previously stated that I am not one who understands the law to any measurable extent, I remain a concerned citizen. I am deeply troubled that this provision could allow for the citizenship of millions to be removed, with slim chances of appealing.

Let us not forget the judgment of Chief Justice Warren ruling in the United States Supreme Court case of Trop v Dulles in 1958. He said that,

“use of denationalization as a punishment”,

means,

“the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture”.

I hope that the Minister will take these comments to heart in replying to the Committee.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, if Clause 60 operates in accordance with the Government’s intentions, it is bound to increase statelessness in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already reminded the Committee of the words spoken by Hannah Arendt many years ago, that statelessness deprives people of the “right to have rights”. It brings about a bleak, hopeless status, or rather a complete lack of status, that the British Government should have no role in encouraging, first, because of the positively terminal impact that the imposition of statelessness is bound to have on the ability of the rightless to function in a way that is even remotely human in the modern world and, secondly, because it is clear that such an imposition as a policy measure can have no sensible part in a co-ordinated international effort to combat security threats. In fact, it appears to be the antithesis of such an effort, even in circumstances where it is precisely co-ordinated international effort that we need.

In fact, the unilateral imposition of statelessness is very likely to be directly unhelpful to those efforts because it carries with it the very real risk of breaching the United Kingdom’s international obligations to a country which has admitted a person on the strength of their lawful possession of a United Kingdom passport. Of course, such a country would absolutely have the right to return an individual directly to the United Kingdom, and what then? As the JCHR has observed, the United Kingdom would appear to have no absolute right under international law to require other states to accept its outcasts. In my view, therefore, this proposal is not only ugly in the sense identified so many years ago by Hannah Arendt; it not only associates the United Kingdom with a policy beloved of the world’s worst regimes during the 20th century; but it threatens illegal and procedural quagmire hardly compatible with the comity of nations, still less with solidarity between free countries in the face of terrorism.

Immigration Bill

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I am reminded in this debate of a conversation I had in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre several years ago with a mother—a black woman—who had been removed. Unfortunately, in the process of removal from her home for detention she was injured. Ten months on she was still suffering from the injury that she received. Her 16 year-old daughter—a child with a younger sister of eight years of age—spoke to me about her anger at the injury on her mother and her frustration at being detained for 10 months without trial.

Perhaps this is not the appropriate amendment to bring this in, for which I apologise, but listening to this discussion I commend the coalition Government for their decision early on to minimise as far as possible the detention of families prior to removal. I warmly congratulate them on taking that move.

My other point—again it is probably not the right place to ask about it—is that I am concerned about the training and development of those officers who go to homes to remove families with their children. I would be interested to know how far they have social childcare training akin to what a residential childcare social worker might have, and how far they are supervised by a child and family social worker. It might be helpful on a regular basis that they should be so.

I would be interested in the answers to that sort of question, perhaps not at this point but later in the course of the discussion.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I support everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In particular, the words of the former Chief Inspector of Prisons must carry very serious weight in this particular discussion.

I am looking at what is happening to the outsourcing of many of these functions and thinking of the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, just now. What are the qualifications and the development of those who are now involved in these private companies with this particular action? How do they exercise their duties?

The Minister made a statement last year concerning the call from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons not to use force against pregnant women. He told the House that:

“The recommendation in the report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons on Cedars pre-departure accommodation that force should never be used to effect the removal of pregnant women and children was rejected by the UK Border Agency”.—[Official Report, 10/4/13; col. WA 313.]

At the moment, the powers of forced removal—I hope I am not misinformed here—apply only to the immigration Acts of 1999 or 1971. Enlarging this and making it applicable to any immigration inquiry is a very dangerous move. I ask the Minister for his assurance on these matters.

Also, as mentioned already, the culture and the evidence we have of the methods used do not show any change. What are the Government doing to make sure that when this enforced departure has to be undertaken it is done in a humane way?

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just been saying, particularly about the failure of the Home Office to deal with the serious criticisms of the case owners that were referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The whole point about disbanding the UKBA and returning these functions to the control of the Home Office itself was that by common acknowledgement, including that of the Home Secretary herself, the UKBA had become dysfunctional and something had to be done. However, what has in fact been done since it was disbanded is that the case owners are not the same persons who were making decisions before and were manifestly incapable of doing the right thing, by reason of the fact that a very large number of the appeals against their decisions were upheld by the tribunal. It would be useful if we had an answer to both that question and the noble Lord’s further question about the consideration of Outsourcing Abuse, the report to which he referred, which never had the consideration that I believe it deserved in the Home Office but is crucial to the future health and efficiency of the people who are making these fundamental decisions, which affect the lives of so many people.

On these amendments, I agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the definition of “family members” must be in the Bill and limited to those whose leave to enter or remain in the UK is expressly dependent on the principal’s leave to enter or remain. For example, a family member who came to the UK for work or study, not as the dependant of the principal, should not be included in the definition. That seems to be the effect of Regulation 3 of the draft Immigration (Removal of Family Members) Regulations 2014 but, as has been said, it should be in the Bill. As the Delegated Powers Committee found, the justification for placing both this and the time limits for removal in secondary legislation—that they may have to be amended from time to time—is not borne out by experience over many years and through a good many immigration Acts.

