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

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Paul Blomfield

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I will make sure to see the film.

The point was driven home by a detainee who said to us:

“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”

Medical experts told us that that sense of being in limbo—of hopelessness and despair—leads to deteriorating mental health. One expert from the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that those who are detained for more than 30 days, which is relevant to the limit we are looking for, had significantly higher levels of mental health problems.

New clause 1 would have an impact beyond those who are detained. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of time limit encourages poor caseworking in the Home Office. He said that a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention it had considered were a result of inefficient caseworking.

Prolonged detention does not happen because it is inappropriate for people to be released. Despite these places being called immigration removal centres, we have found—everybody needs to focus on this fact—that most people are released from detention for reasons other than being removed from the UK. They are released back into the community.

The system is not only bad for those who are involved, but expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. The recommendation in new clause 1 for a maximum time limit to be set in statute is about not simply righting the wrong of indefinite detention, but changing the culture that is endemic in the system.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his speech; he is demolishing the case for indefinite detention. Does he agree that it is not just about the welfare of the individuals involved—although, clearly, the limbo they have been left in is unacceptable—but about improving the way that the Home Office works?

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Although that was not the reason why we conducted the inquiry, it became clear through the inquiry that there would be significant benefits in terms of the Home Office’s operation, as well as cost and compliance, which I will come to. Those benefits underlined the recommendation, which had initially been driven by common humanity and the way the system operates.

In trying to change the culture that is endemic in the system, we are trying to meet the aims of the Home Office’s own guidance, with detention used more sparingly and only as a genuine last resort. The proposed time limit is 28 days, which reflects best practice in other countries and is workable for the Home Office. Home Office guidance describes detention as being for imminent removal and defines “imminent” as four weeks—that is, 28 days. That is the recommendation of the report and the principle behind new clause 1.

Deprivation of liberty should not be a decision taken lightly or arbitrarily. Currently, decisions are taken by relatively junior Home Office officials, with no automatic judicial oversight. Without a time limit, it simply becomes too easy for people to be detained for months on end with no meaningful way of challenging continued detention.

The introduction of a time limit and the reduction in reliance on detention would be a significant change because, to detain fewer people for shorter periods, the Government would need to introduce a wider range of community-based alternatives. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe talk about Australia, which is often seen as a hard-line country on immigration. Some of the detention practices there are abhorrent, but there is wider use of community-based alternatives to detention than in the UK. I appreciate that the Home Office is running a pilot about that—as I said earlier, I met the right hon. Member for Meriden and the Minister, and we had a really useful discussion—and I am certainly convinced that it is putting genuine effort into developing community-based alternatives in a thoughtful way.

There is a precedent in the UK. When the coalition Government committed to reducing the number of children detained, they introduced a family returns process, which the House of Commons Library described as intended

“to encourage refused families to comply with instructions to depart from the UK at an earlier stage, such as by giving them more control over the circumstances of their departure.”

It worked; there was a dramatic fall in the number of children detained, and the Home Office’s own evaluation of the scheme found that most families complied with the process, with no increase in absconding.

In conclusion, I quote Nick Hardwick, who was Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons at the time of our inquiry. After he made an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood, he said that

“well-respected bodies have recently called for time limits on administrative detention…In my view, the rigorously evidenced concerns we have identified in this inspection provide strong support for these calls, and a strict time limit must now be introduced on the length of time that anyone can be administratively detained.”

In supporting new clause 1, we are not proposing to end indefinite administrative detention simply because that would be the just and humane thing to do—although, for goodness’ sake, that is a good enough reason—but because it would be less expensive, improve procedures in the Home Office and be more effective in securing compliance.

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

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Paul Blomfield

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentions that further evidence is being demanded. Is that not precisely what started to happen with the Windrush scandal, causing so many problems? Is that not why we need as many safeguards as possible in the scheme?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. With the history of the Windrush experience being so close, one would imagine that we would not yet have forgotten its lessons and would seek to apply them in this situation. We tabled the new clauses precisely because of that concern.

