EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Earl asks a very good question. There are two issues here. First, they might not realise that they can apply to the scheme. Secondly, they might be in local authority care, but we are cognisant of that. We are working with Liverpool University to ensure that children are communicated with and that they can retrospectively apply if, say, through no fault of their own their parent or carer did not manage to apply in time for June 2021.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

A Government Minister has apparently said that EU citizens living in Britain risk being deported if they fail to apply by the deadline for settled status. It is highly unlikely that all will apply on time, simply because of the large number of EU citizens affected—I think the figure is some 3 million. What do the Government think this threat of deportation of potentially significant numbers of EU citizens will do to strengthen the position of British citizens living in an EU country who wish to remain in that country? I declare a family interest in this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the word “deportation” is crucial here. EEA citizens who do not apply to the EU settlement scheme by the deadline will not be acting unlawfully in the same way that clandestine entrants, arrivals or overstayers do. They will not have knowingly entered the UK in breach of the UK Immigration Acts or overstayed their leave. From 2021, EEA citizens will need to hold either an EUSS leave, a Euro TLR or an immigration status under the new immigration system.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had thought-provoking contributions in this debate, as one would have expected. There is certainly no way that I can refer to more than a handful. I apologise in advance for making no reference to so many speeches made during the debate.

My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark referred to the pending White Paper on English devolution and the tinkering —an issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, spoke with considerable passion.

My noble friend also spoke about pending legislation on serious violence. He referred to the need to involve all relevant agencies and to ensure that they have the resources, including financial resources, to help address the level of serious violence. That is an important issue, since there has just been a 7% rise in knife offences across England and Wales, now amounting to more than 47,000 such offences in a 12-month period.

My noble friend also referred to the Government’s approach to stop-gap increases in resources for social care, which are being financed by increases in the regressive council tax, rather than through government grants from taxation. Is it the Government’s intention to finance increases in resources for other areas of key local government activity in the same way as they currently approach increases in resources—presumably temporarily—for social care?

It is not just rising knife crime that needs to be addressed; the criminal justice system has been particularly badly hit by austerity. There are many examples, but one is the percentage of reported rapes reaching even charging stage, which is below 2%. Yet the number of police officers has been reduced by more than 20,000 in the last nine years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to police numbers and pointed out that there would be a need to recruit, I think he said, more than 42,000 officers over three years to take account of current officer resignation rates, as well as the 20,000 extra police—a level that would be higher than recent recruitment rates, as well as involving significant additional costs, including on matters such as training. We await the Government’s answer on the practicality and cost of achieving their figure of an additional 20,000 police officers. There is also the reality that the number of police community support officers and special officers has declined. This does not appear to be an area which the Government intend to address. If I am wrong, no doubt they will correct me in their response.

There is also the question of the adverse impact on security of our withdrawal from the European Union, to which reference has been made in this debate. Can the Government give an undertaking that the present security and intelligence arrangements will remain after Brexit in relation to the European arrest warrant, extradition and exchange of information? I think the answer must be no, but no doubt they will want to give their own answer, rather than me trying to give it for them.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, contrasted the entry checks through our airports and the weaker checks through our maritime ports and St Pancras International. What is the Government’s response to her points, and do they agree with them?

Concern has also been expressed by more than one noble Lord that the emphasis in the gracious Speech is solely on the punishment of offenders, with proposals that even the Government accept will increase the prison population by 3,000, when we already have more people in prison than other western European countries. It seems that rehabilitation and measures to reduce the incidence of offending in the first place are going to take a relative back seat, even though that is potentially where the big savings lie and where the greatest benefits for achieving a safer society can be realised.

The Domestic Abuse Bill, which we welcome, is an opportunity to change domestic abuse from a criminal justice issue to one that is everyone’s business, tackled by health and social care, housing, education and employers, but insecure immigration status is often a tool of control used by perpetrators to abuse their partners and threaten them with deportation. Migrant women often face severe barriers to reporting and seeking help. We need safe reporting mechanisms, ensuring immigration enforcement is kept separate from the response to domestic abuse.

