Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, has written an article for Green World on how Brexit will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in society. She writes:

“We will all lose out from Brexit. But it’s children, older people, those with disabilities, single parents, families in temporary accommodation and the millions who are struggling to make ends meet who will be hit hardest by this government’s reckless decisions.”

Read the full article below, or on the Green World website here.

Vulnerable people will pay the price of this reckless Brexit

Applying for the government’s new ‘settled status’ immigration regime is supposed to be “as easy as setting up an online account at LK Bennett,” at least according to former Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

Navigating the app – ‘EU Exit – ID Document Check’ – may be relatively straightforward for EEA nationals who are politically engaged, technologically literate, in long-term employment and have access to legal advice. Unfortunately, it’s likely to cause a major headache for thousands of people who do not meet this criteria. The government trialled the app during two pilot phases, which highlighted several causes for concern. Here, I’ll outline just a few of them.

Firstly, as has been well documented, the app is currently only available on Android devices. Anyone who owns an iPhone, or does not have access to a smartphone at all, will need to post their passport to the Home Office (not ideal given the Home Office’s poor track record) or visit one of 50 scanning centres that will eventually be set up (which could be problematic for those with childcare commitments or mobility issues). The rocky start doesn’t inspire confidence in the rest of the process.

Once applicants have gained access to the app, they need to supply the correct documents to prove their eligibility for ‘settled status’. During the government’s pilot phase, 16 per cent of cases processed initially fell at this hurdle and applicants were required to provide additional papers. We know that this burden tends to fall to the least fortunate groups, including people with low literacy levels, those employed on precarious work contracts or suffering from medical issues.

Meanwhile, thousands of children are also at risk of slipping through the gaps. According to a new study by Coram Children’s Legal Centre (CCLC), children represent roughly one third of the estimated 3.8 million individuals who may have to engage with the EU settlement scheme. Most of these children will rely on their parents to deal with their applications for ‘settled status’. So it’s deeply worrying that The Migration Observatory estimates some 55,000 children will miss out on registering as their parents mistakenly believe they are EU citizens.

I’m also very concerned about the status of the 5,000 vulnerable EU children within the UK’s care system. According to CCLC, one third of local authorities in England do not know how many children in their care may be directly affected by Brexit. Even if they do pinpoint which children in their care need to apply for ‘settled status’, they may struggle to source the necessary paperwork. In Waltham Forest, my hometown and one of the five local authorities taking part in the government’s pilot project, not a single application for children in care was made during the five weeks of the programme because no children had the requisite nationality documents.

The adults and children who fail to register for the government’s new immigration status are likely to find themselves exposed to its relentless, irrational ‘hostile environment’ – a policy which is designed to make undocumented migrants’ lives a misery within the UK. They may find themselves unable to get a job, drive a car, open a bank account, or even access some NHS services. Excluded from attending college or university, this could very well mark the start of a slippery slope into the margins of society.

Sadly, the problematic ‘settled status’ application process is just one example of the government’s abject failure to exercise a duty of care towards vulnerable people during the Brexit negotiation process.

The UK is now just days from plummeting from a ‘no deal’ cliff edge, which charities warn could have a debilitating impact on food banks and homeless shelters. Services that feed millions of people, including free school dinners, could be affected by a combination of high demand and high inflation. Meanwhile, the Royal College of Radiologists has warned that NHS trusts would have no choice but to prioritise which patients receive cancer treatment, while supplies of life-saving medication such as insulin may be stuck at the border.

Even if Theresa May does manage to scrape together a majority in favour of her dismal deal, food standards, environmental protections and workers’ rights could be stripped back. And there is still no sign of the government’s promised consultation on its proposed Shared Prosperity Fund, which is intended to replace billions of pounds of EU funding to the UK’s most deprived communities.

We will all lose out from Brexit. But it’s children, older people, those with disabilities, single parents, families in temporary accommodation and the millions who are struggling to make ends meet who will be hit hardest by this government’s reckless decisions.

If this government had an ounce of integrity, and was truly acting in the national interest, it would immediately call a People’s Vote. If it fails to do so, the most vulnerable among us will pay the price.

The post Jean writes for Green World: Vulnerable people will pay the price of this reckless Brexit appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Last week, the Home Secretary declared the attempts by desperate refugees to cross the English Channel a ‘major incident’, posing the question: “If you are a genuine asylum seeker why have you not sought asylum in the first safe country that you arrived in?” [1]

Jean Lambert, London’s Green Party MEP, has written an open letter to Sajid Javid to provide some clear answers to this question, and urge him to open more safe, legal pathways for refugees to claim sanctuary in the UK.

Ms Lambert writes: “As Brexit threatens to tear this country apart at the seams, the arrival of a few hundred asylum seekers in Dover does not constitute a ‘major incident’ for the UK. It is, however, a ‘major incident’ for the people who have risked their lives to reach our shores. It’s time that UK policy reflected that.” ​

​Read the letter from Jean Lambert MEP in full below, or in PDF format here.

You can also read the open letter on Metro.co.uk here.

