Nationality and Borders Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Thursday 4th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his constructive approach to the issue. Perhaps we may continue the conversation in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Safe and legal routes

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—

(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,

(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and

(c) details of the application process.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.”— (Paul Blomfield.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause raises an issue central to the Bill and tests the Government’s commitment. Ministers here and elsewhere have consistently argued that their objective for this legislation is to break the business model for the people smugglers, to stop dangerous journeys across the channel and instead to offer those fleeing war and persecution safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK. As the Opposition side have said many times, we endorse those objectives. What we have been doing over the past few weeks is looking at how the Bill achieves them.

We know that the Government’s own assessment of their proposals suggests that they will probably fail; the impact assessment they conducted went so far as to point out that they would probably be counterproductive. Obviously, the Government have brushed that evidence aside, but there is a real concern that there is a fundamental deceit at the core of the Bill, which is that the Government are not serious about offering the safe and legal alternatives.

The new clause is not particularly radical or ambitious; it simply requires the Home Secretary to publish a report on all current safe and legal routes, who is eligible and how people can apply. It would provide transparency and help the Home Office, because it would be able to point to a credible alternative to the dangerous journeys that we all want to discourage. Currently, however, that is not the case: the schemes that the UK has open—the UKRS and the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme—have little detail in the public domain and little guidance on the eligibility criteria or the process for application. I remind the Committee of the point I made earlier: in the first half of this year, only 310 people were resettled under the UK resettlement scheme. The recently published details of the Afghan scheme frankly offer little hope for those to whom the Prime Minister made grand promises about “every effort” and “open arms” back in August.

I remind the Minister that, while the Government promote the generosity of the UK and, as we have touched on previously, we should welcome every effort that has been made to support those fleeing war and persecution, in 2019, Germany resettled more than three times as many refugees as the UK; 1.5% of Germany’s population are refugees, in comparison with 0.65% in France, 0.45% in the Netherlands and 0.19% in the UK, according to the World Bank. We are not middle ranking, as I think the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said at one stage; we have traditionally been middle ranking, but under this Government we have been falling behind.

By accepting the new clause and publishing information about resettlement routes, the Home Office can at least be honest about the resettlement it is prepared to offer, and to whom. We as a Committee have read the evidence shared from Safe Passage International, which included some examples of people such as Jabir and Ahmed. Jabir is an unaccompanied child in northern France who is desperate to rejoin his family in the UK. He is willing to risk the channel to be reunited with his loved ones. His family have already lost a young family member to the treacherous crossing, so they are desperate to find a way for Jabir to be reunited with them, but it does not exist. While he would have had a clear case under Dublin III, there is no clear route for him now.

Meanwhile, 15-year-old Ahmed is stranded alone in France after fleeing Afghanistan. He desperately wants to be reunited with his brother, who was granted asylum in the UK and is now a young business owner. Under the UK’s current rules, the brothers would find it extremely difficult to reunite. If Ahmed’s parents were in the UK, the process would be straightforward, but tragically his brother is his only remaining family member. Ahmed is in an extremely vulnerable situation; he suffers from trauma and struggles enormously with the loss of his family. Being reunited with his brother is his only option to feel safe and to build a better future. I hope that in responding to these comments, the Minister will outline specifically what options for safe passage are, or are planned to be, available for those two boys.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Stuart C. McDonald

- - Excerpts

This group of amendments and new clauses is not new. It was proposed in similar words in the most recent immigration Bill by, I think, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I may be wrong. No Bill passes through this Parliament on immigration and nationality law that does not include amendments and debate about immigration detention. Perhaps, after the last couple of years, Members are more than ever acutely aware that the deprivation of people’s freedoms is keenly felt and should not occur without evidence as to its necessity.

We are talking here about the deprivation of liberty not because people have committed a crime but, essentially, for the convenience of the Home Office. The new clauses contain measures to end what is indefinite detention in the UK, whatever the Home Office says to the contrary, and to implement a workable system that ensures detention is used only as a last resort to effect lawful removals from the UK. That is what the situation should be. The existing power to detain without prior judicial authority would be retained but there would be important safeguards: a 28-day time limit, judicial oversight by way of bail hearings after 96 hours with clear criteria for continued detention and re-detention only when there is a material change in status or circumstances.

Immigration detention has declined over the last several years, which is very welcome. Nevertheless, there is no release date for immigration detainees, which is incredibly severe, particularly in terms of mental ill health. Although numbers have been falling, the length of time that people are detained has not fallen. The fact of falling numbers does not reduce the need for a time limit. We are talking about several thousand individuals leaving detention every year who have been detained for longer than 28 days and hundreds who have been detained for more than six months. In a minority of cases, detention lasts for years rather than months.