Draft Regulation 4 has the same effect as Section 10(1)(c) of the 1999 Act, providing that notice has to be given to any family member who is liable to removal, but the Bill provides only that notice “may” be given, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out in moving the amendment. This is partly covered by our Amendment 4, but the Minister may wish to consider placing the obligation to give notice firmly in the Bill. As ILPA makes clear in its briefing, quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, giving notice is vital for the legality of the decision to remove a person so as to give him the opportunity of challenging the decision before the courts. The Secretary of State’s attempt to remove certain persons without notice has been ruled unlawful by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In short, the powers and safeguards dealing with the identification of family members who may be removed, the question of when the powers may be exercised and the notice to be given should all be in the Bill, as should the provisions of Section 10(5) of the 1999 Act, providing that removal directions should cease to have effect against a person who ceases to be a family member.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with whom I had the honour to sit on the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee F, when we looked particularly at issues around immigration. He may have been with us when as a committee we visited Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre to take evidence. I am interested in the answers to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked when referring to encouraging voluntary return and in having some detail about what incentives are being offered on that. I share his concern about gaining some reassurance about the independence of the Independent Family Returns Panel, and I am also interested in what he said about the need for figures on the detention of unaccompanied children in the past.

My chief wish at this point—using this as the right place this time—is to pay tribute to the coalition Government for this huge change in the safeguarding of children. It was harrowing to visit the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre both as a member of the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee and on two previous occasions early in the centre’s existence. Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, which took these families, was based very much on a category C prison, so it was very familiar to me, having visited Feltham young offender institution. One would see a mother, with her young child, coming through the admission room—just like Feltham, with the barred gate—and what would a child be thinking, having that experience, walking through this prison?

I pay tribute to the first Children’s Commissioner, who produced a number of important reports, which highlighted, for instance, how in going from admissions to the family wing there might be seven or eight separate doors that had to be opened with keys by the warder. There were important improvements to the regime under the Labour Government. However, towards the very end, as I said, I met a 16 year-old girl. Can your Lordships imagine what any girl or young woman would feel who was detained for 10 months, through no fault of her own or any action that she did wrong, separated from the pleasure of being with her peers? What can that be like? Of course, one understands why she was so angry with me and with us for allowing this to happen to her and her family.

I express my heartfelt thanks to the coalition Government for improving this situation so greatly, and I welcome these amendments.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, there are many things that show exactly what the heart of a nation is. One is the way in which we treat children of all races and all different backgrounds.

I remember 30 years ago at the time of the Ethiopian famine being in Tel Aviv and then in the Galilee and receiving the children and the folk from Operation Solomon. They came with nothing at all: the adults in their white gowns and the labels on their foreheads indicating who they were, and the children—well, I held one or two of them in my arms and they were so different from my own grandchildren. I am so grateful that my grandchildren are robust and enjoy life; these little children had nothing to enjoy.

Children are children wherever they are, whatever their background, and they need to be treated with respect and kindness wherever they happen to be. One reason I supported the coalition when we had those votes in 2010 was that the declaration came that we as Liberal Democrats would end the detention of children for immigration purposes. I am not sure that I would be in the coalition if it was not for that promise. Now we are on the last lap, I think, of showing that we really believe that.

In 2009, 2,000 children were detained for immigration purposes. In December last year, 22 children were detained some time or other during the month—not for days but for hours. There is the last lap, as has already been mentioned, where no child should be detained, but we are on the right course. I do not often compliment the Minister—although I hope he is a very good friend—on what is happening with the end of detention of children for immigration purposes.

Imagine a child—one of my own or your Lordships’ grandchildren, whoever they might be—waiting with their parents. The stress that their parents feel, which of course is transmitted to them, is terror. We are removing that terror. There is more to be done. Looking at the measures proposed, is this still the last resort, as it was previously? How and where can we bring this to fruition, so that our nation—I should say four nations: Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland—will be shown to be a nation with real heart and real concern? I will be so happy if that can be the case.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments that have just been made on this important area by my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Roberts and by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who always speaks so eloquently on these matters. I apologise in advance if the points have already been covered, but I think that they need to be underlined further and made very clear.

We have had excellent briefings from Barnardo’s, which we know does so much work for these children. We know that unaccompanied children have been temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom, but they are not routinely detained prior to their return. There is concern, and government assurances have been sought, as to whether this situation could change in the future. It is worth making sure that unaccompanied children who are admitted temporarily will not start being routinely detained. I speak as somebody who in their previous role was a councillor in a local authority which had to deal with a fair number of unaccompanied children. All councils have responsibility as corporate parents to those children because they come into their care. My experience of those children who came into our care was always positive. I remember attending award ceremonies for children some of whom had come from worn-torn countries in a vulnerable and traumatised state but had gone on to become academically so proficient that they gained places in universities. They had turned their lives around with the right support. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, when these children go before any panel that is to decide their future, it is important that councils in their role as corporate parents ensure that they are properly supported and represented, as any parents would do for their own children. They should get the right support and advice when it is being determined whether they remain or are returned, or whatever is best for their future. I would like an assurance on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I repeat what I said earlier about the need for proper training and assessment of those who are legally able to use force. I do not have a great deal of confidence in some of these private companies, which have already failed in different ways. The Home Secretary should take very much to heart the suggestion that we need people who are able to exercise their duties in a way that is humane and within the Act because, as the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons regarding the use of force against pregnant women and children said, it must not be contemplated. We need a review of the whole procedure, which we can come out of with a feeling that at least the best that can be done is being done.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Ramsbotham. The trouble is that paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 widens the authorisation under which immigration officers can use “reasonable force” to cover all their powers in all immigration Acts, rather than just the specific powers of arrest, search and entry given in the 1971 and 1999 Acts. Such blanket permission for something as indefinable as “reasonable force”, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, illustrated, is pretty unwise.