Domestic violence follows women into the workplace. Around one in five victims in the UK have to take time off work because of domestic abuse, and three-quarters of people who endure domestic violence are also targeted at work. I think I am right in saying that the Philippines, a number of states in the United States and, most recently, New Zealand, have all passed laws requiring employers to provide paid leave to enable survivors time and space to sort out issues such as housing, schooling and appointments with outside agencies, including the police.

My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark raised the issue of domestic abuse victims in some parts of the country being charged by GPs for letters confirming their injuries and that they have been victims. I hope that the Government can respond.

The Government’s immigration Bill seeks to repeal EU free movement laws, so that the UK can bring in a more restrictive immigration and social security system for EU citizens after Brexit. Can I, too, ask when free movement will end if the Prime Minister’s deal is agreed? The immigration Bill would undermine the UK’s ability to get a good Brexit outcome, as it would end the free movement rules which are a requirement of the single market membership that many feel is crucial to protect rights and jobs. Ending free movement rights, impacting on the right to access healthcare or draw a pension for EU citizens, also increases the risk that EU countries will remove the rights for UK citizens.

This Bill also increases the risk of exploitation, as it paves the way for the Government to introduce their plans for low-skill visas for EU workers that allow workers to stay for only a short period in the UK. Workers on such visas are likely to be employed in sectors where there is a low coverage of collective agreements and thus more likely to be subject to poorer conditions and low pay. Bad employers may be tempted to use workers’ insecure immigration status to force them to accept poor conditions.

A number of noble Lords spoke about immigration, including the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. In my view, the Government have always sought to back both horses on immigration. The hostile environment policy and the aspiration to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands were designed to garner the support and votes of those who are fearful of people of different colour or culture coming into this country—this allegedly crowded country with certainly not allegedly struggling public services as a result of excessive austerity. On the other hand, the same Government continue to agree to as many people from outside the EU, whose number they can control, coming into the country as from within the EU, in respect of whom they say they need withdrawal from the EU to regain control of our borders. I think I am right in saying that, since the referendum, net migration from the EU, which the Government say they cannot control, has been lower than net migration from outside the EU, which they can control.

No doubt the Government privately recognise the value and benefits of migration to this country, but as a result of that recognition, what they have actually done since 2010 has been at odds with what they have said to the people of this country about bringing net migration down to below 100,000. The Government could under EU law, within the general principles of freedom of movement, have registered migrant workers as they arrive or imposed a time limit on any stay without work. I suspect that those who believe that, following Brexit, the Government will reduce net migration will be disappointed, even though the Government will no doubt continue to try to give the impression that that is the objective that they are pursuing.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, spoke about Brexit enabling us to reset policies on immigration and mentioned the policy—or was it an aspiration?—of reducing net migration to tens of thousands a year. He raised a point about the composition and focus of the Migration Advisory Committee. I hope that we will hear a government response to that. I am not sure that the Government agree that we are a crowded country. No doubt we will find out shortly in their response. I have heard them argue that the percentage of land in this country that has been developed is very low and that housebuilding densities in our cities are lower than in many other major European cities. Certainly, the Government’s proposals for speeding up and shortening the planning application process, which will put more pressure on understaffed local authorities, do not suggest that they think we need to keep a close watch on and control over future building development.

My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett raised concerns over the position of EU citizens, settled status, asylum seekers and fees in respect of children. No doubt the Government will respond to the points raised by her, including her question about benefits being index linked.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, gave a fascinating speech setting out his case for saying that our unwritten constitution was shifting on to softer sands. He pitched into the decisions of more than one Government, referring to the Brexit referendum, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the change in the position and status of the Lord Chancellor and recent tax laws transferring powers from the Commons to Ministers and officials. The noble and learned Lord referred to the appointment of a Minister for the Constitution, who is not in the Cabinet, and asked whether that individual had been consulted on the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament. I wait to see whether the Government give an answer on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, also spoke on constitutional issues, in particular on the need to protect our electoral processes and democracy from the impact and effect of anonymity online. I hope that the Government will respond to her concerns, which I suspect are widely shared.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke about the serious financial position of local government, which was not mentioned in the gracious Speech, despite the role that it plays in our lives. The noble Baroness argued for reform of local government financing, with devolution of responsibility and funding, and referred to the crisis in funding for social care. No doubt the Government will respond to her question about the timetable for the publication of a White Paper with proposals to resolve this issue.