Why 28 days? It is not a number that has been pulled from thin air. It is already in Home Office guidance, which requires caseworkers to consider whether removal is imminent and goes on to define imminence in the following terms:

“Removal could be said to be imminent where a travel document exists, removal directions are set there are no outstanding legal barriers and removal is likely to take place in the next four weeks.”

This is a recommendation that has been made by many organisations with expertise in the area, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Bar Council and the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration.

Paul Blomfield

-

As vice-chair of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he will add the House of Commons to the list of those bodies that have endorsed this? When our recommendation was considered on a votable motion in a Backbench Business debate, it was approved by the House.

Stuart C. McDonald

- - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members involved for their work on that report, which was incredibly thorough. We then had a Backbench Business debate and the Government did not oppose it, because there was clearly a majority in the House of Commons at that time for such a time limit.

Finally, I want to say why 28 days should be the limit. There is a body of evidence that the effect of indefinite detention on mental health in general is very negative, but that after a month the deterioration is particularly significant. We recognise that there will be a minority of cases where people will try to play the system and use the time limit to frustrate lawful removal, but the amendment allows for re-detention if there is a material change in status or circumstances. Other sanctions are also open to the Government in such circumstances.

If none of that appeals to the Government, I will briefly mention the argument that consistently over half those detained are then released into the community, so it is a completely inefficient system that costs an absolute fortune. There are alternatives that are not only better for the individuals concerned, but easier on the taxpayer. I hope the Government will give serious thought to the amendments. The issue has been championed by Members of all parties for a considerable period. It is now time to see a step change in the Government’s approach to the use of immigration detention.

Craig Whittaker

- - Excerpts

I want to be clear from the outset that this Government’s position is that a time limit on detention simply will not work and will not be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be here in the UK leave.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This group of amendments and new clauses is not new. It was proposed in similar words in the most recent immigration Bill by, I think, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I may be wrong. No Bill passes through this Parliament on immigration and nationality law that does not include amendments and debate about immigration detention. Perhaps, after the last couple of years, Members are more than ever acutely aware that the deprivation of people’s freedoms is keenly felt and should not occur without evidence as to its necessity.

We are talking here about the deprivation of liberty not because people have committed a crime but, essentially, for the convenience of the Home Office. The new clauses contain measures to end what is indefinite detention in the UK, whatever the Home Office says to the contrary, and to implement a workable system that ensures detention is used only as a last resort to effect lawful removals from the UK. That is what the situation should be. The existing power to detain without prior judicial authority would be retained but there would be important safeguards: a 28-day time limit, judicial oversight by way of bail hearings after 96 hours with clear criteria for continued detention and re-detention only when there is a material change in status or circumstances.

Immigration detention has declined over the last several years, which is very welcome. Nevertheless, there is no release date for immigration detainees, which is incredibly severe, particularly in terms of mental ill health. Although numbers have been falling, the length of time that people are detained has not fallen. The fact of falling numbers does not reduce the need for a time limit. We are talking about several thousand individuals leaving detention every year who have been detained for longer than 28 days and hundreds who have been detained for more than six months. In a minority of cases, detention lasts for years rather than months.

Why 28 days? It is not a number that has been pulled from thin air. It is already in Home Office guidance, which requires caseworkers to consider whether removal is imminent and goes on to define imminence in the following terms:

“Removal could be said to be imminent where a travel document exists, removal directions are set there are no outstanding legal barriers and removal is likely to take place in the next four weeks.”

This is a recommendation that has been made by many organisations with expertise in the area, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Bar Council and the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration.

[Paul Blomfield]

As vice-chair of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he will add the House of Commons to the list of those bodies that have endorsed this? When our recommendation was considered on a votable motion in a Backbench Business debate, it was approved by the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you, Sir Roger. In relation to the first group, we fully support the shadow Minister and amendments 36 and 37, which would limit the range of applicants who might face those notices, including children survivors of trafficking and those who need protection because of gender-based violence or sexual orientation. Amendment 153 simply excludes a number of additional groups of people, including those suffering from mental ill health. The shadow Minister explained exactly why it can be very difficult to demand disclosure by certain deadlines from certain applicants. The same arguments apply in relation to our amendments. If we go down this route, there must be a recognition that disclosure of evidence for some can be an incredibly difficult process. How will that be taken into account?

[Paul Blomfield]

Taking account of your suggestion, Sir Roger, I wanted to make a few comments, although my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made a substantial contribution. We need to pay close attention to this clause and those that follow it, because they cut across a basic principle of English and Scottish law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Underlying the clauses is an assumption of disbelief—everybody is playing the system. Of course, there are people who do, but we do not design our justice system on that assumption, nor should we design the asylum system on that basis.