Dear Home Secretary,

Last week, you asked: “If you are a genuine asylum seeker why have you not sought asylum in the first safe country that you arrived in?”
​
As an MEP who has worked on asylum issues for almost 20 years, I can offer an insight into why people are prepared to risk their lives, crossing the Channel in a leaky rubber dinghy, to reach the UK.

Why are refugees coming to the UK?

Some asylum seekers have family members or close friends here in the UK, and are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to be reunited. Many speak English, and hope that their language skills will help them integrate into their new home, find work, and contribute to society.

Others have received an extremely hostile welcome in Europe – whether left to languish in a squalid camp in Greece without adequate medical care, or forced to squat in a disused building in Italy. In northern France, just 21 miles from UK shores, refugees are exposed to regular police violence and brutality – their tents seized, their bones broken, and their faces sprayed with teargas.

While these countries may be considered ‘safe’ for lucky individuals such as you or I, they are not always safe places for people who are forced to flee their homes and arrive in Europe via irregular routes.

The UK has consistently sought to project an image of itself as a place where human rights will be upheld and defended. You, as Home Secretary, have a moral duty to ensure this is the case.

How should the Home Office respond?

Firstly, the response to this incident must be proportionate. While some 312 refugees arrived on the coast of Kent in small boats in 2018, a total of 116,295 arrived by sea to Italy, Greece, Spain and Cyprus. Tragically, more than 2,000 didn’t make it – reported dead or missing. These stark figures make it clear there is no ‘refugee crisis’ in the UK, and Home Office rhetoric must reflect this.

Secondly, if the Home Office truly prioritises the safety of people making these dangerous journeys, it should take full advantage of its resettlement schemes – currently the only safe, legal routes to claim asylum here in the UK.

It is extremely alarming that only 20 unaccompanied children have been resettled in the UK over the past two years under the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme, which allows for the transfer of 3,000 vulnerable young people from conflict zones. Meanwhile the Dubs scheme sits collecting dust, having transferred just 220 of its target 480 children to safe homes here in the UK.

The UK can and should do better than this, as evidenced by the resounding success of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which has found new homes for more than 11,000 people displaced by the conflict in Syria.

Additionally, the UK could show solidarity with the EU Member States who are under particular pressure, such as Greece, Italy and Spain. There is no requirement under the Dublin III Regulation to return people to the first ‘safe’ country they arrived in – a Member State can say it will deal with the claim of asylum seekers who have moved on, rather than return them. The UK could also have offered to participate in the EU’s relocation proposals, which would have helped reduce the waiting time for a decision on an individual’s asylum application, rather than forcing them to put their lives on hold in refugee camps.

Finally, the Home Office needs to think innovatively in order to prevent vulnerable people dying at sea. For example, it could introduce a humanitarian visa system – as the European Parliament voted to establish last month – which would allow asylum seekers to apply for visas at embassies and consulates, rather than embarking on treacherous journeys in rickety boats.

I enclose two of the Greens/EFA’s recent publications on these issues:

1) ‘The Green Alternative to the Dublin System’ (which has helped inform the European Parliament’s proposals for a revised Dublin system)

2) ‘The EU-Turkey Statement and the Greek Hotspots’ (which explains why some asylum seekers feel they cannot stay in their first country of arrival, ands set out our proposals for a new, humane EU asylum policy).

As Brexit threatens to tear this country apart at the seams, the arrival of a few hundred asylum seekers in Dover does not constitute a ‘major incident’ for the UK. It is, however, a ‘major incident’ for the people who have risked their lives to reach our shores. It’s time that UK policy reflected that.

Yours sincerely,

Jean Lambert MEP

Notes:

[1]  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/people-crossing-channel-not-genuine-asylum-seekers-javid

The post “There is no ‘refugee crisis’ in the UK”: Jean’s open letter to the Home Secretary appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Last month, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a Green initiative to trigger the EU’s most serious disciplinary procedures against the Hungarian Government for undermining the EU’s fundamental values. [1]

Alarmingly, the majority of Tory MEPs voted against the motion – choosing to side with Viktor Orban’s hard-right, autocratic, anti-semitic regime. [2]

Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, has written for Euronews outlining why it’s so important that Orban’s Government is rigorously held to account.

Read the full article below, or on the Euronews website here.

UK Tories’ support for Orban – Shared values must be upheld in all EU countries

First and foremost the report on Hungary, drafted by my Green colleague Judith Sargentini and agreed by a qualified majority of the European Parliament, was the culmination of a tremendous amount of research and work. None of this was taken lightly and the findings are not directed at Hungary or the Hungarian people but at Viktor Orbán and his ruling Fidesz party.

The truth is that Viktor Orbán is leading Hungary away from the rule of law and EU values, all the while taking EU subsidies; in 2016 alone Hungary received €4.55 billion in EU funding. [3] This is untenable.

Of the many anti-democratic actions Orbán has taken, which are well-documented and verified by the European Parliament report, since coming to power Orban’s Government has launched an extraordinary attack on the free press. He has used a group of loyalist oligarchs to buy out independent newspapers. He has channelled all state advertising, including that of state-owned companies, into pro-government outlets. Investigative journalists have been bribed or blackmailed and this media has then been weaponised against opponents or to promote his Government’s views. The Jewish financier George Soros for example has been subjected to virulent anti-Semitic attacks, while migrants, Muslims and minorities are vilified.