What can be achieved towards improving public services diminished by austerity will be influenced by the outcome of Brexit. It is a sobering thought that MPs were asked to make a decision with huge consequences less than 48 hours after the deal had been unveiled, and in the face of a government refusal to publish any analysis of its economic impact. Assurances on workers’ rights and environmental standards have been moved out of the binding withdrawal agreement and into the non-binding political declaration. The former Cabinet Minister, David Gauke, has pointed out the damage that would result from abandoning around 70 trade agreements we already have via our membership of the EU. For every pound gained to the UK by being able to enter new free trade agreements that we might negotiate with non-EU third countries, we will see a loss up to 30 times higher. If leaving the customs union and the single market goes ahead, it will make our economy a lot poorer than it would otherwise have been. Even the Government think that losses of around 6% to 8% of gross domestic product would occur. This debate has not been specifically about Brexit, but the reality is that what we will be able to afford to do to address many of the issues and problems which have been debated today will be influenced by the outcome of Brexit and its impact on our economy and society.

Metropolitan Police: Use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the word “proportionate” is long established in law. The noble Baroness asks whether it is democratic to have a citizen’s voice. Of course it is, but public disorder disrupts the lives of others; we have seen that over the past couple of weeks, when it has been impossible to get around the centre of London. I outlined some of the issues last week but, ultimately, the High Court will test this judicial review.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the police have powers to ban a protest under the Public Order Act 1986 if there is a belief that it may cause,

“serious disruption to the life of the community”,

but, of course, the decision has to be proportionate. Clearly, the view as to what constitutes “serious disruption” is somewhat subjective. In the light of that subjectivity, it is surprising that the Mayor of London was apparently not made aware that the police were going to impose this ban, in view of the responsibility that the mayor has for the Metropolitan Police and the fact that many would regard this as a ban on freedom of speech and the right to peaceful protest, and a potential thin end of the wedge.

When did the Metropolitan Police last impose such a ban under Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and in respect of which protests? Do the police have any guidelines, laid down or approved by any elected representatives, on what constitutes serious disruption to the life of the community? How long does the ban apply for? Is it for a limited period, in perpetuity or for as long as the Metropolitan Police wishes it to apply? Do the Mayor of London or the Home Secretary have any statutory powers to overrule this ban? I understand that legal action in the form of an application for judicial review has been launched over the police decision. Does the Metropolitan Police accept that it will not arrest or charge anybody for breaching the ban, pending the outcome of the judicial review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: responses to public order breaches have to be proportionate. He asks what constitutes serious disruption. It might be subjective, but nobody who has gone around London in the past two weeks could argue that this did not cause serious disruption to the city. The proportionality will, of course, be tested through the courts. The noble Lord asked me how long the ban will be in force. We know when it started but I do not know when it will finish.

Sir Richard Henriques Report

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would most certainly agree with my noble friend that Sir Richard has performed a notable public service. It is also important that we have an independent body that oversees, independently of both the police and the Government, the conduct of the police, so I would disagree with my noble friend on the second point.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Yesterday, I asked the Government what they meant in their response to an Urgent Question when they said that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary should,

“take account of the findings of the report of the Independent Office for Police Conduct”.

I asked if it meant that the Chief Inspector of Constabulary would take the findings of the IOPC report as read, or whether he would be able to consider, if he so wished, whether some of the report’s conclusions or statements were, in his view, valid or not. In response, the Government said that they meant that the chief inspector would,

“consider the Metropolitan Police Service’s progress in learning from the … recommendations of the IOPC report”.—[Official Report, 7/10/19; cols. 1985-86].

