Refugees in Napier and Penally Camps Feel Vindicated After Damning Report

Refugees trapped in camps across Britain felt “depressed and hopeless at their circumstances”, according to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICBI). Inspectors from the ICBI and the Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) this week released the key findings of their initial investigation into temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. It showed that refugees and anti-racists were right to protest about the dire conditions at the Penally camp in West Wales and Napier Barracks in Kent.

One refugee who was taken to Napier told Socialist Worker, “It was great hearing the same things from inspectors that we were raising. “We finally felt our voices are heard. “This means the only people who are defending the camps are the Home Office and Priti Patel herself.” Inspectors found that the Home Office gave contractors “less than two weeks to make each site operational” despite opening the sites during a pandemic.

Cramped conditions at Napier meant “once one person was infected, large-scale outbreak was virtually inevitable”. During an outbreak where 178 refugees tested positive, all 400 residents were unable to leave their bunks for four weeks.

Read more: Isabel Ringrose, Socialist Worker, https://is.gd/GGYDaS

Barracks for UK Asylum Seekers Slammed as ‘Filthy and Unfit for Habitation’

Napier Barracks in Kent housed people at high risk of self-harm in a ‘decrepit’ so-called isolation block that was ‘unfit for habitation’, according to findings by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) published on Monday. New pictures show what inspectors branded an ‘impoverished’ and ‘cramped’ facility – but on Monday evening, the Home Office repeated its assertion that ‘it is wrong to say it is not adequate for asylum seekers’. The department has faced repeated criticism over its use of the ‘unsuitable’ facility in Folkestone, which was also the scene of a mass outbreak of coronavirus earlier this year. Despite repeated warnings and protests, some 28 people were sleeping in the same dormitory before the ‘inevitable’ outbreak.

Home Secretary Priti Patel and immigration minister Chris Philp have both previously defended the use of the building, with Ms Patel also appeared to blame ‘mingling’ migrants for the cases, which saw almost half of those house there test positive. The findings were published on the same day 115 people, including women and children, were brought ashore in Dover after crossing the Channel – the most of any day this year. Inspectors said: ‘The environment at both sites, especially Napier, was impoverished, run-down and unsuitable for long-term accommodation.’

Read more: Harrison Jones, Metro News, https://is.gd/QzEABg

Home Office Inspection Report - Remains Siloed/Disjointed/Clueless!

The report makes three recommendations which stress the importance of creating a clearer, more coherent set of roles, responsibilities and objectives for the Home Office Border, Immigration and Citizenship System’s response to modern slavery and human trafficking.

The inspection found that while operational activity overall had increased since the Modern Slavery Strategy was launched in 2014, the work of the Home Office’s three Borders, Immigration and Citizenship System (BICS) operational directorates, and that of the wider Home Office, remained siloed and disjointed, with little evidence of a plan to address this.

BICS had had some success in focusing frontline staff on the identification and safeguarding of victims through the National Referral Mechanism (NRM), which was reflected in increased numbers of NRM referrals. It needed to build on this, particularly at the border, where the numbers were still low. But, it was not doing enough to combat the criminals who perpetrate, enable and exploit MSHT, and opportunities to do so were being missed.

The report was sent to the Home Secretary on 16 September 2020 and published on 4 March 2021 (24 weeks). It contained three recommendations, which together looked to reset the BICS response to MSHT. They stressed the importance of creating a clearer, more coherent set of roles, responsibilities and objectives for BICS, and also of ensuring that the Home Office Serious Organised Crime Group (SOCG), which held the departmental lead for MSHT, was more closely engaged with BICS regarding the latter’s efforts to tackle MSHT. Two of the recommendations were accepted and the third “partially accepted”.

In addition, the report repeated a recommendation from ‘An inspection of the Home Office’s response to in-country clandestine arrivals (‘lorry drops’)’ regarding a fundamental review of the criminal investigation and prosecution capabilities and capacity of BICS.

