Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who is a co-sponsor of Amendment 120. I will not repeat the cogent reasons for the amendment set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but I will offer one observation which I think also applies to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
There is one outstanding reason for these amendments. It is that stable families make stable societies, which in turn make for a more stable world. Do we appear to believe this? A visitor from another planet attempting to understand our Immigration Rules—it would need to be a very intelligent life form to do so—but it would be unlikely to conclude that we did all we could to enable family reunion; quite the reverse. What sort of system permits refugees to be reunited with children aged under 18 with spouses or partners, but children who are recognised as refugees have no similar right to be reunited with their parents? They must rely on discretionary provision, which is frequently not given. Hence a child granted refugee status may have to endure prolonged family separation. The argument for this anomaly, which is the most polite way of referring to it, is that to grant family reunion will feed the practice of people smuggling and may cause hazardous and dangerous journeys to be undertaken. The probability must surely be that illegal means of travel and entry are more likely to be attempted than less.
Reuniting a family creates the sort of economic, social and emotional support that people need. It may well save money from the public purse that would otherwise be expended on dealing with the traumas and mental unhappiness caused by enduring family separation. I believe that the present rules do families no service and do our society no good. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the spirit of these amendments and upon the value of family life as well.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 122A, since my name is associated with it. Some 2,000 refugees are currently arriving in Greece on barely seaworthy boats every day. According to the UNHCR, the majority are now women and children, fleeing the fighting in Syria and around the Iraqi border. Some 4.8 million Syrians have been displaced since the war began.
The existing rules on family reunion simply were not designed to cope with such a mass and, at times, chaotic exodus of people, which tears families apart and potentially leaves individuals in pretty desperate circumstances. Under the Immigration Rules, people granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK can apply to be joined by family members still living in other countries. However, there are a number of restrictions about which family members qualify for family reunion. For adult refugees in the UK, only partners and dependent children under the age of 18 will usually come under the definition of “family”. As a result, families can be left with the invidious choice of whether to leave some members behind.
Amendment 122A seeks to provide an immediate route to reunite, in a managed and controlled way, those families caught up in the crisis. The Secretary of State would specify the numbers to be resettled through the scheme after full consultation with key stakeholders. The amendment would provide for that in a managed way on the basis of current resettlement programmes. It allows British citizens, as well as recognised refugees in the UK, to be reunited with family members through the programme, but, crucially, any number specified would be in addition to the Government’s existing commitments on resettlement.
The amendment does not distinguish between refugee family members who have made it to Europe and those stuck in the region—people do not cease to be part of a family based on where they are in the world. It would help to prioritise those cases of family members who fall outside the existing rules and find themselves in desperate situations. We believe that Britain can do, and should be doing, more in this unprecedented crisis, which the amendment would enable the Government to do through the Secretary of State. Four thousand Syrian refugees resettled a year—none from within Europe—is certainly a start and I do not wish to stand here and suggest that it is not a real contribution, but one is entitled to ask whether it is enough when that number arrives in Greece over the course of just two days.
We support the amendment and we will vote for it if the mover, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I prefer it to the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but either is considerably better than the current situation. If the noble Lord, Lord Alton, decides to divide the House, we on these Benches will be with him. It seems to me that the Section 59 referred to in his amendment is designed for exactly this sort of situation, had anyone been able to envisage it. Children without their parents who have got to the UK alone are refugees, so by definition cannot return to their country of origin, but their being unable to be with their parents is a situation that I am sure no noble Lord would want to envisage.
When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister gave a number of defences to the current position, including:
“Our policy is more generous than our international obligations require”.
The vote on the previous amendment—a comparison was made in the debate on that between our generosity and that of others—answers that point. The Minister also said:
“Allowing children to sponsor their parents would play right into the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs and go against our safeguarding responsibilities”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1881.]
The issue of safeguarding can be argued either way; there are problems of safeguarding whether you do or whether you do not in this situation. I prefer the right reverend Prelate’s logic.
On family sponsorship, where the more distant family of a refugee is here, it seems illogical in many ways not to allow aunts, uncles and so on to sponsor people to come here because it must lead to much faster integration, address the numbers to an extent—given the numbers, we should use what opportunities there are—and be obviously the right thing to do. There would be fewer safeguarding issues in that, although I would not claim that there are none.
Finally, I should not ask a question at this stage unless I know the answer, but I understand that family reunion is a matter of international law—despite my pile of papers I do not have all the detail with me. If the Minister can assist the House on that I would be grateful.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, no one can fail to be concerned about and moved by the appalling position of those to whom this amendment relates. There is a need to see what more can be done to help those fleeing violence and persecution and to increase safe and legal routes for refugees. We all have sympathy with what lies behind this amendment, particularly with regard to the appalling actions of ISIS—Daesh—against Yazidi women. The amendment as it stands is in our view unworkable, but we would be willing to work with the Government and others in the House to develop a scheme to present at Third Reading for these women and others persecuted on grounds of religion.
Anyone coming under the conditions referred to in proposed new subsection (1) who is already in the United Kingdom should already be able to claim asylum under the existing law and definition of a refugee. However, the amendment appears problematic in a couple of areas. It places responsibility for declaring that a genocide is taking place—and, with it, a presumption that the conditions for asylum in the UK have been met—with the High Court rather than with an international body, which is a departure from existing practice. We are not convinced that this power should rest with domestic courts.
The amendment also allows people to apply for asylum outside the UK, which is again a significant departure from existing law and would allow unknown numbers to apply as, as the amendment sets out, there should be no discrimination in dealing with such applications based on,
“national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.
As a lesser point, there also needs to be more clarity about how the process set out in the amendment would work in practice, how applications would be processed, by whom and where.
While we all want to do more for vulnerable people fleeing persecution and genocide—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
The noble Lord is telling us that the Labour Party agrees in principle with the feelings behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Is it not a bit supine for the Labour Party to say that but not put forward an improved amendment of its own if it really seeks to say what we have just heard with full integrity?
Lord Rosser
I do not share the noble Lord’s view; I am setting out our view of the amendment and have referred to two specific issues, which do not seem to me unimportant. I can only note that he holds a different view.
While we all want to do more for vulnerable people fleeing persecution and genocide—such a debate needs to take place—we are unconvinced that the amendment as drafted represents the best way to do that. It entails a significant change in practice and procedure, and there needs to be much greater consideration than, inevitably, there has been of the practicalities and impact of what is being proposed. For these reasons, if the mover, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House, we will not be able to lend our support.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2016
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the International Sikh Youth Federation, which I shall refer to as the ISYF, is a separatist movement committed to the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region of south Asia, and was established in the 1980s. The ISYF’s attacks have, in the past, included assassinations, bombings and kidnappings, mainly directed against Indian officials and Indian interests. The ISYF has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK since March 2001. The decision to proscribe it was taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of available information, and it was approved by Parliament. It is clear that the ISYF was concerned in terrorism at that time.
Having reviewed with other countries what information is available about the current activities of the ISYF, after careful consideration the Home Secretary has concluded that there is now not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the ISYF is currently concerned in terrorism as defined by Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under that section, the Home Secretary has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations if she believes that it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Accordingly, the Home Secretary has brought this order before the House and, if it is approved, it will mean that being a member of, or providing support to, this organisation will cease to be a criminal offence on the day that the order comes into force.
The decision to deproscribe the ISYF was taken after extensive consideration and in the light of a full assessment of available information. As noble Lords will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for us to discuss any specific intelligence that informed the decision-making process.