Would it not be helpful if the chief inspector was also able to consider, if he so wished, whether some of the conclusions or statements in the IOPC report were valid or not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in drawing up the terms of reference for the inspection, HMICFRS will come to its own conclusions about what the noble Lord has just outlined. I think taking into account the IOPC’s recommendation means taking a view of it in the round.

Visa Applications: Dr Mu-Chun Chiang

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the noble Lord’s last point, about a culture that is far more humane, I would certainly totally subscribe to that, as would the Home Secretary. Regarding the balance between bureaucracy and subjectivity, it was the criticism of subjectivity that led to a much more objective way of determining applications. The noble Lord referred to a coach-load of asylum seekers 18 years ago; I am afraid that neither I nor the Conservative Party can answer for what happened 18 years ago. He also talked about the Home Office giving in before the bitter end; actually, the case was resolved quickly—not that I am in any way trying to defend the fact that it could have been resolved more quickly.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

For a Government who think there is far too much red tape and what they describe as bureaucracy, it is revealing that, when it comes to dealing with work visa applications, rigid application of the very strict rules seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that the decision on Dr Chiang only got changed because there was a lot of adverse publicity about the actions of the Home Office and influential people took up the case. How many other decisions, of a similar kind to Dr Chiang’s, have already been taken and enforced by the Home Office under its now renamed hostile environment policy because the individuals adversely and unfairly affected were not able to get the necessary publicity and support of influential people to get the Home Office ruling changed? Do the Government know the answer to that question? Do they care about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we certainly do care. The issue was resolved very quickly, and it is not correct that it only got changed because people intervened. It got changed because new evidence that had been asked for was produced. The fact that we have a 98% grant rate for such applications is evidence of how many people successfully apply.

Operation Midland

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. Clearly, false allegations of serious crimes are deplorable, and all those who promote them without evidence should face the appropriate consequences. However, any lessons that are to be learned from what has happened must not lead to any downplaying of the seriousness or prevalence of the rising crimes of child sexual abuse and serious sexual assault, including rape. We cannot go back to a culture of not believing victims.

There are a few specific questions that I wish to ask the Minister. They concern the reference in the Statement to the inspection that the Home Secretary has asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary and Chief Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services to undertake. What exactly is he inspecting that would be different from a normal inspection of a force? Will he be taking the findings of the Henriques report as read or will he be able, if he so chooses, to consider whether some of its findings are valid criticisms or comment? What is meant by him taking into account the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct report, which has just been published? Does it mean that he will take its findings as read, or will he be able to consider, if he so wishes, whether some of its conclusions or statements are, in his view, valid or not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. On the point about the impact of false accusations on people who are accused, he is absolutely right: the impact must be devastating, and we have heard many a time in this House of people who are falsely accused. It is important in the context of this case to say that the case of Carl Beech is not a typical one. On the contrary, in the context of sexual offences, it is the under-reporting of the crime to the police that is known to be particularly acute. I think that that is what the noble Lord is driving at. He will know that great progress has been made in encouraging people to report crimes. In responding to the issues raised by this case, it is important that we do not undermine this progress, and that victims continue to feel confident about coming forward and that they will be listened to and taken seriously. We do not want any diminution in that, I agree.

Regarding the HMICFRS investigation, obviously, it is a matter for the inspectorate, and we now need to allow it the space to take its work forward as it sees fit. The purpose of the inspection is to consider the Metropolitan Police Service’s progress in learning from the points made by Sir Richard’s report and the learning recommendations of the IOPC report.

Asylum Seekers: Employment

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the then Home Secretary said last December that he was reviewing the right for asylum seekers to work, and in June of this year he confirmed that that was the case and that he would update Parliament in due course. I know that the Minister has said on behalf of the Government that this is a complex issue, but it is now quite a long time since the then Home Secretary said that he was looking at the matter. Does that mean that, with a change of Home Secretary, there is now less enthusiasm for doing anything? If that is not the case—let us assume that there is no imminent general election—when do the Government expect to complete this review?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It was the Prime Minister who said that the Home Office was reviewing the matter, and therefore I do not assume that there is a change in the position. I hesitate to say this to the noble Lord, but I am sure that it will be done in due course.

