Nationality and Borders Bill — House of Lords, 2022-02-08
Topic: Immigration
Molly Christine Meacher (Crossbench, Unknown): My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart and no optimism to support most strongly Amendment 140 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I also support Amendment 124A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker Amendment 140 would provide the single most important protection for migrant victims of domestic abuse by preventing the sharing of information between police and the immigration service if a victim reported that a crime had been committed against her. The Government know very well the coercive and controlling behaviour to which migrant victims are subjected, whether or not they have insecure status. The perpetrator can quite happily threaten the victim, who is probably unaware of the rules of immigration. Apart from protecting these victims of crime, the amendment would have an important value to society: if victims felt empowered to report their abuse then criminal perpetrators could be brought to justice, and others would be protected from their criminal behaviour My reason for pessimism is that, with strong support from the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and others, I tabled a very similar amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which became law in 2021. The Government rejected that amendment, arguing that they needed to wait for the outcome of the then ongoing Home Office review of the effects of the continued co-operation between the police and immigration enforcement. At that time the Minister proposed a compromise clause providing for a statutory code of practice relating to data processing for immigration purposes At that time we were hopeful of some progress, but the Home Office published the findings of its review and argued that data sharing with immigration enforcement was essential to protect victims; I do not think I quite get that, but that was the argument. It rejected the possibility of establishing a firewall that would have allowed victims with insecure immigration status to approach the police to report crimes and, at the same time, to feel safe. Instead, it proposed an immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has mentioned. We do not accept that as a safe alternative to a firewall I have questions for the Minister. First, will the Government check whether it remains the case that one in two migrant victims with insecure immigration status does not report crimes against them to the police for fear of disbelief, destitution, detention and deportation? Secondly, the Government plan a medium-term—why medium-term, I am not sure—piece of work to identify safeguards to mitigate the deterrent effect of data sharing. When will that "medium-term" work begin, and when it will end? Thirdly, will the results of that work be reported to Parliament? That seems to me to be vital Lastly, when the job of immigration enforcement officers is to deal with migrants who are in the UK illegally, what immediate steps are planned to stop them undertaking their role in relation to vulnerable, possibly trafficked, migrants with insecure status? I look forward to the Minister’s response.