Hungary’s Prime Minister has also undermined the judiciary, launched a war against independent NGOs and made it a crime to help migrants. Parliament’s report finds that he has used intimidation and opaque financing to win elections and is using public funds to wage a massive propaganda campaign against the European Union. The list could go on.

Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union reads: ‘the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to a minority’. Suffice is to say the current situation in Hungary is in such stark contrast to these values that oral rebukes are not enough to end its journey towards an autocratic, repressive state.

That is why a large majority of the European Parliament voted to trigger article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows the Council to suspend certain rights, including voting rights in the Council. This majority included many of Fidesz’s colleagues in the EPP, (traditionally a very pro-EU grouping) whose affiliation to the EPP is being seriously tested by Fidesz’s membership.

The majority of British Conservative MEPs voted against the report and thus supported Orbán. The argument used was on the basis that the EU is encroaching on the sovereignty of a Member State by taking steps against the Hungarian Government. Some of them may believe this. But given that the Hungarian Government has been the only country to break ranks and defend the UK Government’s antics in the ongoing Brexit negotiations, it certainly makes such a suggestion look dubious. Abstention would have signalled a different message.

Whatever the motivations however, it is another very low point for the Conservative Party. A party that could once consider itself principled has apparently defended a right-wing autocrat and in doing so has clearly lost its way.

Within the European Parliament this degeneration was largely hastened by David Cameron’s decision to remove the Conservatives from the European People’s Party grouping, where mainstream centre-right parties are collected, and set up the European Conservatives and Reformists group. This ECR group now functions as a home for all the authoritarian parties of Europe including the Law and Justice Party of Poland, who could also face a vote on Article 7 in the near future. A delegation from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) are in fact this week on a fact-finding mission to the country to gather insights into the latest developments as regards the rule of law in Poland. [4]

This indicates clearly that other EU Member States have areas that need monitoring and improving in terms of upholding EU values of equality, democracy and the rule of law. Indeed there were recently also visits of the LIBE Committee to Malta and Slovakia, investigating issues around corruption and the murder of journalists. However acknowledging that other EU countries also need to do better in living of up to Article 2 of the TEU does not preclude acting against those that so flagrantly flout the values we espouse.

As an ambitious and unique venture with its origins as a peace project, the EU has historically had a certain moral authority on the world stage: we weaken that authority when we are not willing to question ourselves and our actions. When working with third countries we try to impress the importance of upholding human rights, and have built commitments to rule of law into our trade agreements. We stress that these are universal values and are for the benefit of the people and the country.

The extensive report on the situation in Hungary, based on independent and verified evidence, shows we cannot afford not to act. Failing to uphold those standards within the Union not only threatens the Union itself but also its role and reputation globally.

Notes:

[1] https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/europaeisches-parlament-zeigt-haltung-gegen-viktor-orban/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-meps-hungary-victor-orban-eu-sanctions-far-right-george-soros-a8532356.html

[3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/default_en.html#hungary

[4] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180917IPR13653/rule-of-law-in-poland-meps-to-check-situation-on-the-ground

The post Jean writes for Euronews: Voting to support Orban is another very low point for the Conservative Party appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

As the Government prepares to outline its proposals for a new UK immigration policy, Jean Lambert MEP has written a piece for Politics.co.uk explaining why this is likely to be extremely damaging to individuals and the economy.

Read the full article below, or on Politics.co.uk here.

This new migration policy will stifle our economy

After more than two years of speculation, Theresa May this week finally signed off plans for the UK’s post-Brexit migration system with her Cabinet. The details are being kept under wraps until the Tory conference, but the new policy appears to be largely based on the Migration Advisory Committee’s (MAC) recommendations published earlier this month.

In any rational world, you’d expect the report to contain proposals that will make life easier for both individuals and employers as we enter a rocky Brexit transition period. But of course, in Brexit Britain, nothing is that simple.

While some of the report’s findings are to be welcomed, others are quite alarming.

In recent months, I tried to do something different. I tried to put together a document which was not premised on reducing immigration, but on creating a system that works for everyone. It’s called Migration and Brexit: A call from migrants, communities and sectors for a UK migration policy that benefits all. It’s worth comparing the two.

Time to scrap the net migration target

The MAC admits the Tier 2 cap, which limits the number of non-EEA skilled workers who come to the UK with a job offer, may be “part of a political strategy to provide an impression that the system is under control” but it fails to mention the government’s broader ‘tens of thousands’ net migration target. It also stops short of addressing the Home Office’s refusal culture or its Hostile Environment policy, which has made life a misery for thousands of UK and non-UK citizens.

It’s clear that the Home Office urgently needs to be reformed, with any changes underpinned by the right to good administration – as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Keep costs to a minimum for individuals and employers

The MAC report recommends extending the much-maligned Immigration Skills Charge, which charges employers a hefty sum to hire third country national workers, to apply to EEA nationals.