Instead, we should look at the practical application, because as I said when I spoke to clause 10, we need to understand the journeys taken by those seeking refuge in our country as they flee persecution and conflict, and understand the trauma that led them to uproot themselves from their homes and the trauma that they experience on their journeys. That should give the Government serious pause for thought.

Clauses 16, 17 and 23 prejudice the system against survivors of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, and reduce access to refugee protection. Clause 16 permits the Home Secretary to serve an evidence notice on a person who has made a protection of human rights claim, forcing them to provide evidence before a specified date. That needs to be looked at in terms of the consequences set out in clause 23 diminishing the weight of their evidence. We are returning to a theme here, because this is in conflict with the Home Office’s own asylum policy, which recognises that there are many good reasons why women who have survived sexual and other gender-based violence would be late in applying for asylum or in submitting evidence.

Let me quote the Home Office’s policy:

“There may be a number of reasons why a claimant, or dependant, may be reluctant to disclose information, for example feelings of guilt, shame, and concerns about family ‘honour’, or fear of family members or traffickers, or having been conditioned or threatened by them…Those who have been sexually assaulted and or who have been victims of trafficking may suffer trauma that can impact on memory and the ability to recall information. The symptoms of this include persistent fear, a loss of self-confidence and self-esteem, difficulty in concentration, an attitude of self-blame, shame, a pervasive loss of control and memory loss or distortion.”

That policy—the policy of the Home Office—states that

“disclosure of gender-based violence at a later stage in the asylum process should not automatically count against their credibility.”

Yet that is precisely what the Government are trying to do in these clauses, in conflict with their own policy.

The Women for Refugee Women charity, which does extraordinary work supporting those fleeing gender-based violence, says:

“because there are so many legitimate reasons for why a woman who has survived gender-based violence may submit evidence late, we do not think there is a way in which these evidence notices can be implemented fairly in respect to these highly vulnerable individuals.”

Let me return to the Home Office’s own assessment of the proposals, which found that the Bill’s

“policies could indirectly disadvantage protected groups”,

such as

“children, disabled people and people who are vulnerable for reasons linked to other protected characteristics—including but not limited to gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, sexual orientation and sex.”

That disadvantage, which the Home Office has identified, to vulnerable people and victims of huge trauma and violence will be hardwired into our law by these clauses, so I urge the Government to withdraw them.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

There is an exception to every rule, so I am prepared to accept that not all the problems are down to the Home Office. We discussed that issue earlier. The fact that some people may seek to abuse the system does not mean that the system should be changed to focus on those cases. We should operate on the basis that everybody has a right to access and utilise the judicial processes that are available.

As I was saying, the backlog has risen at a time when the number of asylum applications for the year ending June 2021 fell. We know that is reflected across the system; it is not just a problem with asylum. In the relatively straightforward area of EU settled status, recent data from the Home Office in response to a freedom of information request showed that, in June, more than 26,000 EU citizens had been waiting for more than a year for a decision; more than 216,000 had been waiting for more than six months; and more than 680,000 had been waiting for more than three months.

The problem of delays is endemic in the Home Office, and there were no JRs involved in those numbers. In the asylum process, delay is not only seriously detrimental to the individuals, but—we have returned to this point a number of times, and will again—hugely costly to the taxpayer, so any measure that will exacerbate rather than correct the issue is unconscionable.

The assumption behind the measures in clause 20 and related causes is that those trapped in the system are to blame, as was echoed in the exchange we just had. Blaming others is a common approach of the Government on a wide range of issues such as covid, where GPs are the lightning rod for discontent, and Brexit, where we blame everybody going other than those who negotiated the deal. That ignores the reality that those trapped in the system want decisions to be expedited as soon as they can. They want to move on with their lives. Those who are successful want to take the opportunity to work and contribute to our society.

We need more resources from the Home Office to tackle the backlog. It is welcome that there has been some acknowledgement of that. I saw that the permanent secretary said at the Home Affairs Committee last month that the Home Office is planning to almost double the number of caseworkers, which is extremely positive. It is delayed recognition of where the problem might lie, but they should not be seeking to undermine applicants, which subsection (3) of clause 20 does by specifying that the Secretary of State or the competent authority must consider evidence being brought late as damaging to a claimant’s credibility unless there are good reasons why it was brought late. We come again to this issue, which we debated in relation to an earlier clause, of good reasons.

As there is no explanation before us, either in the legislation or in the explanatory notes, of what might constitute good reasons, amendment 139 seeks to help the Government, in a collegial spirit, by inviting the Secretary of State to publish a framework that allows the consideration of the effect of post-traumatic stress and potential endangerment on the provision of evidence. I do not think that any of us could object to the idea that post-traumatic stress and potential endangerment would be good reasons, so I will be interested to hear the Minister explain, if in fact he does not embrace the amendment, why that is the case, because we go on to suggest that he might also publish the other factors that would be seen to be good reasons.

