Tag: Baroness Hamwee

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why, in the guidance for Home Office staff published on 9 September, for the purposes of assessing the mental health of an immigration detainee and of Rule 35 reports regarding particularly vulnerable detainees, a distinction is made between torture by state actors and torture by non-state actors.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-11-11.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many (1) parents of a minor, (2) siblings of a minor, and (3) other persons, were granted, on the basis of exceptional compelling, compassionate circumstances outside the Immigration Rules, a family reunion visa for reunion with a family member in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection, in each year from 2011 to date; and from which countries those persons have come.

Lord Bates

Family reunion applications are considered within the scope of the Immigration Rules. Under these Rules, only pre-existing families are eligible for family reunion i.e. spouse, civil partner, unmarried/same sex partner and minor children who formed part of the family unit at the time the sponsor (the person granted protection in the UK) fled to seek asylum.

Family reunion visas are available to help families that become fragmented. Family reunion is intended to allow family members who formed part of the family unit before the refugee fled their country of origin, to reunite in the UK.

The number of Family reunion visas issued and the country of application from 2011 to date can be found in the table below. It is not possible to break down the data to the applicant’s relationship with the individual that has already gained asylum in the UK.

To note: ‘*’ appears where there are less than three applications.

	Applications issued
Country of application	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015 (Jan-Jun)
Albania	*	*	*	5	–
Algeria	–	–	*	–	5
Bahrain	*	15	10	5	5
Bangladesh	–	10	5	10	10
Belarus	*	5	–	5	–
Belgium	–	5	5	–	5
Burma	20	25	5	5	5
Cameroon	60	40	30	55	15
Canada	*	*	*	–	*
China	25	15	20	20	10
Congo (Dem. Rep.)	80	55	70	45	15
Cuba	–	*	–	5	–
Denmark	–	*	5	–	5
Egypt	20	50	145	135	120
Ethiopia	685	475	450	295	85
France	5	–	5	*	–
Gambia	40	40	40	80	50
Georgia	–	5	5	*	–
Germany	*	–	5	–	–
Ghana	15	25	25	30	10
Greece	*	5	5	10	5
India	45	30	30	25	15
Iran	190	55	*	–	–
Iraq	–	–	*	35	30
Irish Republic	*	5	–	–	–
Israel	5	*	10	15	–
Italy	5	5	5	5	*
Ivory Coast	–	–	–	10	*
Jamaica	5	–	–	*	–
Jordan	20	40	95	385	60
Kazakhstan	*	*	–	–	–
Kenya	160	160	105	80	20
Kuwait	25	25	30	40	40
Lebanon	10	110	280	405	260
Libya	*	*	5	5	*
Morocco	–	–	*	10	5
Mozambique	*	*	–	–	–
Namibia	*	*	*	*	–
Nepal	10	–	10	15	5
Netherlands	*	*	5	5	–
New Zealand	*	–	–	–	–
Nigeria	5	10	10	10	5
No biometrics	775	595	740	630	80
Pakistan	345	305	360	525	300
Portugal	–	–	5	–	–
Qatar	–	*	5	*	5
Romania	–	–	5	–	–
Russian Federation	5	5	*	10	–
Rwanda	5	5	5	5	–
Saudi Arabia	5	10	10	25	40
Senegal	5	5	5	5	5
Sierra Leone	35	10	15	20	5
South Africa	55	25	20	25	10
Sri Lanka	305	250	305	220	105
Sudan	215	380	360	355	230
Sweden	–	5	5	*	*
Switzerland	–	–	5	–	*
Syria	235	105	5	–	–
Tanzania	15	5	10	10	5
Trinidad and Tobago	–	–	–	*	5
Tunisia	5	5	–	*	–
Turkey	55	215	330	550	215
Uganda	85	135	225	195	45
Ukraine	*	5	*	*	–
United Arab Emirates	25	100	120	75	70
United States	*	–	5	5	5
Uzbekistan	10	5	5	*	–
Vietnam	5	–	–	5	*
Zambia	10	*	–	10	*
Zimbabwe	640	265	145	110	25
Grand Total	4305	3670	4120	4540	1940

“

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any medical evidence, including psychiatric and psychological evidence, of the relationship between the trauma and other harm suffered by a victim of torture and the identity of the perpetrator.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-11-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish the responses to their consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants.

Lord Bates

We will not publish the individual responses to the consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants. This is consistent with the confidentiality statement on page 12 of the consultation document published on 4 August.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation was undertaken before giving guidance to Home Office officials on adults at risk in immigration detention to distinguish between torture by state actors and by non-state actors.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-11-19.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many times the joint central and local government working group referred to in paragraph 3.3 of their response to the consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants has met, and whether they will publish the minutes of that group’s meetings.

Lord Bates

The working group has so far met on two occasions, on 10 September and 6 October. Formal minutes of these meetings were not taken. It is anticipated that a further meeting of the working group will be held shortly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2016-10-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether torture by a member of a significant violent non-state group would be regarded for the purposes of assessing adults at risk in immigration detention as torture by a non-state actor.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The definition of torture adopted for the “adults at risk in immigration detention” policy is in line with that set out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) although, for the purposes of the policy, it has been extended to cover serious harm inflicted by terrorist groups exploiting instability or civil war to hold territory.

The Government adopted this definition as it most accurately reflects the need to protect those who are most likely to be adversely affected by detention – that is, those who have been harmed by the state, or by an organisation exercising similar control, and for whom detention is most likely to be redolent of the harm they have suffered.

In order to be consistent, the same definition was applied to the reporting system in rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 under which doctors working in immigration removal centres are required to report concerns that a detainee may have been the victim of torture. This has no effect on the requirement also in rule 35 for such doctors to report where a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or the conditions of detention.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-11-26.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Bates on 25 November (HL3549), how many of the family reunion visas scheduled were granted on the basis of exceptional compelling compassionate circumstances outside the Immigration Rules, broken down by country and year.

Lord Bates

The number of applications for Family Reunion Visas that were subsequently issued Outside of the Immigration Rules can be found in the table below.

It is not possible to give a breakdown by country or nationality.

Year	2011	2012	2013	2014	Total
Number of applications granted outside the rules	77	30	18	12	137

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-12-02.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish the report by James Ewins of his review of the overseas domestic workers visa, and their response to it, before the Immigration Bill 2015 receives its second reading in this House.

Lord Bates

Mr Ewins’s report has been submitted to the Home Office and will be published shortly. The Government will announce its response to the report in due course.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Baroness Hamwee on 2015-02-12.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether representatives from the entertainment industry have been consulted on proposed changes to the rules and guidance relating to visitor visas to the United Kingdom.

Lord Bates

We consulted with a wide range of sectors on our proposals to streamline the visitor routes and produce new, clearer Immigration Rules and guidance for visitors. These included business groups, tourism bodies and representatives from the arts and creative sectors which included organisations that work in the entertainment industry.

The new Immigration Rules for visitors will be laid in Parliament on 26 February and will come into force in April. More details will be available then.