The Government do not condone any terrorist activity, and deproscription of a proscribed group should not be interpreted as condoning any previous activities of this group. The British Government were always clear that the ISYF was a brutal terrorist organisation. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please, and the police have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals under the criminal law.
We are determined to detect and disrupt all terrorist threats, whether home-grown or international. Proscription is just one tool in the considerable armoury at the disposal of the Government, the police and the Security Service to disrupt terrorist activity.
The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription potentially interferes with an individual’s rights—in particular, the rights protected by Article 10 on freedom of expression and Article 11 on freedom of association in the European Convention on Human Rights—and so should be exercised only where absolutely necessary. A decision to deproscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of a case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses. If agreed, the order will come into force on 18 March. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the background to, and purpose of, the order. As he said, it amends the Terrorism Act 2000 by removing the International Sikh Youth Federation from the list of proscribed organisations, meaning that, if the order is passed, it will no longer be proscribed as an organisation concerned in terrorism within the meaning of Section 3(5) of the Act.
As the Minister said, the international Sikh Youth Federation was added to the list of proscribed organisations under an order in 2001. Proscription has a number of consequences. These include it becoming a criminal offence to belong to or invite support for the organisation, or to arrange a meeting in support of the organisation. It also means that the financial assets of the organisation become terrorist property and can be subject to freezing and seizure.
Under the terms of the Terrorism Act 2000, a proscribed organisation, or any person affected by the proscription of the organisation, can apply to the Secretary of State for deproscription. If the application is refused, the applicant may appeal to the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Secretary of State has received such an application for the deproscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation and has now decided that there is insufficient information to conclude that the group remains concerned in terrorism.
The application was made by three members of the Sikh community in early February last year. It should have been dealt with within 90 days, but was not since the response was not made until the end of July last year. The response was to the effect that the Secretary of State still had a reasonable belief that the International Sikh Youth Federation was concerned in terrorism, but no reasons were given.
The applicants appealed on the basis that the Government had not given any reasons for the refusal to deproscribe, contrary to the rule of law, and that the ISYF was not concerned in terrorism. The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission directed the Home Secretary to provide reasons to support her position. However, on the day that the reasons and evidence were due, the commission was told that the Home Secretary would not now defend her decision but would lay an order for deproscription, which is what we have in front of us today.
Of course, the inevitable question that has been asked is what new information had come to light between the end of July, when the Home Secretary declined the application for deproscription, and the decision at the door of the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission some six months later not to defend that decision—new information that could not have been known or found out at the time of the decision at the end of July, over which the Home Secretary said there had been extensive consideration and a full assessment of the available information.
There is a feeling in some quarters that being required to provide reasons for the decision not to deproscribe may have been a not insignificant factor behind the very different decision then made by the Home Secretary to lay an order for deproscription. I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to respond to that point. Perhaps he could also say, without disclosing its nature or content, whether significant new information became available for the first time between the end of July 2015 and December 2015 which proved a key factor in reaching the very different conclusion from that reached in July: that the International Sikh Youth Federation should no longer be proscribed.
The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has previously suggested that once an organisation has been proscribed, there should be a review of that decision within specified time limits to ensure that it continues to be justified and necessary. Since proscription is currently for an indefinite time, are the Government now looking at adopting a procedure and process along the lines suggested by the independent reviewer, and to which I have just referred?
Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We have an amendment in this group which would prevent the new offences that could be committed by landlords and their agents coming into effect until an evaluation of the Immigration Act right-to-rent provisions has been made and laid before Parliament. As has been said, the Bill creates new criminal offences for landlords and letting agents who do not comply with the right-to-rent scheme, under which they are required to check immigration status documents to avoid unlawful letting or landlords and letting agents who fail to evict tenants who do not have the right to rent, with a maximum sentence of five years.
The Government have put down an amendment that provides a defence for a landlord accused of renting to a disqualified person—that they did not know or have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person was disqualified. That is a defence that is available if the landlord, on discovering or coming to have reasonable cause to believe this, has taken “reasonable steps” to end the tenancy “within a reasonable period”. While we welcome the government amendment, it does not of course address the problem that the new offences are likely to create—that they will probably result in at least some landlords taking a risk-averse approach by letting primarily to white British persons with passports. Could the Minister indicate, as regards the government amendment, what kind of guidance, covering what questions or considerations, will be issued by the Secretary of State under proposed new subsection (5B), in government Amendment 62?
The Home Office has carried out an evaluation of the proposed national scheme, which was first introduced in the West Midlands. It was published last October. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants carried out an independent evaluation, which was published in September last year and showed that some 42% of landlords said that the right-to-rent provisions made them less likely to consider accommodating someone who did not have a British passport. The Home Office evaluation of the West Midlands pilot was limited in its scope; just 68 tenants were interviewed, nearly all of whom were students. It still found that a higher proportion of BME mystery shoppers were asked to provide more information during rental inquiries than other mystery shoppers. Polling last year has already shown that among landlords making decisions on who to let to, around half say that the Immigration Act right-to-rent checks will make them less likely to consider letting to people who do not hold British passports or who “appear to be migrants”. There is a real danger that families who have every right to rent will be passed over by landlords because they lack passports or other obvious documentation of their immigration status.
The right-to-rent scheme was extended across the UK from the West Midlands from the beginning of last month. Is it really too much to ask, in view of the possible adverse consequences of these new criminal offences, under the right-to-rent scheme, that the introduction of the new criminal offences should be delayed until a full evaluation of the impact of the right-to-rent scheme nationally has been carried out?
The reality is that without such an evaluation the Government can give no meaningful or evidence- based assurances that the concerns that have been and are being voiced about the potential adverse impact on many of the one in four families in England who now rent privately of the introduction of the new criminal offences under the right-to-rent scheme will not materialise if more landlords adopt a risk-averse approach to letting. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response to this issue when he replies.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 65 in this group, and I declare an interest as the owner of rented accommodation. I made the point in Committee that it can be difficult for the owners of rented property to continually monitor what is happening in their property. It is fine to carry out checks when letting a property, but for a landlord to know on a continual basis who is living in that property can, depending on the circumstances, be very difficult, if not impossible. If it were that easy, there would not be a problem in the first place; the authorities would have prevented the illegal immigration.
The Minister said in Committee that new Section 33A(3) of the Immigration Bill 2014 provides adequate protection to landlords. The Explanatory Notes state that the offences in the provision apply,
“where any adult is occupying the premises, regardless of whether the adult is a tenant under or is named in the agreement”.
I do not quite have the noble Lord’s confidence that there is adequate protection for the landlord. The Minister said in Committee that this legislation is,
“not intended to be used against reputable landlords who may have made a genuine mistake”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 892.]
As time goes by, it is the legislation that governs actions, not the intentions behind the legislation. The good intentions to which the Minister referred may have been long forgotten and therefore may not prevent the overzealous pursuing the small reputable landlord, against whom the legislation is not intended to be directed.
Can the Minister explain a bit further how the protection about which he spoke in Committee would work? After all, 58% of the rented property in this country is let by people with fewer than five properties—the small property owners—and I do not believe that those smaller landlords should be exposed to a disproportionate or unreasonable risk.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We have an amendment in this group which provides that a person does not commit an offence of driving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom if at the time of driving the motor vehicles the person had a reasonable belief that they had a legal right to be in this country. Of course, the Government have tabled an amendment which provides that a person commits the offence of driving when unlawfully in the UK only if they knew or had reasonable cause to believe that they were disqualified from driving by reason of their immigration status. We welcome the move that the Government have made on this issue.