Surely it is important that any extension of use of force by agents of the state is justified in detail, rather than in this sweeping manner. For example, the use of force against pregnant women or children in a variety of contexts is problematic. I support Amendment 13 and hope that it will go in the direction of the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, of what could be included in the Bill about what we mean by the rather blanket word, “reasonable”. What is reasonable to me may be completely unreasonable to another person, unless it is defined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I am not entirely sure whether that means the code of practice will see the light of day in any schedule to the Bill or whether it simply—I do not use the word “simply” in a derogatory way—means that the Minister intends that the Home Office may take account of what is in that code of practice in the practices that the Home Office seeks to ensure are adopted. I think the answer I have had is the latter rather than the former. That is what the Minister’s response indicates. As I understand it, the Minister said in his reply that the oversight powers throughout the United Kingdom are already there through the relevant postholder or commission. I think he has said that the extension of powers under Schedule 1 apply only to immigration officers and not to private contractors, and that appropriate training is or will be given in relation to the extension of the powers on reasonable force. That is what I have understood from the replies the Minister has given.

I shall obviously want to read in Hansard the words the Minister has actually used since it is easy to gain an impression when it is not the correct one. However, I thank him for his detailed response and, if noble Lords will forgive me for not naming them all, I thank them for taking part in the debate on these amendments. I was particularly impressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who indicated that my amendment should have gone further than it did. I am not often told that, but there we are. I have to say that the points she made were extremely relevant. In the light of what the Minister has said, and on the basis that I intend to read his words carefully in Hansard to make sure that I have understood them fully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, can he tell me how many employees of these companies have been dismissed for this sort of heavy-handed behaviour?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I did feel rather comfortable until the noble Lord suggested that I had not yet sat down. I cannot give him the answer to that question, but if it is possible to do so, I will write to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17 and 19 about bail. The provisions in our amendments are modelled on Part 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was never brought into force and repealed in 2002. We ask, first, what has changed since 1999 that the sense of gravity about the shortcomings of the system of immigration detention and the urgency of addressing them has gone so entirely? One thing is certain: they have not gone because things have got better. Things have got very much worse.

In these amendments, we propose automatic bail hearings after eight and 36 days. How long have we debated the need to provide for an effective automatic review of detention? Detention under Immigration Act powers is a matter, I am told, mainly of administrative convenience and, in the UK, is not subject to a maximum period. A detained person is not brought before a tribunal judge or a court unless he or she instigates this. The lack of any maximum period of detention, combined with the lack of regular and independent review of detention, may render this detention arbitrary. Amnesty International is one of those organisations that has powerfully advocated that every immigration detention decision should be automatically checked to see whether it is lawful, necessary and appropriate. Why should we do this? Because, at present, there are greater safeguards for criminal subjects than there are for immigration detainees and because people sometimes need reminding that those detained for immigration purposes are not criminals and have not committed any crime.

The group Bail for Immigration Detainees found that 23% of detainees surveyed had never had a solicitor while in detention. Of those who had, only one-third had ever had an application for release on bail made for them during their time in detention. When this is considered alongside the general length of immigration detention in the UK, and the possible indefinite nature of that detention, adequate bail provision is an absolute necessity. Automatic hearings would benefit all detainees but especially vulnerable and isolated detainees. Very recently, we heard the case here of Isa Muazu. I can speak to his pain as I went to see him. He was one among many who should not have been locked up with all the problems he had.

We must protect the rights of vulnerable groups such as the mentally ill, torture victims, victims of sexual violence and victims of trafficking. Currently, almost one in four detainees is held in the prison estate, where they face many practical and procedural barriers to accessing immigration advice and the immigration tribunals where they can try to obtain bail. They are not able to instigate applications in any meaningful way—it is a dreadful situation. Will, finally, this Bill include a provision that will remedy such a sorry situation?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I, too, will speak to Amendment 17. When I was the Bishop of Oxford, I had something to do with Campsfield House. What really concerned us at that time was the length of time for which people were held in detention. It is not at all encouraging that, some years later, this is still a major concern. As we know, around 220 people last year were held in detention for more than six months, without even taking into account the 936 who are held in prison. Why is this country so different from the rest of Europe in having no limit on the length of time that people can spend in detention? It is obvious, from so many of the facts and figures that are put before us, that a time limit helps you to achieve your purpose of removing people who have no legal right to be in the country. France, for example, has a time limit of 45 days for people in detention and it enforces 31% more removals of irregular immigrants and asylum seekers than the United Kingdom. We all know that if you do not have a deadline, things can slip and slip. Those of us who write are grateful that there is always a deadline, otherwise we would never get it done. If that applies with simple things such as writing, how much more are things liable to slip when trying to deal with a person’s case?