It is well known that other problems with the process include its inaccessibility to iPhone users. The Government talked about how easy this process would be—people would be able to do it on their phones—but that is not the case for half of the UK’s adults, who happen to use an iPhone. The inability to develop an app for use on an iPhone does not create a great deal of confidence in the rest of the process or the Home Office’s ability to handle it. People who already have proof of permanent residence are being asked to provide evidence of it, even though they were promised a simple swap to settled status. We need to have local support centres where people can apply offline, but they are not available.

The new clauses would remove the category of pre-settled status. This distinction, whereby an individual must be resident for five years to qualify for settled status, seems to be the result of a copy-and-paste exercise from the rules for permanent residence. A number of the stakeholders from whom the Committee took evidence do not see the rationale for it and believe that it serves no clear purpose. In fact, it creates more bureaucracy for individuals and the Home Office—this morning we discussed how difficult the Home Office sometimes finds it to deal with complicated or even simple procedures.

The Government have already admitted that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish easily between EU citizens who arrive before and after 29 March, which adds another layer of uncertainty. We can easily foresee the confusion for employers and landlords, who will wonder what different rights apply to the different categories, with detrimental effects for the holders of pre-settled status. I would welcome clarification from the Minister. If it is not simply to mirror the rules on permanent residence, can she explain the rationale for pre-settled status?

New clause 15 sets out other requirements, such as ensuring that applicants are issued with physical documentation of their proof of status. I acknowledge that this replicates new clause 35, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. It is another area where the Home Office will inevitably have to move. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Professor Smismans vividly illustrated not only the administrative hassle of a digital system, but the potential implications for the treatment by what they describe as “private actors” and for

“equal access to work and housing.”

No other immigration status in this country operates exclusively digitally. The Government have said that they want this system to be more user-friendly than the current application process, but members of the3million group have made it absolutely clear that physical proof of their status would improve their experience of the system and provide some much-needed reassurance. I really do not understand why the Government are so resistant to that, and I urge the Minister to take the opportunity on this issue to work with, rather than against, EEA nationals and the people who speak for them. I imagine that this is an area that the Government will have to move on, as they did on the fee—many of us argued for it for a long time before the change was made.

New clause 15 would put on the face of the Bill the Government’s commitment not to levy a fee. For a long time, the Government were insistent on the need to charge £65 for an application. I am sure the Minister will embarrassingly recall that—in a written answer to me—she was not prepared to rule out the £65 fee for victims of modern slavery and trafficking at that stage. I am delighted that the Government moved on the issue. It might have been because of the embarrassment that, at one stage, the European Parliament was even considering covering the cost of the fees on behalf of EU nationals in this country. After campaigning by Opposition Members and other parties, along with the3million and trade unions, it was a good step that the Prime Minister conceded that the application should be free; therefore, the Government should have no issue putting that into the legislation.

New clause 16 details the rights of family members of EEA nationals who are eligible for settled status. New clause 18 would make it explicit that article 8 of schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998—the right to respect for private and family life—applied to holders of settled status and of the work visa for EEA and Swiss nationals dealt with in new clause 21.

On new clause 17, the Government have repeatedly stated that there would be only three criteria for settled status: nationality of a relevant country or a family member, residence in the UK and a criminality check. The rules in the appendix of the Immigration Rules go beyond that; they leave a loophole where someone who is not a serious criminal and otherwise eligible could be denied settled status on the basis of non-exercise of treaty rights. New clause 17 seeks to address this issue. Following legal action from the JCWI, from whom we took evidence, the Government narrowed the rules, but the power still remains. In written answers to me, the Minister has stated:

“the UK has decided, as a matter of domestic policy, to be more generous than the draft Withdrawal Agreement in certain respects. In particular, those applying under the scheme will not be required to show that they meet all the requirements of current free movement rules, such as any requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance or generally to detail the exercise of specific rights under EU law, such as the right to work.”

The new clause would enshrine that policy in law.

If the Government do not accept new clause 17, could the Minister explain why they are so intent on wishing to retain a power that they never intend to use?