The argument has been made in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for deleting from the Bill this new offence and the powers to carry out searches related to driving issues. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon has spoken powerfully on the potential consequences of this new offence and the associated search powers to increase discrimination and damage community relations, including relations with the police, and generally put the clock back.
The Government have said that guidance will be issued and that there will be public consultation but I, too, ask whether there will be any debate in Parliament on the guidance. What will be the Government’s reaction if the public consultation shows clear concern about the potential impact of the new offence? Will the Government then decide not to bring it into force? If the new offence does come into force, what regular checks and reviews will be put in place to ensure that the concerns that have been raised about its potential adverse impact on community relations and discrimination are not materialising? What ongoing liaison, consultation and discussion will there be between the Government, the police and those in our diverse community who feel strongly that this new offence could do more harm than good? They say that, among other reasons, in the light of the evidence, you are more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black or from a minority-ethnic group.
As has already been said, this is about what might happen in practice as opposed to what should happen, as set out in the letter to which reference has already been made of 1 March, which I accept also made reference to the pilot of the use of the search power in Clause 41 in one or two police areas before proceeding with a national rollout. I very much hope that the Minister will address the specific points that I have raised on what might be the outcome of the public consultation, and on the issue about the regular checks and reviews that will be put in place to ensure that if the offence does come into being what happens is what should happen, as opposed to the very real fears that have been voiced today that it will potentially cause damage to community relations and increase discrimination.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I will come to the points raised in this debate shortly but first I shall speak to the two government amendments in this group standing in my name.
Amendments 75 and 76 would introduce a mens rea to the offence of driving while being unlawfully present in the UK. As currently drafted, the driving offence contained in Clause 42 is one of strict liability, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised some significant concerns in Committee. Following that exchange, we agreed to reflect further on the issue. I believe that we are of one mind in our intention to ensure that migrants are not prosecuted for this offence where they hold a genuine and reasonable belief that they are in the UK legally. The Government have been persuaded that it would be appropriate to place further safeguards on the face of the statute. These amendments introduce a mens rea element so that an illegal migrant will commit the offence of driving while illegally present only if they knew or had reasonable cause to believe they were in the UK illegally.
This will protect those who genuinely and reasonably believed they were here in the UK lawfully, while ensuring that other migrants cannot seek to avoid prosecution by avoiding contact with the Home Office and/or their legal representatives, in order to establish the necessary doubt as to whether they could reasonably be expected to have known they were required to leave the UK. I invite noble Lords to support these amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for moving his amendment. I fully accept that he is very sincere, but he also has a professional track record as he has worked in these very complex areas of community cohesion here in the capital, and has done so with great distinction over a long career. Of course, the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, for victims and improving community cohesion is well recognised. For that reason, it was very important that we had that meeting on 22 February where we sat down with officials to discuss the implications and workings of this clause. I am sure that they will testify to the fact that it was not necessarily an easy or cosy gathering. There were some strong feelings and concerns on all sides which were expressed at that time. One of the things that your Lordships’ House does repeatedly in many areas that is immensely valuable—officials may not have appreciated it fully at the time, but they have come to—is to bring great understanding, background and perspective to these very complex areas to pose the key questions that need to be addressed.
That said, I turn to the amendments, because they stem directly from that meeting. We went back afterwards and asked how we do this. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, the Home Secretary is acknowledged to have made significant steps in improving community cohesion, in particular in tackling abuse of stop-and-search powers. That is why numbers have fallen. Part of the reason why that happens is that the number of incidents is now recorded so we can see what is happening on the ground. I set out in my letter—more like an epistle, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, might say—to noble Lords over some three or four pages on 1 March how that operated in practice and the effect it was having.
We have brought forward two things: to recognise that we are making significant progress to improve community relations, and to maintain the confidence of all communities in the police to act fairly and justly, as my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Green, said. Nothing must be done to put any of that at risk. That is why we are proceeding cautiously in this area by introducing a pilot scheme, as mentioned.
On the concerns that focused on police use of these powers with particular groups, these clauses are important and necessary. We do not issue driving licences to illegal migrants and we revoke driving licences held by them. So far we have revoked some 16,000 UK driving licences held by illegal migrants, but less than 1,000 have been returned, even though it is a criminal offence to retain them. As these licences hold a value as a form of identification that can help an illegal migrant settle in the UK, it is important that they are removed from circulation. Clause 41 provides the best opportunity for us to do this when a person is apprehended as an illegal migrant.
The Government cannot, however, revoke foreign-issued driving licences. Without Clause 42, illegal migrants would be able to drive on valid, foreign-issued licences without consequence. This, in turn, facilitates their ability to stay unlawfully in the UK, to look for work and to work illegally. Illegal immigrants should not be driving on our roads. They have shown a disregard for the laws of this country—that is the very point that my noble friend Lord Deben raised. Therefore, it is absolutely right that we legislate to ensure that they are unable to do so.
I re-emphasise the following points. First, these clauses do not create new powers to stop persons or vehicles. Secondly, we intend the police to use these powers reactively after they have already stopped a vehicle for an objective reason—I will come back to that particular use of words, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me to—such as a driving offence. I emphasise that these powers will not be used by the police to stop vehicles simply to check the immigration status of the driver. That is an important distinction between the roles and responsibilities of the police and of immigration enforcement. It is one that we recognise should be maintained. Thirdly, these powers must be used proportionately. To that end, we have put in place safeguards against misuse.
Finally, I reiterate that the Government are absolutely clear that no one should be stopped, under existing police powers, on the basis of their race or ethnicity. This would be unlawful. The Government also remain absolutely clear in their commitment to reform the use of police stop-and-search powers so that they are applied in a way that genuinely protects our communities. We would not bring forward any proposal that we believe might undermine this work.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised about these clauses. In response, the Home Office will go further. We will issue guidance to police and immigration officers on the operation of these powers and we will consult publicly on that draft guidance. This consultation will take place before implementation. It will raise awareness and provide an important gateway through which communities will be able to consider and comment on, among other things, appropriate safeguards.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my name is on the amendment. I made a lot of notes as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, was speaking, but I do not think that, having been given his conclusion, I need to deal with all of them. I am well aware that there is opposition to the clause from a number of organisations which do not want to see any exceptions at all. That seems to me to have been the burden of their concerns.
The short point is that the system is not working. We do not live in a perfect world. If we were to create other rules that one might say would support the system as we now have it, I do not believe that they could be made to work. The then Chief Inspector of Prisons commented on how many of the detainees were released back into the community, which poses the question: if they are suitable to be released back into the community, why do they need to be detained in the first place?
The Government’s position is a presumption that an “adult at risk” will not be detained. Our presumption is against detention for more than 28 days, so we start at the other end. It is unambitious to say—as the Government do—that they expect to see a reduction in the number of those who are at risk in detention and that they will be there for reduced periods. The Written Ministerial Statement which the Government published in January categorises the issues in a way which worries me, separating risk and vulnerability from healthcare. Care and assessment are very closely allied, and I suggest, for instance, that a victim of sexual violence may not be able to explain to a healthcare worker that this is her experience until after quite a long period of treatment. Therefore, looking at the Government’s approach to this, I am concerned.
We already have Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules, whose purpose is,
“to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention”.
It is not working. We have that now and there is a great range of problems—in view of the time I will not go through them but I hope that noble Lords will understand that the all-party group, of which I was a member, heard a good deal of evidence from medical professionals about the problems with Rule 35. Therefore, if that rule does not achieve what is needed, will guidance—the Government’s Amendment 86—achieve it? I fear that it will not.