The clause serves to shift from a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, again echoing an earlier discussion, back to our legal system’s norm of innocent until proven guilty. As it stands, unamended, it is not in the spirit of the law or of British values, and it should not be in the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms McDonagh. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, clause 20 instructs decision makers to take into account

“as damaging the PRN recipient’s credibility…the late provision”

of information and evidence. I absolutely support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment to explore “good reasons” for evidence, including post-traumatic stress. Our amendment 154 provides other examples, such as mental health issues or where a person has been a victim of torture or other crimes that can impact on their ability to provide information. That is similar to debates we have already had.

Amendment 41 revisits earlier arguments about taking into account all the evidence, including lateness in providing it, when assessing a case. It is not appropriate to tell decision makers what conclusions to draw. We say decision makers will often find people to have credibility if lots of new information is provided with respect to that explanation. That is a matter that should be left to them. It is not for parliamentarians to tell decision makers how to analyse claimants.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

Q I wondered if I could follow up on clause 48—a clause you did not mention—and the proposals in the Bill that would, effectively, increase the threshold for initial identification for a reasonable grounds decision through the national referral mechanism. Do you think the threshold is currently set too low? Are there risks associated with setting it higher in the way the Bill does?

Dame Sara Thornton: There are two schools of thought on this. Many in the sector will argue that the current, very low bar is appropriate, but I know colleagues in law enforcement think it is too high. The Bill is suggesting that we use the wording in the European convention against trafficking, or reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. On balance, I think that is appropriate.

Reasonable grounds is a pretty low threshold that people understand. It is more than a hunch or a suspicion, but it is not as much as a balance of probabilities. There needs to be some sort of objective information to base that reasonable grounds decision on. The obvious thing to say is that the guidance given to staff in the competent authority will be key, but it is not an unreasonable proposal—not least because the current legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland uses the word “is” and, as far as I understand, the competent authority uses the same test across the United Kingdom. I do not think it will make that much difference, and to be consistent with the European convention is a reasonable proposal.

Siobhán Mullally: A concern here would be the possible impact of changing the threshold in terms of potential victims of trafficking accessing support and assistance and in processes of identification. Is it likely to have a negative impact? Is it likely to increase difficulties in identifying victims and referring them in a timely way for assistance and protection? That would be a concern if it is a regressive measure from where we are now; in terms of human rights law, you want to ensure non-regression in the protection of human rights of victims of trafficking.

I have concerns about the impact of that and whether it will increase the difficulty of timely and early identification of victims, because early identification is critical to ensuring effective access to protection. There is a question about how it will be implemented in practice and what the fallout will be in its implementation.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Q I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. If I may start with Dame Sara, in answer to Holly Lynch’s questions earlier about clause 51 you expressed concern about the range of offences that might end up excluding people from access to the NRM. Are there concerns that some of the offences created by the Bill might also have that effect?

Dame Sara Thornton: That links to a comment I made in my correspondence with the Home Secretary. If the penalty for illegally entering the country is increased to four years, we could have a situation where, as a matter of course, if somebody had been prosecuted for that they would not be able to access the NRM. It is a risk that probably exists more on paper than in reality, because most of the time immigration enforcement does not use the law to prosecute; it tends to use administrative processes.

Nationality and Borders Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Sure, but our concern is that that is exactly what the Bill does, and obviously we will hear evidence from UNHCR and various others who have that concern as well. Thank you for your evidence.

[Paul Blomfield]

Q Clearly, we are all concerned and admire your commitment to stopping these dangerous crossings and the risks at which they put people. Our issue as a Committee is to determine whether the measures in the Bill are the best way to achieve that objective.

You talked about the factors that had led smuggling gangs and others to move from lorry and train crossings to boat crossings. We heard from witnesses earlier that we blocked off the opportunity to board lorries through the fortifications around terminals, which was one of the factors that pushed people to the more desperate route of boats. The Home Office’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that there is a serious risk that these measures could encourage people to attempt even riskier routes. Do you think that is a factor we should bear in mind?

Rob Jones: Displacement, in terms of protecting security measures, is always a potential second-order consequence. Organised crime is flexible, and we will respond to that. In terms of where we are at now with the general maritime threat, this does need dealing with. We are trying to second guess where people will go next. We had a terrible mass casualty event in Purfleet, where people were locked into a fridge box. We have had fatalities in the channel already, so we know just how ruthless some of the individuals involved are. We are trying to second guess where they may go next. We already know that bigger vessels have been used, and some of these tactics we have spoken about are important in dealing with bigger vessels.

