Memorandum of Understanding to Send Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - Unacceptable

An important new report published today by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee concludes that the Government should not have used a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for its agreement with Rwanda to relocate asylum seekers.

The Committee questions the use of an MoU, rather than a formal treaty, and stated: "[B]ecause it is a political agreement only—as opposed to a legally binding treaty—the safeguards included in it are not enforceable. This is unacceptable."

The Committee continued: "In choosing to conclude the agreement as an MoU, the UK Government has also avoided any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Unlike treaties, MoUs do not have to be laid before Parliament for a 21-day scrutiny period, and can enter into effect immediately after signature. As we have noted before, when MoUs have human rights implications, this represents a substantial scrutiny gap—and the UK-Rwanda MoU, which became effective on signature, has thrown this into sharp focus.

Read more: EIN, https://rb.gy/1naebw

Are 3 Million UK Women Being Treated Worse than Asylum Seekers/Migrants?

1950s women are being deprived of their state pensions. The change in State Pension Age (SPA) not once, but twice, without proper notification or the required impact statements, has led to an estimated 3.7 million women born in the 1950s being deprived of the pension that they had a legitimate expectation to receive. These women paid into the National Insurance system their whole lives expecting to receive a pension at 60.

EDM 430: Financial Restitution to Women Born in the 1950s

That this House welcomes the positive interventions from many Members across the House on behalf of women born in the 1950s who have lost their pensions; pays tribute to constituents and campaigners in their ongoing fight for justice;

notes that at least 3.8 million women have been impacted by the loss of their pensions from the age of 60 in three separate age hikes;

recalls that 1950s-born women were subject to discriminatory employment and pension laws; recognises that this included being excluded from some pensions schemes; further recognises that this had the negative effect for them of losing the opportunity to have the same level of pension as their partner or spouse;

recognises that this has had the consequence of women in this position never being able to have equal pensions to men; puts on record that, combined, these measures have had a negative and profound impact for millions of women;

recognises that this loss of income, coupled with the current dramatic rise in inflation and cost of fuel, food, essentials and bills, has exasperated already increased levels of poverty, deteriorating health and homelessness;

further notes that pension age hikes mean that many are excluded from winter fuel and cost-of-living payments; and calls on the Government to enact a temporary special measure as permitted by international law to provide full restitution to all women born in the 1950s who have lost their pensions from the age of 60 because of the impact of the rise in retirement age.

EDM 430: tabled on 11 October 2022, signed by 47 MPs

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/60155

Public Attitudes to Immigration Shows Public Take a Balanced Approach

A new report published today (11 October) shows where the public is on this important question. The Ipsos tracker research for British Future has tracked shifting public attitudes to immigration since 2015 and finds a nuanced picture with pragmatic public permission for a balanced approach.

More than twice as many people would increase rather than decrease migration for people coming to the UK to work as seasonal fruit and vegetable pickers, care workers, doctors and nurses. More than half the public want more doctors and nurses from overseas; 45% want more fruit-pickers and 44% more care workers. Fewer than one in five support reducing immigration to any of these roles.

A third of the public also support increased immigration to fill staff shortages in hospitality (34%) and construction (32%), with a further third preferring to keep immigration levels for these jobs as they are now. Less than a quarter of people would support reducing immigration for construction labourers (21%) and restaurant and catering staff (23%).

For immigration overall, support for reducing immigration remains at its lowest level since the tracker survey began in 2015. Four in ten people (42%) would prefer immigration to be reduced, 26% that it stays the same and 24% that it increases.

Read more: Ipsos, https://rb.gy/hi7ssr

Over 1,300 Asylum Seekers Can Claim Compensation for Phones Seized by UK

More than 1,300 asylum seekers who arrived in the UK in small boats and had their phones unlawfully seized by immigration officials can claim compensation, the high court has ruled. Judges said on Friday 15th October there was “a failure of governance” over the unlawful phone seizures. The number who can claim compensation could be as high as several thousand but due to confusion around the unlawful and unpublished Home Office policy to seize the mobile phones from new arrivals, many people may not know they are entitled to compensation.

Anyone who crossed the Channel between April and November 2020 and had their phone seized may be able to claim compensation. In 2020, 8,466 people crossed the Channel. Government officials have written to 1,323 people who had their phones taken during this period. The high court ruled in March that the department operated an unlawful, secret, blanket policy to take almost 2,000 mobile phones from asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats and then downloaded data from these phones.

Read more: Diane Taylor, Guardian, https://rb.gy/iagloz

How Can Country Guidance Cases be Changed?

The outcome of an asylum case can sometimes depend not on what the individual person says happened to them but on the general situation in a particular country. The general situation for asylum seekers from several countries is determined by the Upper Tribunal in what are called Country Guidance (CG) cases.

For instance, Syrian nationals are generally entitled to protection in accordance with the country guidance case of KB (Failed asylum seekers and forced returnees) Syria CG [2012] UKUT 426 (IAC). The same is true in relation to Libya: ZMM (Article 15(c)) Libya CG [2017] UKUT 263 (IAC).

No such generalised risk is accepted in relation to other countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Sudan, albeit there may be a risk in certain circumstances. The Upper Tribunal’s country policy guidance for these countries, and for many others, provides detailed information on when there is likely to be a risk and when there isn’t.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/g6qlkg

‘How Much Influence Does the Media Have Over the ‘Hostile Environment’?

One month into the job, it’s clear that Suella Braverman is good at making the headlines. However, some of her rhetoric may seem familiar. The government’s ‘Hostile Environment’ policy is well-rehearsed and the media has played a significant and long-term role in developing the rhetoric that we see today. It is undoubtedly being used as a political tool to promote the Hostile Environment’ dialogue we have grown so accustomed to. But how is this affecting public opinion, or the choices of those looking to travel to the UK as a migrant or refugee?