Amendment 85 aims to flush out the Government’s view of the conditions of vulnerability listed by Stephen Shaw in his report. It says that a vulnerable person should not be detained unless there are exceptional circumstances, as determined by the tribunal. The Government’s answer will, no doubt, be in Amendment 86, which talks about particular vulnerability—someone being particularly vulnerable to harm if they are detained. We start from the premise that vulnerability is vulnerability, full stop.
There is so much more one could say; I wish I could but I will not. I support the amendment.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a powerful case in support of Amendment 84, to which my name is also attached, and I do not intend to repeat all the points. The amendment is intended to provide for judicial oversight if a person is to be detained for a period longer than 28 days. If the noble Lord, having heard the Government’s response to Amendment 84, decides to test the opinion of the House, we will vote in support.
Immigration detention is a matter of concern. For the person detained it is detention for an indefinite period, since they are not given a date when it will end. Their life is in limbo. A recent all-party group inquiry into immigration detention heard evidence that detention was in some ways worse than being in prison, since at least people in prison know when they will get out. There is medical evidence that it causes anxiety and distress, not least among the more vulnerable groups. The all-party inquiry to which I have referred heard from medical people with knowledge in this field that the sense of being in limbo and the hopelessness and despair it generates lead to deteriorating mental health. One such witness said that those who are detained for more than 30 days have significantly greater mental health problems.
For his report for the Home Office into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, Stephen Shaw commissioned a review by Professor Mary Bosworth of the evidence linking detention with adverse mental health outcomes. Mr Shaw said that he regarded her view as a study of the greatest significance. Two of Professor Bosworth’s key findings were: first, that there is a consistent finding from all the studies carried out across the globe, which were from different academic viewpoints, that immigration detention has a negative impact upon detainees’ mental health; and, secondly, that the impact on mental health increases the longer detention continues.
In his conclusions, Mr Shaw stated:
“Most of those who have looked dispassionately at immigration detention have come to similar conclusions: there is too much detention; detention is not a particularly effective means of ensuring that those with no right to remain do in fact leave the UK; and many practices and processes associated with detention are in urgent need of reform”.
He ended by saying:
“Immigration detention has increased, is increasing, and—whether by better screening, more effective reviews, or formal time limit—it ought to be reduced”.
In the first three quarters of 2014, 37% of those detained were detained for longer than 28 days. Home Office guidelines are that detention should be for the shortest possible time and should be used only as a genuine last resort to effect removal. Yet despite centres being called “immigration removal centres”, most people who leave detention do so for other reasons than being removed from the United Kingdom. According to government statistics, more than half the detainees are released back into this country.
There could surely be some scope for a wider range of community-based alternatives to detention, enabling more people to remain in their communities while their cases are being resolved or when making arrangements for them to leave the country. The family returns process, which is designed to reduce the number of children detained, has resulted, according to the Home Office’s own evaluation, in most families being compliant with the process and no increase in absconding.
I note the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and his reason for not supporting but also, as I understand it, for not opposing this amendment if it is put to a vote. If Amendment 84 is passed by this House, the Government also have the option, if they choose to take it up, of putting an amended proposition as the Bill goes through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 84 does not of course put a time limit on immigration detention but it would ensure that a decision to continue to detain after 28 days was a judicial decision dependent on the Secretary of State having to make the argument that the circumstances of the case concerned required extended detention. The amendment does not preclude or prevent detention going beyond 28 days but it means, in a country where we uphold justice and the right to liberty, that at least after a period of time the decision to continue to detain has to be a judicial one, not an administrative one. Surely this House can support that.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The diversity of views expressed perhaps underlines the issues that have to be wrestled with in such a difficult area.
The Government take the issue of deprivation of liberty very seriously. Our current published policy in respect of immigration detention is quite clear: there is a presumption of liberty. There is a well-established principle that for an individual to be detained pending removal there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable time, and that is carried out by virtue of judicial oversight. Depriving someone of their liberty is always subject to careful consideration and account is invariably taken of individual circumstances.
Amendment 84 would significantly impact on our ability to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety, particularly at a time when the Government have set out a commitment to ensure effective use of detention, complemented by a renewed focus on facilitating an increased number of voluntary returns without detention, which safeguards the most vulnerable while helping to reduce levels of immigration abuse.
It might be helpful to remind noble Lords that most people detained under immigration powers spend only relatively short periods in detention. According to published statistics for the year ending September 2015, more than 32,000 people left detention. Of these, 62% had been in detention for fewer than 28 days. The overwhelming majority of detainees—93%—left detention within four months. Of those, approximately 40% were subject to deportation action, having been previously convicted of criminal offences in the United Kingdom or the EU and having refused to leave the UK on a voluntary basis.
Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak very briefly in support of these amendments, which are very much animated by the spirit of Every Child Matters, as the right reverend Prelate says. It reminded me of some of the reports that the Joint Committee on Human Rights published when I was still a member, both on unaccompanied young children and on children’s rights. A theme that kept recurring was how often in government policy immigration concerns trump children’s best interests and rights. All these amendments are attempting to shift that balance back so that children’s best interests and children’s rights take centre stage; it does not say that nothing else matters, but they are given the due that they and children deserve.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has been said, the Government have an amendment in this group regarding the welfare of children, which would state that the Secretary of State and any other person, as set out in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, is subject to a duty regarding the welfare of children. The Government have put this amendment down following the debate on the welfare of children under the “deport first, appeal later” clauses in this Bill in Committee. The Government have repeatedly referred to the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” issue as a manifesto commitment. The amendment tabled by the right revered prelate the Bishop of Norwich states that, before a decision is taken to certify a human rights claim, the Secretary of State must obtain an individual best interests assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify with the assessment being carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional.
Lord Rosser
Before the Minister sits down, I have a question. I think I know the answer in the light of what he has said, but I would be grateful for confirmation. It is not quite the case that, as was said in Committee, the amendment moved then was unnecessary. What is clear from the Minister’s response is that the Government’s interpretation of the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 is that there is no duty on the Secretary of State, him or herself, to seek to find out whether the best interests of a child will be affected by their decision. Is that the Government’s interpretation of that duty under Section 55 of the 2009 Act?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Following what my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, I will add the word “choice”. If you have a card or a voucher you have to go to certain outlets—usually the middle-range outlets, not the cheaper shops or the bargain shops. When you get only £36 a week, you have to spend your money very carefully indeed. I enjoy cheese biscuits. I forget the name of the make now; they are cheddar biscuits. Perhaps other Members do as well. I can go to a shop in Llandudno and the marked price is £1.39. I buy them sometimes. If I go to a pound shop they are two for £1. There is a massive difference between what you can buy from a shop that has possibly only limited goods on sale and from one of the ordinary shops—I will not mention them; no publicity this evening.
We are denying people the choice and ability to look after themselves and their families in the best possible way. We spoke earlier of the best interests of the child. I suggest that the best interests of the child here is that the parent can use the money and the value that they have in the best possible way, and is not limited to a certain number of shops. It should be open if you have cash in your hand. You should not be embarrassed at the till because your card is overspent; you will know exactly what you have. I have said this many times to the Minister: we always seem to have a great friendly understanding, but I never got my way on store cards. I am sure that there is the possibility in the Bill to look after the best interest of the child and those who have this benefit. I urge the Minister to accept my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendment. It is in only exceptional circumstances that a card or voucher is used; usually it is a cash benefit that they can spend in whatever way they want.