I think we have pretty much got to the point now where a lot of the tactics and trade craft used in the eastern Mediterranean and other areas of the world are now being deployed in high-risk clandestine entry to the UK. That risk has already manifested itself. We need to live with it, confront it and deal with it, because it is happening now. With the numbers that we see and some of the vessels that are in the channel, we do need to do something different. It has grown to the point where you now have 50 or 60 people in vessels that are not licensed and that are taped together with plywood floors. That is, unfortunately, going to end one way unless it is disrupted, so it does need a second look.

On the displacement point, yes, it is a risk, but where is it? We are now living with a range of tactical options from smugglers that pretty much covers all of the modes. The riskiest one right now is, unfortunately, the English channel and small boats.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I rise to speak to new clause 5 on the system for providing settled status, on which we will be seeking a vote, and to amendments 2, 3, 20 and 21 on the right of appeal, as well as amendment 37 on the Independent Monitoring Authority.

I regret the Minister’s combative response to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who made a typically thoughtful and considered contribution that did not reflect division across the Committee because, when these issues have previously been debated in Parliament, considerable concern has been expressed on both sides about the consequences of getting this wrong. If we do get it wrong, it will have a significant impact not only on EU citizens in the UK and on Brits in Europe but, frankly, on our caseload as Members of Parliament.

I believe it is possible to reach agreement on some of these issues, and it is in that spirit that I address our amendments. On new clause 5, the Minister said that providing certainty for EU citizens is central to the Government’s agenda. The Prime Minister said:

“under this Government they”—

EU citizens—

“will have the absolute certainty of the right to live and remain.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1459.]

That seems clear, but the reality of applying for settled status is different. It is a constitutive system in which EU citizens acquire settled status or pre-settled status only by successfully applying for their right to live and work in the UK post Brexit. New clause 5 seeks to avoid that by making the scheme declaratory, meaning that EU citizens and family members who meet the eligibility criteria would automatically have the right to continue to live and work in the UK and would simply need to register for the purpose of proving their status.

We believe our approach would avoid a repeat of Windrush. The Minister suggested that the Government’s objective is to avoid such a Windrush situation and that a declaratory system could encourage a repeat. The Windrush scandal was caused by a number of factors: the changing legal environment for people who had lived here for decades; the 2012 introduction of the hostile environment; the lack of record keeping by the Home Office both under this Government and when we were in power—I am not trying to score party points; and by Home Office staff being incentivised by targets and bonuses to reach deportation targets. But for the Windrush victims, crucially, there was at least the legal safety net of the Immigration Act 1971, so they could seek recourse against their treatment.

What the Government are saying is that making the EU settlement scheme declaratory would create a second Windrush. They are perversely blaming the scandal—it was a scandal, as the Minister recognises—on that safety net, which is a fundamental misunderstanding. They are saying that the way to avoid another Windrush is to remove the safety net that the Windrush victims faced.

No system will get 100% of those eligible to apply, and I recognise the Minister’s point about the Government’s efforts to ensure that as many apply as possible. I take his point that 2.8 million have already done so, and I am sure many more will apply by the deadline of June 2021, but not everybody will. The Government do not even have a target for how many people they think should be eligible to apply. If only 3% of the estimated 3.5 million EU nationals living in Britain fail to apply, which is not beyond the bounds of possibility, it will leave 100,000 people facing a hostile environment and facing possible deportation. I have talked to many EU citizens who, despite all the Government’s publicity efforts, are unaware that the rights they have enjoyed for 30 years need to be applied for, and I have had to explain to them about how to apply for settled status. The Government have recognised that, as has the Minister. In an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, he said:

“If EU citizens have not registered”

by the deadline for settled status

“without an adequate justification, the immigration rules will apply,”

When pressed on whether that would mean deportation, he said:

“Theoretically, yes, we will apply the…rules.”

The possibility of people whom we describe as our neighbours, friends, taxpayers and colleagues being deported exists while we pursue the same approach to settled status as the Government are now.

It is not too late to correct course. In our view, and that of others proposing similar amendments, a declaratory system is the only way to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from potentially being criminalised and deported. Under a declaratory scheme, if somebody does not register for settled status before June 2021, they will not lose rights; they will simply need to register for the Government to provide them with the proof of their status.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the speech he is making. Does he agree that the Minister is completely wrong to think that a declaratory system means that fewer people will apply after June next year? People will still have every incentive to apply for the settlement scheme, because they will need that proof to avoid the hostile environment and to access the NHS, employment and all their other entitlements in this country.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there would be every incentive to apply, because without the proof these people will not be able to exercise their rights. We are simply seeking to ensure, through our new clause, that they do not lose their rights. The approach we are suggesting is explicitly allowed under the withdrawal agreement. The Government had a choice about what kind of system they would implement and, in our view, they chose wrong. We need to remember that this is not just about EU citizens in the UK; the largest national group affected by Brexit are the 1.2 million British citizens in Europe. The EU and the individual member states, not all of which have met our expectations, have been clear that rights granted to UK citizens will be based on reciprocity. The Minister is right to want to see other countries stepping up to the mark, but that will not be assisted if we reduce rights of citizens within the UK, because that will risk a reduction of rights of citizens across the EU27. So a declaratory scheme for EU citizens will be good not only for those here, but for UK citizens living in Europe.

