Tag: Lord McColl of Dulwich

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many EEA nationals with ongoing applications for discretionary leave to remain as victims of human trafficking have been issued with minded to remove” letters or administrative removal papers since 1 January 2014.”

Lord Bates

Since 01 January 2014, no EEA Nationals with ongoing applications for Discretionary Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom as victims of human trafficking have been served with ‘minded to remove’ letters or administrative removal papers whilst their applications were being considered.

In the same time period,fewer than five applicants were served with papers before they made an application for Discretionary Leave to Remain.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what processes are in place, and what action they have taken, to ensure that EEA nationals who have made applications for discretionary leave to remain (DLR) as confirmed victims of human trafficking are not considered for administrative removal until a decision has been made about their application for DLR.

Lord Bates

The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance regarding the rights and treatment of victims of human trafficking has been issued to Home Office staff responsible for making decisions about the administrative removal of EEA nationals, and what specific guidance has been given to caseworkers about the criteria for determining whether or not the administrative removal of a confirmed victim of human trafficking who is an EEA national is proportionate.

Lord Bates

The processes and guidance in place relating to the factors to take into account in deciding whether to remove a person from the United Kingdom, including EEA nationals and potential victims of trafficking, are found within “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” of the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance published on gov.uk.

The Home Office will consider exceptional and compassionate individual circumstances that may justify leave on a discretionary basis. The “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction on gov.uk gives guidance to Home Office staff on considering whether to grant discretionary leave (DL).

No action is taken to enforce the administrative removal of an EEA national identified as a potential victim of trafficking where their case is still being considered in accordance with the “Discretionary leave” Asylum Instruction. However, DL is not normally granted to EEA nationals (or their family members) where they have free movement rights under EU law and are exercising those treaty rights.

Guidance to immigration enforcement staff on how to identify and manage victims of trafficking is provided in “Chapter 9: identifying victims of trafficking” of Enforcement Instructions and Guidance. “Chapter 53: extenuating circumstances” gives guidance to immigration enforcement staff how to consider any extenuating circumstances. Section 4 of “Chapter 50: (EEA) EEA administrative removals” sets out the criteria that apply in considering whether it is right and reasonable to remove an EEA national and whether it is proportionate given all the circumstances of the case.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-02-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to prevent homelessness among victims of modern slavery who are EEA nationals with positive Conclusive Grounds National Referral Mechanism decisions on their departure from the government-funded victim care contract.

Lord Bates

During the recovery and reflection period, support providers work with the victim of modern slavery to produce a detailed and tailored ‘move on plan’. Following a positive Conclusion Grounds decision, victims are entitled to a further 14 days of support, at which time the ‘move on plan’ assists the victim in their transition from the specialist service. The victim either returns to their home country or if they wish to stay and are eligible to do so move on to access mainstream support services in the UK. In addition, the Home Office considers extension requests for victims who need longer than 14 days to make the transition from the specialist service on a case-by-case basis.

On leaving the Government-funded service that is provided under the victim care contract, victims who are EEA nationals may be able to exercise Treaty rights and remain lawfully in the UK on that basis but those who are not exercising such rights are encouraged to return home unless they are entitled to remain on other grounds. The Home Office also considers whether to grant Discretionary Leave to victims who are unable to exercise free movement rights where there are particularly compelling circumstances, they need to stay in the UK to pursue a compensation claim or to assist with police inquiries/investigations.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2016-07-18.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Karen Bradley MP (HC Deb, cols 33WH–54WH), on independent advocates for trafficked children, (1) what is the timetable for establishing early adopter sites of independent child trafficking advocates, (2) what geographic areas will constitute a site for these trials, and (3) what mechanisms will be put in place for monitoring the outcomes of children who received an advocate in the first phase of these trials.

Baroness Williams of Trafford

The Government is in the process of identifying a provider of independent child trafficking advocates and three early adopter sites.

To ensure we assess the revised independent child trafficking advocates model appropriately, early adopter sites will cover areas with different demographics as well as having a range of experiences of working with trafficked children.

Officials are developing an outcomes framework with support from a wide selection of academics and professionals who have expertise and experience in working with local authorities and trafficked children.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-11-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the final evaluation report of the trial of specialist advocates for trafficked children will be published.

Lord Bates

Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting. The evaluation report will be published by 16 December and set out the number of children referred into the trial and their countries of origin.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-11-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will lay before Parliament a report setting out their plans in relation to independent child trafficking advocates, in accordance with section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

Lord Bates

Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting. The evaluation report will be published by 16 December and set out the number of children referred into the trial and their countries of origin.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-11-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children who received a child trafficking advocate under the trials conducted in 2014–15 were (1) UK nationals, (2) nationals of the EU or EEA excluding UK nationals, and (3) nationals of countries not in the EU or EEA.

Lord Bates

Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting. The evaluation report will be published by 16 December and set out the number of children referred into the trial and their countries of origin.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-11-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children were referred to the child trafficking advocate trials from each of the 23 participating local authorities.

Lord Bates

Section 48(7) of the Modern Slavery Act requires the Government to lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps it proposes to take in relation to independent child trafficking advocates within nine months of Royal Assent of the Modern Slavery Act. The Government will publish this report by 16 December, whilst Parliament is sitting. The evaluation report will be published by 16 December and set out the number of children referred into the trial and their countries of origin.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-12-15.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of people being killed by buildings collapsing as a result of subterranean excavations carried out in order to increase accommodation.

Baroness Altmann

In the last 10 years, no people have been killed by buildings collapsing during subterranean excavation work to increase accommodation. Subterranean excavation to increase accommodation involves significant health and safety risks, including the potential for the collapse of both excavated ground and buildings. There have been two deaths caused by collapsing excavated ground during construction of subterranean accommodation. The Health and Safety Executive’s construction programme has initiatives aimed at improving standards in this type of construction work, including targeted inspection and enforcement campaigns.