To reiterate the point, it has also been shown that the longer people are held in detention, the less chance they will be removed. Only 37% of those who were detained for more than a year were eventually removed, compared with 57% of those who were there for less than 28 days. Again, so many facts show that having a limit, such as 28 days, allows you to achieve what you want far more efficiently. That is, of course, without even taking into account the expense. It has been estimated that this amendment would save something like £87 million if it were accepted, because it is very expensive to keep people in detention.

There are alternatives. In Australia, for example, where there is an alternative based on case management, there is a compliance rate of something like 93%, of which 60% are voluntary removals. This is even without taking into account the human factor and the distress and extra suffering caused by allowing people to be detained. From the point of view of financial efficiency, and every other consideration, it is surely right that other alternatives should be looked at much more seriously than they are at the moment.

Immigration Bill

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in the debate this evening, and to hear the wide range of opinions, but one thing surprises me—neither of our UKIP members is here or taking part in this debate. Usually when we debate in this House we debate matters that affect us in this country. Yet this Bill looks beyond our borders, to those in different circumstances, with different needs and from different cultures; those used to different ways of life that may seem strange to us. These are people who, because they are different, may seem difficult to understand and respond to. Because of this difference, people are suspicious of them and questions arise. This can lead to hostility, because traditional ways of life seem to be threatened and disappearing.

We live in a changing world, a different world. The Welsh word for looking to the past and longing for it is “hiraeth”, and there is a hiraeth here for what used to be. I could go on for hours about Wales as it used to be, some 50 or 60 years ago. But it is not like that any longer. Things have changed, and in spite of the memories, we have to face this changing situation in which we find ourselves. I could remember—well, I do not really—the Liberal Wales of 1906. That would have been a tremendous time to live in Wales. But that is yesterday, and yesterday changes and we are here in a new century.

Suspicion and hostility are natural things, but they can be replaced by trust and acceptance. This owes a great deal to the media. If they foster hostility and poison, it does a great disservice to us in so many ways. Our future is to have people who understand and accept each other, which means that our national curriculum should have that sort of emphasis—that we accept, learn and share experiences, and schools are places where hostility ends and where children of different nationalities and backgrounds blend together. We should say how much we appreciate the work that goes on in so many of these schools in overcoming what would be a hostility. But the newspapers that are read at home create that hostility. We cannot legislate for that, of course, but we must try to influence it so that, when people read about it, they know whether they are reading a balanced account of what is happening.

Does this Bill help or hinder? It is a question which we hope, as the Bill passes through this House, we might be able to answer by saying that this is a Bill about hospitality and not hostility. Much of the Bill deals with and affects those seeking asylum in the UK. I am proud to be president of the Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. There are many questions that I would like to raise, and which will be raised as the Bill proceeds through the House. Let us look, first, at the question of work. I have a Private Member’s Bill which has had its First Reading—whether it will go any further I do not know—and which tries to reduce the time from 12 months to six months that asylum seekers have to wait before they can try for a job in the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, there would be no need to worry about adding such an amendment about reducing the time from 12 months to six months; no asylum seeker would be waiting for a decision for such a long time.

Successive Governments have utterly failed to come close to what I would suggest is the ideal. We force asylum seekers to be dependent on the state; many of them try to exist on £36.62 per week, because of decisions, through no fault of their own, that keep them out of work for all this time. If we had this reduction, we could reduce the burden on the taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are able to work will no longer need to be supported. They may instead contribute to the economy through taxes and consumer spending. I know that my coalition partners always stress how wonderful it is to have hard-working families; in every broadcast and every speech they talk about hard-working families. Yet they are denying people who would be hard-working families from undertaking any job whatever.

Eleven other European Union countries already permit asylum seekers to work after six months or less: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. They all permit this to happen—so why do not we also? The EU reception conditions directive has reduced the period when asylum seekers can be excluded from the labour market to nine months. But we have not signed up to this directive. We are putting ourselves so out of step with other nations. Let us not forget that 5,500 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim. I suggest that we have a lot of catching up to do, to catch up with other European nations, as we go through Committee.

Secondly, I want to mention the children’s aspect to this Bill. I supported the coalition at the beginning because we promised to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. At its peak, there were over 2,000 children a year in immigration detention, often in the most heart-breaking of circumstances. This has been reduced; in December, it was down to 24 children between the ages of five to 17. I hope—and the suggestion has already been made—that this detention will now be enshrined in statute and that no longer will any child be detained for immigration purposes.

I also suggest that this House must review the Bill’s current definition of who counts as an asylum-seeking child. A number of clauses seek to limit the definition to those who are British-born or who have been here for seven years or more. Worryingly, this excludes most asylum-seeking children, many of whom come here as teenagers. There were 1,125 applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2012 and 835 applications in the first three quarters of 2013. Troublingly, the vast majority of these would be excluded from the definitions in the Bill. So I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that they, too, will be included. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989 make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in any decision that concerns children. The Home Office has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That must remain the case—and, again, I ask the Minister to confirm that point.