British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2019

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I support what has been said so far. The Minister rightly pointed out that this is a remedial order to Parliament to correct incompatibilities in the British Nationality Act 1981 with the European Convention on Human Rights as identified by the courts in recent cases.

The question remains as to how we got into this mess in the first place. So deeply entrenched has been the Home Office in keeping people out of the United Kingdom that previous policies lacked basic concern about the rights and values of people wishing to settle here. Common sense would have told the Government that they were entitled to the incompatibilities being removed at the earliest possible occasion. There are no ifs and buts in this matter: it has taken 28 years to recognise this anomaly and the sooner it is put right, the better.

None of us are surprised that, as the British and British overseas citizenship rights campaign tells me, once again the Home Office is stalling and wants to push for a better legislative opportunity, for which the Home Secretary must look. Meanwhile, children of BOT descent born to unmarried BOT fathers remain shunned and left out in the cold, preventing them being officially embraced by their unmarried BOT fathers’ homelands. It is plainly wrong and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Recent information has revealed areas of serious concern regarding immigration and nationality issues. We were concerned about the scandal of Windrush settlers who were denied proper documentation when they arrived here. This week, we read about the treatment of immigration detainees by private contractors who inflicted misery in our detention centres. They made millions of pounds’ profit from the services they provided. For this to happen at a time when we took great pride in promoting antislavery legislation in the United Kingdom shames all of us who are keen to promote dignity and respect for detainees.

This weekend, the Sunday Times reported on cash for British passports for those who can afford to pay millions of pounds into government coffers. You may ask what this has to do with the order before us. The aim for each of the above group is to obtain British nationality so that they can lead a decent life in the United Kingdom. Why is it taking us so long to rectify an anomaly identified by our courts?

We accept that a number of the recommendations are outside the scope of the remedial order before us. There is no need to wait for another opportunity to revisit nationality laws. We should be actively promoting new legislation to rectify anomalies identified by the JCHR. This order gives us the opportunity to bring forward sooner rather than later legislation that would remedy the deep hurt and sense of rejection felt by the affected children, who are now adults. They simply want to be respected and treated fairly. It is unacceptable that discrimination in acquiring British nationality persists. We should also use this opportunity to consolidate all immigration and nationality issues and proof these against anti-discrimination legislation. We welcome a wider consultation and ask the Minister to set up a timetable for this exercise.

A number of issues that have been identified in the debate so far need to be considered. One such is the “good character” requirement in the context of seeking British nationality. This applies to those aged 10 or over, as that is the age of criminal responsibility. Is the Minister aware that my Private Member’s Bill on this matter has gone through all stages in your Lordships’ House and will be dealt with by Wera Hobhouse MP in the other place? I ask the Minister to await the outcome before specifying that the Government do not consider it appropriate to adjust the “good character” policy so that certain acts become inadmissible when assessing a minor’s suitability for British citizenship. No one would wish to ignore some heinous crimes, but great care must be taken to look at the proportionality of the crime and its impact, so that applicants are less likely to meet the threshold for refusal of citizenship.

My final point relates to the fees issue, which was also identified by previous speakers. My noble friend Lady Hamwee—she would have loved to speak today as she was a member of the JCHR, but she is at a Select Committee meeting and is unable to be here—told me that the size of the fees can mean that a family is able to pay for one child but not stretch to the other. When is the Minister going to look into this? Does she accept that citizenship is not something to be granted on a discretionary basis but an entitlement when all the conditions are met? I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for explaining the content and purpose of this draft order, which we support as it corrects a discriminatory and unlawful requirement. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also recommended that the draft order be approved. I will say, before I go any further, that I have nothing new to say that has not been said already. Nevertheless, I still have a determination to say it.

British nationality law granted automatic citizenship by descent only to children born in wedlock to British fathers. Changes have allowed children born to a British mother or father to become a British citizen by descent, irrespective of whether their parents were married, but there remained a requirement to prove “good character” in cases where the applicant is 10 or older. Following the expression of concerns about this continuing requirement—and, probably more decisively, court judgments of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights—this draft order finally removes the “good character” test for young people seeking their right to British citizenship. Can the Government confirm that they consider this draft order to be compatible with human rights?