Lord Rosser
Briefly, I am genuinely not clear what the problem is for the Government in accepting Amendment 116, which presumably would not involve large sums of money. As I understand it, it affects not people who have had their claims turned down and who have to leave the country, but people who receive a resident’s permit to remain in the country for differing reasons and differing periods of time. If it is the case that there is a gap between asylum support payments and mainstream payments, because matters are not all being dealt with within what is presumably the intended 28-day period, then, frankly, why not agree to the amendment? I hope that the Government will be able to give a helpful response to what, on the face of it, appears to be a pretty straightforward issue.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving her amendment and for maintaining pressure in this important area. She and the Red Cross have managed to identify a bureaucratic problem that we accept needs to be addressed.
In responding, I will place on record a few points. The first is my letter of 10 February, which is in the combined pack and set out my initial responses. I was also very grateful for the opportunity to meet—with the noble Baroness—officials. We talked through the reasons for the delays and the evidence. I know that that was something the officials found extremely helpful. It contributed to the response that I give now.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for bringing forward Amendment 116 concerning the transition off Home Office support of asylum seekers granted refugee status or other leave to remain. I agree with them on the importance of these arrangements, which we discussed at our meeting on 25 February. I also thank the British Red Cross for its excellent work in this area and for its advice ahead of this debate.
We allow a grace period of 28 days before Home Office asylum support ends in these cases. This is to provide time for the person to make other arrangements and move on from Home Office support. Many refugees have much to contribute to our economy as well as to our society, and work and integration go hand in hand. But some need support while they find work. I do not dispute that there is evidence—from the Department for Work and Pensions research in 2013 and the British Red Cross report of 2014; those two dates are relevant to the point I will come on to later—that some newly recognised refugees do not secure DWP benefits within 28 days. But the reasons for this are complex and the evidence does not show that the problem would be easily fixed simply by increasing the grace period to 40 days.
Our investigations into this show that there are two main reasons for delays. First, there is a lack of awareness among refugees of the need to apply for welfare benefits as soon as they are granted refugee status. Of the 16 people sampled in the Red Cross report, only three applied within the first three weeks of being granted status. That is a problem. Of course, they should apply for their biometric residence permit as soon as they get an indication, and that should take just a matter of days.
Help is on hand. I repeat that people are not left on their own with this. They are given advice and leaflets about the information and help that are available to them. Refugees can also seek help from the free telephone advice line run by Migrant Help—an excellent service that the Home Office funds. Migrant Help provides advice and support in building a new life in the UK, including help with housing and other issues. Refugees can also apply for integration loans. These can be used, for example, to pay a rent deposit or for essential domestic items or for work equipment. My point is that when we are identifying the problems, we must first make sure that people who are granted refugee status immediately understand what help is available to them and what they should do next. A new information leaflet for refugees was introduced in July 2015. In oral evidence in 2015 to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee session on benefits, the British Red Cross said the new leaflet provided “good guidance”. It supplements the advice and assistance available from Migrant Help, which I referred to.
Secondly, the DWP research identified occasions on which a lack of awareness among staff of the correct processes contributed to the problem. Updated guidance and instructions have been issued to DWP front-line staff to address this. We welcome the Work and Pensions Committee’s report on benefit delivery published on 21 December 2015, which recommends further work in this area. DWP will respond shortly to the report but intends to carry out an evaluation later this year of the impact of the improvements I have described.
The key point I make to the noble Baroness in assuring her that we take the concerns very seriously is that it is important that we have up-to-date evidence. I mentioned the reports from 2013 and 2014. We are now in 2016. Since those two dates, there has been a significant number of new initiatives and changes. We want to understand what the up-to-date periods of delay are.
Children: Sexual Abuse
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
They are very serious claims. The HMIC report at least pointed to some improvement. We have Professor John Drew looking independently into this and will carefully follow his responses. It is very important to have the confidence of the public in that particular area, which has been at the centre of so many cases, so we will be watching very carefully indeed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Question makes reference to the police. Is it for a chief constable of a force to decide as an operational matter on the level and extent of a police force’s involvement in working together with social services and other agencies to protect vulnerable children from sexual abuse, or is that level of involvement ultimately a decision for the police and crime commissioner to make as a strategic policy matter?
Lord Bates
That is a very good question. I shall write to the noble Lord, because these are very important matters that we have to get right. We have put guidance on individuals’ responsibilities on a statutory footing, and that guidance has been published. Operations are matters for chief constables but setting the overall strategies and priorities for the budget are matters for the police and crime commissioner in consultation. I will set out in a letter to the noble Lord where the guidance fits with his question.
Driving Instructors (Registration) Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on bringing this Bill before the House and on his helpful introductory speech. I have three questions to ask about the Bill, but I am not sure whether I should address them to the Minister, bearing in mind that the Government are supporting the Bill, or to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who is in charge of it. Before I go on to those questions, I make it clear that, as we did in the other place, we welcome the measures in the Bill, which will update and simplify regulation of the registration of driving instructors and make it easier for them, for example, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, to take a career break for family, personal or health reasons.
The first question relates to voluntary removal from the register of driving instructors. In the House of Commons, the Minister said that in the previous year, 610 approved driving instructors had asked to be removed from the register as they had other commitments, but legally the registrar was allowed to remove people only for reasons of conduct, competence or discipline. In the light of the other key change being introduced by this Bill to simplify the process for rejoining the register where an instructor’s registration has lapsed for between one and four years, could it be clarified, for my own benefit at least, what the advantage or advantages would be of seeking voluntary removal from the register? Is there, for example, an annual fee or other payment that has to be made for being on the register, which would no longer have to be paid, or is the benefit secured by voluntary removal that of no longer being required to take a standard check if called on to do so?
The second question relates to the following sentence in paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Notes:
“Once a person is on the register as an ADI they are required to take a ‘standards check’ every few years”.
What does that mean in practice? In particular, who decides when and at what intervals, and on the basis of what considerations, a person on the register has to take the standards check within the definition of “every few years”?
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the very positive response to the consultation exercise on the two key proposals in the Bill. I accept that one could have a pretty good guess at the answer; nevertheless, since this information does not appear to be in the Explanatory Notes, could I ask which types of organisations and bodies and which categories or groups of individuals were consulted?
Immigration Bill
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to ask about the information gateway provisions, and in particular Amendments 8 to 11. These are very substantial and intrusive new powers introduced at a very late stage of the Bill. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the justification for introducing them and why they were not thought of at an earlier stage of the Bill, even before Committee? They seem very wide, talking about the disclosure of information,
“for the purposes of the exercise of any function of the Director”.
Like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I would be interested to know whether the Information Commissioner has given advice. If so, will the Minister share that advice and assessment with us? There is a need for safeguards to match the breadth and depth of the powers. It strikes me that, while mention is made of the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—which is not quite RIP—there is, of course, a new EU regulation on data protection that will be directly applicable and therefore will not have to be transposed into an Act of Parliament. Have these powers been health-checked against the new regulation, which may be somewhat tighter than the Data Protection Act in certain areas?
I want to ask specifically about medical confidentiality. In Amendment 9, which introduces a new clause after Clause 5, subsection (1) says:
“A disclosure of information … authorised by section (Information gateways) does not breach … an obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure”.
Since health bodies—NHS trusts, the Care Quality Commission and so on—are on the list for information sharing, this obviously raises the question of whether medical information is going to be covered, which is likely.