Another problem that is arising now is the fact that free legal advice and representation is no longer available for immigration purposes; that has been the case since 1 April 2013. Only cases in which an individual has an asylum or protection claim are covered, while non-asylum claims have been cut. I suggest that lack of legal assistance undermines a person’s ability to put forward the necessary evidence and legal arguments and have their cases fairly determined. For example, to make an application under Article 8, it is necessary to gather extensive evidence demonstrating the extent to which a child has developed a personal life and connections within the UK. Expert evidence from psychologists is often required, as might be evidence from a child’s carer, teacher, therapist or medical professional. It is vital not only to understand and obtain evidence but also the child must be able to present it appropriately. This requires guidance from legal professionals to ensure that all relevant matters informing a best interests assessment are addressed. In the face of such difficulty, there is anecdotal evidence that some young people who came to the UK as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are, thanks to cuts in legal aid, being forced to try and represent themselves. Is that the best that we can do for these children?

Up until their 18th birthday, asylum-seeking children are protected in this nation but it is a sad state of affairs that then, on their 18th birthday, everything can change. They are here for most of their formative years, developing their personality, friends, and language as well as culture, and then suddenly they are deported. Suddenly, they are not welcome—suddenly, they do not count. I can hardly imagine. We speak of the withdrawal of citizenship—is there anything worse than this withdrawal, at the age of 18, of the status of children and young people? I hear tales of terror and desperation—how one lad pushed a wardrobe against the door of his bedroom in case a dawn raid descended on him. These are stories that make you weep, because they are not in our tradition of being humane and respectable in every way towards those who are most vulnerable in our communities. I am very proud of so much that has been in the past. We can deny and reject that or we can continue our historic contribution to ensuring that every individual who seeks to visit, study, settle or claim sanctuary here is treated with respect and compassion.

I shall end my speech with something that I have said before. An asylum seeker, failed or successful, is a human being—just like every one of us in this Chamber.

Syria

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take in conjunction with other European Union member states to establish a European-wide evacuation and resettlement programme for those fleeing conflict in Syria.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate this opportunity to lead the discussion in this House on what has been termed,

“the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of modern times”.

More than 850,000 Syrian refugees are in Lebanon, inflating the country’s population by almost a quarter, 575,000 refugees are in Jordan, 560,000 refugees have crossed the border to Turkey, and 130,000 have fled to Egypt and 210,000 to Iraq. Following news on Tuesday that Iraq is reopening a border into its Kurdish region, this last number is set to escalate.

The total number of Syrian refugees is now estimated to be 2.3 million, of whom only 0.5%, around 12,000, is spread across the whole continent of Europe. Bulgaria, whose people were so demonised in the lead-up to 1 January and which is the European Union’s poorest country, is bearing the brunt. An estimated 100 Syrians enter Bulgaria every day, many of them illegally. Those who arrived last year were five times the country’s annual asylum quota. This poor country simply cannot cope.

While the numbers are important, we must not let them mask the human sorrow, the tragedy, the catastrophe, that is the real substance of this crisis. The UN and its partners in the region face many pressures. They have to safeguard the health of millions, many of whom are now at risk of contagious diseases, such as polio. Their ability to deal with the extraordinary, such as survivors of torture and victims of chemical attacks who now have severe respiratory problems, is obviously limited.

These organisations are also fighting to ensure social stability, which is an uphill battle. In Lebanon, where the population has grown by an extra 25%, essential resources, space and labour are all causes of significant social tension. Near a village in east Lebanon, a makeshift refugee camp providing shelter for hundreds was burnt down last month, a sign of the increasing social tension in that area. The violence is spreading. The Lebanese town of Tripoli saw bloodshed mirroring the Syrian conflict in the past few months. Car bombs in Beirut are once again headline news. Lebanon’s recovery from its own civil war has been long, slow and difficult and is far from over.

The Syrian civil war is enough to spark renewed violence that can destabilise the whole region. The spread of violence will continue unless practical and immediate measures are taken to relieve the pressures on Syria’s own neighbours. They are generous, but can they cope? The international community has responded admirably to the United Nations high commission’s call for financial assistance for refugees. The UK has pledged £500 million in aid—4.1% of the 2013 aid budget. A further £16 million was pledged only a few days ago. However, refusing to provide further practical help can undermine the overwhelmingly generous response from the UK public to this crisis.

It is immediate, hands-on, practical help that is now needed. We have so far failed to allow any extra space for Syrian refugees, but I suggest that it is now absolutely imperative that we do so. I received a Written Answer on 28 November from the Minister, informing me that the Government refuse even to consider relaxing the financial requirements in the family immigration rules for the extraordinary cases of Syrian nationals resident in the UK. I consider this response reflects a deplorable lack of compassion on behalf of the Government, considering how we as a nation and a society could combat that international crisis. Simplified and expedited family reunions for Syrians here, on any kind of visa, should surely be considered further. What proactive efforts have been made to reunite refugees in the UK with their families? Will the Minister make a declaration on the status of Syrian students in the United Kingdom?

On Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that we have accepted 1,500 Syrians seeking asylum in the UK. This number, however, needs to be taken in context to be properly understood. First, it represents only those who were able to reach the UK independently using the normal asylum process. That precludes so many—millions—of those who are most in need of our help. Secondly, I understand that 352 Syrians were refused asylum. Indeed, by the third quarter of 2013, there were still 446 Syrians awaiting a decision on their application made through the normal channels. The truth is that ignoring the problem and accepting Syrians seeking asylum only through normal routes can be hugely damaging. The UN has called for us to take Syrian refugees in addition to our current resettlement quota.

