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 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 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 9 February (HL4411), how the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 make provision for the follow-up studies to investigate how mutations vary in each of the different cells of the resulting children; at what age or ages the children would be when their cells would be examined in that way; how many different tissues and of which type would have to be biopsied to obtain the cells of interest; how informed consent would be obtained from the children for that purpose; and at what point such children would be informed of the techniques used in their conception.

Earl Howe

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will not come into force until 29 October 2015. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will consider how best to apply a monitoring framework to clinics awarded a licence to carry out mitochondrial donation treatment, against which it would inspect.

The HFEA will announce its proposals for the regulation and monitoring of mitochondrial donation treatment cycles following the approval of regulations by Parliament.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 November 2014 (HL2644) and on 26 January 2015 (HL4063 and HL4228), whether they will place in the Library of the House a full copy of the correspondence between either the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) or members of the HFEA’s Expert Panel and the Chinese authorities, in which the reasons for banning pronuclear transfer in China following publication of the abstract in Fertility and Sterility in 2003 (Volume 30, supplement 3, p56) were explained in detail.

Earl Howe

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that neither the Authority nor the members of Expert Panel it convened have had any correspondence with the “Chinese authorities” on this matter.

With regard to correspondence between the expert panel, the HFEA and the authors of the Zhang researchers, I refer my noble friend to my previous Written Answer of 26 January on the matter highlighting that the Expert Panel is independent of the HFEA and does not act on its behalf.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord McColl of Dulwich on 2015-02-10.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the latest research shared on a confidential basis with the Expert Panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) indicates that the first embryo generated following either spindle-chromosomal complex transfer or pronuclear transfer could be implanted into a woman later this year with the first baby born in 2016, as reported in The Independent on 30 January and by BBC News online on 1 February.

Earl Howe

At this time, any suggestion of a date when the first mitochondrial donation treatment cycle might take place or when the first child resulting from the use of the donation techniques might be born is speculation.

The Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will come into force on 29 October 2015. Clinics wishing to offer mitochondrial donation in treatment after that date, will first need to apply to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for authorisation to do so; this would need to be granted before such treatment could take place.