In November 2020, the Home Office “partially accepted” this recommendation, but declined to carry out a fundamental review. Instead, it would take ICIBI’s findings fully into account alongside the findings of the independent review of Serious and Organised Crime (SOC) led by Sir Craig Mackey QPM, which had reported to the Home Secretary in February 2020, and about which it would provide details “in due course”.

The Home Office’s latest response simply quotes its previous statement. It is unclear what progress it has made in the intervening four months. While the necessary improvements in capabilities and capacity will take time to implement, it would have been more encouraging to see reference to some specific actions and deadlines.

Source: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

https://is.gd/wkktSt

Lengthy Absences From the UK Can Put EU Settled Status at Risk

For most people, the EU Settlement Scheme has largely lived up to its government billing as generous and straightforward, but confusion over permitted absences is likely to cause some European residents trouble down the line. People with pre-settled status, in particular, need to be aware of the absence rules. If they have been outside the UK for more than six months in any 12-month period, they will now only be able to upgrade to settled status if they returned to the UK before 31 December 2020.

People who already have settled status, or have clocked up the necessary five years and intend to apply before 30 June 2021, are not affected by this issue. Settled status only lapses if the person has been out of the UK for five years. What we’re talking about in this article is the risks for people who only have pre-settled status (or will be applying for pre-settled status by 30 June 2021).

Absences and the EU Settlement Scheme
The starting point is that EU citizens and their family members will qualify for settled status after completing “a continuous qualifying period of five years of residence” in the UK. Those living in the UK for less than five years qualify for pre-settled status instead, and can upgrade to settled status once they reach five years.

Read more: Karma Hickman, Freemovement, https://is.gd/TmpdSI

What is like to be a Lawyer Working For Stateless People in the UK

When I first stepped into the field of statelessness as a practitioner, I expected it to be complex. With a background in asylum and anti-trafficking casework, I was familiar with nationality disputes and the challenges facing those affected. But I did not expect that the legal and human complexity of statelessness could result in me spending up to a year or more investigating, collecting and collating evidence and waiting, on average, a further 12 to 18 months for a decision. Nor did I expect the debilitating effects of such a process on applicants.

Statelessness determination procedures (SDPs) are still relatively new to the legal world, despite the fact that the international law on which they are based was developed in the interwar period. The UK is making strides in the recognition and protection of stateless people on its territory. It is one of only twelve countries in Europe that have a dedicated SDP leading to a form of stateless status.

Identifying stateless people: By the time many of my clients come to seek protection through a statelessness application, they have made several unsuccessful immigration applications and many have been present in the UK for over a decade. Some were made stateless through procedural error on the part of the authorities of their country of origin or the UK authorities, whilst others have been stateless all their lives due to conflict, discriminatory nationality laws and/or lack of birth registration in their countries of origin.

Read more: Claire Splawn, Freemovement, https://is.gd/uaXxE9

Immigration Measures in the 2021 Budget

Among the key points highlighted by the Treasury from today’s Budget is “reforms to the immigration system [to] help ambitious UK businesses attract the brightest and best international talent”. As a policy prescription, this is up there with motherhood and apple pie; even the most ardent restrictionists are in favour of letting in “the brightest and best”, and even that specific phrase is wearily familiar. Nevertheless, with the grumbling out of our system, we can turn to the Budget’s supporting documents to check what the government means by “reforms”.

What does it all mean? Special treatment for fast-growing “scale-up” companies — the evolved form of a “start-up” — was trailed ahead of the Budget and seems to be aimed at financial technology companies specifically. The Kalifa Review of the UK’s offer to fintech firms, published last week and strongly endorsed by the Treasury, recommended.

It sounds as though the government has plumped for making the “scale-up stream” a subset of a new unsponsored route rather than Global Talent. The broader “elite points-based visa” that it would sit within sounds like a reference to the proposed revival of an unsponsored work route, similar to the old Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, that was mooted but kicked into the long grass last year.

Read more: CJ Mckinney, Freemovement, https://is.gd/ZkSCiQ