I am not at the moment calling for the creation of another EU body. Under the auspices of the UN, a working resettlement programme already exists. The UN aims to register all refugees, and in so doing document those in particular need. When other developed nations answered the United Nations’ call for resettlement, they responded to the cry for help from the UN on behalf of these most vulnerable human beings. Not all countries have used the same method but they have, in their own way, responded to the need. Norway, Finland and Sweden have each accepted 400 to 1,000 refugees on a permanent basis. The Government of Canada have accepted 200 refugees, but have also pledged a further 1,100 places through private sponsorship. Germany, taking the lead, has pledged 10,000 places, staggered across the next three years, on the basis of a pilot humanitarian assistance programme, limited to a two-year stay. On a similar basis, Austria and France have each offered 500 places. Even Moldova, with a GDP of just over $2,000 per person, is taking 50. We have said that we can take nobody.

Does the Minister agree that only a firm, global or continent-based resettlement programme will offer a durable solution to this crisis? Both in financial and in practical human terms, the current, unequal levels of response are totally unsustainable. The United Nations is already working closely with these countries to select and assist the most vulnerable, including women and girls in danger of sexual violence, survivors of torture, refugees with severe medical needs and disabilities, those in need of family reunification, and those who face persecution because of their political views, sexuality, ethnicity or religion. We hear so much about the persecution of Christians in that part of the world. We are saying that we are not going to accept these people. We are denying them a place and saying that they must make do with what other countries—Jordan, Turkey and others—are offering. The priority is not only to accept those who are in danger, but also those who will be invaluable in the rebuilding of Syria once this dreadful conflict has ended.

Amnesty calls on us to accept 10,000 of those in need. I fully support that call. Does the Minister? He will say, “Ah, but that is a big number”. With the Vietnamese boat people in 1979, we did accept 10,000. The fears of a public backlash in that case were totally unfounded. The British people proved their compassion and their hospitality. Of course, a decade earlier, in 1968, the east African Asians were another example. Forty-five years on, and in the light of the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of modern times, we are called upon to do so again. When the Minister says that we cannot possibly have a resettlement programme, where does he get his knowledge from? Where is the difficulty? The UK has a proud history of providing support in this way, most recently in the Balkans. What has changed?

I suggest to the Government and to this House that we can no longer afford to sit back and wait. The social, financial and human cost of doing nothing is mounting by the minute. The cost will surely be felt by all. As a Government, we can move and assist so many people in a very practical way.

Immigration: Detention

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of the case of Mr Isa Muazu, they will clarify their policy in relation to the detention of immigration detainees who are seriously ill and refuse food and fluids.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, a refusal to eat or drink will not automatically mean that a person should be released from immigration detention. This position has been upheld by the courts. On 19 November, Mr Justice Ouseley said that he did not accept the suggestion that the Secretary of State had adopted a hardline policy of saying that there would be no release for this claimant who was refusing food and fluid. He went on to say that the decision to start, maintain and continue the refusal of food and fluids to the end was for the claimant to make, adding that,

“his detention does not become unlawful simply because he is determined on that outcome”.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that last week I received an assurance from the Home Secretary that landing arrangements had been made in Nigeria. Something went seriously wrong. Why did the Government attempt to remove a dying man at such human and financial cost, and will the Minister give us an assurance today that Mr Muazu will not be deported in his present condition? Will he also instigate an immediate review into immigration detention and end such routine and inhumane treatment, always remembering that asylum seekers—even failed asylum seekers—are human beings just like us and deserve deep respect?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it may help the House if I update noble Lords on the current situation concerning Mr Muazu. The welfare of detainees is our highest priority. While refusing food and fluids, Mr Muazu was continually offered medical treatment, including patient care at hospital, which, until recently, he continually refused. Mr Muazu is regularly monitored. The latest assessment—I had a report this morning—shows that he is eating and drinking well and is mobile, and that he continues to be fit to fly.

Identity Cards

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I assure my noble friend that a sufficient number of documents are already in circulation which will assist identity processes. There is no need to add a further identity card to the list of cards that people have to carry.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s reply on this. Of course it is part of the coalition agreement that we do not introduce ID cards. We have the citizen’s card, which is mainly available for retailers to decide on the age of those who want to buy tobacco and so on, but we also have 45 million passport holders and 43 million driving licence holders. Surely this is enough. I was really surprised that this might be linked to the Immigration Bill that is coming before us. I think we must look very warily before we even think in this direction.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can only agree with my noble friend.

Immigration: UK Citizenship and Nationality

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to revise their requirements for those who apply for United Kingdom citizenship or nationality.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up the question of residency and access to the United Kingdom, and to ask the Government to look again at the requirements of those seeking UK citizenship: residency conditions; evidence of their good character; English language ability; and a matter that I have raised in the past, the Life in the UK test. A friend from Texas took this test several months ago. These were the questions she was asked: first, whether Elizabeth I handled her Parliament badly or had good relations with the legislature; secondly, whether UK citizens were renowned for backing individual liberty, intolerance, inequality or extremism; and thirdly, was it true or false that in 2002 Sir Winston Churchill was voted the “greatest Briton of all time”.