There do not seem to be any similar provisions to those in new subsections (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the new clause in relation to intelligence information and information pertaining to HMRC, where there is an obligation not to disclose information,
“without authorisation from the appropriate service chief”,
or “from HMRC Commissioners”. There does not seem to be anything comparable for medical data. Clearly, these are sensitive personal data for which a higher level of stewardship is already required under the Data Protection Act, and even more so under the new EU regulation. I would like an assurance that these provisions have gone through the filter of the ICO and the new EU regulation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has already been said, the Government have tabled a whole raft of amendments relating to the labour market aspects of the Bill and the new position of Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the associated organisations. A number of questions have been raised in this brief debate and I certainly do not intend to reiterate any of them.
We had a lengthy debate in Committee about including in the Bill wording stating that the primary purpose of the director is the enforcement of labour market legislation as defined in the Bill. The purpose of our amendment seeking to achieve that objective was to ensure that the director’s functions were exercised primarily for the purpose of protecting those vulnerable to labour market exploitation. As we know, the Government resisted defining in the Bill the director’s primary purpose and function. Our concern was that without a clear definition in the Bill of the function of the director—a post that is being established in an immigration Bill—there are likely to be misunderstandings or wrong assumptions on the part of those who might come into contact with the director’s organisation that the post was also about immigration checks, rather than just labour market enforcement.
In respect of one or more of the bodies under the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, the Government’s amendments appear to provide for the sharing of intelligence and new information-sharing gateways, and for the disclosure of information to specified persons. What assurances can the Government provide that these amendments will not lead to the director and the associated organisations moving into the field of immigration control issues, rather than just labour market enforcement and the protection of workers from exploitation?
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I apologise to noble Lords for bombarding them with so many amendments at the last minute. As is often said, “You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. I have found it difficult to gather together all the pieces of this jigsaw, given all the consultations that we had. I wanted to bring together all the letters and the consultation documents into one document. The Bill team dutifully did that. I thought that was a helpful pack to take home and suggested that we ought to provide it to other Members. Therefore, we sat late into the night, binding the documents, putting them into envelopes and then ferried them across to the House to put them on to colleagues’ desks in time for today’s debate. That process was not meant to be an insult to noble Lords. On the contrary, we were trying to be helpful. There is nothing new in the pack. It is simply a collection of documents that have been sent out by other means.
There was a very good question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the nature of the amendments. Lest I be accused of making a virtue out of tabling too many government amendments, sometimes in the journey of legislation we forget important elements of it. To give some context, there was a wide consultation on this new role, which went out between October and December last year, and we listened to those views. It was published in December, and in January we published the Government’s response. Rather than publishing that response and dealing with the issue in guidance, we thought, “Let’s try to make amendments to the Bill in the light of the responses and how we want things to change”. That accounted for the bulk of the amendments.
We flagged up these amendments back in January, on the first day of Committee. I said that we had tabled a batch of government amendments relating to labour market enforcement and that others would follow at this stage. Breaking those down might be useful. Of the amendments we have tabled, 14 relate to the intelligence hub; seven relate to the DPRRC’s report, which was extremely helpful, and implementing all of its recommendations; 18 are technical; there were some drafting changes, which relate to the additional 15; and two relate to changes to the territorial extent of regulation-making powers.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for giving me notice of one of the points she was intending to raise. We believe that the title, Immigration Act, is entirely adequate given the measures in it. While the labour market enforcement procedures will protect all vulnerable workers, they will have a particularly beneficial effect for those who migrate to the UK, who are more likely to fall victim to exploitative employers as they may not fully understand their rights and can be far removed from their normal support structures. Chapter 1 of the Bill will better equip our enforcement bodies to find and stop unacceptable behaviour by rogue businesses—the point raised the noble Lord, Lord Deben. We need to ensure that migrant workers coming to this country are not exploited by businesses here; we need to up our game and ensure that businesses are playing by the rules and treating their employees properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a general point about the remit and asked about immigration control and the director getting involved in immigration. If the director got involved or shared information about immigration control, they would be operating outside their statutory functions as set out in Clauses 2 and 3.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about information-sharing. An important point, which I made in my introduction to the amendments, is that we have taken great care to set out the basis for information-sharing. In fact, one of the reasons we tabled the amendments was to address an earlier concern that the Bill did not state which organisations were going to share information. Rogue businesses and employers which breach labour market legislation often breach other legislation. Therefore, we are creating a framework to enable information-sharing between the director and other bodies. The legislation will be underpinned by memorandums of understanding between the director and those bodies, setting out the types of information that can and cannot be shared and the relevant processes that need to be followed. We are legislating now because we wanted to take account of the public consultation and legal advice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked if I would clarify the relationship between the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and the GLAA board. Our amendment clarifies that relationship by requiring those exercising labour market enforcement functions to have regard to the labour market enforcement strategy. My noble friend Lord Deben asked how we will know whether this legislation is effective. The publication of the strategy—it will be made public—will enable us to understand what the priorities are for the Director of Labour Market Enforcement and what issues he is uncovering in carrying out his duties. In addition, we will set out how the GLAA board must carry out its functions in such a way as to fulfil its part in the labour market enforcement strategy. The GLAA board will remain accountable to the Home Secretary for the delivery of its functions, but those functions will now sit within the broader strategic context provided for by the role of the director.
Lord Rosser
We have amendments in this group. First, I thank the Government for their amendment, which means that the offence of illegal working is committed only by a person who,
“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”,
that they are disqualified from working by their immigration status. It is different in wording from our amendment, which refers to a defence of having a “reasonable excuse” for working when disqualified from doing so by immigration status. I am certainly no lawyer, but I suspect that our amendment might provide a broader range of people with a defence than the government amendment. However, since the Government have taken on board the case that has been made for providing a defence to the offence of legal working, we do not intend to pursue this point any further.
We have previously argued the case for deleting the intended new offence of illegal working from the Bill, and we are associated again with an amendment to that effect. Not a single person could be prosecuted under this new offence who cannot already be prosecuted under existing offences; it is already a criminal offence under the Immigration Act 1971 to enter the UK without leave, when leave is required, and to overstay or be in breach of a condition of such leave. The Government’s argument for a new criminal offence of illegal working is that they believe it will provide an increased likelihood of seizing earnings through confiscation orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Government can confiscate relevant sums from those who work in breach of the terms of their existing stay under the 2002 Act but cannot do so for those working illegally, and the Government wish to close the gap. However, government figures indicate that the 2002 Act is not typically used for offences of working in breach of conditions, although it is deployed in cases involving other immigration offences. The government figures indicate that only 16 confiscation orders were made under the 2002 Act in 2014-15, and none of them followed criminal convictions for working in breach of conditions.
As I understand it, proceeds of crime proceedings are apt to be lengthy and costly, and the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on proceeds of crime says that it should prioritise,
“the recovery of assets from serious and organised crime and serious economic crime”.
I suggest that there would be few cases in which it would be cost effective or in the public interest to pursue confiscation proceedings to seize wages earned as a result of illegal working as proceeds of crime. However, there must be a distinct likelihood that the existence of the offence of illegal working will be used as an additional threat by those abusing or taking advantage of trafficked or enslaved persons to discourage them from going to the authorities, or indeed to coerce such people into exploitation in the first place. Yet one objective of the Bill is to encourage people who are being exploited to come forward. A trafficked or enslaved person who knows that they are not permitted to work will of course have no defence under the government amendment of “reasonable cause to believe”. So it is quite possible that the new offence of illegal working will on the one hand raise little or no additional money under the 2002 Act, and on the other hand, by providing the threat of prosecution for those exploiting vulnerable people who should not be in this country, be a further means of discouraging them from coming forward to the authorities. I very much hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will be prepared to give further thought to the wisdom of introducing this new offence of illegal working.
