Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-16
Topic: Immigration
Brian Paddick (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I support Amendment 95 in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett In her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Wendy Williams described the Windrush scandal as both "foreseeable and avoidable". The Home Office cannot afford another scandal, this time in relation to EEA and Swiss Nationals. Wendy Williams said: "It is the responsibility of the department to keep track of the impact of the policies and legislation … and to make sure that, where members of the public are affected, particularly where they are at risk, it supports them appropriately." We heard from noble Lords on Monday about who might be at risk: those in abusive relationships; those who do not have access to IT, such as many Roma people; and those who rely for IT support on organisations that may not be there in years to come. Wendy Williams went on to say that "it is perhaps unsurprising that the department did not then consider how difficult it might be for people to prove their status, prove when they arrived, or that they had been in the UK continuously some 30, 40 or even 50 years later." As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, amendment after amendment in this Committee has criticised the hostile/compliant environment. As the noble Baroness said, Wendy Williams recommended a full review and evaluation of it, assessing whether the measures contained within it were effective and proportionate. She said: "This review must be carried out scrupulously, designed in partnership with external experts and published in a timely way." To echo the noble Baroness, where are we with that review now We have heard compelling evidence that the EEA and Swiss nationals affected by the ending of free movement have real concerns—reinforced by recent developments over the past week—particularly over having physical proof of immigration status, although the Government say that is not necessary. The Windrush review said: "The Home Office should take steps to understand the groups and communities that its policies affect through improved engagement, social research, and by involving service users in designing its services", yet the Government not only seem not to be listening to EEA and Swiss nationals whom this Bill affects but, as a result, appear to have learned nothing from the Windrush review When it comes to impact assessments, the report recommends: "Officials should avoid putting forward options on the binary ‘do this or do nothing’ basis, but instead should consider a range of options." Yet the department’s approach to matters such as physical proof of immigration status seems to be exactly that—failing to properly consider a "physical proof on request" option, for example As my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno has just said, the number of successful appeals against a refusal to grant settled status questions whether the values and culture of the Home Office have changed in the way that Wendy Williams recommended, and whether there is an effective central repository from which lessons and improvements from adverse case decisions can be disseminated Windrush really was a scandal. Ensuring that there is no repeat in relation to EEA and Swiss nationals depends on the implementation of the Wendy Williams review recommendations. I support this amendment.