Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government why the former Ambassador to Bahrain, Roderick Drummond, has not been instructed to hand back the award given to him by the government of Bahrain, given the terms of the UK Rules on Acceptance of Foreign Awards; and what assessment they have made of the potential consequences for the performance of UK ambassadors which may arise from allowing the retention of such honours by former ambassadors.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The UK Rules on Acceptance of Foreign Awards state that permission will not be given to requests to confer a foreign order, decoration or medal on Heads of HMG diplomatic missions. Where an award is conferred without permission, a Head of Mission, will not be given permission to formally accept, or wear, the award but is allowed to retain it. There is no requirement to return the award. Diplomatic Missions in London are reminded annually of the requirement to seek agreement to confer a foreign honour on a British national.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 23 November (HL192), of those unaccompanied children seeking asylum who are placed in hotels awaiting placement with a local authority who either have documents or do not require an age assessment, (1) how, and (2) when, their age is entered onto the operational databases referred to; when it is done so; and by whom its quality is assured.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Many of those arriving in the UK who claim to be children, often do not have clear evidence such as an original passport or identity document to back this up.
In the absence of documentary evidence, Home Office officials will treat a claimant as an adult if their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age, in-line with the Home Office’s published age assessment policy. This is carried out by two Home Office officials who independently assess whether a claimant is an adult.
The age provided through evidence or through the assessment carried out upon the person’s entry to the UK is entered into Home Office systems within 24 hours of their arrival in the UK.
A sample of data is quality assured as standard practice.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Sharpe of Epsom on 23 November (HL192), of those unaccompanied children seeking asylum over the last two years who have had to be placed in a hotel whilst awaiting to be placed with a local authority, what percentage either (1) had documents, or (2) did not require an age assessment.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
Many of those arriving in the UK who claim to be children, often do not have clear evidence such as an original passport or identity document to back this up.
In the absence of documentary evidence, Home Office officials will treat a claimant as an adult if their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age, in-line with the Home Office’s published age assessment policy. This is carried out by two Home Office officials who independently assess whether a claimant is an adult.
The age provided through evidence or through the assessment carried out upon the person’s entry to the UK is entered into Home Office systems within 24 hours of their arrival in the UK.
A sample of data is quality assured as standard practice.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, following the Supreme Court judgment on the use of Rwanda for extradition of those seeking asylum who arrive to the UK by irregular routes, what assessment if any they have made of each of the countries listed in Schedule 1 to the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (Countries or territories to which a person may be removed) to determine if they have any similar features as laid out in the Supreme Court's judgment and therefore would make them illegal to send asylum seekers too.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The list of countries in Schedule 1 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is an amalgamation of the lists of safe counties currently set out in section 94(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 with the addition of the Republic of Rwanda and the exclusion of Ukraine. The Home Office regularly reviews country situations and the countries listed have been found to be safe.
The Government is considering the outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) with Rwanda and its application to the Illegal Migration Act, including the Schedule 1 list. If we were to seek to remove a third country national to any of the countries listed under Schedule 1, they would have the opportunity to raise if they would have a risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to that country. An individual would not be removed to that country if it was found that there was such a risk.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they plan to publish the findings of the independent review of the Teesworks Joint Venture, and at whose request and for what reasons publication has been delayed.
Answered by Baroness Penn - Minister on Leave (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State)
The timing of the review is dictated by the pace at which the independent panel are able to conduct their investigation. Ministers have not yet received the report. We understand that the report is of interest to parliament and the public alike and hope to be able to publish it shortly.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the Prime Minister received a letter from Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei of the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, sent on 9 November, in relation to the racial hostility he was subjected to by a Member of Parliament, and when they are intending to respond to the allegations made in it.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
This letter relates to the Conservative Party.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government by what process the removal of Bahrain from the list of human rights priority countries in the 2022 FCDO Human Rights and Democracy Report, published on 13 July, was approved.
Answered by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
The process for the removal of Bahrain from the list of FCDO Human Rights Priority Countries was via a Ministerial Submission. The decision to remove Bahrain from the Human Rights Priority Country list reflects consistent and systemic progress in a range of human rights areas over a number of years, some of which have been directly supported by the UK. The UK remains committed to supporting reforms in Bahrain and to encouraging the government to meet its human rights commitments.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many unaccompanied children seeking asylum who have been placed in hotels awaiting placement to a local authority have gone missing for more than a week in the last six months; and of those, how many are still missing.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The data requested cannot be provided as it comes from live operational databases that have not been quality assured.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many unaccompanied children seeking asylum are being accommodated in hotels before they are placed with a local authority.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The data requested cannot be provided as it comes from live operational databases that have not been quality assured.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Murray of Blidworth on 26 September (HL10118), whether the live operational databases referred to in that answer have a field for inputting the child's age; and if so, when the age is initially entered, how the age is initially determined, and how, when, and by whom, it is quality assured.
Answered by Lord Sharpe of Epsom - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
The majority of those arriving in the UK illegally do not have valid documentary evidence of their age and some may misrepresent their age whether intentionally or not. There are clear safeguarding issues which arise if a child is inadvertently treated as an adult, and equally if an adult is wrongly accepted as a child and placed in accommodation with younger children to whom they could present a risk.
Where a new arrival does not have genuine documentary evidence of their age and their claimed age is doubted, an initial age decision is conducted as a first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment and ensure that new arrivals are routed into the correct accommodation and processes for assessing their immigration claim. Most of these initial decisions on age are conducted at the Western Jet Foil, Dover on those who arrive via small boat, although the policy applies nationally and across modes to help establish age where new arrivals are first encountered.
The ‘Assessing Age’ guidance details the Home Office’s age assessment policy for immigration purposes. Where doubt remains and an individual cannot be assessed to be significantly over 18, they will be treated as a child for immigration purposes and referred to a local authority for further consideration on their age, usually in the form of a ‘Merton compliant’ age assessment. This typically involves two qualified social workers undertaking a series of interviews with the young person and considering any other information relevant to their age.