This is a nightmare for the UK employers. Half of the sector-based contributors to Migration and Brexit – the manufacturers’ organisation EEF, the British Medical Association, and the Creative Industries Federation – all specifically cite the charge as a policy that is extremely damaging and must be scrapped.

This is just one part of the current immigration system which causes a headache for UK employers, who slam the prohibitive costs and paperwork required to hire third country nationals. As the Federation of Small Businesses explained, 95% of small businesses have no experience of using the current points-based immigration system due to its sheer complexity.

Employers need access to lower-skilled workers

The MAC report finds that migrant workers may have a “small” negative impact on the wages of lower-skilled UK-born workers, although it notes this view is not backed up by the majority of academic studies and is “subject to uncertainty”. Yet, despite this, it still recommends restricting the number of lower-skilled EEA workers who can come to the UK post-Brexit.

This policy will be largely oriented around a salary threshold of £30,000, with exceptions in place to protect the agricultural sector. However, Migration and Brexit highlighted that agriculture is not the only sector that relies on workers who earn less than £30,000 to flourish and grow. Without lower-skilled EU workers the manufacturing sector could grind to a halt, small businesses be forced to shut their doors and the creative sector stifled. That’s not to mention the shattering blow that could be inflicted on the construction, haulage, hospitality, health and social care sectors.

In short, the UK’s current immigration system doesn’t work for third country nationals. The MAC’s recommendation that this is extended to cover EU nationals is both nonsensical and highly damaging.

A raw deal for Brits living in the EU

It’s important to remember that any deal on citizens’ rights is likely to be reciprocal, as Guy Verhofstadt recently reinforced. If the government adopts these recommendations, 1.6 million UK nationals living in the EU27 will be thrown under the Brexit bus – their rights to continue living and working freely in other European countries snatched away. It would also be a disaster for our young people, who did not vote for this, and who will miss out on a wealth of social, cultural and educational opportunities.

Let’s not pretend this move is in the genuine interests of the country. It’s born of Theresa May’s obsession with cutting migration to the tens of thousands – the same sentiment that led to Go Home vans on our streets and the Hostile Environment in our schools and hospitals. These new hard-line policies are designed to appease elements of her own party as she clings onto the leadership by her fingertips.

Rather than pandering to fears, the Government should act in the overwhelming public interest. This would involve abandoning its arbitrary net migration target, protecting the benefits of free movement, and investing in integration schemes that foster better connections within communities. Rather than slamming the door shut on EEA nationals, we need an open, fair, humane and efficient immigration policy that will benefit all.

Jean Lambert is London’s Green MEP and the Green party’s migration spokesperson.

The post Jean writes for Politics.co.uk: This new migration policy will stifle our economy appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

To coincide with the launch of Jean Lambert MEP’s new report, Migration and Brexit: A call from migrants, communities and sectors for a UK migration policy that benefits all, she has written a blog post on its recommendations for Metro.

Read the full article below, or on the Metro website here.

Free movement of EEA nationals must continue after Brexit – a fair policy will benefit us all

In some ways, the long-awaited Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) report on European Economic Area (EEA) migration to the UK provided a breath of fresh air. While it’s far from perfect, it does finally bury some persistent myths.

It confirms that EEA migrants pay more in UK taxes than they receive in benefits. They contribute more to the NHS than they use in its services. They bring training opportunities for the UK-born workforce, and increase levels of productivity and innovation.

Moreover – in news that will particularly sting for some elements of the right-wing press – EEA migration has no impact on crime levels, does not reduce parents’ choice of schools for their children, and has little effect on the wages of UK-born workers.

These findings beg the question, why exactly is the Government so committed to ending free movement for EEA nationals? The answer, I fear, is that ministers are set on building a new UK migration policy which is rooted in ideology and self-preservation – not the realities of modern Britain.

As the UK prepares to leave the EU, we need the Government to stop burying its head in the sand and listen to the needs of migrants, communities, social partners and businesses.

That’s why I commissioned my own report, asking representatives of these groups to outline what they need from the UK’s post-Brexit migration policy vis-à-vis EU nationals.

The result, Migration and Brexit, contains essays from legal and rights-based organisations (such as Migrants’ Rights Network, Permits Foundation and the TUC), sector bodies (including the BMA, National Farmers’ Union and Federation of Small Businesses), and voices that are too often excluded from this conversation (such as the British Youth Council and British in Europe).

Several recommendations shine through.

First and foremost: on a practical level, we need free movement, both permanent and temporary.

There’s a strong sense among rights-based organisations and sectors that, if the free movement of people ends, the UK will need a post-Brexit migration system that guarantees similar flexibility and ease of movement to that which exists today.

This includes the plethora of EU legislation that the UK Government has, so far, barely mentioned – including visa-free travel, arrangements for posted workers, and the recognition of professional qualifications.

These legal terms may not sound sexy, but they’re important. They keep families together, public services functioning, and businesses operating.

Secondly, it’s time for Theresa May to finally ditch her impossible net migration target and its toxic by-product: the Home Office’s refusal culture.

An overhaul of the Home Office must also scrap the deeply unpopular ‘hostile environment’ that treats individuals as potential immigration offenders waiting to breach the law, rather than honest people trying to navigate a frighteningly complex gauntlet of requirements.