While approving this draft order, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made a number of other recommendations in its second report on the order, published on 9 July, which in my view fully justifies our referring to the content of the JCHR report when discussing this order and expecting a government response, either now or later, to what is in that report. It would be helpful if the Government could indicate what their response is to the conclusions and recommendations set out in the second JCHR report on this draft order, published on 9 July.

As has already been said, the JCHR’s conclusions and recommendations include the following:

“The Government should review the application of the good character test to children with a right to British citizenship who have grown up in the UK”,


particularly in the light of the,

“obligation to consider the best interests of the child”.

The JCHR has also expressed the view that the Home Office is leaving itself open to successful legal challenge by requiring from children against whom it has previously discriminated additional requirements, such as good character, that would not have applied had they been able to apply as young children when they were under the age of 10. The committee recommended that the Home Office reconsider its position in respect of children it had previously discriminated against, so that they can obtain British nationality without discrimination or superfluous requirements.

Immigration: Children

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for referring to that accusation. I have heard it before: it was raised in your Lordships’ House the other day. It is not a secret service. Officials are working with partners to ensure that effective referral processes are established and that rough sleepers will always be made aware of how information collected on them will be shared and used.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government not been asked twice about the number of children experiencing the consequences of having no recourse to public funds? I am not quite clear from the Government’s response whether they have that figure but are declining to reveal it or do not know the figure. If the Government do not have the figure, is it because they know they would be embarrassed by the figure’s magnitude if they had to give it out, or are they just not particularly interested?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is not a question of not being particularly interested. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, there is information sharing between the Home Office and local authorities. I imagine that it is management information, as opposed to publishable figures, but I can confirm that to the noble Lord.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question from the Shadow Home Secretary in the Commons yesterday. Government Written Answers on 20 December last year and 19 June this year stated that where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may be a victim of trafficking or modern slavery such individuals shall not be detained, but that there are no central records of such persons. However, the Government indicated yesterday, following a freedom of information request, that, contrary to the interpretation a reasonable person could put on the Written Answers, they did know of 507 individuals who had been detained.

The Government said that the 507 who received a positive reasonable-grounds decision while in detention were then subsequently released within a few days in most cases. But for how long had they already been detained before they received that decision, and why in those 507 cases were trafficking and enslavement signs not picked up and resolved prior to any detention? It does not seem right that victims of trafficking and modern slavery should be locked up as immigration offenders at all. Why was the factual information apparently obtained from the FoI request withheld, presumably knowingly, from the Written Answers in December 2018 and last month? Will the Government explain the justification for, and reasoning behind, the troubling assertion by the Immigration Minister in the Commons yesterday that,

“a Freedom of Information request will elicit different data to that which is available in parliamentary questions”?—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/19; col. 861.]

How in a democracy can a Government be held to account when they apparently knowingly seek to withhold some available factual information being sought through a parliamentary question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He asked why victims of modern slavery were not detected prior to detention. Quite often, Home Office staff pick up the fact that people are victims of modern slavery. It is not the case that the 507 individuals were detained after getting positive reasonable grounds. As stated clearly in the FoI response, the figure relates to people who had positive reasonable grounds when entering detention or while in it. Further analysis of the figures shows that, of the 507 people in question, 479 received the positive reasonable grounds decision during a detention period. Of those, 328—68%—were released within two days of that decision. In total, 422—88%—were released within a week of the positive reasonable grounds decision. Of the 57 who were detained for eight days or more following the positive reasonable grounds decision, 46—81%—are foreign national offenders.

On the data and the differences in the figures, my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister was absolutely correct to say that there is no central record of those who received a positive conclusive grounds decision and are detained under immigration powers. While the information might be available from the live Home Office case information database, known as CID, it would be for internal management only. For example, some data may be incomplete, and every FOI response is caveated as such.