I wish to move on to another aspect of the problems with the settlement scheme. The Minister said that 2.8 million have applied and he went on, unintentionally, I am sure, to give the wrong impression about the granting of status, because he said that 2.5 million had been granted status—that is correct, but it is not the status they had applied for. The most recent statistics show that almost half of the applicants for settled status are being granted pre-settled status, which comes with substantially fewer rights; it is a temporary form of leave lasting up to five years—[Interruption.] It is not indefinite leave to remain.

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

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Stringer. I have spoken many times about immigration detention. I will essentially echo all the shadow Minister’s points, so I will be brief. As he said, there is cross-party support for these new clauses, and the Scottish National party is four square behind them.

Immigration detention for too long has become an accepted part of life, at least among politicians, but, for the reasons that the shadow Minister gave, I detect that that is changing, and not before time. Politicians have probably been out of step with the public in that regard. Every time I have a discussion with members of the public and explain to them the existing system of detention, they are actually quite horrified to hear what goes on out of sight and out of mind. Ultimately, we are talking about the indefinite deprivation of liberty in what are basically private prisons. There is little in the way of independent oversight, and all of this is done for administrative reasons. That is a huge invasion of fundamental rights.

We detain far too many people. The Minister will often say that the vast majority are not detained but are managed in the community. However, that is not the point. We are still talking about significant numbers of people—25,000 or so every year. That is a welcome improvement on previous years—let me put that on record—but there is a long way to go before we are anywhere near an acceptable position. We have a bloated immigration estate compared to many of our European neighbours, and we are still detaining far too many vulnerable people. The changes made in light of the first Shaw report have not made the difference that we would have expected or wanted so far.

As the shadow Minister said, half of all these people are released. Detention should be a matter of absolute last resort, but instead we are detaining so many people that we just release half of them again. That is completely unacceptable. The UK is an outlier in terms of international practice. This country has a long history of being very precious about the right to liberty, with severe and strict safeguards on the Government’s power to interfere with that.

We all know—I think it is inarguable—that detention is harmful. One key harm inflicted on detainees is the uncertainty—as has been evidenced in all sort of reports—of not knowing when their detention will come to an end. For all the reasons that the shadow Minister has given, there are no excuses for applying different rules to different people, and foreign national offenders should be included in the regime that we are proposing. We also need greater scrutiny of who goes into detention. Safeguards in relation to vulnerable people are still not working. Gatekeeping is not working.

These new clauses achieve two goals. They put in place a time limit and significantly improve oversight of who is being detained. I want to put on record my gratitude to all the organisations involved in drafting the new clauses, and to all sorts of organisations who, for many years, have documented the harm that is done by immigration detention and have kept it on the agenda, even when it was at severe risk of falling off.

There is a breadth of support for this new clause. The time limit is overdue. I think it will happen this time—I hope that is the case. Like the shadow Minister, I am keen to work with all parties, including the Government, to ensure that we put in place a system that is robust and fair but respects people’s right to liberty rather than detaining them for administrative reasons.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I want to add my voice to support my colleagues on this, because in 2014 I was vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry into immigration detention. Although the focus of this Bill, and therefore of this new clause, is European economic area nationals, any decision that we make in relation to them should be seen as a stepping-stone to progress.

This is something on which I am confident we will make progress—I hope that we can make progress this morning—because there is not only strong cross-party support but very considerable support on the Conservative Benches, as the Minister knows, from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) through to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis); I do not think we could get much broader than that in the Conservative party at the moment.

On our inquiry team there were parliamentarians from both Houses and all the main parties, who brought in huge experience. They included a retired law lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. There were more Government Members among the inquiry team than those of us from the Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), with whom I have met the Minister to talk about these issues, as well as David Burrowes and Richard Fuller, who are no longer Members of the House, but to whose work I pay tribute.

The panel was brought together by the all-party parliamentary group on migration, which at that time I chaired, although it is now more ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, who is not in her place at the moment, and by the all-party parliamentary group on refugees, which is currently chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who I am pleased to see joining us in the gallery today. I also pay tribute to Sarah Teather, who chaired the inquiry throughout its eight-month period of evidence taking.