These reforms should be underpinned by the right to good administration, which is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (although given the Home Office’s dismal track record of making simple admin errors, it’s no wonder the Government is intent on ripping up this valuable piece of ‘red-tape’ after Brexit).

Furthermore, any new migration system must work for the people using it – it needs to be easy to access, with costs kept to a minimum.

Despite the MAC report’s proposals to extend the ‘minimum income threshold’ and the ‘immigration skills charge’ to apply to both non-EEA and EEA nationals, a number of voices warn this would be these are extremely damaging to businesses seeking to attract and retain talent.

It’s particularly striking that, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, 95% of small businesses have no experience of using the current non-EEA immigration system due to its sheer complexity.

If the Government insists on expanding this legislation to apply to EEA nationals, it will tear more families apart, cause blockages in supply chains, and put small operations out of business.

Should, as the MAC report suggests, the policies applying to EEA and non-EEA nationals become aligned – they must be raised up, not stripped down.

The benefits of free movement can’t simply be charted on a balance sheet. Free movement helps to define the UK’s identity and place in the world; its respect for different peoples and cultures; and openness to new ideas, innovations and partnerships.

That’s why, together, we’re calling on the Government to build a migration policy that recognises and protects migrants’ immense contribution to our society and economy.

It must work to shift the tone of the debate, stop scapegoating migrants for its own failures and invest in integration if it hopes to reverse the economic and reputational damage being done to this country.

Immigration has largely been side-lined so far in the Brexit negotiations – treated as an elephant in the room, rather than a building block of the UK’s economy and a core part of millions’ of citizens lives and identities.

Now it’s in the spotlight, the Government must act in the overwhelming public interest.

I urge ministers to engage with my recommendations, and use them to construct an open, fair, humane and efficient immigration policy that will genuinely benefit all.

The post Jean writes for Metro: Free movement of EEA nationals must continue after Brexit appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

To wrap up Refugee Week 2018, Jean Lambert MEP has written a blog post on the three small actions that the Home Secretary could take now to immeasurably improve life for thousands of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK.

This follows Jean’s letter to the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, earlier this week.

Read the full article below, or on Politics.co.uk.

Outrage at Trump is fine, but May’s Hostile Environment needs action too

Refugee week is supposed to be an opportunity to celebrate the immense contribution made by refugees and asylum seekers to our communities and remind ourselves why people need to seek sanctuary. Clearly, President Trump didn’t get the memo. He chose to spend the first half of the week doubling-down on his policy of tearing children from the arms of their asylum-seeking parents and locking them in wire cages. The goal, he claimed, was to stop them “infesting” America. This is the stuff of historical documentaries and dystopian novels. It’s barbaric and indefensible.

Here in the UK, the government employs a rather different tactic to deter people from seeking asylum on our shores. They expose them to Theresa May’s Hostile Environment, which aims to make life so unpleasant that they leave voluntarily. While not as bombastic as Trump’s approach, these policies also have devastating results.

Last weekend, I was appalled to learn that three teenage asylum seekers from Eritrea have taken their own lives in the UK in the past six months. It’s reported they despaired at the seemingly endless wait for their asylum applications to be processed by the Home Office and the lack of support received.

These cases highlight just how badly the Home Office is letting down the vulnerable people who seek asylum in the UK. We can, and must, do better.

The theme for this refugee week was ‘simple acts’. I’m asking the new home secretary, Sajid Javid, to commit to making three simple policy changes that would help people feel supported as they rebuild their lives, and hopefully prevent such terrible tragedies in future

1. Access to healthcare

Firstly, the government urgently needs to scrap its policies that block undocumented migrants from accessing free NHS healthcare.

Under the current system, it is difficult for health professionals to accurately identify who is chargeable and who is exempt. Although refugees and most asylum seekers do not have to pay for NHS treatment, they are regularly denied healthcare or charged sky-high fees. Those who are most adversely affected are often the most vulnerable – people with little understanding of their rights, who require a translator or cannot access legal assistance.

This policy was ostensibly designed to tackle ‘health tourism’, which is thought to cost the NHS no more than £300m each year. It puts thousands of lives at risk and our medical professionals in an extremely difficult position, as well as potentially having disastrous consequences for public health. The only way to clear up the confusion around this issue, and protect the health of refugees and asylum seekers, is to ditch it.

2. Access to the labour market

Secondly, asylum seekers must have permission to work in the UK while their claim is being processed. The current policy which forces these individuals to live on benefits of just £37.75 per week – one third of the income of the poorest ten per cent of British households – is cruel and inhumane. Not only is it deeply damaging to people’s mental health, but it increases their vulnerability to exploitation through working illegally or by criminal gangs.

Scrapping this outdated policy also makes sense from an economic perspective. A study from Warwick University found that if just 25% of asylum seekers were employed, the government could save £70m a year in asylum support costs.

As we approach Brexit, official government figures show that skilled EU nationals are migrating from the UK in their droves, leaving many industries with a growing skills gap. Whether they are relatively unskilled or highly specialised, asylum seekers are ready and waiting to step in and fill these vacancies.