Baroness Hamwee
The Minister said during the previous stage that the amendment that would insert “without reasonable excuse” would introduce considerable ambiguity and risk successful prosecutions. The amendment is down again today. We should consider it. The courts, the CPS and the police often have to assess whether something is reasonable so, as I read it, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is a matter not of ambiguity but of judgment, although I concede that if it was strict liability there would be no need of judgment.
For the reasons that the noble Lord gave, the reasonable cause—I accept that that is a more normal formula—in the government amendment is welcome, but I do not believe it goes far enough to provide a defence to someone who knows that he is illegal but who has been abused and exploited, perhaps at a lower level than is covered by the Modern Slavery Act. If it is within the Modern Slavery Act, the defence kicks in only after there has been a charge. I do not think I am alone in preferring to see a charge not even getting off the starting block.
Our Amendments 49 and 50 are in response to the Minister’s explanation in Committee that the clause is largely driven by the wish to bring it within the Proceeds of Crime Act. He assured the Committee that the Proceeds of Crime Act would not be applied to inappropriate targets:
“We are talking here about people who have on their person a significant amount of cash in excess of £1,000”.—[Official Report, 18/1/16; col 626.].
I took those words literally and our amendments are an attempt to reflect them because, if that is the policy, the legislation should say so. I accept that the CPS guidance is to prioritise the recovery of the proceeds of serious organised crime and serious economic crime and that the confiscation order must be proportionate, but to create an offence with the risks which have been referred to and which I will come to in a moment seems an inappropriate direction in which to go if there is such a clear view on the part of the Government about when it will be used.
We remain extremely concerned about Clause 32 as a whole, and my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have our names to Amendment 52 to leave it out because of the danger of an increase, not a reduction, in exploitation. As we discussed on the previous group, the Bill is about more than immigration. If you fear prosecution and imprisonment, is that not a greater deterrent to standing up for your rights? Someone working without the right to do so should not be exploited any more than someone with the right, but we think that the new offence may carry far more risks than it solves problems.
I suspect that the new offence, or at least casting it in this way, is probably quite totemic for the Government but, given the risks of applying the Proceeds of Crime Act, surely there are other ways to deal with the issue, such as the existing offences that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has referred to, rather than by giving abusers and exploiters even more ammunition and ways that they can say to workers, “We can really cause trouble for you. You are in a situation that you can’t get out of, and you are in terrible trouble if you try to go to the police, squeal on us or whatever”. Given that existing offences could be used to prosecute everyone who would fall within the new section, we remain unpersuaded that it is appropriate to include the clause in the Bill.
Lord Rosser
I will be relatively brief, since the case for the amendment has already been made. My name is attached to the amendment, which we will vote for if the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House. Its effect, as has been said, is to give all asylum seekers who have been waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum application the right to work on the same basis as a person recognised as a refugee.
According to the latest immigration statistics, I think for the period from September to December last year, some 3,500 applications had been without an initial decision for longer than six months. Currently, only asylum seekers who have been awaiting a decision for more than 12 months can apply to the Home Office for permission to work in national shortage occupations.
I would add only that the Government said in Committee that they had met their commitment to decide straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015, and that they would decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. They went on to say that about 85% of cases were straightforward and that that meant that the vast majority of asylum claims were decided quickly. They also said that delays that had happened before had been brought under control.
Since the Government have said that the situation has changed for the better to a quite considerable degree in the time taken to deal with asylum claims and that previous delays have been brought under control, I hope that the Minister will be able to give a helpful response when he comes to reply. However, if the amendment is put to a vote and has the backing of the House, it will also provide the other place with the opportunity to reconsider this issue in the light of the changed situation in dealing with claims, under which the vast majority of asylum claims are now being decided quickly.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I see this whole issue as one with far wider implications than just allowing asylum seekers to work. Sometimes I get quite depressed thinking about the legacy we will hand over to our children and grandchildren. Is it a legacy where every hope has been withdrawn, or one in which there is hope even though there are difficulties?
I see this as an opportunity to extend some hope to people who are here often in desperate circumstances. It has already been mentioned that trying to exist on £36 a week is not easy. People who want to work, to contribute to the taxation of the UK, and to support their families, or who have skills that they would love to develop and extend, are people we should encourage. When the time comes—I hope we will test the feeling of the House—I ask the House to say, “Yes, we’re going to provide a beacon of hope. We’re not going to lift another drawbridge or make it more difficult”. We know that it is difficult, but I think, and I am not often a pessimist, that, in the years to come, the problems of the present day—migration, destitution, poverty and everything else—will be increased. This is our chance as a House to say that we are trying to help people and somehow provide a legacy that has at least some hope attached to it. It gives me terrific pleasure to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Rosser
My name is also attached to this amendment, which we support and for which we will be voting if the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, having heard the Government’s response, decides to test the opinion of the House. The noble Lord has made a powerful and persuasive case, as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not intend to go over again all the arguments that have been advanced but shall just reiterate one or two.
The amendment is intended to implement the terms of the Ewins Independent Review of the Overseas Domestic Workers Visa. The Conservative Minister said in the Commons:
“I cannot commit a future Government, but the intention is that whoever is in government—I very much hope it will be the Conservatives—will implement the review’s recommendations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/15; col. 650.]
This amendment enables the Government to deliver on an intention declared by a Conservative Minister during the passage of the then Modern Slavery Bill.
Mr Ewins stated in his review that his recommendations were the minimum necessary to protect overseas domestic workers, but the Government have indicated in their recent letter that they intend to implement less than that minimum. They say that Mr Ewins identified gaps in the evidence available. That is true, but Mr Ewins looked at the evidence that was available and made recommendations based on it. Rather than accept those recommendations, which largely confirm the arguments put forward during the passage of the then Modern Slavery Bill, the Government are proposing their own courses of action.
One is that all domestic workers should be allowed to change employer but only within the currency of the six-month visa. The Government say that their proposal acknowledges the case put forward for providing overseas domestic workers with an immediate escape route from abuse. However, one has to ask what the prospects are of changing employer if you have to say to a new employer that you are permitted to stay in the United Kingdom only for an absolute maximum of six months and very likely much less than that, as such overseas domestic workers would be very unlikely to decide to move from their current employer immediately. I suggest that the chances are likely to be slim and, without work, how would such an overseas domestic worker manage to live without falling back into exploitation and abuse, as there would be no recourse to public funds?
A six-month visa restricted to domestic work in a private household is no help to a vulnerable worker looking for a good employer. In reality, who would employ someone for less than or up to six months for childcare or care work? From a commercial point of view, who would employ someone for six months or less in a childcare or housekeeping position? It is just not long enough, especially since, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, the new employer would be highly unlikely to be able to get a reference from the previous employer.
An overseas domestic worker is more likely to report the abuse if they have left the control of the employer concerned and have relative security. That is what Mr Ewins’s recommendations were designed to achieve—recommendations which the Government appear to have either rejected or, at least, not accepted. Mr Ewins concluded the following in paragraph 10 of his review:
“On the balance of the evidence currently available, this review finds that the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.
This amendment seeks to provide in the Bill for the implementation of the Ewins review recommendations through the Immigration Rules, and it is an amendment that we support.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I take a different view on this and I do not apologise for doing so. I accept that the motivation is entirely well intended but I fear that it is completely impractical. Anyone who has been involved in issuing visas overseas will be astonished by this proposal. It would provide what will be seen by many as a wide-open door to the UK.