I should like to take the Minister up on an offer he made during Questions in February to meet interested groups in order to devise a more relevant and practical set of questions. As he will know, Dr. Thom Brooks of Durham University makes a number of recommendations for change. First, the handbook should make it clear which sections are to be tested. It contains about 3,000 facts—far too many for anyone to memorise—and the whole matter could easily become a pub quiz. There are inconsistencies and omissions that need to be rectified. The Government should decide what the rationale is for the test. Is it to be a stumbling block or a ladder in the immigration process? It appears totally unfair that it is used as part of the Government’s plan to reduce immigration. That is not what the test is there for.

Many of the current questions could be omitted. It does not help us at all to know when wives were granted the right to divorce their husbands. Let us make the test far more local: on the basic history of the community where the applicant lives, on where local schools, pharmacies and hospitals are, and so on. It would be interesting if we set up a parliamentary citizenship quiz—perhaps the Commons versus the Lords—on the Life in the UK handbook. If it succeeded here, we could then roll it out across the UK to see how many long-serving, ordinary UK citizens could answer the questions asked. Perhaps the Minister could set up a ministerial team to tackle these questions. The answers to irrelevant questions should play no part when one is making decisions about a person’s suitability for citizenship. I ask again: where is the necessary information about the NHS, how to report crime, or which subjects are taught to our children? We have to have someone looking at this new set of questions, and perhaps Dr Thom Brooks could do just that.

In 2008 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said of the test that it created a deep impression of unfairness among those who had to sit it. I agree with him but I would go further. I suggest that an accurate impression of the UK’s current immigration system is one that is deeply unfair and riddled with inequalities. I know many folk representing immigrant societies, trying to help them in their present situation, and the general impression is that the whole situation is shambolic.

There is much talk about how we must attract the brightest and the best. Is that done by restricting our immigration further? I have a Bill before the House to reduce from 12 months to six months the time within which those seeking asylum in this country will be able to work. Is it by indefinite detention? Is it by reassessing the family migration rules? These can be barriers but they can also be bridges.

Only 26 of the 193 countries in the United Nations have an average personal income of more than £18,600, which is the sum called for before people can take up their place in our community. You see families with far less than this. In Nigeria the average income is £1,022 and in India it is £935. We are setting impossible targets. How on earth can people raise this sort of money? How can they send their children to somewhere where they can fulfil their dreams? We rely so much on people from India, Nigeria and other countries in order to run our National Health Service. I looked at the list of consultants in the three north Wales general hospitals and a third of them come from outside the UK and outside Europe. If we had these sorts of limits when they were struggling in their own countries, our health service would have gone a long time ago. There could be a very real crisis and if we establish them now and insist on them, that crisis is waiting for us in the future.

Today’s new Immigration Bill, of which I have had a brief view, makes nonsense of the dreams of the past. When the Statue of Liberty was erected, what was written on it? It stated:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”.

In the UK today we say: “Stay where you are. The barriers are up; the bridges are destroyed. Forget the hopes and dreams for yourself and your children”. Of course, if you are a wealthy entrepreneur, you can buy residency here if you have £20,000 or £50,000 or £200,000—you can buy your citizenship in the UK—but if you are a little child, with tremendous potential, in one of the African countries, hard lines. The world will never benefit from what you could contribute.

On 25 March the Prime Minister said that he wanted the brightest and the best to come here, but what chances are there for so many? Do we not have an opportunity here to provide them with an opportunity? One thing we could do is to improve at an early stage our links in twinning with schools in places like Africa. There is a lot that can be done and perhaps in the new Immigration Bill we will be able to take up that opportunity.

I think of the vans that went out—they were actually lorries more than vans. The Home Office paid for posters. How effective were they? In the Commons today, it was revealed that only one person took advantage of that offer: one person from Pakistan. There was nobody else. Despite all the cost and the unease produced by the posters, they had such little effect.

This morning, I heard Mrs May trying to create a hostile environment for undocumented migrants in the UK. In an earlier debate, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that denying asylum seekers the ability to work makes it difficult for them to integrate into our society, which is what we want.

I suggest that the whole culture and attitude is one that we must deplore. It is the new attitude. I imagine that when the Welsh dairymen came here more than 100 years ago, they were not really welcome, and that there was hostility. “Taffy” was one insult for the newcomers.

In 1938 the Daily Mail headlined its story: “German Jews are pouring into this country”. It went on to print:

“‘The way stateless Jews from Germany are pouring in from every port … is becoming an outrage. I intend to enforce the law to the fullest’. With these words, Mr Herbert Metcalfe, the Old Street magistrate, yesterday referred to the number of aliens entering this country through the ‘back door’—a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed”.

That was in 1938. The attitude was hostile. Where did it end? It ended in the Holocaust.

The response in 2013 can be much better than that. We should ask the Minister to look again at the contents of this test, and at the whole raft of immigration legislation.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Before my noble friend rises, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate, with contributions limited to six minutes. If any speech exceeds that, it will eat into the Minister’s time, and the time of the opposition Front Bench, so I would appreciate it if noble Lords could keep to time.

Immigration Rules: Impact on Families

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I wish that I had made any of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. It has been a wonderful debate and we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for making this possible. The report has emphasised the action that is making family life so much more difficult.