3. Access to English lessons

Finally, refugees must be provided with the help they need to learn English. Since 2009, funding for government-funded English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) lessons has been slashed by 55%. Many colleges and organisations that provide these classes have commented that quality is diminishing, while waiting lists have grown. In some parts of the country, it can take up to three years for refugees to win a place in the classroom.

The government should heed Refugee Action’s call for it to provide every refugee in the UK with a minimum of eight hours of Esol lessons per week. This would help people feel at home and make friends, as well as preparing them to enter the labour market and engage with their new communities.

In summary, these three simple – and entirely achievable – acts would transform life in the UK for thousands of refugees and asylum seekers. They would also benefit the UK as a whole – both culturally and economically.

Javid has said that he wants to “put his own stamp” on Home Office policy. Well, here’s his chance – an opportunity to both roll back the Hostile Environment and highlight how the inhumane, brutal tactics currently being employed by far-right leaders worldwide have no place in modern asylum policies.

Jean Lambert is a Green MEP for London.

The post Jean writes for Politics.co.uk: Outrage at Trump is fine, but May’s Hostile Environment needs action too appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, has blogged for Heinrich Böll-Stiftung: “A glimmer of hope among the UK’s startling leadership vacuum?”

Read the full blog post below, or on Heinrich Böll-Stiftung’s website.

A glimmer of hope among the UK’s startling leadership vacuum?

The post Jean writes for Heinrich Böll: A glimmer of hope among the UK’s startling leadership vacuum? appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Five years since the Rana Plaza tragedy in Bangladesh, Jean Lambert MEP celebrates the success of the Bangladesh Accord which has changed the lives of 2.5 million workers in the country’s garment sector.

In her article for Left Foot Forward, Jean has urged brands to sign-up to the Accord’s replacement which is due to be implemented next month. She has also warns that the UK Government must continue to use its trade agreements to improve human rights elsewhere after Brexit.

Read the full piece below, or on Left Foot Forward here.

Five years since Rana Plaza, we must all learn lessons from the Bangladesh Accord

Five years ago this week, more than 3,000 people arrived to work at the garment factories in the Rana Plaza building in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It was just a normal work day, manufacturing clothes for big name global brands such as Benetton and Primark.

Many of the workers were aware the building was badly constructed; cracks had begun to appear in the walls. Some companies had told workers not come in. However, nobody foresaw the tragedy that was to occur. At 9am, the entire five-floor complex collapsed like a house of cards. Some 1,134 people were killed and another 2,500 injured – overwhelmingly women and children. It was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in history.

Sadly, the catastrophe was indicative of widespread problems across the country’s garment sector. In Bangladesh, 3.5 million workers work in more than 4,000 garment factories to produce goods for export to the global market. Some 85% of these workers are women, and they generate about 80% of the country’s total export revenue. Too often these workers are paid little more than minimum wage and face poor conditions. Sexual harassment and discrimination is widespread, and factory management can prevent the formation of genuine trade unions.

This February, I visited Bangladesh to follow-up on whether workers’ rights and factory safety have improved in the five years since the Rana Plaza disaster.

As Chair of the European Parliament’s South Asia delegation, I have made this trip a number of times – meeting politicians, trade union representatives, factory owners, and the workers whose livelihoods depend on bleaching, cutting and stitching our clothes.

It’s clear that the situation is still far from perfect. However, despite competing pressures on the government (including an influx of a million Rohingya refugees on its border with Myanmar), progress has been made in the fields of fire and building safety.

This is partly a result of the Bangladesh Accord, which was signed in the wake of the Rana Plaza building collapse, bringing together brands and trades unions and chaired by the ILO. The agreement commits more than 200 global fashion brands and retailers, who signed up voluntarily, to improve conditions in 1,800 factories across the country. In five years, it has had a direct impact on the lives of more than 2.5 million garment workers.

The Accord requires brands to disclose which Bangladeshi factories are in their supply chains. They must also conduct independent building inspections, provide training on workers’ rights, and ensure that all have the right to refuse unsafe work. Most importantly, the agreement is legally-binding. Last year, two unnamed fashion brands found themselves in the dock at The Hague, forced to pay significant settlements after flouting the terms of the Accord.

When the agreement expires next month, it will be replaced with an updated version. This will build on the foundations of the original deal, and extend protections to workers who manufacture non-garment textiles. Each of the major UK signatories to the initial Accord have now re-signed (finally, Sainsbury’s).

However, a number of non-UK brands have so far refused to put pen to paper, including Abercrombie & Fitch. The worst offenders are arguably those who failed to sign the first Accord and continue to ignore the existence of the new deal – the likes of GAP, Nike, Levis, Decathlon and VF Corporation (owner of Vans, Timberland, Wrangler and The North Face).

The dedication of some brands and factory owners is helping to change both attitudes and peoples’ daily lives in Bangladesh, and the impact that the Accord has had on building safety in just five years is unprecedented. Most factories covered by the policy have now completed over 90% of the renovations required following inspections.