Where did it all begin? The Windrush scandal is a startling example of the hostile environment, dating back to the 1940s. Arguably, anti-immigration sentiment has been increasing since this time. The hostile and racist sentiment is further reflected in the common media portrayal of the migrant as a criminal or terrorist. There is a poor understanding of the distinction between refugees and migrants and, in reality, there should be little difference in how the two groups are treated. With both groups, racial and cultural differences are quickly inflamed and exploited by the media. There should be recognition in the media, and by extension, the public, that the standard refugee is not necessarily a criminal or a terrorist, and that the standard migrant is not necessarily stealing someone’s job or failing to integrate into society.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/tkhtsq

“Hostile Environment” This term is used to describe all policies which make life difficult for migrants living in the UK - treating them as less deserving of dignity and humanity than British citizens. More specifically, it is a set of policies introduced in 2012 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May, with the aim of making life unbearably difficult in the UK for those who cannot show the right paperwork. Or, as she said at the time; “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really hostile environment for illegal immigrants.”

Home Office Pays £75,000 Damages For Missed Indicators of Trafficking

The Home Office recently agreed to pay substantial damages to our client who was trafficked to the UK and whose trafficking indicators were missed by the Home Office. Our client (anonymised as ‘AX’) suffered multiple periods of trafficking as a domestic worker, both overseas and in the UK. AX was forced to work 17-18 hours a day in the trafficker’s home, with no breaks or days off. AX was subject to verbal abuse by the trafficker and was paid very little for the work that she did.

The Home Office granted several Overseas Domestic Workers Visas to AX over a 3-year period, despite clear indicators of trafficking and/or forced labour within those visa applications. AX was also not interviewed at any point, nor given any information about her rights or sources of assistance should they be infringed. AX argued that these failures caused her to continue to be exploited.

AX managed to escape her traffickers in 2017, and it was eventually accepted by the Home Office that she was a victim of trafficking. The Home Office is aware of the risks of trafficking posed to Overseas Domestic Workers, as this has been the subject of many reports commissioned by, or available to, the Home Office. The Home Office’s failure to identify AX as a potential victim of trafficking resulted in AX being trafficked to the UK on several occasions, during which time she was subject to inhuman and degrading treatment, food deprivation, verbal abuse, and enslavement. AX is deeply traumatised.

In a recent settlement of the claim, the Home Office agreed to pay AX damages in the sum of £75,000.

Source: Deighton Pierce Glynn, https://rb.gy/uev1ny

How Much Influence Does the Media Have Over the Hostile Environment?

One month into the job, it’s clear that Suella Braverman is good at making the headlines. However, some of her rhetoric may seem familiar. The government’s hostile environment policy is well-rehearsed and the media has played a significant and long-term role in developing the rhetoric that we see today. It is undoubtedly being used as a political tool to promote the hostile environment dialogue we have grown so accustomed to. But how is this affecting public opinion, or the choices of those looking to travel to the UK as a migrant or refugee?

Where did it all begin?
The Windrush scandal is a startling example of the hostile environment, dating back to the 1940s. Arguably, anti-immigration sentiment has been increasing since this time. The hostile and racist sentiment is further reflected in the common media portrayal of the migrant as a criminal or terrorist. There is a poor understanding of the distinction between refugees and migrants and, in reality, there should be little difference in how the two groups are treated. With both groups, racial and cultural differences are quickly inflamed and exploited by the media. There should be recognition in the media, and by extension, the public, that the standard refugee is not necessarily a criminal or a terrorist, and that the standard migrant is not necessarily stealing someone’s job or failing to integrate into society.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/tkhtsq

“Hostile Environment” This term is used to describe all policies which make life difficult for migrants living in the UK - treating them as less deserving of dignity and humanity than British citizens. More specifically, it is a set of policies introduced in 2012 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May, with the aim of making life unbearably difficult in the UK for those who cannot show the right paperwork. Or, as she said at the time; “The aim is to create, here in Britain, a really 'Hostile Environment' for illegal immigrants.”

Home Office to Review Policy on Timing of Applications

The Home Office has agreed to review its policy Fee waiver: Human Rights-based and other specified applications, which provides guidance on the time limits for making human rights based immigration applications where an application is made after a fee waiver has been granted. This comes after confusion over deadlines threatened to jeopardise yet another otherwise valid application for leave to remain.

In judicial review proceedings brought by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, it emerged that the current policy had the potential to cause significant problems for applicants who applied for a fee waiver exemption from immigration fees, and who subsequently made late applications. The policy lacks clarity over the applicable time limits for applying for leave to remain.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/xcmcp1

What’s Happening in the Rwanda Legal Challenges?

There are a number of general and individual judicial review challenges to the government’s policy of removing asylum seekers to Rwanda. To recap, in April 2022 the government announced a Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda for the provision of “an asylum partnership arrangement”. Under this arrangement, asylum seekers who make dangerous irregular journeys to the UK would be relocated to Rwanda and have their asylum claims processed there. If successful, or if they were granted a visa on another basis, the stated intention is that they would live in Rwanda in the long term.

The agreement is underpinned by a Memorandum of Understanding and Notes Verbales (disclosed in the litigation but yet not published) under which the UK and Rwanda make a number of promises as to, for example, safeguards for how asylum claims will be considered by the Rwandan government and living conditions. The promises given under the arrangement are expressed as not binding in international law, not creating individual rights, and not justiciable in a court of law.

Read more: Freemovement, https://rb.gy/mp0wjw