I fear that the old British hospitality is becoming British hostility—that is how it looks to those overseas. There is a knee-jerk reaction to so much that happens and half-truths take over from positive, full, thorough-going reports. It seems that if you want to make your home here in the UK, it is an obstacle course now—a difficult and very unwelcoming situation.

So much that we read in our newspapers seems to be there in order to create hostility and stir up opposition to people outside the UK. Of course, we are all immigrants. The English came to Wales, we came to England; we had 3,800 Welsh dairies in London. We have been a people who move, who are happy with each other, and so it should be today.

I read one paper today and there were four stories about the immigrants who are coming and how unwelcome they are, with headlines such as, “Immigrants sponging off the taxpayer”. But the Office for National Statistics says that while 13% of UK taxpayers claim out-of-work benefits, only 7% of immigrants do. Another headline was, “EU migrants take our jobs”. But the facts are that nine out of 10 new jobs are taken by British nationals. We also hear that the epidemic of health tourists is costing us billions. However, the British Medical Journal reported that more Britons seek health advice overseas than people from overseas seek health treatment here in the UK. Scaremongering creates hostility, both for immigrants and British citizens. It has no place in a civilised society.

As has already been mentioned by others in this debate, in the field of asylum and immigration it seems that we are making the door narrower and narrower and the obstacle course more difficult. Instances of this include the UK citizenship test, which we mentioned here the other day, and the low, frozen asylum support rates. An asylum seeker who comes to the UK must wait 12 months before being allowed even to consider taking a job. He must exist on £35.63 a week. That is the income. It is not, as some suggest, that £1,000 cheques are waiting for asylum seekers as soon as they arrive in this country. That is not the truth. The truth is that we make it more and more difficult for people who come to this country. Now, of course, there are new restrictions which will divide families. That is totally opposed to our British tradition.

I turn now to the “Life in the UK” citizenship test. I owe a lot to Dr Thom Brooks of Durham University for his investigation into these questions. This UK citizenship test is totally inappropriate. We are told:

“If you spill a stranger’s drink by accident, it is good manners (and prudent) to offer to buy another”.

People have to know that, and applicants are also expected to know 278 historical dates. Can any noble Lord tell me the height of the London Eye? You are expected to know it. There are 3,000 facts in this citizenship test. Even we could not answer all the questions. A little while ago in this Chamber I asked, “When did the Emperor Claudius invade Britain?”. The answer was “43AD”, but nobody raised a hand. The test makes it impossible for people who want to become part of a community here in the United Kingdom to have any confidence at all. Dr Brooks said that it is more like a bad pub quiz than anything meriting true consideration. The ladies here might like to know that in the test there are 29 historical figures who are men and only four who are ladies.

The Government are erecting more barriers and making entry into Britain nearly impossible, especially for those with little funding. Not only should we welcome people, we should welcome people who have talent and potential. A little while ago I was with the Watoto children’s choir, who come from Uganda. I asked them what they would like to be when they grow up. They are orphans, whose parents died of AIDS. One little girl said she wanted to be a nurse and a little boy said he wanted to be an airline pilot. We came to the last child, who was 10 years old and a feisty little fellow. “What do you want to be?”. “I want to be President of Uganda”. I thought that was a wonderful answer. People have dreams and they have abilities. Our approach to those who want to come to these shores should not be to close the door and make it difficult. We should not only assess the money they have, but also the abilities and dreams that they can share with us.

Citizenship Test

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have received representations about the new UK Citizenship test.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the new Life in the UK Test, which is taken for settlement and citizenship purposes, will begin on Monday 25 March and will have British history and culture at its heart. We have not as yet received any direct representations, although public comment on the new handbook has been broadly positive.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he not consider that the new handbook is impractical and irrelevant and does not deal with the problems that people need to tackle when they come to Britain? The book contains 3,000 hard facts to be mastered. For instance, does he think it appropriate that every person who sits this test should know when the Emperor Claudius invaded Britain?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I am sure that somebody will know. I can go back to Wales; other people can go back to other places. It was AD 43. However, given that there is some discontent regarding the questions asked, would the Minister be prepared to meet some of us who share that concern to discuss a more practical handbook on life in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am always very happy to learn and would be delighted to meet my noble friend. However, I do not agree with his summary of the new handbook. I think that it contains relevant British history and culture, which is the whole purpose of the exercise: that is, to provide facts on which people can base a life of settlement and, indeed, citizenship in this country. Therefore, I disagree with the premise of my noble friend’s supplementary question but I am very happy to meet him.

Asylum Seekers: Support

Lord Roberts of Llandudno Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, I cannot confirm that to the noble Baroness; I do not have the up-to-date figures. As she indicated, there is a clear drive by the Government to eliminate situations where children are kept in those settings and to find alternative ways to accommodate families so that children are not separated, if that is possible.

I should point out that the level of support for families in this country is far greater for a family of four, for example, compared with Sweden or Denmark. Indeed, if there is any sector where there is a lesser payment than elsewhere, it tends to be for single adults.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To come from a slightly different angle, so many of those from the European Union who come to the UK find themselves destitute here. What plans have the Government to publicise the availability of accessing national insurance payments that have been made in Poland, Estonia, or wherever, in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend rightly points out, this is a slightly different question. Indeed, those benefits are payable by the Department for Work and Pensions rather than the Home Office, but I am sure that I can communicate my noble friend’s suggestion to my colleague in that department.