Importantly, the Accord does not only raise questions for Bangladesh. Across the world, millions of garment workers face dangerous and discriminatory conditions. If brands and retailers in the sector are serious about improving workers’ rights, they should be seeking to apply the principles and framework of the Accord elsewhere.

The UK Government would also be advised to pay attention to the principles of the Accord. During my years working within the European Union, I have been proud of its genuine commitment to improving workers’ rights worldwide.

Will the UK continue to use its trade agreements to improve human rights elsewhere after Brexit? Unfortunately, I fear that the leaders of our new “global Britain” only have their own interests at heart.

Jean Lambert is the Green Party MEP for London and is Chair of the European Parliament’s South Asia delegation.

The post Jean writes for Left Foot Forward: Five years since Rana Plaza, we must learn lessons from the Bangladesh Accord appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, has written a blog post on how the Windrush scandal has highlighted the need for the UK Government to ditch the “hostile environment” for good.

Read the full blog post below, or on Medium here.

As Brexit approaches, we need to ditch the “hostile environment” for good

The Windrush scandal is disgraceful, but it’s hardly a surprise. While ministers’ blame administrative “errors” for the crisis, we know that the Government has been deliberately making life difficult for migrants for years.

This is a result of Theresa May’s pet project — creating a “really hostile environment for illegal migrants”, in the hope of reducing the UK’s net migration figure to the “tens of thousands”. The insidious campaign is designed to permeate the fabric of society. It seeks to turn doctors, landlords and employers into border guards, and construct bureaucratic barriers that deter migrants from remaining on UK soil or even think of coming here.

Those on the receiving end — whether failed asylum-seekers, victims of people smuggling, the Windrush generation, or others who (for any number of reasons) don’t have a complete set of documents — struggle to find jobs, access healthcare or rent homes. Others are sent to immigration removal centres. In the most serious cases, they are separated from their families and sent to countries where they have no ties.

It’s a cruel and inhumane system — and it’s about to be significantly expanded. After Brexit, some 3.7 million EU nationals living in the UK also look set to be exposed to the “hostile environment”.

Since the 2016 referendum campaign, EU nationals have had a taste of life in a “hostile” state. Having been used as bargaining chips in negotiations and left in the dark about their rights and freedoms, EU nationals in the UK already know what it feels like to be treated as second-class citizens in the country they call home.

After March 29th next year, this will only get worse. Under the new ‘settled status’ immigration regime, EU nationals will need to register with the Home Office if they want to remain in the UK. As with the Windrush generation, their rights will be questioned and they will be required to present evidence of their immigration status.

While the UK Government has said that the application process will be simple and effective, it could very easily collapse into chaos. There are some 3.7 million EU citizens in the UK who will need to register for ‘settled status’. In order for the Home Office to hit its targets, it will need to process around 5,000 people every day for two years. This would be a huge challenge for an efficient, smooth-running Government department. It will be near impossible for a gaffe-prone ministry that is already crumbling under pressure.

It seems inevitable that some EU nationals will slip through the net — unable to produce the necessary paperwork or access the legal support they need (as part of the “hostile environment” the Government has cut legal aid provision for almost all immigration work). Vulnerable groups are particularly at risk, including older people, disabled people and those who are not computer literate.

This looming crisis hasn’t been overlooked by the EU’s Brexit negotiators. In the wake of the Windrush scandal, Guy Verhofstadt has called for “full guarantees” that EU nationals in the UK will not face a “bureaucratic nightmare” after Brexit. Other MEPs, including me, are also watching closely as events unfold. We have a say on the final Brexit agreement, and will not hesitate to vote against any deal that threatens to significantly strip back citizens’ rights.

So far, the Government’s response to the Windrush fiasco has been sorely lacking. Theresa May’s apology for any “confusion or anxiety” caused will be hard to swallow for those whose lives have been turned upside down. Meanwhile, Amber Rudd’s plan to create a 20-strong Home Office team to deal with Windrush cases is little more than a PR exercise given that the underlying problem stems directly from continuing Home Office policy.

So long as the “hostile environment” dominates Government strategy, innocent people will continue to be hauled off to immigration detention at dawn. Families will unwittingly fall foul of the rules and find themselves living on the streets. Patients will be denied treatment, and lives will be ripped apart. As Brexit approaches, it’s more important than ever that we change this environment and create a positive, welcoming society.

The post Jean writes for Medium: As Brexit approaches, we need to ditch the “hostile environment” for good appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.

With less than a year to go until Brexit Day it is still not clear what will happen to the projects and organisations this vital funding supports.

Jean Lambert, London’s Green MEP, has written an article for The UK in a Changing Europe addressing what’s at stake and what needs to be done to ensure London’s people and communities don’t lose out on funding as a result of leaving the EU.

Read the full piece below or on The UK in a Changing Europe’s website here.

Mind the gap: replacing London’s EU funding after Brexit

In my constituency, London, there’s a remarkable project that delivers basic skills training to 21,000 unemployed people. It has a budget of more than £13m to help them to overcome the barriers keeping them from work – whether that be health problems, disabilities or childcare issues.

Love London Working is just one of thousands of similar projects across the UK, which are heavily funded by the EU.