Earlier, the question was raised as to why the Government had not accepted the report from the reviewer. They could not have foreseen that the reviewer would simply deny that there were implications for immigration control, but there most certainly are. This is an invitation to anyone who comes here on a visa as an overseas domestic worker to leave their employment whether or not they are being abused. If they were being abused, of course I would support the idea that, through the mechanism that now exists, they should be helped, looked after and given time to organise their affairs. But the amendment says that any of the 17,000 workers who come here as domestic workers can leave their employment at any time and stay on for another two years with another employer. And then what? They will probably disappear. That is amazing and it cannot possibly be a basis for government policy.
Immigration: Harmondsworth
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Currently in the immigration detention estate there are about 2,700 people. Of those, 40% are foreign national offenders. If one then takes into account those who have committed immigration offences, they are the overwhelming majority of all those who are held in detention. They are held in detention as a last resort in exceptional circumstances, just prior to departure.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Chief Inspector of Prisons states in his introduction that the report,
“highlights substantial concerns in most of our tests of a healthy custodial establishment”.
He also states that many of the concerns that were identified in 2013, when Harmondsworth IRC was run by the GEO Group, have not been rectified, and in some respects matters have deteriorated since then, even though since September 2014 the Harmondsworth site has been run for the Home Office by the care and custody division of the Mitie Group. What penalties under the terms of their contracts have been, and will now be, incurred by the two contractors concerned, since presumably the Minister can confirm, in the light of the adverse reports from the chief inspector in 2013 and again in his latest report, that neither contractor has run or is now running the Harmondsworth site in accordance with the terms of their contract?
Lord Bates
That is something that is under active review at this point in the light of Stephen Shaw’s report. He identified that there had been some improvement in a number of areas since 2013, particularly in the physical infrastructure of the site, but nowhere near enough. There are very strict criteria set out for performance in the contract, and they are being reviewed by the Home Office. We will of course make public what actions will be taken when a decision has been reached.
Calais: “Jungle” Camp
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
Of course that is true but, on compassion, the Prime Minister said in September that we would bring 1,000 people into the country by Christmas, and so far we have 1,200, half of whom are children. The case in Romney Marsh that the most reverend Primate mentions, is in Kent, which has a particular responsibility in this respect, in terms of the numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving there and needing to be cared for. I was very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who undertook to write to other authorities about taking more of these unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, to share the burden that currently falls too heavily on Kent.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
A tribunal has recently ruled that the unaccompanied children with a strong claim to be in this country under the Dublin regulations should be able to come to the UK to be in the care of their close family while they make their applications. Do the Government now intend to let some or all of the estimated 150 such unaccompanied children in Calais who have a strong claim to be in this country under the Dublin regulations, also now come to the UK to be in the care of their families while they make their applications?
Lord Bates
The protection of children is paramount in this situation. There should be no child in Calais who is not being encouraged by all authorities to claim asylum there. Once they claim asylum there, they enter the multilateral Dublin agreement, and then their claims can be expedited to ensure that they are reunited with their families—if they have families in the UK—and, if not, more importantly, that they get the protection they need from the dreadful conditions we have seen and heard about.
European Union: Refugees
Lord Rosser Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for securing this debate. Obviously, it is timely in the light of the current situation both on the Macedonian border with Greece and at our end of Europe in Calais and Dunkirk.
In its very recent report on a more effective EU foreign and security strategy, the European Union Committee said:
“Migrant and refugee inflows are likely to remain a long-term challenge for the Union. So far, Member States have not agreed a collective response to this issue at the EU level. The fractious and polarised debates have battered the reputation of the EU and resulted in a muted response to a pressing security and humanitarian crisis. These internal divisions are likely to undermine Member States’ ability to achieve unity on foreign policy issues”.
The issues covered by this debate are ones that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised on a number of occasions before. Indeed, he did so last month when he asked in a Written Question whether,
“EU member states within the Schengen area are issuing a standard form of passport or other document to those they accept as asylum seekers or whether individual countries decide on the format to use”.
I think that the Answer the noble Lord received was that EU member states were actually issuing,
“a refugee status travel document, in the form set out in the Schedule to the Geneva Convention”,
rather than that that was what member states ought to be doing but whether they all were was another matter. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point in his reply.
The European Council meeting last month stated that the objective of the EU had to be,
“to rapidly stem the flows, protect our external borders, reduce illegal migration and safeguard the integrity of the Schengen area”.
With that last point in mind, the European Council said that there was a need to,
“get back to a situation where all Members of the Schengen Area fully apply the Schengen Borders Code and refuse entry at external borders to third-country nationals who do not satisfy the entry conditions or who have not made an asylum application despite having had the opportunity to do so”.
Reference has already been made in this debate to the intentions of an EU agreement with Turkey.
The European Council expressed the view that,
“with the help of the EU, the setting up and functioning of hotspots”,
in front-line member states to ensure effective reception and registration processes was,
“gradually improving as regards identification, registration, fingerprinting and security checks on persons and travel documents”,
although much remained to be done. What remained to be done included,
“to fully implement the relocation process, to stem secondary flows of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers and to provide the significant reception facilities needed to accommodate migrants under humane conditions while their situation is being clarified”.
The Council reiterated, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said:
“Asylum seekers do not have the right to choose the Member State in which they seek asylum”.
According to the third quarterly report for last year from the Frontex Risk Analysis Network, that quarter saw the highest ever reported numbers of illegal border crossings since data collection began in 2007, with the figure being not far short of 620,000. Most illegal border crossings—almost 320,000—were reported on the eastern Mediterranean route, with almost all accounted-for detections being on the eastern Aegean islands. Around 70% of the irregular migrants on this route claimed to be of Syrian nationality, with some 17% saying they were of Afghan nationality.
In the third quarter of 2015, the number of detected undocumented Syrian nationals within the EU, at almost 90,000, more than tripled compared to the previous quarter, and there were significant increases in the number of illegal stayers from Bangladesh, Iran and Iraq. Also during the third quarter of last year, EU member states reported more than 405,000 asylum applications—an almost 150% increase on the same period in 2014. Almost two-thirds submitted their application in the top three countries—Germany, Hungary and Sweden—although apparently most asylum seekers in Hungary absconded to apply for asylum in another country. The figures also showed that Syrians were the top-ranking asylum nationality in the EU Schengen area, with more than 137,000 applications in the third quarter of last year, followed by Afghan, Iraqi and Albanian nationals.
As a result of the increasing number of migrants arriving in the EU, several Schengen member states have introduced or reintroduced temporary border controls at their borders with other Schengen member states. At the end of last year the European Commission proposed establishing a European border and coast guard, with a view to ensuring a strong, shared management of external borders. The Commission also proposed to introduce systematic checks against relevant databases for all people entering or exiting the Schengen area.
The subject matter of this debate refers to an assessment of the security of the European Union’s borders. It is clear that the EU’s borders are not secure and probably cannot be secure in the face of the large-scale migration arising mainly from the current and continuing conflicts in the Middle East. However, our own borders are not secure either in the sense that we do not have much control over the numbers of people coming to this country. The lack of response from the Government when asked to give even an estimate of the level of net migration for this year and next year is eloquent testimony to that lack of control.
At times there also appears to be a certain lack of enthusiasm on the Government’s part for engaging with EU member states, particularly on migration and border control issues. Interestingly, the subject matter of this debate also asks what discussions the Government have had with the Governments of other EU member states about the documentation of those individuals they accept as refugees. Of course, that is a question to which only the Minister can really provide a response. Relevant and appropriate though that question is, and relevant and appropriate though the measures the EU wants to take to try to secure its borders may be, the only real solution to the present situation is to address the causes of the large-scale migration currently taking place—and that will require a mutual determination to do so on the part of the major powers, including the EU, which currently seems to be lacking.