Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]

My Lords, there are good things in the Bill, there are bad things and there are things that have been left out. It is not the Bill that we were expecting, but we continue to look forward to the comprehensive simplification Bill, which has long been promised. First, through the Minister, I thank the UK Border Agency for its co-operation with the Independent Asylum Commission, of which my noble friends Lord Ramsbotham, Lady Mar and I were members, last year. The Minister will recall that our findings not only drew on evidence from the UKBA but were put to it before we listed our final recommendations so that government responses could be clearly seen alongside our proposals. That did not necessarily mean that the policy could often be reconciled with our findings, and there is still work to be done through our parent body, the Citizen Organising Foundation, but I recognise that under some headings, the Government have been listening and clearly taken up positive suggestions from NGOs and agencies—the Solihull model was one of them and another was the improvement of initial decisions and the new role of caseworkers under the new asylum model. In other cases, the work of the commission has helped to improve public understanding of the process. In our third report, Deserving Dignity, the UKBA admitted on page 30 that, particularly during 2005-06, "““unacceptable delays occurred in the provision of support under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999””." It is extremely important for asylum seekers and others that the Government admit these past mistakes and the possibility that other mistakes are still being made, which must be the case. I shall talk later about our recommendations on Section 4 and destitution. Before I talk about the Bill, I shall say a brief word about removals. I also declare an interest as a patron of the Haslar Visitors Group in Portsmouth. The Minister recently replied to a Written Question from me about the cost of removing Kurdish asylum seekers to Iraq twice in one week last December, and I have just received a letter from Phil Woolas, the Minister in the other place, explaining that this double removal occurred because of fog at Arbil airport. He denies that there were any serious examples of self-harm. I accept that there have to be forced removals, but this story is indicative of the rough and ready nature of many of these subcontracted removals, and there is a lot of evidence of the harm caused to asylum seekers while being escorted during their detention and removal. Here, I commend the latest report of the London Detainee Support Group. Will the Minister assure us that more care will be taken with these escorts and removals? Will the Minister say whether the five-year qualifying period in Part 2, on citizenship, has been designed for illegal immigrants or for genuine refugees? The UNHCR says that it would be quite inappropriate to require recognised refugees, including those who have been resettled under the Gateway Protection Programme, to spend more than five years here before being able to apply for naturalisation. Will the Minister comment on the special case of resettled refugees and whether community activity is really appropriate for certain groups of refugees who may have suffered torture or other severe forms of persecution? I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who could not be here today, that voluntary activity should never be allowed to become a condition of asylum, less still a form of coercion in the course of earning citizenship. I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who said that asylum seekers should obey what is expected by their fellow citizens. That is pause for thought. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked, would it not be more consistent with the refugee convention to count the years that asylum seekers have already spent in the UK—in other words, the time since they first claimed asylum? Several of us will support amendments on this to Clause 38(5) and Clause 37(11). I am also very concerned about the restrictions in Clause 47 on some students: for example, those who may wish to change their institution. I will certainly support amendments to this clause, and I expect that we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on this in a minute. In Clause 50, Her Majesty’s Government are clearly doubling back on their earlier decision not to transfer judicial reviews to the Upper Tribunal. They seem to have ignored the consultation process, as has been said, and now want to limit oversight by the Court of Appeal and yet avoid parliamentary scrutiny. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that investing in the quality of Home Office decision-making, and therefore in better representation in the early stages, would be a far more desirable course of action. On children, the Government have responded positively, but I agree with the Refugee Children’s Consortium that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all immigration legislation and should be expressed as such in Clause 51. Now for what is left out. One thing that the Bill does not address is the acute situation of destitute, so-called failed, asylum seekers, many of whom have been in the UK for years, barely surviving on Section 4 support. Noble Lords may remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust did valuable work on this in West Yorkshire in 2007. Of course the Government deny that there is destitution. But if a destitute person is one who cannot meet essential living needs, that describes many people now on Section 4 provision: vouchers of £35 a week—£5 a day, my Lords—no access to secondary healthcare beyond accident and emergency; HIV screening but no treatment; no medicines, even paracetamol; and no clothing, nor enough to cover the cost of washing clothes. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said during the debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, last week, Section 4 is not working. I think the Government know that. It was meant to be temporary, but some families have to live on Section 4 provision for long periods, with consequences for their health, particularly that of children. It is expensive because of accommodation, administration costs and the costs of review. An alternative would be to remove Section 4 and allow others besides families, as at present, to stay on Section 95, saving the costs of assessing the voucher scheme and accommodation, which is not necessary for those who already have family and friends to stay with. I therefore ask the Government whether they will consider retaining all asylum seekers on Section 95 until they are removed, they voluntarily return to their country of origin, or they are given some form of status in the UK. On the issue of Zimbabweans in this country, I refer the Minister to the Prime Minister’s promise to Members of Parliament last July that, "““we are actively looking at what we can do to support … Zimbabweans who are failed asylum seekers … and we will report back to the House in due course””.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/08; col. 1556.]" We have not yet heard back from the Prime Minister on this proposal. I was recently among those who called at No. 10 to hand over the CVs of 500 Zimbabweans who are ready to work now and pay taxes. Last week I met one of them, Luka Phiri, a young Zimbabwean trade unionist who was tortured and forced to flee because he was using a false Malawian passport. The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will describe the case in more detail. I have heard of other cases of Zimbabweans suspected of coming from other countries because their Zimbabwean passport was out of date. Another one, Joshua, from Bulawayo, is an MDC activist who was detained and tortured and applied for asylum in 2003. He lost his appeal, was cut off and became destitute two years ago. He has been living on a cousin’s charity ever since. Why should he be so deprived? Chipo, an accountant, aged 32, had to leave two young children behind because of threats from ZANU-PF. Her asylum application was turned down and she has been destitute for many years. She says, ““I would have stayed in Zimbabwe and died in Zimbabwe rather than waste my life here. For people in the first world to treat people who are fleeing persecution, to be treated like this, that’s very harsh””. In our report Safe Return we recommended that refused asylum seekers who cannot be returned to their country after six months, who are effectively in a limbo through no fault of their own, should be eligible for a time-limited, revocable permit to work in the UK. For obvious reasons, there is enormous public sympathy for this group of people. At the very least, will the Minister confirm that the UKBA is looking at the issue very seriously, that the Prime Minister’s promise is going to be kept and that an announcement will be made very soon?