After that eight-month period, our recommendations, which included the limit on detention contained in new clause 1, were endorsed by the House of Commons on 10 September 2015. It is thus disappointing that, although there is growing recognition of the issue in the Home Office and there have been some welcome moves, we have not seen progress on the central recommendation of introducing a statutory time limit on detention. We are unusual in this country in not having one, and without it we have become increasingly dependent on detention.

Detention takes place within immigration removal centres—it is important that we listen to those words, because the clue is in the title. They are intended for short-term stays, but we have become increasingly reliant on them. I recognise that we have done so under successive Governments; I am not pinning the responsibility for it on the current Government. In 1993 we had 250 detention places in the UK. By 2009, it had risen to 2,665 and by 2014, when we conducted our inquiry, it was almost 4,000. The number of people entering detention in the latest year for which figures are available, through to June 2017, was 27,300. That is a slight drop from the previous high of 32,000, but by contrast, Sweden detains something like a 10th of that number and Germany around a fifth.

Home Office policy states:

“Detention must be used sparingly,”

but the reality is clearly very different. Hon. Members will be aware of a number of high-profile incidents in immigration removal centres, including deaths and allegations of sexual assault. That was reflected in the evidence that our joint inquiry heard over three oral evidence sessions and more than 200 written evidence submissions.

At our first oral evidence session, we heard from non-governmental organisations and medical experts, but we most powerfully heard from three people directly detained at that time. We questioned them over a phone link in their detention centres. One young man, who was from a disputed territory on the Cameroon-Nigeria border, told us that he had been trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he had been beaten, raped and tortured. He had managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow using a false passport, which was discovered on his arrival, and he was detained. We then asked him how long he had been detained and he told us three years—three years in an immigration removal centre. His detention conflicts with three stated aims of the Home Office: that those who have been trafficked should not be detained; that those who have been tortured should not be detained; and that detention should be for the shortest period possible.

Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison. Initially, that was puzzling, but it was explained to us that, in prison, people at least know when they are going to get out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

New clause 10 is important because, as the Committee should be aware, the Bill removes the current right, under EU law, to appeal against decisions relating to settled status. The new clause seeks to fill that gap by giving the right to appeal to the immigration and asylum chamber of first-tier tribunal to those whose application is rejected and those who have been granted pre-settled status but there is evidence to show that they should have been granted settled status.

As discussed during the oral evidence sessions, as it stands the only right to appeal consists of an administrative review at a cost of £80 or a judicial review at a significantly greater cost and with a drawn-out, time-consuming process. Ms Blackstock from Justice told us that it

“seems to be the most bureaucratic and inappropriate method for what is…potentially a simple grey area that requires a simple review.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 62, Q162.]

This is a problematic issue.

We also heard from Professor Smismans, who represents the3million, that there had been “considerable problems” with past administrative reviews by the Home Office. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. An administrative review may be fine as a first access point, but it is not sufficient on its own.

The Government clearly recognise the need to make the right of appeal available, as they have agreed that with the EU as part of the draft withdrawal agreement. That right exists under the withdrawal agreement that the Government have signed up to; UK courts and tribunals are authorised to refer cases on citizens’ rights to the European Court of Justice within eight years of the end of the transition period.

The withdrawal agreement also provides for an independent monitoring body to conduct inquiries into alleged breaches of part 2 of the withdrawal agreement. That body would also be able to receive complaints from EU nationals and bring legal action on their behalf.

So far so good, but both those mechanisms fall away in a no-deal situation. Following the delayed publication in December of the Government’s paper on citizens’ rights in the event of no deal, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton and I wrote to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) with our concerns. In reply, they stated their view that it is fair in a no-deal scenario to provide the remedies generally available to non-EU citizens refused leave to remain in the UK in other parts of the immigration system.

I ask the Minister: how is that fair? In the event of no deal, the Government are proposing to reduce the time that people have to apply for settled status. The process of registering 3 million people is already a challenge, and some people believe it might be beyond the Home Office. With less time comes greater risk of mistakes, so why are the Government reducing the means of appeal?

We are talking about a finite number of people who have already been subject to two and a half years of uncertainty. It is worth remembering that about 100 EEA citizens were erroneously threatened with deportation by the Home Office in 2017. Is it really fair to anybody that we are expected to trust the Home Office to mark its own homework? An accessible right of appeal under any terms on which we exit the European Union would provide much-needed reassurance to EU nationals.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My original intention was to speak in support of new clause 34, but having considered the matter I have to say that new clause 10, which also covers family members of non-EEA nationals, is better drafted, so I will speak briefly in support of it instead. Hats off to the shadow Ministers for getting it right when I have not.