The fact that the EU invests billions of pounds into the UK’s research, innovation and social projects every year has rarely been mentioned in the Brexit debate. This investment is intended to reduce inequalities, drive economic development, and generally make the UK a more pleasant place to live, work and study.

What is at stake?

As an MEP representing London, my primary focus is on how Brexit will affect the capital. London may be the UK’s wealthiest city, but it is also the most unequal. In fact, Inner London qualifies for a particular category of EU funding due to its sky-high levels of youth unemployment. The capital is also suffering from a chronic skills gap – a problem that only looks set to worsen in coming years as EU nationals continue to choose to take their talents elsewhere.

My recent report, Losing it over Brexit, finds that London currently receives more than £500m from the EU every year to help overcome these problems. This money comes through an assortment of different funds – some as grants, some as loans, and all requiring an element of match funding.

Among the best known are the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), which invest roughly £98.1m (€106.9m) each year into job creation and building a sustainable, healthy environment in London.

The Horizon 2020 fund contributes an immense £301.2m (€328.3m) annually into research and innovation, driving economic development and creating jobs in the city. London receives about 25% of the Horizon 2020 funds that come into the UK, and two of its universities – UCL and Imperial College – benefit more from these funds than any other EU higher education institutions, except for Oxford and Cambridge.

Meanwhile, Erasmus Plus invests £7.2m (€7.8m) annually into modernising London’s education, training and youth work. It also provides opportunities for people to work and study across the EU.

These funds trickle down into thousands of diverse projects. Some impact whole communities, while others target specific groups or sectors. Love London Working, the example outlined above, received £6.6m – 50% of its total funding – from the EU’s ESIF funds. Another project, Better Futures, benefitted from £823,000, to manage a co-working space and provide innovation support to improve the success rate of new low-carbon enterprises in London. And Inspiring Women received £500,874 to provide support to women who face barriers to starting or sustaining their own businesses.

Initiatives and projects span a range of social needs – from supporting refugees and asylum seekers as they seek to integrate into new communities, to promoting urban generation in areas of social and economic deprivation. There are no two ways about it: these funds change lives, and improve the city we live in.

It would be a huge mistake for the UK to walk away from these discrete funding pots. Yet, at the moment, that’s exactly what the government looks set to do.

What happens next?

The programmes will remain open until 2020, and the Chancellor has committed to honouring any EU funding agreements that were signed before the Autumn Statement 2016. After these finish, he says, the UK will continue to fund projects that provide “good value for money” and are in line with its as-yet-undefined “domestic strategic priorities”.

The government has also promised to launch a ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’ in order to “use the structural money that comes back to the UK as a result of Brexit” to reduce inequalities and “deliver sustainable, inclusive growth based on our modern industrial strategy”. Unfortunately the government’s Industrial Strategy – published in November 2017 – simply lays out its intention to consult on the Fund in 2018. As we roll into April, it remains silent on the matter.

Should we be worried?

If the UK government does receive a “Brexit bonus” – which appears increasingly unlikely – it cannot be trusted to spend its newly-acquired funds on these types of socially-focused projects.

I have serious doubts that the government’s “domestic strategic priorities” align with the priorities of most Londoners. Over the past eight years, central government’s ruthless budget cuts have crippled council-funded services for many vulnerable, young people. A new report by Sian Berry, Green Party London Assembly Member, finds that £39m has been cut from council youth service budgets in the city since 2011/12. This has had a devastating impact: 81 youth club and council youth projects have shut their doors, and more than 800 youth service full-time jobs have been axed. These are not the actions of a Government that cares about the welfare of young people.

Moreover, when it comes to investing newly-acquired funds into grassroots organisations, the government’s record is patchy. In 2012, the Treasury and Ministry of Defence were handed £773m in Libor fines to allocate to good causes. The National Audit Office later found there to be huge flaws in the grant-making process, with some £181m of the funds remaining unspent.

If the government hopes to replace any lost EU funding, there must be a system in place to ensure a smooth, efficient transition. This would take at least two years to establish. Ministers’ current tactic of kicking the can down the road is short-sighted, and the cause of immense anxiety for those who will lose out if these funding streams disappear.

What needs to be done?

The financial prognosis for Brexit is deeply worrying. The Mayor of London predicts that a no-deal scenario could shed as many as 87,000 jobs in London alone. In light of this evidence, we must fight to ensure that Brexit doesn’t also destroy the safeguards that exist to catch the very people who will inevitably be hit hardest.

That’s why I am calling on the government and the London Mayor to ensure that London’s people and communities don’t lose out on funding as a result of leaving the EU. It’s crucial that they immediately begin to build a robust new funding regime, based on the most effective parts of the EU’s existing programme. Any newly-available funds must be decentralised to City Hall which can ensure they reach the Londoners who need them most.

At this time of increasing political and social polarisation, civil society projects and initiatives are part of the glue holding our fractured society together. We must not allow them to be trampled in the rush towards an ideological and irrational Brexit.

The post Jean writes for The UK in a Changing Europe: Mind the gap: replacing London’s EU funding after Brexit appeared first on Jean Lambert MEP.