I echo everything said by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. He is right to characterise this not just as a failure to grant the right to appeal, but as the taking away of the right to appeal currently available to EEA nationals under European law. I remind the Minister that the Home Office statement of intent, published in June last year, said:

“Primary legislation is required to establish a right of appeal for the scheme, but subject to Parliamentary approval, we intend that those applying under the scheme from 30 March 2019 will be given a statutory right of appeal if their application is refused. This will allow the UK courts to examine the decision to refuse status under the scheme and the facts or circumstances on which the decision was based.”

The question is simple: why is that appropriate if there is a deal, but not appropriate if there is no deal? There should be a right of appeal regardless of whether a deal is reached. The distinction is absolutely unjustified.

From the point of view of principle and practice, appeal rights are hugely significant in immigration law. It is about the separation between those who review a decision and the decision makers themselves, and about not allowing the Home Office to mark its own homework, thereby ensuring a fair and independent hearing. It is also about the fact that the Home Office simply gets it wrong far too often. Before the current Prime Minister started her slash-and-burn approach to appeal rights, half of Home Office decisions were being overturned by the tribunal. Administrative reviews and judicial reviews are a sub-standard alternative.

Finally, we have to bear in mind that these decisions will have hugely significant consequences for those individuals affected. If the decisions are wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic. It is a small ask to ensure that they have appeal rights, regardless of whether a withdrawal agreement is reached.

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

Debate between Paul Blomfield and Stuart C McDonald

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

[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?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I give my support to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Sheffield Central, who made a lot of excellent points, including about the need or otherwise for pre-settled status.

This is probably one of the most important debates that we will have in this Committee. We all know that the settled status scheme is a huge undertaking. There is no doubt in my mind that the Home Office is doing its best to implement it to the best of its abilities. I do not question the commitment and effort made to attempt to have that scheme reach as many people as possible. The amendments are not about that, but whether EEA nationals and family members should be required to apply for their rights in the first place.

We are clear that EEA nationals’ rights should be declared in law. They should be able to retain their rights without any need to apply. Instead of applying for the right to remain in what is their home country, instead people would apply for documents simply to evidence that right. After all, that is pretty much the position they are in now: EEA nationals can make the UK their home simply by meeting the qualifying criteria by exercising their EU treaty rights. However, even though they do not need to, many find it very handy to apply for a document that proves they are exercising treaty rights and are allowed to remain here, so they apply for residence documents. Those documents do not give them any extra rights, but are simply convenient. It is far easier to hand a residence document to a landlord than a few months or years of bills, bank statements and wage slips to prove their right to be in the country.

All we are saying is that the same should happen in future. The Bill will strip people of hugely important rights; it should therefore also replace those lost rights with other rights that are granted automatically. All those who meet the Home Office criteria for settled status should be granted it as a matter of law. Applications for settled status documents would then be the means to simply evidence those rights, just in the same way as happens now. All that will become hugely important the day after the deadline for settled status applications passes.

If we do not make these changes, the evidence tells us that hundreds of thousands of people will be here without any status at all. They could, in theory, be removed. The Home Office talks of proportionate responses in allowing those with a reasonable excuse to apply late. However, that is tinkering around the edges. The fact remains that there will still be hundreds of thousands of people here without permission—people who were lawfully resident one day, and unlawfully the next.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be brief. The Minister will know that I have raised various points about non-EEA nationals and derived rights on previous occasions. The new clause would simply ensure that those people were treated on the same basis as EEA or Swiss nationals who reside in the UK, if and when they apply for settled status under the immigration rules.

My understanding is that Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira carers are all covered by the withdrawal agreement, but Zambrano carers are not. There are also questions about what will happen to all those groups if there is not a deal. In a Westminster Hall debate, the Minister made positive noises about ensuring that their rights are protected, but I am still struggling to find detailed provisions for what will happen to each of those groups. I would appreciate an update on that.

[Paul Blomfield]

I will be even briefer, which I am sure will be generally welcomed. We support the new clause, which concerns an important group of people with derived rights who have been left without certainty about their position. There is a strong imperative for that to be resolved, and for us to extend the same rights to them as to others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Members will be aware that there were some concerns about the terms of the withdrawal agreement in relation to citizens’ rights, including about the apparent requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance. I very much welcome what the Government have said about being more generous in that respect and not requiring evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance. The new clause would simply put that commitment in the Bill.

This ground was largely covered in our debate on new clause 17, including by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, so I do not need to say much more. We simply seek reassurance from the Minister that that remains the Government’s position and that they have no plans to change it, and ask whether she will consider putting that in the Bill.

[Paul Blomfield]

We support the new clause. The Minister wrote to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton to say that the Government have no intention of requiring comprehensive sickness insurance, so I assume they would have no issue with putting it in legislation. If they agreed to do so, they would send a very strong signal of their intentions.